I am deeply disappointed that @Luckyguy1983 hasn't corrected that awful Americanised headline “A head teacher attacked his deputy with a wrench” with:
Spanner.
Over here it’s not a fucking wrench.
Actually... I've always called the tool that was used a 'plumber's wrench', a spanner being a different sort of tool. Even adjustable spanners are different from wrenches.
I think Americans call spanners and wrenches 'wrenches', whereas we differentiate between the two. And the attacker definitely used a wrench.
I retract. It was indeed an actual wrench.
Britannia remains unenslaved, for now.
There's me thinking that he attacked him with a buxom female.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
Not sure how we can possibly know that. These are only locals, and the GE is likely to be some time away.
Their flier here in Winchcombe indicated their intention to stop the boats.
We are about as far from the sea as it is possible to be in England.
But only a few miles from a brand new migrant hotel:
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
The biggest risk is from electric bikes, which have the speed and mass of mopeds and are ridden with complete contempt for pedestrians.
Thing is, those throttle controlled e bikes are illegal anyway. I've seen coppers in Loughborough walk past 20 food delivery riders, all on illegal bikes as they hang around Loughborough town centre waiting for delivery contracts to come in. The coppers don't appear to want to uphold the law and take illegal machines off the streets before they cause incidents.
Leeds city centre is full of them. Again, no sign of the police doing anything.
Those machines with the big fat tyres seem to be the worst, while others seem to be DIY lash-ups. And I don't see much pedaling going on.
Legally, they need to be registered, taxed, insured and tested and require a helmet. They need to comply with motor vehicle regulations. An easy win for the rozzers in every town and city centre in the country. Same as all the kids on escooters. Now, I actually think we should try and find some way to make the scooters legal, but I accept that's fraught with danger.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
The biggest risk is from electric bikes, which have the speed and mass of mopeds and are ridden with complete contempt for pedestrians.
Thing is, those throttle controlled e bikes are illegal anyway. I've seen coppers in Loughborough walk past 20 food delivery riders, all on illegal bikes as they hang around Loughborough town centre waiting for delivery contracts to come in. The coppers don't appear to want to uphold the law and take illegal machines off the streets before they cause incidents.
Leeds city centre is full of them. Again, no sign of the police doing anything.
Those machines with the big fat tyres seem to be the worst, while others seem to be DIY lash-ups. And I don't see much pedaling going on.
Legally, they need to be registered, taxed, insured and tested and require a helmet. They need to comply with motor vehicle regulations. An easy win for the rozzers in every town and city centre in the country. Same as all the kids on escooters. Now, I actually think we should try and find some way to make the scooters legal, but I accept that's fraught with danger.
Where as if I do 23 in a 20 in a car in a city centre more than likely I am getting a ticket in the mail....
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
Love to know how a council works when the few staff who are competent to get jobs elsewhere leave..
Working as I do for the pubic sector, I'm curious to know how relationships between officers and elected officials will go if Reform win in, say, Lincolnshire. I have only been to Lincolnshire County Council once: it was the day of the 2015 GE, and I remember overhearing one fella tell another he had no idea hiw they now had a Tory MP because 'literally everyone' he knew voted Labour.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
The biggest risk is from electric bikes, which have the speed and mass of mopeds and are ridden with complete contempt for pedestrians.
Thing is, those throttle controlled e bikes are illegal anyway. I've seen coppers in Loughborough walk past 20 food delivery riders, all on illegal bikes as they hang around Loughborough town centre waiting for delivery contracts to come in. The coppers don't appear to want to uphold the law and take illegal machines off the streets before they cause incidents.
Leeds city centre is full of them. Again, no sign of the police doing anything.
Those machines with the big fat tyres seem to be the worst, while others seem to be DIY lash-ups. And I don't see much pedaling going on.
Legally, they need to be registered, taxed, insured and tested and require a helmet. They need to comply with motor vehicle regulations. An easy win for the rozzers in every town and city centre in the country. Same as all the kids on escooters. Now, I actually think we should try and find some way to make the scooters legal, but I accept that's fraught with danger.
The plod should impound them until the registration, insurance and other documents are produced.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
Love to know how a council works when the few staff who are competent to get jobs elsewhere leave..
Working as I do for the pubic sector, I'm curious to know how relationships between officers and elected officials will go if Reform win in, say, Lincolnshire. I have only been to Lincolnshire County Council once: it was the day of the 2015 GE, and I remember overhearing one fella tell another he had no idea hiw they now had a Tory MP because 'literally everyone' he knew voted Labour.
When I worked in Lincoln it was a true blue RAF town so he couldn't have got out much.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
Not sure how we can possibly know that. These are only locals, and the GE is likely to be some time away.
Their flier here in Winchcombe indicated their intention to stop the boats.
We are about as far from the sea as it is possible to be in England.
The furthest place from the sea in the UK is in Derbyshire outside a farm I think. Oddly I Googled it today for a different reason.
Yet the Vikings got their boats to Repton, only eight miles away...
Rivers. Raiding longships had shallow drafts. And can be carried.
Yep, but it always amuses me that they could get that far up the Trent. Oh, and my parent's house in hilly Derbyshire is seventy feet lower than my house in flat Cambridgeshire...
(I had a rather nice meal at the Bull's Head in Repton last Saturday.)
The locals probably maintained the Tent for boat passage. Although it has just occurred to me that you have to be a complete nutter to cross the North Sea in a longship, or they turned up in a knarr and built the longships in situ
Surf the Aegir and you are at least halfway there...
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
Love to know how a council works when the few staff who are competent to get jobs elsewhere leave..
Working as I do for the pubic sector, I'm curious to know how relationships between officers and elected officials will go if Reform win in, say, Lincolnshire. I have only been to Lincolnshire County Council once: it was the day of the 2015 GE, and I remember overhearing one fella tell another he had no idea hiw they now had a Tory MP because 'literally everyone' he knew voted Labour.
When I worked in Lincoln it was a true blue RAF town so he couldn't have got out much.
Not as true blue RAF as Woodhall Spa...
Doncaster council might be fun. I know quite a few of the officers including the Chief Exec and I haven't dared ask them what they will do if Reform win.
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
I was once hit by a cyclist while crossing a pedestrian crossing on a green man. Outside the Nottingham House on Witham Road in Sheffield. I wasn't hurt, particularly - the cyclist was struggling uphill - but he did give me a barrage of abuse and suggeated in quite strong terms that I look where I was going. I was so taken aback tbat it took me a good five or six seconds to realise I was in the right, by which time the cheeky fucker had departed.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
Not sure how we can possibly know that. These are only locals, and the GE is likely to be some time away.
Their flier here in Winchcombe indicated their intention to stop the boats.
We are about as far from the sea as it is possible to be in England.
The furthest place from the sea in the UK is in Derbyshire outside a farm I think. Oddly I Googled it today for a different reason.
Yet the Vikings got their boats to Repton, only eight miles away...
Rivers. Raiding longships had shallow drafts. And can be carried.
Yep, but it always amuses me that they could get that far up the Trent. Oh, and my parent's house in hilly Derbyshire is seventy feet lower than my house in flat Cambridgeshire...
(I had a rather nice meal at the Bull's Head in Repton last Saturday.)
The locals probably maintained the Tent for boat passage. Although it has just occurred to me that you have to be a complete nutter to cross the North Sea in a longship, or they turned up in a knarr and built the longships in situ
Surf the Aegir and you are at least halfway there...
So have I got this wrong?
When Reform talks of stopping the boats, are they referring to the Vikings and their longboats?
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The US has privately offered to provide security guarantees for Keir Starmer’s “coalition of the willing”, @Telegraph understands.
American officials have opened the door to giving intelligence and logistical support to European forces to back up a Ukraine peace deal from land, air and sea.
Seen as a significant breakthrough in No10. Starmer’s been pressing Trump for two months on the point.
But… still unclear if US will come to the force’s aid if Russia attacked while on duty… which is the big one.
Discussions still live, nothing yet locked in stone.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
A cyclist who seriously injured a pedestrian after crashing into her "at great speed" on a footpath has been jailed for eight months.
Lisa Wade, 46, was sentenced at York Crown Court under the Victorian-era legislation of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
Victim Ruth Kitching, 64, was knocked over and needed hip replacement surgery after the crash on 24 March last year.
Wade, of Tudor Road in York, admitted the charge and was said to be "genuinely remorseful".
For eight months, sentence range for seriously injuring by dangerous driving ranges from a starting point of 1 year in jail to a maximum of 5 years in jail. That looks like a clear case of seriously injuring by dangerous cycling.
Even seriously injuring by just careless driving has a maximum 2 year jail term
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
I was once hit by a cyclist while crossing a pedestrian crossing on a green man. Outside the Nottingham House on Witham Road in Sheffield. I wasn't hurt, particularly - the cyclist was struggling uphill - but he did give me a barrage of abuse and suggeated in quite strong terms that I look where I was going. I was so taken aback tbat it took me a good five or six seconds to realise I was in the right, by which time the cheeky fucker had departed.
I was once nearly hit by a cyclist on a crossing on St James's St, Piccadilly. There was a van stopped at the crossing, I couldn't see past it so I peered round it and a cyclist hurtled past inches from my nose. What it hadn't noticed was there was also a police car stopped at the crossing, which proceeded to put its lights on and pull the cyclist over. So it sometimes happens. I also saw a cyclist go the wrong way round Trafalgar Square stopped by cops with submachine guns, hope he had a nice day
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
The suspicion many have about home working is that those doing it are getting away with stuff. Like not actually doing that much work. However, I suspect that many people don’t work all guns blazing all the time (if that’s even possible). When I was forced to WFH I found that I could get a lot of domestic chores done during the working day. A five minute break - put a load of washing on. Later on, hang it on the line. So the time I saved was the evenings and weekends, and in reality I was as productive at home as I was at work. Those five minute breaks replaced corridor chats with colleagues etc. and then you also get another hour back from no commute. It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
The US has privately offered to provide security guarantees for Keir Starmer’s “coalition of the willing”, @Telegraph understands.
American officials have opened the door to giving intelligence and logistical support to European forces to back up a Ukraine peace deal from land, air and sea.
Seen as a significant breakthrough in No10. Starmer’s been pressing Trump for two months on the point.
But… still unclear if US will come to the force’s aid if Russia attacked while on duty… which is the big one.
Discussions still live, nothing yet locked in stone.
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
A cyclist who seriously injured a pedestrian after crashing into her "at great speed" on a footpath has been jailed for eight months.
Lisa Wade, 46, was sentenced at York Crown Court under the Victorian-era legislation of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
Victim Ruth Kitching, 64, was knocked over and needed hip replacement surgery after the crash on 24 March last year.
Wade, of Tudor Road in York, admitted the charge and was said to be "genuinely remorseful".
For eight months, sentence range for seriously injuring by dangerous driving ranges from a starting point of 1 year in jail to a maximum of 5 years in jail.
Hang on, you were saying that a cyclist couldn't be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian. I showed that you can. And she was given 1 year less the one-third off for a guilty plea.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
The last time I was called a "See You Next Tuesday" was by a cyclist who didn't appreciate that he should stop when I was using a zebra crossing.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
The suspicion many have about home working is that those doing it are getting away with stuff. Like not actually doing that much work. However, I suspect that many people don’t work all guns blazing all the time (if that’s even possible). When I was forced to WFH I found that I could get a lot of domestic chores done during the working day. A five minute break - put a load of washing on. Later on, hang it on the line. So the time I saved was the evenings and weekends, and in reality I was as productive at home as I was at work. Those five minute breaks replaced corridor chats with colleagues etc. and then you also get another hour back from no commute. It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
Some people are great at WFH, others are not. Some jobs it's easy. Others it is not.
The suspicion many have about home working is that those doing it are getting away with stuff. Like not actually doing that much work. However, I suspect that many people don’t work all guns blazing all the time (if that’s even possible). When I was forced to WFH I found that I could get a lot of domestic chores done during the working day. A five minute break - put a load of washing on. Later on, hang it on the line. So the time I saved was the evenings and weekends, and in reality I was as productive at home as I was at work. Those five minute breaks replaced corridor chats with colleagues etc. and then you also get another hour back from no commute. It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
I think that's my view as well. If I spent some time running errands during the day that couldn't be counted as a legitimate break, I'd put in some extra minutes at the end of the day.
However... once lockdown was over and there was much more interesting stuff to he done, I soon found I really struggled with motivation at home
The suspicion many have about home working is that those doing it are getting away with stuff. Like not actually doing that much work. However, I suspect that many people don’t work all guns blazing all the time (if that’s even possible). When I was forced to WFH I found that I could get a lot of domestic chores done during the working day. A five minute break - put a load of washing on. Later on, hang it on the line. So the time I saved was the evenings and weekends, and in reality I was as productive at home as I was at work. Those five minute breaks replaced corridor chats with colleagues etc. and then you also get another hour back from no commute. It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
Indeed, but Reform UK aren't interested in reality. They just make up stuff that sounds superficially good to some voters.
Which becomes a problem when such people get into power, cf. the US.
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
A cyclist who seriously injured a pedestrian after crashing into her "at great speed" on a footpath has been jailed for eight months.
Lisa Wade, 46, was sentenced at York Crown Court under the Victorian-era legislation of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
Victim Ruth Kitching, 64, was knocked over and needed hip replacement surgery after the crash on 24 March last year.
Wade, of Tudor Road in York, admitted the charge and was said to be "genuinely remorseful".
For eight months, sentence range for seriously injuring by dangerous driving ranges from a starting point of 1 year in jail to a maximum of 5 years in jail.
Hang on, you were saying that a cyclist couldn't be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian. I showed that you can. And she was given 1 year less the one-third off for a guilty plea.
It is still not equivalent to the sentence range for the same offence for drivers. If it was causing harm by wanton and furious driving (which includes cyclists) would have a maximum 5 year jail term as is the case for causing serious injury by dangerous driving (which excludes cyclists). Instead it only has a maximum 2 year term
The suspicion many have about home working is that those doing it are getting away with stuff. Like not actually doing that much work. However, I suspect that many people don’t work all guns blazing all the time (if that’s even possible). When I was forced to WFH I found that I could get a lot of domestic chores done during the working day. A five minute break - put a load of washing on. Later on, hang it on the line. So the time I saved was the evenings and weekends, and in reality I was as productive at home as I was at work. Those five minute breaks replaced corridor chats with colleagues etc. and then you also get another hour back from no commute. It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
Indeed, but Reform UK aren't interested in reality. They just make up stuff that sounds superficially good to some voters.
Which becomes a problem when such people get into power, cf. the US.
My basic rule with Reform "policies" and "views" such as they are is that you can walk into any saloon bar in England towards the end of the afternoon and find the same views being articulated by the three old guys on stools.
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
On this we agree, my Mum and I are both ZSL members, and we use said traffic lights as pedestrians many times a year.
If you're a pedestrian hit by a vehicle ignoring a red light, it's overwhelmingly (96%+) likely to be by a car or other motorised vehicle.
No, at the junction aforementioned, I was nearly hit by a bike, about six months back.
Yes and while the car driver or motorbiker can already be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian, a cyclist can't
A cyclist who seriously injured a pedestrian after crashing into her "at great speed" on a footpath has been jailed for eight months.
Lisa Wade, 46, was sentenced at York Crown Court under the Victorian-era legislation of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
Victim Ruth Kitching, 64, was knocked over and needed hip replacement surgery after the crash on 24 March last year.
Wade, of Tudor Road in York, admitted the charge and was said to be "genuinely remorseful".
For eight months, sentence range for seriously injuring by dangerous driving ranges from a starting point of 1 year in jail to a maximum of 5 years in jail.
Hang on, you were saying that a cyclist couldn't be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian. I showed that you can. And she was given 1 year less the one-third off for a guilty plea.
It is still not equivalent to the sentence range for the same offence for drivers. If it was causing harm by wanton and furious driving (which includes cyclists) would have a maximum 5 year jail term as is the case for causing serious injury by dangerous driving (which excludes cyclists). Instead it only has a maximum 2 year term
I'm not arguing on that, it makes sense that the sentencing range is equalised. I was pointing out that you claimed that no cyclist could be prosecuted for injuring a pedestrian. You were wrong and there's no shame in admitting it.
The Home Office has launched a drive for landlords to house asylum seekers following a surge in Channel migrant crossings.
Serco, one of three private contractors working for the Home Office, is offering landlords five-year guaranteed full rent deals to house asylum seekers at the taxpayer’s expense.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
It's dangerous cycling on the dualed pavement that alarms me. Happily not that common.
I have mixed feelings. I prefer bikes to share space with pedestrians with pedestrians having priority because cars kill cyclists but cyclists rarely kill pedestrians.
However having said that, many years ago I cycled in a shared space in Cambridge using clip on. It was a nightmare with pedestrians just leaping out in front of me without looking. I just had to abandon it. It might have been ok without clip ons, but with them I nearly fell off several times so changed my views on bikes and pedestrians sharing space.
Yes, I sympathise. Many years ago some judge ruled that 'a cyclist is entitled to his wobble' but pedestrians just wander, usually lacking any awareness of the sharing aspect.
Apart from the effects of speed and silence, the only really dangerous cycling situations I've encountered personally are where a cyclist is whizzing along unaware that a bus pulled up at or near a bus stop means someone is going to get off in their path.
Why should they be unaware? We are all taught as drivers that if a vehicle has just pulled in, someone may be getting out
I suppose not all cyclists have learned to drive.
I don't think you need a driving license to anticipate that a bus pulling in = pedestrians popping out. However, there is an appreciable difference between cyclists with and without driving licenses, particularly when it comes to indicating. Conversely, I think cycling has made me a much better driver, and I think it would be quite smart for the test to include some cycling (particularly HGV license).
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
New: Defense Dept spokesperson confirms there's a physical line running between @SecDef Hegseth's cellphone, which is kept just outside his office, and a monitor on his desk. The workaround, which is unusual, was created to give Hegseth text and Signal message alerts in his office, which is a SCIF where cellphones are prohibited.
The suspicion many have about home working is that those doing it are getting away with stuff. Like not actually doing that much work. However, I suspect that many people don’t work all guns blazing all the time (if that’s even possible). When I was forced to WFH I found that I could get a lot of domestic chores done during the working day. A five minute break - put a load of washing on. Later on, hang it on the line. So the time I saved was the evenings and weekends, and in reality I was as productive at home as I was at work. Those five minute breaks replaced corridor chats with colleagues etc. and then you also get another hour back from no commute. It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
Some people are great at WFH, others are not. Some jobs it's easy. Others it is not.
Processes and equipment also. Telling everyone to work on their personal laptop balanced on the ironing board, and then be surprised when….
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
I have no idea of the details but maybe there was a general turning of a 'blind eye' as the US was a country of which it could be said: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses etc etc.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
I have no idea of the details but maybe there was a general turning of a 'blind eye' as the US was a country of which it could be said: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses etc etc.
I think there has also always been an element of very convenient for lots of parts of society. Cheap labour will few rights, and of course in the US there welfare system is much weaker, no free healthcare etc.
But in the past few years the situation has got out of control where much larger numbers are arriving and are immediately claiming asylum rather than having smuggled themselves across quietly disappearing into the grey zone of working while being their illegally.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
Example:
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
Some states and/or cities don't care, as I understand it.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
What did they think would happen? Couldn’t bear the thought of a black woman being President so they betrayed their own community . They weren’t misled that’s just an excuse for their stupid vote.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
Some states go out of their way to make life easy for illegal immigrants; so in California, you don't need any proof of citizenship to get a driver's license for example. In Arizona, by contrast, if you're not a citizen (or have a valid visa), you can't get a license.
The California one leads to some weird things. My wife forgot her passport when she went to change the address on her driving license. They said "well, if you don't have a passport showing a valid visa, we'll have to give the driving license we give to the undocumented." Which lasts a full 10 years.
I - by contrast - got a driver's license that lasted until my visa expired last year. In possession of my new visa, I returned to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew my license and only to discover that I had to take my bloody driving test again.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
Example:
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
Why does anyone need a desk? With a laptop all you need is a chair. And a lap, obv.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
I have no idea of the details but maybe there was a general turning of a 'blind eye' as the US was a country of which it could be said: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses etc etc.
I think there has also always been an element of very convenient for lots of parts of society. Cheap labour will few rights, and of course in the US there welfare system is much weaker, no free healthcare etc.
But in the past few years the situation has got out of control where much larger numbers are arriving and are immediately claiming asylum rather than having smuggled themselves across quietly disappearing into the grey zone of working while being their illegally.
The great irony is that - at the end of the Obama administration - Southern Border crossing were at a 16 year low.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
Some states go out of their way to make life easy for illegal immigrants; so in California, you don't need any proof of citizenship to get a driver's license for example. In Arizona, by contrast, if you're not a citizen (or have a valid visa), you can't get a license.
The California one leads to some weird things. My wife forgot her passport when she went to change the address on her driving license. They said "well, if you don't have a passport showing a valid visa, we'll have to give the driving license we give to the undocumented." Which lasts a full 10 years.
I - by contrast - got a driver's license that lasted until my visa expired last year. In possession of my new visa, I returned to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew my license and only to discover that I had to take my bloody driving test again.
As I understand it, you have to swear in front of a judge that you are there illegally. To try to prevent tourists getting them.
In fact that's another example of the American (or at least Californian) approach: you can swear you're illegal in open court and they don't have you arrested.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
Example:
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
Why does anyone need a desk? With a laptop all you need is a chair. And a lap, obv.
Reform are going to sweep to victory in the GE. Unless something radical changes
Labour AND the Tories will be destroyed. Deservedly
Most polls bar FON have a hung parliament and Reform still needing Tory support for a majority, with a few giving Labour, LDs and SNP a majority
The drift of history is towards Reform
For now but this is Farage's last chance probably to become PM. He missed it against Ed Miliband and Cameron in 2015, more narrowly missed it with a few MPs but still miles off in 2024 against Sunak and Starmer and against a now unpopular Starmer and not very visible Badenoch has an open goal to sweep the white working class vote and strong Leave vote. If he misses it and Reform still fail to win most seats then the Tories will likely replace a losing Badenoch with Jenrick backed by Rees Mogg who will hoover back some of the Tory votes lost to Reform and Burnham or Rayner will likely replace North London Starmer too in due course and have more appeal in the redwall seats
Quite possibly. And Farage is beginning to show his age
However the shift in western politics towards the hard right looks unstoppable and inexorable to me, for the foreseeable future ...
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
Example:
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
Why does anyone need a desk? With a laptop all you need is a chair. And a lap, obv.
Chair? Just stay in bed.
This conversation is getting reverse Yorkshiremen.
Reform are going to sweep to victory in the GE. Unless something radical changes
Labour AND the Tories will be destroyed. Deservedly
Most polls bar FON have a hung parliament and Reform still needing Tory support for a majority, with a few giving Labour, LDs and SNP a majority
The drift of history is towards Reform
For now but this is Farage's last chance probably to become PM. He missed it against Ed Miliband and Cameron in 2015, more narrowly missed it with a few MPs but still miles off in 2024 against Sunak and Starmer and against a now unpopular Starmer and not very visible Badenoch has an open goal to sweep the white working class vote and strong Leave vote. If he misses it and Reform still fail to win most seats then the Tories will likely replace a losing Badenoch with Jenrick backed by Rees Mogg who will hoover back some of the Tory votes lost to Reform and Burnham or Rayner will likely replace North London Starmer too in due course and have more appeal in the redwall seats
Quite possibly. And Farage is beginning to show his age
However the shift in western politics towards the hard right looks unstoppable and inexorable to me, for the foreseeable future ...
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Going in to the office is advocated as it promotes social interaction between colleagues. I'm very much in favour of this. It certainly beats working.
Hence higher productivity WFH, even allowing for doing the laundry.
Many, many years ago I was an NGA FOC.* One of our arcane rules was that you could be drummed out of the regiment if found with the tools of your trade in your home. This was to prevent typesetters 'moonlighting' for cash after dark, diverting paid employment away from their 'organised' comrades. There's nothing new under the sun.
Back in the 1990s the moral panic was about teleworking. There were masses of literature published about this at the time. Them new-fangled computer thingies...
Eric Epstein--who has worked for 32 years as a lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--was forced out of his job today, two Justice Department officials and one other person familiar with the matter tell NBC News.
For the last 10 years, Epstein has been ATF's senior counsel, serving as a key adviser to various ATF directors.
The two officials said Epstein was told to accept the latest "fork in the road" voluntary buyout plan being offered to many government employees, or he would be fired by the end of the day. He chose to accept the buyout, they said.
They said he was the principal author of the Biden administration's rule—upheld by the Supreme Court—to crack down on so-called ghost guns.
He also authored the regulation attempting to crack down on gun sales at gun shows and other places that evade background checks. The Trump Administration has withdrawn that rule.
Epstein did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did the DoJ.
Epstein is a career civil servant and member of the senior executive service.
"It's a massive loss of institutional knowledge and most of us don't know how the agency will recover," one Justice Department official said.
His removal follows the ouster of two other senior career ATF officials, chief counsel Pam Hicks and deputy director Marvin Richardson.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration made the Army Secretary the acting ATF director, replacing FBI Director Kash Patel.
Back in the 1990s the moral panic was about teleworking. There were masses of literature published about this at the time. Them new-fangled computer thingies...
One of James Burke's documentary series includes an episode on this exact topic.
If a computer chip allows you to telecommute, what happens to the offices? The public transport? The shops and cafes?
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
If councils have been mothballing and not selling off office space when they are desperate for cash, that seems more unlikely. And probably a bigger scandal. After all, one of the advantages of WFH is that it's considerably cheaper for the employer.
The typical sequence involves downsizing the office, mandating that everyone comes in 3 days per week, and then some geek doing the calc that demonstrates that there are insufficient desks for this to be possible.
Or you book desks in advance on a first come first served basis so some have to come in on Mondays or Fridays not just midweek to meet their 2 or 3 days in the office
Example:
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
What I don't fully understand is that co-working spaces have made no inroads whatsoever in this environment.
They were always a bit the realm of the hip freelancer, and they never really managed to square the flexible space sell with the needs of more corporate security and privacy requirements (unless you booked out a whole office for a year) and never really expanded out of the cities to meet the 15 minute idea, but if they solved that and made their pods / co-tenant networks etc corporate strength, I think there could be a role for them - "oh, we have a dozen meeting up in the Ashfield hub today".
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Spending lots of money on extra office space for county councils:
Nigel Farage has said Reform UK would end “a work from home culture” at Hertfordshire County Council if his party wins control of the authority in next month’s local elections. Visiting The Red Lion pub in Nash Mills yesterday (Tuesday, 22 April), Reform UK’s leader told a cheering crowd of candidates that a Reform-led county council would tell staff “you either work from the office or you’re gone.”
Have they sold the council offices and downsized? Unlikely.
Love to know how a council works when the few staff who are competent to get jobs elsewhere leave..
People think councils do nothing so you can remove people easily, they don't want to pay anything significant, and they think the staff who work there are incompetent.
For the first you can remove people but that's really only a one off until you get to the statutory responsibilities, the second is a matter of opinion and many might argue they get too much, but if you also believe they are mostly incompetent I don't see how you attract better people if you also cut wages.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
Some states go out of their way to make life easy for illegal immigrants; so in California, you don't need any proof of citizenship to get a driver's license for example. In Arizona, by contrast, if you're not a citizen (or have a valid visa), you can't get a license.
The California one leads to some weird things. My wife forgot her passport when she went to change the address on her driving license. They said "well, if you don't have a passport showing a valid visa, we'll have to give the driving license we give to the undocumented." Which lasts a full 10 years.
I - by contrast - got a driver's license that lasted until my visa expired last year. In possession of my new visa, I returned to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew my license and only to discover that I had to take my bloody driving test again.
As I understand it, you have to swear in front of a judge that you are there illegally. To try to prevent tourists getting them.
In fact that's another example of the American (or at least Californian) approach: you can swear you're illegal in open court and they don't have you arrested.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
Going in to the office is advocated as it promotes social interaction between colleagues. I'm very much in favour of this. It certainly beats working.
Hence higher productivity WFH, even allowing for doing the laundry.
Not me personally, I find it hard to concentrate without office bustle, even if I put something on in the background at home. But I accept most people find more benefit in it.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
Some states go out of their way to make life easy for illegal immigrants; so in California, you don't need any proof of citizenship to get a driver's license for example. In Arizona, by contrast, if you're not a citizen (or have a valid visa), you can't get a license.
The California one leads to some weird things. My wife forgot her passport when she went to change the address on her driving license. They said "well, if you don't have a passport showing a valid visa, we'll have to give the driving license we give to the undocumented." Which lasts a full 10 years.
I - by contrast - got a driver's license that lasted until my visa expired last year. In possession of my new visa, I returned to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew my license and only to discover that I had to take my bloody driving test again.
As I understand it, you have to swear in front of a judge that you are there illegally. To try to prevent tourists getting them.
In fact that's another example of the American (or at least Californian) approach: you can swear you're illegal in open court and they don't have you arrested.
If you bring a utility bill, that also works
I'm minded of the Bill Bailey sketch lampooning the elevated status of utility paperwork:
"Turkish border, five to midnight: PASSAPORT? No, gas bill?"
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
Look deep inside yourself and I think you'll find that everyone in the civil service and local government should be working for peanuts, and three times harder, and be grateful for it as none of them do a day's work and would never survive in the private sector. That's called motivation right there.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
It's that kind of attitude that DOGE is seeking to purge...
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
Look deep inside yourself and I think you'll find that everyone in the civil service and local government should be working for peanuts, and three times harder, and be grateful for it as none of them do a day's work and would never survive in the private sector. That's called motivation right there.
The hilarious thing is that it usually comes after someone has asked the state to get more involved in some grievance they have.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
I do recall a clip from years ago with a woman at length explaining she had an issue with illegal immigration and legal migration was fine, being told that it was legal to claim asylum, and pivoting to say she hoped Trump would change that.
I think a lot of people there and here have pretty stern views on this stuff, and would not always distinguish legal from illegal, from leave to remain to asylum or whatever.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
I do recall a clip from years ago with a woman at length explaining she had an issue with illegal immigration and legal migration was fine, being told that it was legal to claim asylum, and pivoting to say she hoped Trump would change that.
I think a lot of people there and here have pretty stern views on this stuff, and would not always distinguish legal from illegal, from leave to remain to asylum or whatever.
The most sophisticated position on immigration is Milton Friedman's: it's only good if it's illegal, because if you make it legal then people can make claims on the state.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
Look deep inside yourself and I think you'll find that everyone in the civil service and local government should be working for peanuts, and three times harder, and be grateful for it as none of them do a day's work and would never survive in the private sector. That's called motivation right there.
The hilarious thing is that it usually comes after someone has asked the state to get more involved in some grievance they have.
We have a bit of a problem in that we denigrate the those working in the public sector but also expect a lot more from it than ever before, and there's only so much money that can possibly be put into it even if things were 100% efficient.
I'm not immune to this sort of thing, I expect a lot better from the police for example but also have fundamental concerns with the way they operate and many of the people working for it, but the issues we have are not as simple as just Elon Musking it up. Dead wood can be chopped but the forest was likely cultivated for a reason and can't just be cleared.
Well, i am shocked i tell you, shocked to my core to find that people who were told Trump was not really for them as he might erm actually deport them given exactly what he said on the campaign trial, have now found out that Trump is not really for them in a bigly way.
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo @Carrasquillo · 4h Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
I still find it bizarre that you can live and work *and pay taxes* in the USA as an illegal immigrant. (I presume illegal immigrants in the UK who are working are doing so cash in hand). How screw is that? The cause celebre Kilmar has not only been an illegal immigrant in the USA for a number of years, but also got married, for which you would expect both parties to supply IDs and immigration status. He has obviously paid tax as the IRS doesn't seem to be after him. How does that work?
He’s not an illegal immigrant. He’s got leave to stay, effectively asylum has been granted.
It's one of the more malign achievements of the US right to blur the distinction between categories of immigrants, so that all those without a permanent right to remain, are assumed to be illegal.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
There is a difference between an accident, such as spilling hot coffee, and deliberate intent. Cyclists running red lights generally don’t do so by accident.
I made that absolutely clear in my description. Firstly the cycling stats do not distinguish between accidents and negligence (see my first para). I did the same regarding sailing. Some will be accidental some will be negligent. When I mentioned the other examples I specifically described the scenarios where they were negligent not accidents.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
If what is reported is true you can see why the judge was arrested. You can't have judges assisting the escape from the authorities of somebody with an arrest warrant against them (and it sounds like a long criminal history and previously deported), no matter how much they might not like the law.
I find it frankly bizarre that knowing you have a repeat offender in your court who is illegally in the country having previously been deported and your first instinct is to try and help them escape. It isn't some little old lady who was there for a speeding ticket.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
The cows thing is bonkers. My instinct is that only in the most extreme of circumstances should a farmer be prosecuted for that (letting loose in a playground or something).
If I'm walking through a field full of livestock, even with Right to Roam/right of way, I don't think there is any onus on the farmer to ensure my safety. If I've got a dog I should be probably be prosecuted for causing the death of my own walking companions, to be honest.
On cyclists, I don't really mind as long as pedestrians can also be held similarly liable for negligently stepping out in front of me and knocking me off. During the Fringe I drop my speed to 10mph and take primary position because I'm so worried about it.
A genuine question for the floor as I've never looked at any of their manifestos etc.
Do Reform actually know with any level of clarity what it is they're going to reform and how they're going to reform it, or are they going to do a Starmer Labour and suddenly wake up in power but with no apparent idea of what they're actually going to do with it?
I suspect there'll be a DOGE thing and pulling out of ECHR; they would be relatively easy to fire off but what they would actually achieve is open to question. Thereafter? A crackdown on mickey-mouse degrees and some 1970s-style picking-winners state funding for parts of the business sector. Daily prayers in school perhaps.
Remembrance Day a bank holiday?
As someone who works in a public facing job in the Civil Service, I'm getting really sick of self entitled idiots threatening me with a Doge purge if I don't do exactly what they want.
Look deep inside yourself and I think you'll find that everyone in the civil service and local government should be working for peanuts, and three times harder, and be grateful for it as none of them do a day's work and would never survive in the private sector. That's called motivation right there.
I'm sure many of them would be cheered up by a doubling, or tripling, of their salary in return for spending an hour or so a day outside a pub pontificating to a fawning press.
'Cyclists who kill pedestrians by acting dangerously on the road could face life imprisonment under a proposed change to the law.
Currently, cycling offenders can be imprisoned for no more than two years under an 1861 law originally intended for drivers of horse-drawn carriages.
A government amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill - which is currently going through Parliament - would see cycling offences brought in line with driving offences, the Department for Transport (DfT) said.
The changes would also mean serious injury caused by dangerous cycling - or death by careless or inconsiderate cycling - could incur punishments of five years in jail, fines, or both.
A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling would result in a two-year sentence, a fine or both under the proposed changes.'
I'm a cyclist, and I can't see a lot wrong with that.
Indeed
I’ve seen cyclists shoot red lights near my flat, in the Inner Circle of Regent’s Park, at a junction used by hundreds of kids daily (for the park, the zoo, and schools). There’s no need for the cyclists to do this. It’s not a dangerous junction. They just don’t give a fuck and blaze through it at 25mph
I’ve personally seen them narrowly miss toddlers by inches, they would easily kill a little kid if they collided
If it happens they will deserve a lot worse than 2 years in jail
I don't really see anything wrong with the new law other than it being unnecessary. If you kill someone while cycling you can still be sentenced to life under manslaughter laws. How many laws are we going to introduce for specific acts rather than being covered by general law? After all a total of just 4 people were killed by cyclists last year. How many other activities resulted in more deaths without specific laws. Just a few days ago someone was sentenced for 4 deaths in one go when waterboarding. There must be so many more deaths for irresponsible behaviour sailing or skiing, yet nobody is asking for specific laws for them.
Where do you draw the line? Why cycling when they cause less deaths?
PS @leon, surprised to see you going for it again tonight having had your arse handed to you spectacularly this afternoon 😁
Death by dangerous driving was introduced precisely as juries were reluctant to convict drivers for manslaughter and serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling would still not have applied even if cyclists could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Whereas they would apply to drivers and motorbikers who caused serious injury driving dangerously or killed driving carelessly.
Far more people cycle in the UK than sail and hardly anyone skis in the UK so far fewer injuries are caused by sailors or skiers here than by cyclists
Do you think there might be a reason for the lack of convictions? Juries aren't biased towards cyclists after all. Do you think there might be extenuating circumstances in many cases? It is far harder to be aggressive on a bike than in a car. That is not to say some aren't and in those cases juries will convict. There are far more aggressive or drunk drivers.
Think you might find you have the sailing one wrong. 21 died in the 79 Fastnet race for instance. Just one event and racing is competitive and boats collide. People die. Far more than cyclists cause every year and by a significant factor. I take your point on skiing, but worth noting that people have died in the UK skiing and certainly many more abroad than people being hit by cyclists.
So what? Even if you kept manslaughter instead of death by dangerous driving there would still be no way of prosecuting cyclists who seriously injure driving dangerously or kill or seriously injure cycling carelessly as drivers can be prosecuted for serious injury by dangerous driving or death or serious injury by careless driving or death by driving carelessly under the influence of drink or drugs.
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
Ok so let's look at what the experts on risk think ie the insurance industry:
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
The point remains far more cycle in the UK than sail and barely any at all ski in the UK so percentage wise far are likely to be injured by a cyclist in the UK than a skiier or sailor
Honestly this is nonsense. Between about 1-5 people get killed by cyclists a year and around 100 are injured. We have no idea whose fault these are so the number that are the cyclists negligence will be lower, possibly much much lower. It is trivial.
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
Politicians love creating new highly specific laws. I'd be interested in analysis of how many were actually needed, and if they had any genuine effect.
Comments
Can she ever foresee a return to Labour? “Certainly not under Keir Starmer’s leadership. No. But I hope, one day, I’d like to think so.”
https://www.thetimes.com/article/7bbdb45d-c903-4a11-bdf5-ccd843bf2cd8?shareToken=b507fff284fede29a3bf5575fac778d3
The Fastnet sailing race is notoriously dangerous and if you take part in it you take on that risk in a way an elderly or child pedestrian hit and seriously injured by a cyclist when crossing the road will not have done.
The French police and prosecutors regularly prosecute for manslaughter for skiing deaths and negligence claims for skiing injuries are standard. Far more pedestrians in the UK are injured by cyclists than injuries caused by sailors and there are barely any skiiers here bar a few dry slopes and in the mountains of Scotland
https://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/news/article/3004/media_statement_about_the_citrus_hotel
Now, I actually think we should try and find some way to make the scooters legal, but I accept that's fraught with danger.
Lisa Wade, 46, was sentenced at York Crown Court under the Victorian-era legislation of causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving.
Victim Ruth Kitching, 64, was knocked over and needed hip replacement surgery after the crash on 24 March last year.
Wade, of Tudor Road in York, admitted the charge and was said to be "genuinely remorseful".
Doncaster council might be fun. I know quite a few of the officers including the Chief Exec and I haven't dared ask them what they will do if Reform win.
Which they well might.
When Reform talks of stopping the boats, are they referring to the Vikings and their longboats?
Driving requires 3rd party insurance by law and your house or contents insurance won't cover it.
Your house or contents insurance won't cover 3rd party insurance for sailing or skiing either. You need to take out separate cover. I had to for both, although there was no law requiring it, but you would be mad not to.
However Cycling 3rd party cover is included in nearly all house and contents insurance under 3rd party liability at no additional cost.
Pretty conclusive evidence of which has the greatest risk to 3rd parties.
Insurance companies throw in 3rd party liability where the risk is very low. If not they exclude it.
Why do you think 3rd party insurance is excluded for skiing, sailing and driving in general liability insurance, but not cycling? Could it be that the risk to others is much lower?
4 deaths in a year of which how many were due to the cyclists negligence? Hammer to crack a nut.
EXCLUSIVE
The US has privately offered to provide security guarantees for Keir Starmer’s “coalition of the willing”,
@Telegraph
understands.
American officials have opened the door to giving intelligence and logistical support to European forces to back up a Ukraine peace deal from land, air and sea.
Seen as a significant breakthrough in No10. Starmer’s been pressing Trump for two months on the point.
But… still unclear if US will come to the force’s aid if Russia attacked while on duty… which is the big one.
Discussions still live, nothing yet locked in stone.
https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1915867572203098441
Even seriously injuring by just careless driving has a maximum 2 year jail term
So I don't think he should be throwing bricks at council staff.
It’s for a line manager to decide if the employee is doing what’s needed when they WFH. It’s no one else’s business.
Certainly can't build a coalition based on anything Trump's clowns say.
However... once lockdown was over and there was much more interesting stuff to he done, I soon found I really struggled with motivation at home
Which becomes a problem when such people get into power, cf. the US.
Serco, one of three private contractors working for the Home Office, is offering landlords five-year guaranteed full rent deals to house asylum seekers at the taxpayer’s expense.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/04/25/starmer-to-rent-homes-for-migrants/
Adrian Carrasquillo
@Carrasquillo
🚨News: I’ve got exclusive focus groups of Latino men in Arizona who were all critical of Trump, with half already willing to say they regret their vote for Trump
Adrian Carrasquillo
@Carrasquillo
·
4h
Jesús, a Mexican-American construction worker from Chandler, Arizona feels misled on immigration:
“They’re not just deporting criminals, but also innocent people working here and paying taxes, but because they don’t have documents they’re deporting them.”
Adrian Carrasquillo
@Carrasquillo
·
4h
Javier, a Panamanian from Phoenix who works in furniture delivery, also said he regrets his vote for Trump because he sees the Latino community living in fear of deportations.
https://x.com/Carrasquillo/status/1915801489882140742
New: Defense Dept spokesperson confirms there's a physical line running between
@SecDef Hegseth's cellphone, which is kept just outside his office, and a monitor on his desk. The workaround, which is unusual, was created to give Hegseth text and Signal message alerts in his office, which is a SCIF where cellphones are prohibited.
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1915875942435586254
@MarcACaputo
NEW: AG Pam Bondi says DOJ will subpoena journalists in leak investigations
“This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” Bondi wrote in a memo Axios obtained
https://x.com/MarcACaputo/status/1915868633588212151
As you say far fewer people sail, yet although deaths are rare they are higher and injuries substantially higher than those inflicted by cyclists So higher on actual numbers and substantially higher as a percentage. Of course again we have no idea how many of these deaths or injuries were through negligence or just accidents so all these number exchanges are pointless.
But if the insurance industry thinks I am a greater risk to 3rd parties sailing than cycling that is good enough for me.
What next? Specific laws for reckless roller blading, dropping stuff on people from ladders, carelessly running into someone on the street, spilling hot coffee into someone's lap while not concentrating? Where do you want to draw the line,? These are all probably more common and are all adequately covered by the current laws.
PS several farmers have been prosecuted for their cows trampling to death people. Do we need a special law for that as well?
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lno4rszmj22n
But in the past few years the situation has got out of control where much larger numbers are arriving and are immediately claiming asylum rather than having smuggled themselves across quietly disappearing into the grey zone of working while being their illegally.
100 staff. Assume 10 on holiday, sick or working away. So 90 need a desk 3 days. That is 270 desk-days. Divided over a 5- day week with even occupation requires 54 desks. But the company has downsized, and there are only 40 desks. 14 people have no desk each day.
Shedeur Sanders has custom draft room built ahead of 2025
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/shedeur-sanders-custom-draft-room-002545090.html
The California one leads to some weird things. My wife forgot her passport when she went to change the address on her driving license. They said "well, if you don't have a passport showing a valid visa, we'll have to give the driving license we give to the undocumented." Which lasts a full 10 years.
I - by contrast - got a driver's license that lasted until my visa expired last year. In possession of my new visa, I returned to the Department of Motor Vehicles, to renew my license and only to discover that I had to take my bloody driving test again.
Hence higher productivity WFH, even allowing for doing the laundry.
In fact that's another example of the American (or at least Californian) approach: you can swear you're illegal in open court and they don't have you arrested.
@endwokeness has started following @teamaoc ...
https://x.com/USPoliticsAlert/status/1915596901182845140
Back in the 1990s the moral panic was about teleworking. There were masses of literature published about this at the time. Them new-fangled computer thingies...
*Younger readers, DYOR.
Eric Epstein--who has worked for 32 years as a lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--was forced out of his job today, two Justice Department officials and one other person familiar with the matter tell NBC News.
For the last 10 years, Epstein has been ATF's senior counsel, serving as a key adviser to various ATF directors.
The two officials said Epstein was told to accept the latest "fork in the road" voluntary buyout plan being offered to many government employees, or he would be fired by the end of the day. He chose to accept the buyout, they said.
They said he was the principal author of the Biden administration's rule—upheld by the Supreme Court—to crack down on so-called ghost guns.
He also authored the regulation attempting to crack down on gun sales at gun shows and other places that evade background checks. The Trump Administration has withdrawn that rule.
Epstein did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did the DoJ.
Epstein is a career civil servant and member of the senior executive service.
"It's a massive loss of institutional knowledge and most of us don't know how the agency will recover," one Justice Department official said.
His removal follows the ouster of two other senior career ATF officials, chief counsel Pam Hicks and deputy director Marvin Richardson.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration made the Army Secretary the acting ATF director, replacing FBI Director Kash Patel.
https://x.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1915865947966955548
If a computer chip allows you to telecommute, what happens to the offices? The public transport? The shops and cafes?
Basically the pandemic...
They were always a bit the realm of the hip freelancer, and they never really managed to square the flexible space sell with the needs of more corporate security and privacy requirements (unless you booked out a whole office for a year) and never really expanded out of the cities to meet the 15 minute idea, but if they solved that and made their pods / co-tenant networks etc corporate strength, I think there could be a role for them - "oh, we have a dozen meeting up in the Ashfield hub today".
For the first you can remove people but that's really only a one off until you get to the statutory responsibilities, the second is a matter of opinion and many might argue they get too much, but if you also believe they are mostly incompetent I don't see how you attract better people if you also cut wages.
You've obviously never been on a bicycle in your life.
"Turkish border, five to midnight:
PASSAPORT?
No, gas bill?"
I think a lot of people there and here have pretty stern views on this stuff, and would not always distinguish legal from illegal, from leave to remain to asylum or whatever.
I'm not immune to this sort of thing, I expect a lot better from the police for example but also have fundamental concerns with the way they operate and many of the people working for it, but the issues we have are not as simple as just Elon Musking it up. Dead wood can be chopped but the forest was likely cultivated for a reason and can't just be cleared.
There are accidents where the cyclist or coffee carrier is not at fault. There will be occasions where they are at fault but it will simply be a civil compensation claim and there are times when there is serious negligence and therefore a criminal case. It makes no difference whether it is a cyclist, coffee carrier, sailor or farmer and his cow.
Sometimes there is no fault, sometimes there is and sometimes it is serious enough to prosecute. Why single out a cyclist over a sailor, coffee carrier or farmer when the stats for the others are comparable. Actually I don't know the stats for negligent waiters.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5xx017vko
If what is reported is true you can see why the judge was arrested. You can't have judges assisting the escape from the authorities of somebody with an arrest warrant against them (and it sounds like a long criminal history and previously deported), no matter how much they might not like the law.
I find it frankly bizarre that knowing you have a repeat offender in your court who is illegally in the country having previously been deported and your first instinct is to try and help them escape. It isn't some little old lady who was there for a speeding ticket.
If I'm walking through a field full of livestock, even with Right to Roam/right of way, I don't think there is any onus on the farmer to ensure my safety. If I've got a dog I should be probably be prosecuted for causing the death of my own walking companions, to be honest.
On cyclists, I don't really mind as long as pedestrians can also be held similarly liable for negligently stepping out in front of me and knocking me off. During the Fringe I drop my speed to 10mph and take primary position because I'm so worried about it.