"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....
Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.
Rain and a freshening breeze here in Glos.
Wind of change?
Still warm here in Huddersfield, but no open windows as, despite the clear looking skies, the air is getting quite acrid with the latest moorland fire some 10 miles west of here. Took me a while to figure out it wasn't just someone's barbecue - well not a local one anyway.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
We're most of the way through phase one of replacing all our windows. Most have been painted / nailed / glued shut by the previous moron and the wood was pretty rotten.
Architect drawings, planning permission and 6 months wait for fabrication later and I can sit in various rooms and open the sash to let the nice air in.
Phase 2 will be next spring, with a final phase the year after to mop up the various spare room / store room windows to complete the project.
Trust you to spin the success of RFK's campaign to make America healthy again as bad news.
And trust you to think this has anything to do with RFK rather than a drop in consumer confidence.
Shall we see how good Whole Foods numbers are?
McDonalds in the US is now very expensive for what it is, particular for a large chunk of their core consumer. Also the quality of low end US fast food has never been stellar, but its really bad now due to the cost engineering.
MORE news on Trump's decision on national security adviser Mike Waltz: --It was unclear this afternoon if Waltz's aide Alex Wong would remain at NSC. --This was a last-minute decision to nominate Waltz as UN ambassador. Trump made decision this morning. However, there had been previous discussions at the senior level about moving Waltz out of APNSA role. --Reasons for the change: an accumulation of factors - it was perceived that Waltz did not adequately vet NSC staff, the Signal situation, and lack of a good fit between Waltz and the senior team. --But several sources noted Waltz wasn't fired unceremoniously; he was *not* escorted out of the building. He was given a soft landing in a high-profile, high-level new post. Many Trump senior advisers like Waltz and think he's a good man. --It is unclear if Waltz's post will be cabinet level. (It is optional for UN job.) --To illustrate how fast this came about, White House officials had been talking to other possible UN candidates in recent days about their interest in the UN post. Rubio's spokeswoman had no idea Rubio would be acting APNSA. And Trump said today in Rose Garden noted there was "a problem" he had to solve: "When I have a problem I call up Marco, he gets it solved. He gets it solved.” --It's early to say who will replace Waltz. It hasn't been firmly decided yet,
I always feel a bit sorry for councillors on nights like tonight.
If you are an MP and get kicked out, then you must bear at least a little bit of responsibility for errors made by the party.
If you are a local councillor and make catastrophic mistakes like Slough or Woking, then you'll be rightly kicked out too. However, you can do a great job at local level and still be punished for mistakes of the national party.
In my patch, the Tories seemed to be doing a reasonable job but got kicked out due to the national party, including the council leader in his own ward who had been leading the council for 2 decades. Now Labour are in and seem to be doing fine, but will likely be kicked out in turn in a couple of years.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
I just watched the Novara John Harris-esque video from Runcorn.
Now obviously its Novara etc etc etc and vox pops type things also come with a big buyer beware, but I was struck but how much cut through the "Starmer doesn't know what a woman is". I was very much of the impressive it was limited to those who spend too much time online and all wrapped fighting either side of the trans issue from their smart phone on social media. But it came up repeatedly in the video from oldies pottering around the market when asked who are you going to vote for / why not Labour anymore.
I don't think Miliband, because they were apparently furious with Blair's remarks this morning. Reeves would be quite something, and might suggest they are looking for another "fiscal event" now the headroom has been squashed.
But most likely some junior posts.
Transport? Heidi Alexander is as dumb as a brick. Reeves was a bad choice in hindsight but can't see her being replaced. Labour could do with a "Clarke replacing Lamont" super sub but of fortune (as could the country).
Could do with Loiuse Haigh being rehabilitated. One of the best of a bad lot.
I haven't seen enough to be able to judge, except that she seems absent.
My prediction for the by-election, (copied from the VoteUK forum where there's a prediction competition).
Eng Dem 0.3% Liberal 0.4% Green 10.5% LD 6.4% Workers Party of Britain 0.9% OMRLP 0.4% Con 11.2% Volt 0.1% MCKIE (Independent) 0.8% English Constitution Party 0.1% SDP 0.3% RefUK 34.3% Lab 33.2% Rejoin EU 0.2% WILLIAMS (Independent) 0.9%
MORE news on Trump's decision on national security adviser Mike Waltz: --It was unclear this afternoon if Waltz's aide Alex Wong would remain at NSC. --This was a last-minute decision to nominate Waltz as UN ambassador. Trump made decision this morning. However, there had been previous discussions at the senior level about moving Waltz out of APNSA role. --Reasons for the change: an accumulation of factors - it was perceived that Waltz did not adequately vet NSC staff, the Signal situation, and lack of a good fit between Waltz and the senior team. --But several sources noted Waltz wasn't fired unceremoniously; he was *not* escorted out of the building. He was given a soft landing in a high-profile, high-level new post. Many Trump senior advisers like Waltz and think he's a good man. --It is unclear if Waltz's post will be cabinet level. (It is optional for UN job.) --To illustrate how fast this came about, White House officials had been talking to other possible UN candidates in recent days about their interest in the UN post. Rubio's spokeswoman had no idea Rubio would be acting APNSA. And Trump said today in Rose Garden noted there was "a problem" he had to solve: "When I have a problem I call up Marco, he gets it solved. He gets it solved.” --It's early to say who will replace Waltz. It hasn't been firmly decided yet,
I don't think Miliband, because they were apparently furious with Blair's remarks this morning. Reeves would be quite something, and might suggest they are looking for another "fiscal event" now the headroom has been squashed.
But most likely some junior posts.
Transport? Heidi Alexander is as dumb as a brick. Reeves was a bad choice in hindsight but can't see her being replaced. Labour could do with a "Clarke replacing Lamont" super sub but of fortune (as could the country).
Could do with Loiuse Haigh being rehabilitated. One of the best of a bad lot.
I haven't seen enough to be able to judge, except that she seems absent.
He only action when in office was to give the unionised workers a massive payrise while dropping any conditions for reform.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
Most crime is committed by a very small number of people.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
Indeed. Sued.
But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?
Is incitement to break the Equality Act an offence? I'm no fan of Stonewall, and they're entirely wrong on this one, but I'm not convinced that their statements are even approaching a crime.
Remember that voyeurism and indecent exposure are crimes. So is sexual harassment. Advising people to do something which risks them being prosecuted for criminal offences is not sensible. Remember also that since last October employers are under an obligation to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. They are also under a separate legal obligation to provide single sex loos for their employees, breach of which is a health & safety offence.
Advising companies and people to behave in a way which puts them at risk of various civil and, potentially, criminal offences is very stupid indeed.
Even more stupid is any company taking advice from Stonewall. They are not lawyers and have misrepresented - and are continuing to misrepresent - the law. Pretty scummy behaviour from an outfit which calls itself a charity.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
Most crime is committed by a very small number of people.
As I pointed out the other day, the sorts of crimes have changed over the year e.g joyriding isn't really a thing anymore. ram raiding does happen but isn't as common. But a big change, the detection rates are absolutely down the toilet. Very low single figures for lots of these what I call shitty crimes like shoplifting, phone snatching etc.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
Most crime is committed by a very small number of people.
And most people don’t steal because they know it’s wrong, not because the consequences of stealing are worse than the benefits of stealing.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
I think this is one for a quick scour of international comparators to see who dyes best (and I mean countries that don’t chop your hand off or give you 60 lashes for shoplifting).
Let me take a Quick Look at the internet abc report back.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
That's already the case. Honestly, I don't think much has changed around the enforcement and prosecution of shoplifting over the last 10 years - the police did very little about it when I was working in retail.
It's just become a bit of a meme, or the social contract has broken, or people are more desperate after cost of living.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
Indeed. Sued.
But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?
Is incitement to break the Equality Act an offence? I'm no fan of Stonewall, and they're entirely wrong on this one, but I'm not convinced that their statements are even approaching a crime.
Remember that voyeurism and indecent exposure are crimes. So is sexual harassment. Advising people to do something which risks them being prosecuted for criminal offences is not sensible. Remember also that since last October employers are under an obligation to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. They are also under a separate legal obligation to provide single sex loos for their employees, breach of which is a health & safety offence.
Advising companies and people to behave in a way which puts them at risk of various civil and, potentially, criminal offences is very stupid indeed.
Even more stupid is any company taking advice from Stonewall. They are not lawyers and have misrepresented - and are continuing to misrepresent - the law. Pretty scummy behaviour from an outfit which calls itself a charity.
It misrepresents the law to call asylum seekers “illegal immigrants”. But people do, all the time! There’s a lot of law that lots of people don’t understand.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
The vast majority won't either way, its the same people who do it again and again.
Prison works, if only because while people are incarcerated they're not committing crimes and getting one serial criminal off the streets prevents many, many crimes.
Well, I have voted. Don’t know why I bothered, as the only leaflet I had was from a Refucker who would make Trump look sane and Cummings look intelligent, but I did.
About the only thing of note was when I entered my routine protest against showing ID ‘because if the inadequacy of a certain Home Secretary’ the staff were clearly biting their lips not to agree with me.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
I think this is one for a quick scour of international comparators to see who dyes best (and I mean countries that don’t chop your hand off or give you 60 lashes for shoplifting).
Let me take a Quick Look at the internet abc report back.
This article suggests nobody. Or it only focuses on the problem countries (including Singapore! - it’s all relative).
This one has lots of useful stats. On a measure of customer theft as % of sales the best performer is…the USA. But they have way higher rates of employee theft.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
The vast majority won't either way, its the same people who do it again and again.
Prison works, if only because while people are incarcerated they're not committing crimes and getting one serial criminal off the streets prevents many, many crimes.
Having looked at the stats I now conclude that the only thing that works with petty crime is social shame and taboo. As with littering.
We achieved it with drink driving and seatbelts, we’ve achieved with smoking indoors, maybe we can have a go at least with the non organised crime bits of shoplifting. (Organised crime now accounts for quite a high percentage of shop theft).
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
The vast majority won't either way, its the same people who do it again and again.
Prison works, if only because while people are incarcerated they're not committing crimes and getting one serial criminal off the streets prevents many, many crimes.
Having looked at the stats I now conclude that the only thing that works with petty crime is social shame and taboo. As with littering.
We achieved it with drink driving and seatbelts, we’ve achieved with smoking indoors, maybe we can have a go at least with the non organised crime bits of shoplifting. (Organised crime now accounts for quite a high percentage of shop theft).
One aspect that has changed is how brazen it is. Shoplifting has always gone on, but even the organised version were how do we smuggle this stuff out without anybody knowing because security might stop us and then the police will get involved. Now the waters have broken and its just walk in, load up, walk out, nobody is going to stop us and if they do scream assault, racism, etc, and have a mate ready to kick the drop in if they try and close it.
Could do with Loiuse Haigh being rehabilitated. One of the best of a bad lot.
She at least seemed to be motivated to actually do things at Transport. Heidi Alexander is a waste of good oxygen. The kind of politician who takes a month to decide if she's going to make a decision about possibly scheduling a meeting with stakeholders to determine what future meetings should be held.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
I suggest you widen your horizons
The local Tesco Local franchisehas found their technique very effective. A distant cousin of the owner hangs around. And assaults shop lifters. But he isn’t a member of staff - apparently the bad seed of the family etc. the local Farcebook has a community thing, where activists for the “disadvantaged” are furious that the courts can do nothing.
Once again - the Social Contract works both ways. If Les Grande Fromages decide that small shop keepers aren’t protected, then the small shop keepers will not sit there, watching.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
Indeed. Sued.
But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?
Is incitement to break the Equality Act an offence? I'm no fan of Stonewall, and they're entirely wrong on this one, but I'm not convinced that their statements are even approaching a crime.
Remember that voyeurism and indecent exposure are crimes. So is sexual harassment. Advising people to do something which risks them being prosecuted for criminal offences is not sensible. Remember also that since last October employers are under an obligation to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. They are also under a separate legal obligation to provide single sex loos for their employees, breach of which is a health & safety offence.
Advising companies and people to behave in a way which puts them at risk of various civil and, potentially, criminal offences is very stupid indeed.
Even more stupid is any company taking advice from Stonewall. They are not lawyers and have misrepresented - and are continuing to misrepresent - the law. Pretty scummy behaviour from an outfit which calls itself a charity.
£400k a year donation to their Scottish shell company from the Scottish government for completely inaccurate and misleading advice. In less febrile times it would be a scandal.
I live in a very well to do part of the country and it is quite shocking that the Tesco Express in my nearest town now has the round the clock security and the check out is protected by floor to ceiling caging. I don't know if that is just a nationwide roll out by Tesco or that they genuinely think that things are so out of hand that they are in danger of getting stuck up like a cornershop in Baltimore aka The Wire.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
I suggest you widen your horizons
The local Tesco Local franchisehas found their technique very effective. A distant cousin of the owner hangs around. And assaults shop lifters. But he isn’t a member of staff - apparently the bad seed of the family etc. the local Farcebook has a community thing, where activists for the “disadvantaged” are furious that the courts can do nothing.
Once again - the Social Contract works both ways. If Les Grande Fromages decide that small shop keepers aren’t protected, then the small shop keepers will not sit there, watching.
They will, in almost all cases, because assault is a serious crime and there is a chance you get stabbed for your trouble anyway. For larger shops, you are told in no uncertain terms never to confront physically because it's much, much worse for the business if something like that happens compared with some theft.
Good. The last few springs have been horribly cold and wet and it has been disastrous for our insect populations. This April was the first time in maybe a decade when I have actualy had an issue with bug splatter on the windscreen - which I take as a good sign overall, if of course bad for the individual insects concerned.
Moth and butterfly numbers were absolutely terrible last year because of the cold, wet Spring so I for one would be very happy with a warmer than usual Spring.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
Is it that difficult? The consequences of stealing need to be worse than the benefits of stealing. If they aren't, people will steal. If they are, the vast majority won't.
The vast majority won't either way, its the same people who do it again and again.
Prison works, if only because while people are incarcerated they're not committing crimes and getting one serial criminal off the streets prevents many, many crimes.
Having looked at the stats I now conclude that the only thing that works with petty crime is social shame and taboo. As with littering.
We achieved it with drink driving and seatbelts, we’ve achieved with smoking indoors, maybe we can have a go at least with the non organised crime bits of shoplifting. (Organised crime now accounts for quite a high percentage of shop theft).
Your comment makes no sense to me, organised crime accounts for a high percentage so the only thing that works is something that doesn't target organised crime?
Getting the criminals nicked, prosecuted and imprisoned takes the criminals off the street and stops the crimes. The problem is that even if people are caught currently, it takes years to face prosecution (if they do) and then they'll get a suspended sentence, if anything.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
I suggest you widen your horizons
The local Tesco Local franchisehas found their technique very effective. A distant cousin of the owner hangs around. And assaults shop lifters. But he isn’t a member of staff - apparently the bad seed of the family etc. the local Farcebook has a community thing, where activists for the “disadvantaged” are furious that the courts can do nothing.
Once again - the Social Contract works both ways. If Les Grande Fromages decide that small shop keepers aren’t protected, then the small shop keepers will not sit there, watching.
They will, in almost all cases, because assault is a serious crime and there is a chance you get stabbed for your trouble anyway. For larger shops, you are told in no uncertain terms never to confront physically because it's much, much worse for the business if something like that happens compared with some theft.
The risk/reward just isn't there.
There was an interesting video of a Chinese photographer in Spain holding a thief in a chokehold until the police arrived. I’m not sure the police here would have been so relaxed about someone stepping in like that.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
I suggest you widen your horizons
The local Tesco Local franchisehas found their technique very effective. A distant cousin of the owner hangs around. And assaults shop lifters. But he isn’t a member of staff - apparently the bad seed of the family etc. the local Farcebook has a community thing, where activists for the “disadvantaged” are furious that the courts can do nothing.
Once again - the Social Contract works both ways. If Les Grande Fromages decide that small shop keepers aren’t protected, then the small shop keepers will not sit there, watching.
They will, in almost all cases, because assault is a serious crime and there is a chance you get stabbed for your trouble anyway. For larger shops, you are told in no uncertain terms never to confront physically because it's much, much worse for the business if something like that happens compared with some theft.
The risk/reward just isn't there.
In this case, the owner contracted out, to the Bad Guy in the family. Who genuinely doesn’t give a fuck. He *like* a ruck.
Some years ago, a friend went down in the world, and ended up living on one of those fun pieces of Brutalism we’re supposed to admire.
The local corner shop was being raided by the junkies, until the owner joined a local social club. Apparently some of the junkies took a visit to A&E to understand things had changed.
The plover, who had done nothing, wanted him to give evidence. Against the “social club” owner!
Good. The last few springs have been horribly cold and wet and it has been disastrous for our insect populations. This April was the first time in maybe a decade when I have actualy had an issue with bug splatter on the windscreen - which I take as a good sign overall, if of course bad for the individual insects concerned.
Moth and butterfly numbers were absolutely terrible last year because of the cold, wet Spring so I for one would be very happy with a warmer than usual Spring.
I live in a very well to do part of the country and it is quite shocking that the Tesco Express in my nearest town now has the round the clock security and the check out is protected by floor to ceiling caging. I don't know if that is just a nationwide roll out by Tesco or that they genuinely think that things are so out of hand that they are in danger of getting stuck up like a cornershop in Baltimore aka The Wire.
It has yet to happen in Cannock despite the Tesco express in question being next to a very rough council estate.
Good. The last few springs have been horribly cold and wet and it has been disastrous for our insect populations. This April was the first time in maybe a decade when I have actualy had an issue with bug splatter on the windscreen - which I take as a good sign overall, if of course bad for the individual insects concerned.
Moth and butterfly numbers were absolutely terrible last year because of the cold, wet Spring so I for one would be very happy with a warmer than usual Spring.
I’ve noticed loads of bees in the garden, which must be good.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.
I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue. This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.
Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route. https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.
What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.
I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”
Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
Indeed. Sued.
But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?
Is incitement to break the Equality Act an offence? I'm no fan of Stonewall, and they're entirely wrong on this one, but I'm not convinced that their statements are even approaching a crime.
Remember that voyeurism and indecent exposure are crimes. So is sexual harassment. Advising people to do something which risks them being prosecuted for criminal offences is not sensible. Remember also that since last October employers are under an obligation to take steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. They are also under a separate legal obligation to provide single sex loos for their employees, breach of which is a health & safety offence.
Advising companies and people to behave in a way which puts them at risk of various civil and, potentially, criminal offences is very stupid indeed.
Even more stupid is any company taking advice from Stonewall. They are not lawyers and have misrepresented - and are continuing to misrepresent - the law. Pretty scummy behaviour from an outfit which calls itself a charity.
It misrepresents the law to call asylum seekers “illegal immigrants”. But people do, all the time! There’s a lot of law that lots of people don’t understand.
Good. The last few springs have been horribly cold and wet and it has been disastrous for our insect populations. This April was the first time in maybe a decade when I have actualy had an issue with bug splatter on the windscreen - which I take as a good sign overall, if of course bad for the individual insects concerned.
I did notice today, going for a long ride in the countryside, that my scooter's windscreen was absolutely covered in bug guts. Haven't seen that for the last couple of years.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
I suggest you widen your horizons
The local Tesco Local franchisehas found their technique very effective. A distant cousin of the owner hangs around. And assaults shop lifters. But he isn’t a member of staff - apparently the bad seed of the family etc. the local Farcebook has a community thing, where activists for the “disadvantaged” are furious that the courts can do nothing.
Once again - the Social Contract works both ways. If Les Grande Fromages decide that small shop keepers aren’t protected, then the small shop keepers will not sit there, watching.
They will, in almost all cases, because assault is a serious crime and there is a chance you get stabbed for your trouble anyway. For larger shops, you are told in no uncertain terms never to confront physically because it's much, much worse for the business if something like that happens compared with some theft.
The risk/reward just isn't there.
In this case, the owner contracted out, to the Bad Guy in the family. Who genuinely doesn’t give a fuck. He *like* a ruck.
Some years ago, a friend went down in the world, and ended up living on one of those fun pieces of Brutalism we’re supposed to admire.
The local corner shop was being raided by the junkies, until the owner joined a local social club. Apparently some of the junkies took a visit to A&E to understand things had changed.
The plover, who had done nothing, wanted him to give evidence. Against the “social club” owner!
I think I have told this story before.
I once lived in a pretty rough town on a very rough street, but outside of when somebodies sister was shagged by another families brother, they kept their dodgy activities off their own actual street.
Round the corner was a parade of shops but they were assumed safe from trouble as the dodgy families didn't shit on their own doorstep. Well a gang decided to try and come onto the estate and do over the Chinese takeaway....apparently they who came in slipped, fell over the 5ft high counter, stumbled through the kitchen to the back and tripped such their arms first into the deep fat fryer. Terrible unfortunate accident backed up by the dodgy f##ckers off the estate who were waiting for their number 59 with extra chilly sauce.
Good. The last few springs have been horribly cold and wet and it has been disastrous for our insect populations. This April was the first time in maybe a decade when I have actualy had an issue with bug splatter on the windscreen - which I take as a good sign overall, if of course bad for the individual insects concerned.
I did notice today, going for a long ride in the countryside, that my scooter's windscreen was absolutely covered in bug guts. Haven't seen that for the last couple of years.
Worth putting this in context. Insect numbers are down 78% since 2004, so we would need an absolutely enormous increase to get back up to the levels we had a mere 20 years ago.
You may not like her, but the World would be a far safer place if she'd got a couple more percentage points last November.
She’s fucking useless. She failed in the primaries. She failed in the presidential election. She’s not the solution. The democrats need to move away from the old guard.
The same page on Electoral Calculus also has Oxfordshire's current state as "LIB/LAB/Green control" when it's actually LD/Green minority, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
The Good Trump and Mark Williams are producing some lovely snooker tonight.
I hear there is another Trump in the UK, I hear he is very popular, nearly as popular as me, I hear very good things about him, everybody says he is going to win bigly...
The same page on Electoral Calculus also has Oxfordshire's current state as "LIB/LAB/Green control" when it's actually LD/Green minority, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.
"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)
It's a complete collapse of the rule of law. Only Reeves knows how we are going to get inflation down when shops' overheads are increasing like this. We are all paying for this failure every time we go shopping.
FWIW, theft isn't a huge cost to most retailers. Certainly adds some costs (particularly tagging and untagging high value items and security salaries), but ultimately the turnover is so massive, and the margin so small, that it doesn't do too much damage. It might add just 2-5% to your annual shopping bill, even now.
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
That isn't what's happening now, organised gangs are raiding supermarkets and selling the products into the supply chain of unknowing restaurants via intermediaries. It's become a billion pound industry and the police are useless. Locking up and deporting the Albanian gangs behind it would make a dent but the police are too busy policing mean comments on the internet and complaining to IPSO about journalists saying mean things about them.
Comments
McDonald’s has reported the biggest quarterly drop in US sales since the pandemic as President Trump’s trade war dampens consumer confidence
https://x.com/thetimes/status/1918033187768344663
I loved it, but it’s not the easiest of reads.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/drop-8-million-dimes-crews-194602486.html
Shall we see how good Whole Foods numbers are?
It's difficult to find a solution. I used to deal with professional thieves with a list of high value stuff. My local food shop gets swept by 16-year olds looking for a buzz. A lot of stolen bikes just get dumped in a hedge.
I've not read The City and the City.
I would *highly* recommend Perdido Street Station, if you've not read it. One of my all time favourite books.
Architect drawings, planning permission and 6 months wait for fabrication later and I can sit in various rooms and open the sash to let the nice air in.
Phase 2 will be next spring, with a final phase the year after to mop up the various spare room / store room windows to complete the project.
Bloody listed buildings...
https://www.lightningmaps.org/;#google_vignette;y=50.7365;x=0.8734;z=7;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;t=3;ts24=0;
Just brilliant.
MORE news on Trump's decision on national security adviser Mike Waltz:
--It was unclear this afternoon if Waltz's aide Alex Wong would remain at NSC.
--This was a last-minute decision to nominate Waltz as UN ambassador. Trump made decision this morning. However, there had been previous discussions at the senior level about moving Waltz out of APNSA role.
--Reasons for the change: an accumulation of factors - it was perceived that Waltz did not adequately vet NSC staff, the Signal situation, and lack of a good fit between Waltz and the senior team.
--But several sources noted Waltz wasn't fired unceremoniously; he was *not* escorted out of the building. He was given a soft landing in a high-profile, high-level new post. Many Trump senior advisers like Waltz and think he's a good man.
--It is unclear if Waltz's post will be cabinet level. (It is optional for UN job.)
--To illustrate how fast this came about, White House officials had been talking to other possible UN candidates in recent days about their interest in the UN post. Rubio's spokeswoman had no idea Rubio would be acting APNSA. And Trump said today in Rose Garden noted there was "a problem" he had to solve: "When I have a problem I call up Marco, he gets it solved. He gets it solved.”
--It's early to say who will replace Waltz. It hasn't been firmly decided yet,
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1918038295033905522
I'm excited.
Turnout is around 50%, of which here 20% is postal vote & 30% in person.
And met one of the candidates.
If you are an MP and get kicked out, then you must bear at least a little bit of responsibility for errors made by the party.
If you are a local councillor and make catastrophic mistakes like Slough or Woking, then you'll be rightly kicked out too. However, you can do a great job at local level and still be punished for mistakes of the national party.
In my patch, the Tories seemed to be doing a reasonable job but got kicked out due to the national party, including the council leader in his own ward who had been leading the council for 2 decades. Now Labour are in and seem to be doing fine, but will likely be kicked out in turn in a couple of years.
Now obviously its Novara etc etc etc and vox pops type things also come with a big buyer beware, but I was struck but how much cut through the "Starmer doesn't know what a woman is". I was very much of the impressive it was limited to those who spend too much time online and all wrapped fighting either side of the trans issue from their smart phone on social media. But it came up repeatedly in the video from oldies pottering around the market when asked who are you going to vote for / why not Labour anymore.
Eng Dem 0.3%
Liberal 0.4%
Green 10.5%
LD 6.4%
Workers Party of Britain 0.9%
OMRLP 0.4%
Con 11.2%
Volt 0.1%
MCKIE (Independent) 0.8%
English Constitution Party 0.1%
SDP 0.3%
RefUK 34.3%
Lab 33.2%
Rejoin EU 0.2%
WILLIAMS (Independent) 0.9%
Turnout 37.5%
Advising companies and people to behave in a way which puts them at risk of various civil and, potentially, criminal offences is very stupid indeed.
Even more stupid is any company taking advice from Stonewall. They are not lawyers and have misrepresented - and are continuing to misrepresent - the law. Pretty scummy behaviour from an outfit which calls itself a charity.
Let me take a Quick Look at the internet abc report back.
It's just become a bit of a meme, or the social contract has broken, or people are more desperate after cost of living.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgqvd12gj28o
Democrats need to move on.
https://youtu.be/Zw7AeBdulw4?si=hrnNBKoNBBYejBpe
I have five minutes ago bet £20 on Reform winning Runcorn at 2/7 with Ladbrokes.
The council bets had gone off the machines and they wouldn't take the bets over the counter, so that failed: no council bets were made.
Prison works, if only because while people are incarcerated they're not committing crimes and getting one serial criminal off the streets prevents many, many crimes.
About the only thing of note was when I entered my routine protest against showing ID ‘because if the inadequacy of a certain Home Secretary’ the staff were clearly biting their lips not to agree with me.
https://amp.scmp.com/lifestyle/fashion-beauty/article/3223072/how-rampant-shoplifting-seeing-walmart-target-and-macys-close-stores-and-why-theft-has-become-latest
This one has lots of useful stats. On a measure of customer theft as % of sales the
best performer is…the USA. But they have way higher rates of employee theft.
https://www.retailresearch.org/crime-comparisons.html
Overall? Implies we’re all in the same boat, with the main exception being Japan which presumably is a cultural feature.
I hear that if there’s a contraction in the next quarter that will also be Biden’s fault.
We achieved it with drink driving and seatbelts, we’ve achieved with smoking indoors, maybe we can have a go at least with the non organised crime bits of shoplifting. (Organised crime now accounts for quite a high percentage of shop theft).
Watch the expression on the interviewer’s face when Trump doesn’t know what the declaration of independence is.
https://x.com/58bugeye/status/1917946959962509436
The local Tesco Local franchisehas found their technique very effective. A distant cousin of the owner hangs around. And assaults shop lifters. But he isn’t a member of staff - apparently the bad seed of the family etc. the local Farcebook has a community thing, where activists for the “disadvantaged” are furious that the courts can do nothing.
Once again - the Social Contract works both ways. If Les Grande Fromages decide that small shop keepers aren’t protected, then the small shop keepers will not sit there, watching.
The risk/reward just isn't there.
Moth and butterfly numbers were absolutely terrible last year because of the cold, wet Spring so I for one would be very happy with a warmer than usual Spring.
Getting the criminals nicked, prosecuted and imprisoned takes the criminals off the street and stops the crimes. The problem is that even if people are caught currently, it takes years to face prosecution (if they do) and then they'll get a suspended sentence, if anything.
Trump says it's about Unity
He's a fucking idiot
https://x.com/dudespostingws/status/1917710569655746872
How’s that koolaid tonight ?
Some years ago, a friend went down in the world, and ended up living on one of those fun pieces of Brutalism we’re supposed to admire.
The local corner shop was being raided by the junkies, until the owner joined a local social club. Apparently some of the junkies took a visit to A&E to understand things had changed.
The plover, who had done nothing, wanted him to give evidence. Against the “social club” owner!
Electoral Calculus has the Conservatives still holding overall control of Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire and Wiltshire
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_lepoll_20250314.html
I once lived in a pretty rough town on a very rough street, but outside of when somebodies sister was shagged by another families brother, they kept their dodgy activities off their own actual street.
Round the corner was a parade of shops but they were assumed safe from trouble as the dodgy families didn't shit on their own doorstep. Well a gang decided to try and come onto the estate and do over the Chinese takeaway....apparently they who came in slipped, fell over the 5ft high counter, stumbled through the kitchen to the back and tripped such their arms first into the deep fat fryer. Terrible unfortunate accident backed up by the dodgy f##ckers off the estate who were waiting for their number 59 with extra chilly sauce.
Father-in-law (94) rang up at 8:30pm wanting a lift to the polling station despite stating earlier he "couldn't be bothered".
Has watched quite a lot of GB News in his time so I assumed he was Reform adjacent since he isn't exactly PC either.
Said 'Farage is too close to Trump' whilst on the way.
Chalk one up for the incumbent red team, I think, although I can't be sure.
I wonder if there will be a lot of this, despite the polling?
It’s the in ring name of the human suplex machine, Taz. A fine wrestler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taz_(wrestler)
As for me admiring Trump, someone I’ve never praised and this his economic policies are ruinous. you really are a spacker for even suggesting it.
There has been a high tide. Many are confused. I am zoinked