With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
Under any circumstances?
Suppose the next election resolved into a Farage-Starmer showdown.
Or, more fancifully, BNP-Starmer? There's always a point where a voter has to find a clothes peg for their nose.
And yes, if Romford is a Ref-Con fight next time, the appalling Andrew Rosindell has my vote. Even though Buster the bull terrier was always the brains of the operation, and he's dead now.
I think my constituency will be a Ref/Con fight, but I will vote LibDem, as we may sneak through the middle, particularly if the Labour vote comes over.
There's no point in voting Con to keep out Ref, as Jenrick is as bad as any Ref MP, and he will be leader by then.
Depends who the MP is, Alex Burghart is my MP and a former adviser to Theresa May.
He was first and Reform second and Labour third last time
Modi - India and UK have agreed an ambitious trade deal
SPOILER: Starmer has ambitiously offered India the Lake District in return for a good pakora recipe, and he’s ambitiously hoping to give India £400bn if they agree to take possession of the Royal Navy
Starmer wasn't able to get them to take on Camden though, as they said they weren't interested no matter how much we gave them to take it.
Modi - India and UK have agreed an ambitious trade deal
SPOILER: Starmer has ambitiously offered India the Lake District in return for a good pakora recipe, and he’s ambitiously hoping to give India £400bn if they agree to take possession of the Royal Navy
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
I would. As I said before the last election if we had still been in Dundee West instead of Angus I would have voted Labour in the hope of keeping the SNP out. I feel pretty similar about Reform. Had I been in Runcorn I would have voted Labour.
As I have lamented a few times recently positive reasons to vote for anyone are thin to non existent. It is a matter of voting against the worst rather than for anything good.
Actually we are in a similar position living under devolved governments and I can understand the need to keep SNP away from government and voting Labour makes sense
Here in Wales I want Welsh Labour out of Office and will not vote Labour
So you suggest voting for a useless London based party who shat all over Scotland for 50 years just for spite to stop a Scottish party , bad as they are , running Scotland. That is pathetic pathetic and would count as bigoted bullshit.
So the government response to the UK film industry getting hammered with tariffs is they’re disappointed!
It’s beyond embarrassing now .
Given the UK and US are currently engaged in detailed trade negotiations it's probably not the best time to go in guns blazing, however tempting. I suspect the foreign film tariff will largely be a damp squib in any case, especially as Hollywood doesn't actually want it.
Indeed.
Plus for someone who is supposedly teetotal, Trump behaves very much like a manic depressive alcoholic and confused old man.
Going from zero to 100 on random topics then getting distracted and moving on to something else and rinse and repeat.
Half the crazed shit he spouts never even ends up happening, so a patient "OK dear" response to the old fool can be more helpful than getting worked up yourself and aggravating the situation.
The rambling Alcatraz stuff was quite sad really. Trump is far more obviously losing his marbles than Biden ever was.
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
I would. As I said before the last election if we had still been in Dundee West instead of Angus I would have voted Labour in the hope of keeping the SNP out. I feel pretty similar about Reform. Had I been in Runcorn I would have voted Labour.
As I have lamented a few times recently positive reasons to vote for anyone are thin to non existent. It is a matter of voting against the worst rather than for anything good.
Actually we are in a similar position living under devolved governments and I can understand the need to keep SNP away from government and voting Labour makes sense
Here in Wales I want Welsh Labour out of Office and will not vote Labour
So you suggest voting for a useless London based party who shat all over Scotland for 50 years just for spite to stop a Scottish party , bad as they are , running Scotland. That is pathetic pathetic and would count as bigoted bullshit.
As you know I and my Scots wife are Unionist so voting to prevent the Nationalists is pure common sense
I welcome trade deals but I am sure the usual people will say they don't like this one because it was done by Labour. Despite apparently being "pro trade", just not when Labour are in government.
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
As someone else might have mentioned earlier, if it's obvious he's going to win on the second vote, there must be a temptation for the likes of the AfD to also vote for him in order to say "You only won because of us" even if it isn't technically true.
That makes zero sense to me. How would they then attack a government that they claimed had only got into power with AfD votes? It would be a very poor start to being the Opposition.
Also, I don't know how anyone can be 100% sure Merz will get the votes.
If he doesn't on the second vote, again because of rebel SPD members breaching the terms of the deal agreed with the Union, then there is nothing at all to stop Merz doing a deal with the AfD before the third vote which is the only viable coalition with a majority in the Bundestag other than Union-SPD.
I welcome trade deals but I am sure the usual people will say they don't like this one because it was done by Labour. Despite apparently being "pro trade", just not when Labour are in government.
It is a deal that has been negotiated over 3 years so frankly good on both conservative and labour in getting it over the line
However, Sky indicate it could be worth 4 billion in 10 years time so not an immediate boost
I welcome trade deals but I am sure the usual people will say they don't like this one because it was done by Labour. Despite apparently being "pro trade", just not when Labour are in government.
You always seem more interested in what other people are saying, before they even said it, when they may not even say it, and you've just invented it, than saying your own opinion.
I for one welcome a new trade deal with India. Chalk this up to yet another Brexit benefit from having our own trade policy.
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
That's what I would expect to happen. 2nd round now expected at 3.15pm CET.
Of course the AfD aren't going to "lend" any votes to Merz or be suspected of doing so. Nor is the CDU going to have anything to do with the AfD. Some posters on here live in a fantasy world!
Yes, it's total fantasy that Merz would ever do a deal with the AfD.
If he continues to face problems with SPD rebels, then he'll bring the Greens into a 'Kenya Coalition' (CDU + SPD + Greens).
Not much use unless the Greens vote for him for chancellor, which they clearly haven't so far anymore than the SPD rebels have
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
Under any circumstances?
Suppose the next election resolved into a Farage-Starmer showdown.
Or, more fancifully, BNP-Starmer? There's always a point where a voter has to find a clothes peg for their nose.
And yes, if Romford is a Ref-Con fight next time, the appalling Andrew Rosindell has my vote. Even though Buster the bull terrier was always the brains of the operation, and he's dead now.
I think my constituency will be a Ref/Con fight, but I will vote LibDem, as we may sneak through the middle, particularly if the Labour vote comes over.
There's no point in voting Con to keep out Ref, as Jenrick is as bad as any Ref MP, and he will be leader by then.
But that’s my point you don’t want reform to win, Tories are unlikely to so which one of Labour / Lib Dem is the anti Reform vote most likely to win
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
The reality for Sir Keir is that he is in government and has the ability to do things.
It’s very obvious what he needs to do in order to win back support, that is reducing immigration as the number one priority and stopping the boats.
He has the ability to do that. Whether he does is another question. But the voters have told him.
I do not think like some others that the election is over. I still think Labour are favourites to win but I am happy to re-assess again in three years time when I will be happy to call a loss for them if it’s coming. But many here have never supported them since the day they were elected.
I haven’t called Reform voters thick or racist, I have addressed the issues they’ve raised and explain what to do about them in my view.
But what I will not support is a party that refuses to build. Labour is the only party that has identified this as a problem so they retain my vote on that basis. Reform want to stop pylons and renewable energy being built. Why?
Genuine question - who believes that the election (in 2029?) is over? I think we are in a superbly interesting time in politics where everything is up in the air. I don't believe that Labour have won or lost the next election. In the immortal words - its too early to tell.
“There a straw-man posting 3 of 5, he’s very passive-aggressive, but he wants to come across as nice…”
The reality for Sir Keir is that he is in government and has the ability to do things.
It’s very obvious what he needs to do in order to win back support, that is reducing immigration as the number one priority and stopping the boats.
He has the ability to do that. Whether he does is another question. But the voters have told him.
I do not think like some others that the election is over. I still think Labour are favourites to win but I am happy to re-assess again in three years time when I will be happy to call a loss for them if it’s coming. But many here have never supported them since the day they were elected.
I haven’t called Reform voters thick or racist, I have addressed the issues they’ve raised and explain what to do about them in my view.
But what I will not support is a party that refuses to build. Labour is the only party that has identified this as a problem so they retain my vote on that basis. Reform want to stop pylons and renewable energy being built. It's a very simple question for the Reform supporters, why do you oppose things being built when they provide jobs?
I can totally sympathise with the argument for slowing net zero work but if a company wants to build infrastructure on your patch, why on Earth would you oppose it, whatever it is? That Tweet from Tice really was dense. I thought until then they'd actually changed but they really have not.
Reform want to stop solar farms as they see agriculture land for food, and the pylons are disliked virtually by everyone who is effected not least dur to the reduction in their house price
I am not sure if the Lib Dems will join the objections but I wouldn't be surprised
NIMBYISM has just received rocket boosters
There was some polling out earlier which showed that new Reform voters are 50:50 on Net Zero. I was really surprised by that; the danger of getting too much info off PB.
I think the no solar farms on prime arable land is a defendable position from a food security perspective. But their boomerslop approach to opposing all renewables and infrastructure is possibly an example of them believing their own rhetoric rather than the views of their voter base.
To be honest solar panels should be on homes and commercial buildings not farm land
Depends if you want to impose your that on farmers/land owners. If you think food security is more important, we should provide subsidies to incentivise food production.
That argument doesn't hold for pastoral farming.
One of the issues is that we seem to want to regard all agricultural land as national parks. They are now. They are working premises producing food, or possibly wool or wood or some other product. If its economic to produce electrons* then so be it. We have no right to a nice view. And secondly I am certain that you can also use the land beneath the solar units for stuff such as sheep grazing or rearing free range chicken. You might lose some solar radiation but there will be enough for grass to grow to some extent. After all the sun tends to move around during the day.
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
As someone else might have mentioned earlier, if it's obvious he's going to win on the second vote, there must be a temptation for the likes of the AfD to also vote for him in order to say "You only won because of us" even if it isn't technically true.
That makes zero sense to me. How would they then attack a government that they claimed had only got into power with AfD votes? It would be a very poor start to being the Opposition.
Also, I don't know how anyone can be 100% sure Merz will get the votes.
If he doesn't on the second vote, again because of rebel SPD members breaching the terms of the deal agreed with the Union, then there is nothing at all to stop Merz doing a deal with the AfD before the third vote which is the only viable coalition with a majority in the Bundestag other than Union-SPD.
About as likely as Trump being voted next pope.
Anyway Merz and a handful of (soon ex-) CDU MPs plus the AfD would be far short of a majority, even if you think Merz secretly wants a coalition with the AfD.
The government has just given Indian outsources a discount on national insurance for workers imported here on visas - that isn’t going to play well
It'll be interesting to see if Nigel tries to exploit that. Will we reach the fascinating situation where things have gone full circle and Nigel is Mr anti-Brexit?
Basically, everyone now wants to live in Singapore or Dubai. They’re done with democracy and liberalism. It’s not delivering. They want autocracy, clean streets and zero crime
Low level crime is a really big one IMO, especially in big cities across the UK. There just doesn't seem to be any push back from the police against phone thieves, bike thieves, fare jumpers, shop looters etc... It makes people feel as if we live in a lawless society and all of the statistics in the world that suggest it's the same as somewhere else in Europe doesn't make a difference. Millions of people have experienced this kind of crime first hand and tens of millions have either witnessed or had family/friends who have low level crime committed against them and everyone is fed up.
Social media is the main reason for this perception. Tiktok is full of it, even if the crime survey shows people don't actually experience much crime at all. Theft from the person is increasing, but it's still a very low rate. Fraud is much bigger problem.
Part of me thinks the answer is the police using social media much better. Their videos of them smashing moped thieves into walls gets millions of views and likes.
No, it's the police response that really annoys everyone. My wife's best friend had her phone stolen, she was able to track it to a property where clearly phones were being fenced but the police did precisely zero to recover it and told her they couldn't get it back, just gave her a crime number to make an insurance claim. It's an extremely common story too. That's what drives people towards more authoritarian outlooks IMO.
I guess then the difference is that we now have the tech to resolve these crimes but the police don't have the resources to do anything about it. Theft overall is down about 75% since the 90s, and theft from the person is roughly the same number of incidents since the 90s (with a recent uptick). Significantly lower than in 2009, for example.
Of course if not recorded then it does not happen , statistics , statistics and damn lies. Everybody but the police know that it si bollox and we have way more crime and especially at what si termed low level.
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
That's what I would expect to happen. 2nd round now expected at 3.15pm CET.
Of course the AfD aren't going to "lend" any votes to Merz or be suspected of doing so. Nor is the CDU going to have anything to do with the AfD. Some posters on here live in a fantasy world!
Yes, it's total fantasy that Merz would ever do a deal with the AfD.
If he continues to face problems with SPD rebels, then he'll bring the Greens into a 'Kenya Coalition' (CDU + SPD + Greens).
Not much use unless the Greens vote for him for chancellor, which they clearly haven't so far anymore than the SPD rebels have
The Greens haven't voted for him, because he hasn't offered them anything.
If he offers them something then they'll vote him. It'll be a challenge, but the Greens could be brought on board to keep out the AfD.
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
Good day.
I thought people like you were happy clappy over mass inward, uncontrolled, migration so would be part of a group that would want him.
Basically, everyone now wants to live in Singapore or Dubai. They’re done with democracy and liberalism. It’s not delivering. They want autocracy, clean streets and zero crime
Low level crime is a really big one IMO, especially in big cities across the UK. There just doesn't seem to be any push back from the police against phone thieves, bike thieves, fare jumpers, shop looters etc... It makes people feel as if we live in a lawless society and all of the statistics in the world that suggest it's the same as somewhere else in Europe doesn't make a difference. Millions of people have experienced this kind of crime first hand and tens of millions have either witnessed or had family/friends who have low level crime committed against them and everyone is fed up.
Social media is the main reason for this perception. Tiktok is full of it, even if the crime survey shows people don't actually experience much crime at all. Theft from the person is increasing, but it's still a very low rate. Fraud is much bigger problem.
Part of me thinks the answer is the police using social media much better. Their videos of them smashing moped thieves into walls gets millions of views and likes.
No, it's the police response that really annoys everyone. My wife's best friend had her phone stolen, she was able to track it to a property where clearly phones were being fenced but the police did precisely zero to recover it and told her they couldn't get it back, just gave her a crime number to make an insurance claim. It's an extremely common story too. That's what drives people towards more authoritarian outlooks IMO.
I guess then the difference is that we now have the tech to resolve these crimes but the police don't have the resources to do anything about it. Theft overall is down about 75% since the 90s, and theft from the person is roughly the same number of incidents since the 90s (with a recent uptick). Significantly lower than in 2009, for example.
Of course if not recorded then it does not happen , statistics , statistics and damn lies. Everybody but the police know that it si bollox and we have way more crime and especially at what si termed low level.
It's a crime survey Malcolm. They go out and ask members of the public what they've experienced over the past year.
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
Good day.
Today's More in Common poll has a Boris led Conservatives on 26% to 21% under Badenoch. Reform are on 23% against Boris v 29% against Badenoch. Labour are on 22% against Boris or Kemi, the LDs on 16% against Boris and 15% against Kemi.
@Leon is as usual right and wrong. He's right that we have an epidemic of petty crime and lawlessness. And he's wrong that this is new. Quoting a year on year increase on shoplifting ignores the history before the year its being compared to. It always rises and falls in line with how fucked the economy is and right now it's pretty fucked so up goes shoplifting.
The long term solution is to crack down on petty crime - we need more cops and faster courts action to prevent the opportunist crimes plaguing certain areas. But as we can't magic these out of thin air it will take time.
What Starmer needs to show is that he gets it. Some people have been made incensed by "jailed for a tweet" nonsense which has been weaponised to manipulate low-information people. They're angry about the real crime and disorder not being tackled and think the system is hypocritical.
So instruct PCCs to redirect the resources they have. Petty crime as top priority. Visible policing, even if that means stealing resources from other teams / departments. Whilst going on a big recruitment drive to hire replacements for all the coppers removed by Tory cuts.
What makes me giggle is the crayon politics Leon et al throw about. Slogans are easy. Practical implementable policies are hard. As we're about to witness from gobshite Reform councillors enraged that they can't just walk in off the streets and change the budget deficits and legal responsibilities which have crippled local government.
It's whackamole though. The reason you don't see the cops is because they are much better targeted to the rough areas of city. The dissonance between the stats and public perception is due to this, along with social media - crime has dropped precipitously in poorer areas.
Utter bollox, they are too busy chasing twitter complaints or some other useless rubbish.
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
That's what I would expect to happen. 2nd round now expected at 3.15pm CET.
Of course the AfD aren't going to "lend" any votes to Merz or be suspected of doing so. Nor is the CDU going to have anything to do with the AfD. Some posters on here live in a fantasy world!
Yes, it's total fantasy that Merz would ever do a deal with the AfD.
If he continues to face problems with SPD rebels, then he'll bring the Greens into a 'Kenya Coalition' (CDU + SPD + Greens).
Not much use unless the Greens vote for him for chancellor, which they clearly haven't so far anymore than the SPD rebels have
The Greens haven't voted for him, because he hasn't offered them anything.
If he offers them something then they'll vote him. It'll be a challenge, but the Greens could be brought on board to keep out the AfD.
And if he isn't willing to concede all the Greens demand and they again reject him on the second vote then anything is on the table ahead of a third vote
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
As someone else might have mentioned earlier, if it's obvious he's going to win on the second vote, there must be a temptation for the likes of the AfD to also vote for him in order to say "You only won because of us" even if it isn't technically true.
That makes zero sense to me. How would they then attack a government that they claimed had only got into power with AfD votes? It would be a very poor start to being the Opposition.
Also, I don't know how anyone can be 100% sure Merz will get the votes.
If he doesn't on the second vote, again because of rebel SPD members breaching the terms of the deal agreed with the Union, then there is nothing at all to stop Merz doing a deal with the AfD before the third vote which is the only viable coalition with a majority in the Bundestag other than Union-SPD.
About as likely as Trump being voted next pope.
Anyway Merz and a handful of (soon ex-) CDU MPs plus the AfD would be far short of a majority, even if you think Merz secretly wants a coalition with the AfD.
Union plus AfD would have 360 seats, well past the 316 needed for a majority
I welcome trade deals but I am sure the usual people will say they don't like this one because it was done by Labour. Despite apparently being "pro trade", just not when Labour are in government.
It is a deal that has been negotiated over 3 years so frankly good on both conservative and labour in getting it over the line
However, Sky indicate it could be worth 4 billion in 10 years time so not an immediate boost
The usual people were saying certain things in 2021 don’t you know. Of course they won’t say them now because they’re too scared to admit it
The reality for Sir Keir is that he is in government and has the ability to do things.
It’s very obvious what he needs to do in order to win back support, that is reducing immigration as the number one priority and stopping the boats.
He has the ability to do that. Whether he does is another question. But the voters have told him.
I do not think like some others that the election is over. I still think Labour are favourites to win but I am happy to re-assess again in three years time when I will be happy to call a loss for them if it’s coming. But many here have never supported them since the day they were elected.
I haven’t called Reform voters thick or racist, I have addressed the issues they’ve raised and explain what to do about them in my view.
But what I will not support is a party that refuses to build. Labour is the only party that has identified this as a problem so they retain my vote on that basis. Reform want to stop pylons and renewable energy being built. It's a very simple question for the Reform supporters, why do you oppose things being built when they provide jobs?
I can totally sympathise with the argument for slowing net zero work but if a company wants to build infrastructure on your patch, why on Earth would you oppose it, whatever it is? That Tweet from Tice really was dense. I thought until then they'd actually changed but they really have not.
Reform want to stop solar farms as they see agriculture land for food, and the pylons are disliked virtually by everyone who is effected not least dur to the reduction in their house price
I am not sure if the Lib Dems will join the objections but I wouldn't be surprised
NIMBYISM has just received rocket boosters
There was some polling out earlier which showed that new Reform voters are 50:50 on Net Zero. I was really surprised by that; the danger of getting too much info off PB.
I think the no solar farms on prime arable land is a defendable position from a food security perspective. But their boomerslop approach to opposing all renewables and infrastructure is possibly an example of them believing their own rhetoric rather than the views of their voter base.
To be honest solar panels should be on homes and commercial buildings not farm land
Depends if you want to impose your that on farmers/land owners. If you think food security is more important, we should provide subsidies to incentivise food production.
That argument doesn't hold for pastoral farming.
One of the issues is that we seem to want to regard all agricultural land as national parks. They are now. They are working premises producing food, or possibly wool or wood or some other product. If its economic to produce electrons* then so be it. We have no right to a nice view. And secondly I am certain that you can also use the land beneath the solar units for stuff such as sheep grazing or rearing free range chicken. You might lose some solar radiation but there will be enough for grass to grow to some extent. After all the sun tends to move around during the day.
*Ok not scientifically correct...
Shit - now should be not!! Ran out of time to correct. (Work getting in the way of PB...)
Just had a look at the route @BlancheLivermore is taking. Seems to be the Voie de la Nive to Saint-Jean. Then Chemin du Piémont Pyrénéen to Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges where it splits to the Via Garona where he is now. So far 200 miles and 25K ft of elevation.
He'll be glad to get back to his day job and taking it a bit easier. More pics please @Blanche
I thought he was a she
The gender of the name does not necessarily match the sex of the poster or picture. @Anabobazina is a man poster, despite the name ending in "-a". There are rumours that @LadyG was a man, but I can't speak to that. We do have female posters, but they are few and some have left.
‘ For Florence Achery, owner of Yoga Retreats & More, the environmental impact is one reason why she vows to stay away from AI.’
🙄
If you are an environmentalist, staying away from AI is quite sensible. They use vast amounts of electricity. And very often they are not using green electricity, but hurriedly installed gas turbine generators or diesel.
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
Good day.
Today's More in Common poll has a Boris led Conservatives on 26% to 21% under Badenoch. Reform are on 23% against Boris v 29% against Badenoch. Labour are on 22% against Boris or Kemi, the LDs on 16% against Boris and 15% against Kemi.
The reality for Sir Keir is that he is in government and has the ability to do things.
It’s very obvious what he needs to do in order to win back support, that is reducing immigration as the number one priority and stopping the boats.
He has the ability to do that. Whether he does is another question. But the voters have told him.
I do not think like some others that the election is over. I still think Labour are favourites to win but I am happy to re-assess again in three years time when I will be happy to call a loss for them if it’s coming. But many here have never supported them since the day they were elected.
I haven’t called Reform voters thick or racist, I have addressed the issues they’ve raised and explain what to do about them in my view.
But what I will not support is a party that refuses to build. Labour is the only party that has identified this as a problem so they retain my vote on that basis. Reform want to stop pylons and renewable energy being built. It's a very simple question for the Reform supporters, why do you oppose things being built when they provide jobs?
I can totally sympathise with the argument for slowing net zero work but if a company wants to build infrastructure on your patch, why on Earth would you oppose it, whatever it is? That Tweet from Tice really was dense. I thought until then they'd actually changed but they really have not.
Reform want to stop solar farms as they see agriculture land for food, and the pylons are disliked virtually by everyone who is effected not least dur to the reduction in their house price
I am not sure if the Lib Dems will join the objections but I wouldn't be surprised
NIMBYISM has just received rocket boosters
There was some polling out earlier which showed that new Reform voters are 50:50 on Net Zero. I was really surprised by that; the danger of getting too much info off PB.
I think the no solar farms on prime arable land is a defendable position from a food security perspective. But their boomerslop approach to opposing all renewables and infrastructure is possibly an example of them believing their own rhetoric rather than the views of their voter base.
To be honest solar panels should be on homes and commercial buildings not farm land
Depends if you want to impose your that on farmers/land owners. If you think food security is more important, we should provide subsidies to incentivise food production.
That argument doesn't hold for pastoral farming.
One of the issues is that we seem to want to regard all agricultural land as national parks. They are now. They are working premises producing food, or possibly wool or wood or some other product. If its economic to produce electrons* then so be it. We have no right to a nice view. And secondly I am certain that you can also use the land beneath the solar units for stuff such as sheep grazing or rearing free range chicken. You might lose some solar radiation but there will be enough for grass to grow to some extent. After all the sun tends to move around during the day.
*Ok not scientifically correct...
Just need to decide what we want out of the land, and set up the incentives accordingly.
If you're interested in food security, you'd cut all subsidies to grazing livestock, which is loss-making and generates few calories, and transfer them to horticulture. We're short on vegetables, importing them from Europe and elsewhere.
28% of land use is grazing; only 2% veg.
That would have the positive side-effect of opening up much more land for *whatever*, including solar farms, houses, insects, beaver swamps for flood prevention and so on. Massive reduction in our methane emissions too.
If you want to preserve AONB and National Parks, then you need subsidise landowners to do something different again - if you think sheep farming is culturally significant in the Lake District, then you'll need to pay them more for that than they can make from solar. You might have a different subsidy for maximising insects too, which have declined by over 60%. And so on.
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
Under any circumstances?
Suppose the next election resolved into a Farage-Starmer showdown.
Or, more fancifully, BNP-Starmer? There's always a point where a voter has to find a clothes peg for their nose.
And yes, if Romford is a Ref-Con fight next time, the appalling Andrew Rosindell has my vote. Even though Buster the bull terrier was always the brains of the operation, and he's dead now.
I think my constituency will be a Ref/Con fight, but I will vote LibDem, as we may sneak through the middle, particularly if the Labour vote comes over.
There's no point in voting Con to keep out Ref, as Jenrick is as bad as any Ref MP, and he will be leader by then.
It'll be interesting to see if Badenoch can somehow survive until the election, because if she can she has a good chance of either being PM or deputy PM.
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
Good day.
Today's More in Common poll has a Boris led Conservatives on 26% to 21% under Badenoch. Reform are on 23% against Boris v 29% against Badenoch. Labour are on 22% against Boris or Kemi, the LDs on 16% against Boris and 15% against Kemi.
I welcome trade deals but I am sure the usual people will say they don't like this one because it was done by Labour. Despite apparently being "pro trade", just not when Labour are in government.
It is a deal that has been negotiated over 3 years so frankly good on both conservative and labour in getting it over the line
However, Sky indicate it could be worth 4 billion in 10 years time so not an immediate boost
The cynical question is, why now when they have been talking about such a trade deal for years but both parties have never managed to compromise enough to get it over the line.
My guess is both parties are thinking the same thing. US trade - basket case, EU not going anywhere, China politically impossible. So you're left with India and the UK respectively.
New piece: Trump’s approval rating among low-engagement voters has fallen 30 points since Jan, the worst decline for any group. The GOP’s big advantage with hard-to-reach voters has evaporated as economic turmoil & toxic politics turns them away from Trump
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
Good day.
Today's More in Common poll has a Boris led Conservatives on 26% to 21% under Badenoch. Reform are on 23% against Boris v 29% against Badenoch. Labour are on 22% against Boris or Kemi, the LDs on 16% against Boris and 15% against Kemi.
The vote in the German parliament was 310 in favour, 307 against, so not only didn't he get the required number, he almost lost the vote itself. That's surprising.
There's lots of angry politicians on the radio at the moment. There are many SPD politcians who dislike Merz, they will probably vote for him in the second round, but wanted to give him a kick up the arse in the first vote
As someone else might have mentioned earlier, if it's obvious he's going to win on the second vote, there must be a temptation for the likes of the AfD to also vote for him in order to say "You only won because of us" even if it isn't technically true.
That makes zero sense to me. How would they then attack a government that they claimed had only got into power with AfD votes? It would be a very poor start to being the Opposition.
Also, I don't know how anyone can be 100% sure Merz will get the votes.
If he doesn't on the second vote, again because of rebel SPD members breaching the terms of the deal agreed with the Union, then there is nothing at all to stop Merz doing a deal with the AfD before the third vote which is the only viable coalition with a majority in the Bundestag other than Union-SPD.
About as likely as Trump being voted next pope.
Anyway Merz and a handful of (soon ex-) CDU MPs plus the AfD would be far short of a majority, even if you think Merz secretly wants a coalition with the AfD.
Union plus AfD would have 360 seats, well past the 316 needed for a majority
359 seats actually. But most CDU MPs wouldn't go into coalition with the AfD. It's anyway all a fantasy, about as likely as an evasion from Mars today.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
Sir Keir has four years to sort out Britain’s problems.
He is fortunate that Reform have peaked very early in the Parliament.
In your opinion.
Well, yes, but if we limited PB to verifiable facts we'd be stuck
I meant specifically about the claim that Reform have peaked. There is little to no evidence of this, yet it is stated as if it were a fact.
Are we at peak 'CHB telling everyone Reform has peaked' yet?
At least it can only happen 5 times a day.
Is this a self-imposed limitation from CHB on 5 posts a day? If so, it sounds a sensible response to some of the issues he's faced in the past. And I'd say it's led to an overall increase in the average quality of his posts. I wonder what drivel of my own I'd cut out if I was under the same limitations?
I thinks its two things, not mutually exclusive. One is limiting the posting for his benefit. However the other is a bit LOOK AT ME - the inclusion of the post counter (2/5). You can limit your posting without flagging it up.
I rather dislike it because one of the strengths of PB is a back and forth. Just posting and running does not allow that to happen.
Yes, though in many cases the back and forth just goes back and forth and back and forth without us really moving the argument on. I am happy to accept CHB's new approach as one of the quirks of the site.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
You see posters in the tube saying things like "sexual harassment is unacceptable" and I'm always thinking: the only people who'll read it are people who would never do it anyway, and people who do it won't take any notice of them.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
Alternatively, that's society today. Stores that value their employees and colleagues more than possessions on a shelf.
When I worked in that sector it was always stressed in any training not to get involved in any forms of theft, that it is not worth the risk. That your safety is more important than anything taken.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
Under any circumstances?
Suppose the next election resolved into a Farage-Starmer showdown.
Or, more fancifully, BNP-Starmer? There's always a point where a voter has to find a clothes peg for their nose.
And yes, if Romford is a Ref-Con fight next time, the appalling Andrew Rosindell has my vote. Even though Buster the bull terrier was always the brains of the operation, and he's dead now.
I think my constituency will be a Ref/Con fight, but I will vote LibDem, as we may sneak through the middle, particularly if the Labour vote comes over.
There's no point in voting Con to keep out Ref, as Jenrick is as bad as any Ref MP, and he will be leader by then.
It'll be interesting to see if Badenoch can somehow survive until the election, because if she can she has a good chance of either being PM or deputy PM.
That's the other reason.
No point in voting Con to keep out Ref if Con are then going to support a Ref government.
Also, not sure I like either "zero tolerance" or "absolute tolerance".
Sometimes people have a total breakdown, and there's a bit of context - so you need some tolerance, and let some things go - and other times you need to lay down the law and teach someone a lesson.
The black and white shit is another sign of our process culture and inability to apply judgement and nuance, in my opinion.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
Alternatively, that's society today. Stores that value their employees and colleagues more than possessions on a shelf.
When I worked in that sector it was always stressed in any training not to get involved in any forms of theft, that it is not worth the risk. That your safety is more important than anything taken.
Quite right too.
No, because this is about what the company will take the trouble to prosecute and what it won't.
It knows the rozzers will investigate the hurty words but won't bother at all with shoplifters.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
You see posters in the tube saying things like "sexual harassment is unacceptable" and I'm always thinking: the only people who'll read it are people who would never do it anyway, and people who do it won't take any notice of them.
Exactly. Which means it's mainly corporate virtue-signalling.
If anything does take place they can point to all the signs and training they do to try and wriggle out of any liability.
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
Under any circumstances?
Suppose the next election resolved into a Farage-Starmer showdown.
Or, more fancifully, BNP-Starmer? There's always a point where a voter has to find a clothes peg for their nose.
And yes, if Romford is a Ref-Con fight next time, the appalling Andrew Rosindell has my vote. Even though Buster the bull terrier was always the brains of the operation, and he's dead now.
I think my constituency will be a Ref/Con fight, but I will vote LibDem, as we may sneak through the middle, particularly if the Labour vote comes over.
There's no point in voting Con to keep out Ref, as Jenrick is as bad as any Ref MP, and he will be leader by then.
It'll be interesting to see if Badenoch can somehow survive until the election, because if she can she has a good chance of either being PM or deputy PM.
That's the other reason.
No point in voting Con to keep out Ref if Con are then going to support a Ref government.
Yes, at the next GE the Tories will have the pleasure of being pressured with the "what would you do..." question in the same way that the LDs always have to endure!
Not so sunny today, but still no rain. What a dry place Scotland is!
I hope For Scale's paws are holding up well to all the walkies!
The first part of the Quiraing hike was a path of sharp stones so I had a good look at his feet after, and be seems OK. He can have a nail inspection when we get back to the croft.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
How much do you think staff turnover costs the company across their estate?
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
Under any circumstances?
Suppose the next election resolved into a Farage-Starmer showdown.
Or, more fancifully, BNP-Starmer? There's always a point where a voter has to find a clothes peg for their nose.
And yes, if Romford is a Ref-Con fight next time, the appalling Andrew Rosindell has my vote. Even though Buster the bull terrier was always the brains of the operation, and he's dead now.
I think my constituency will be a Ref/Con fight, but I will vote LibDem, as we may sneak through the middle, particularly if the Labour vote comes over.
There's no point in voting Con to keep out Ref, as Jenrick is as bad as any Ref MP, and he will be leader by then.
It'll be interesting to see if Badenoch can somehow survive until the election, because if she can she has a good chance of either being PM or deputy PM.
That's the other reason.
No point in voting Con to keep out Ref if Con are then going to support a Ref government.
Yes, at the next GE the Tories will have the pleasure of being pressured with the "what would you do..." question in the same way that the LDs always have to endure!
The reality for Sir Keir is that he is in government and has the ability to do things.
It’s very obvious what he needs to do in order to win back support, that is reducing immigration as the number one priority and stopping the boats.
He has the ability to do that. Whether he does is another question. But the voters have told him.
I do not think like some others that the election is over. I still think Labour are favourites to win but I am happy to re-assess again in three years time when I will be happy to call a loss for them if it’s coming. But many here have never supported them since the day they were elected.
I haven’t called Reform voters thick or racist, I have addressed the issues they’ve raised and explain what to do about them in my view.
But what I will not support is a party that refuses to build. Labour is the only party that has identified this as a problem so they retain my vote on that basis. Reform want to stop pylons and renewable energy being built. Why?
Genuine question - who believes that the election (in 2029?) is over? I think we are in a superbly interesting time in politics where everything is up in the air. I don't believe that Labour have won or lost the next election. In the immortal words - its too early to tell.
“There a straw-man posting 3 of 5, he’s very passive-aggressive, but he wants to come across as nice…”
I don't like your faintly veiled hostile to immigrants of a certain shade posts either, but I stfu about that.
Everyone including Horse was calling for your return a short while ago. For the record I preferred it when you were away.
Nigel needs to be careful how he tries to exploit this though. He mustn't be seen as an old sourpuss raining on Sir Keir's Brexit-benefit parade.
It’s reciprocal and applies to UK nationals in India working temporarily. I’m sure gobby will try and trash the deal saying he would have done better.
On onshore TCS project now has an extra 15% reason to pretend there is no one in the UK qualified to do the work and bring an Indian citizen in for the “short term”.
Shall we just say it hasn’t been thought through given how TCS and co work
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
How much do you think staff turnover costs the company across their estate?
The plastic police were supposed to be the visual presence of the police, leaving the fully trained ones to respond to more difficult / dangerous scenerios. I rarely see a plastic plod.
PCSOs?
They have been neglected in the rebuilding of police numbers in the last few years, and I think some forces have perhaps forgotten how to use them effectively, and what they can achieve.
You can get significantly more PCSOs for the same budget as warranted officers (maybe 3 for 2 - my guestimate), and they can be given particular powers and training by Chief Constables.
My strictly monitored photo quota for today.
One example from Birmingham was I think Operation Parksafe, where it was active citizens making reports of certain offences around risky / dangerous parking and the police and support side was handled mainly by trained PCSOs. The police were able to build up local intelligence which picked up things such as stolen cars dumped for a few days for the thieves to find out if a tracker was fitted, and if someone turned up to recover it.
It's police staff who process dashcam footage, and special constables who patrol Edinburgh's path network on bicycles. I think this is answer - enable highly targeted professional police work in rough areas; wider deterrence by a different group of people.
I also think we should have the equivalent of a US Forest Service to protect the environment and rural communities - 15,000 sheep killed by dogs a year etc etc. Preferably on horseback, cos it's cool.
My version of that one for England is that we need to rewrite the DNA of Local Highways Departments to acknowledge that all of our Public Rights of Way are already Highways, and have been forever, and that that network should be treated equally for policing and consideration in any transport schemes, and in the policing remit.
I'd also do some modest others, such as expecting all forms of transport (eg mobility scooters, cycles) to be considered in Residents Parking Schemes, and I would also redefine all Council provided and Council funded (including the past) paths to be Rights of Way - which engages the Highways Act 1980 in upkeep, obstruction removal etc.
The local footbridge I have across the M1 which was built at the same time is still not a Public Right of Way, and it will be tricky to remove the three sets of double chicane barriers that were installed obstructing it in around 1982.
Poor choice of Reform candidate vs strong performance by Nick Fletcher allowed Labour through the middle in the Doncaster mayoralty:
Gains/(Losses) by each mayoral candidate to council vote
Con +6791 (Nick Fletcher) Yorkshire Party +1164 (Did not stand for council) SDP +929 (Did not stand for council) Labour +696 Workers +434 (Did not stand for council) British Democrats +337 Mexborough 1st (877) (Did not stand for mayoral) TUSC (882) LD (1745) Ind (2227) Grn (4512) Rfm (5138)
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Put it this way - how many items in a supermarket have a security tag? Hardly anything, because the 10 seconds of staff time to tag and untag is not worth it. The limit is usually £10-20 to warrant a security measure.
In parts of London the shops are changing it so it's harder to sweep a shelf. But ultimately even a rucksack of stolen goods is worth almost nothing to a Tesco.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Yeah, screw it, it doesn't matter. Let's all shoplift!
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
You see posters in the tube saying things like "sexual harassment is unacceptable" and I'm always thinking: the only people who'll read it are people who would never do it anyway, and people who do it won't take any notice of them.
Exactly. Which means it's mainly corporate virtue-signalling.
If anything does take place they can point to all the signs and training they do to try and wriggle out of any liability.
There's a real problem with aggression and threatening behaviour in a lot of customer facing industries like mine. Just last week I was called to intervene with a patient who was threatening one of my staff. I am pretty good at talking these people down and sending on their way, but seniority does help. It can be very traumatic for more vulnerable staff. I have flagged his notes so he is not seen without a chaperone in the future.
It's always happened to an extent, but seems much worse in recent years. A fair number of men have no emotional resources other than threats of violence. There's a subset of men that are simultaneously fragile and toxic so quite unpredictable.
Modi - India and UK have agreed an ambitious trade deal
SPOILER: Starmer has ambitiously offered India the Lake District in return for a good pakora recipe, and he’s ambitiously hoping to give India £400bn if they agree to take possession of the Royal Navy
Starmer wasn't able to get them to take on Camden though, as they said they weren't interested no matter how much we gave them to take it.
GB News reported it without including the "The deal does not include any change in immigration policy, including towards Indian students studying in the UK, the British government said" bit, so the comments are full of "HOW MANY VISAS WILL THIS COST US ? !!!"
‘ For Florence Achery, owner of Yoga Retreats & More, the environmental impact is one reason why she vows to stay away from AI.’
🙄
If you are an environmentalist, staying away from AI is quite sensible. They use vast amounts of electricity. And very often they are not using green electricity, but hurriedly installed gas turbine generators or diesel.
Vast amounts of water too, and the servers are often in water-stretched parts of the world.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Yeah, screw it, it doesn't matter. Let's all shoplift!
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
It is also driving violence and abuse against shopworkers "also rose by 50%, with more than 2,000 such incidents recorded on average per day."
These are interlinked.
Hey, I'm not saying it's a good thing. If you come from retail experience it's not a shock at all, that's all. It's funny watching you guys get so excited by it. Tesco's revenue alone is over £70 billion.
I do think violence and abuse has increased though. There is an entitlement that wasn't there before.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
You see posters in the tube saying things like "sexual harassment is unacceptable" and I'm always thinking: the only people who'll read it are people who would never do it anyway, and people who do it won't take any notice of them.
Exactly. Which means it's mainly corporate virtue-signalling.
If anything does take place they can point to all the signs and training they do to try and wriggle out of any liability.
There's a real problem with aggression and threatening behaviour in a lot of customer facing industries like mine. Just last week I was called to intervene with a patient who was threatening one of my staff. I am pretty good at talking these people down and sending on their way, but seniority does help. It can be very traumatic for more vulnerable staff. I have flagged his notes so he is not seen without a chaperone in the future.
It's always happened to an extent, but seems much worse in recent years. A fair number of men have no emotional resources other than threats of violence. There's a subset of men that are simultaneously fragile and toxic so quite unpredictable.
Yes, it's terrible. People have forgotten how to treat people courteously and with respect.
This can work both ways. Whenever I get a "computer says no" response from an employee, without any attempt at empathy or taking my own personal situation into account, I can feel the red mist descend. And Revenue Protection can often be very aggressive from the get-go.
I wonder if social media and phones have a lot to answer for this.
Not so sunny today, but still no rain. What a dry place Scotland is!
If you have time, Raasay is a wonderful (and quieter) island. Channel your inner Dr Johnson and dance a jig on the highest summit - just watch out for the hidden and unexpected crevasses!
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Yeah, screw it, it doesn't matter. Let's all shoplift!
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
It is also driving violence and abuse against shopworkers "also rose by 50%, with more than 2,000 such incidents recorded on average per day."
These are interlinked.
Hey, I'm not saying it's a good thing. If you come from retail experience it's not a shock at all, that's all. It's funny watching you guys get so excited by it. Tesco's revenue alone is over £70 billion.
I do think violence and abuse has increased though. There is an entitlement that wasn't there before.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Yeah, screw it, it doesn't matter. Let's all shoplift!
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
It is also driving violence and abuse against shopworkers "also rose by 50%, with more than 2,000 such incidents recorded on average per day."
These are interlinked.
Hey, I'm not saying it's a good thing. If you come from retail experience it's not a shock at all, that's all. It's funny watching you guys get so excited by it. Tesco's revenue alone is over £70 billion.
I do think violence and abuse has increased though. There is an entitlement that wasn't there before.
I'm "getting excited by it" because it's increased 14-fold over the last 10 or so years, is upsetting customers and staff, and is becoming a serious gateway crime.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Yeah, screw it, it doesn't matter. Let's all shoplift!
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
It is also driving violence and abuse against shopworkers "also rose by 50%, with more than 2,000 such incidents recorded on average per day."
These are interlinked.
It’s also broken windows theory in action. With every shoplift tolerated, every ticket easily dodged, every tag of graffiti met with a shrug, the social contract frays. The law abiding citizens ask themselves - why the fuck am I paying? Am I the sucker here?
Ditto dodgy asylum seekers in 4 star hotels as honest people spend years trying to get the right to remain
Meanwhile tax payers are quietly enraged, and very high taxpayers simply leave
This is the frog boiling of an entire nation and it will end with a reform government and then something worse if we don’t change course
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
You see posters in the tube saying things like "sexual harassment is unacceptable" and I'm always thinking: the only people who'll read it are people who would never do it anyway, and people who do it won't take any notice of them.
I see this differently. Such behaviour does not occur in isolation; friends and acquaintances of the person offending may well know what is going on, and say "it's only a laugh!" or "It was only a bit of fun!" etc, etc. The shithead doing the offending may not pay attention, but perhaps those who surround them may just pull him away and have a word in his shell-like; "Don't be an idiot" or whatever.
It's like drink-driving. AIUI the rates have been falling over the decades, as have the number of injuries and deaths from drink-driving (1). It has sadly not fallen to zero, but it is now seen as much more socially unacceptable than it was before. There are lots of people who till tell someone: "You're drunk!" and stop them from driving back from the pub or party by taking their keys, calling them a taxi, or whatever.
A great way of stopping bad behaviour is to make it socially unacceptable; and that is a question of not just targeting offenders, but others who might be able to dissuade potential offenders. Such messaging helps with that.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
I think that's more to do with staff retention than anything else. Big problem for bus drivers etc.
To be clear, neither should be tolerated - and both are a sign of some people not giving a toss about anyone but themselves - but it just struck me as ironic.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
Because the cost of losing a member of staff is much, much higher than shoplifting.
I don't think that's it.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
Depends on the shop. We had a 50% margin on high value goods (£500 etc) and lots of shoplifting. Didn't make a dent tbh, except to our RF scanner when a member of staff smashed it trying to tackle a thief.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
Yeah, screw it, it doesn't matter. Let's all shoplift!
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
It is also driving violence and abuse against shopworkers "also rose by 50%, with more than 2,000 such incidents recorded on average per day."
These are interlinked.
It’s also broken windows theory in action. With every shoplift tolerated, every ticket easily dodged, every tag of graffiti met with a shrug, the social contract frays. The law abiding citizens ask themselves - why the fuck am I paying? Am I the sucker here?
Ditto dodgy asylum seekers in 4 star hotels as honest people spend years trying to get the right to remain
Meanwhile tax payers are quietly enraged, and very high taxpayers simply leave
This is the frog boiling of an entire nation and it will end with a reform government and then something worse if we don’t change course
They absolutely don't get it.
They want to either explain it away or deny it's a problem at all.
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
You see posters in the tube saying things like "sexual harassment is unacceptable" and I'm always thinking: the only people who'll read it are people who would never do it anyway, and people who do it won't take any notice of them.
I see this differently. Such behaviour does not occur in isolation; friends and acquaintances of the person offending may well know what is going on, and say "it's only a laugh!" or "It was only a bit of fun!" etc, etc. The shithead doing the offending may not pay attention, but perhaps those who surround them may just pull him away and have a word in his shell-like; "Don't be an idiot" or whatever.
It's like drink-driving. AIUI the rates have been falling over the decades, as have the number of injuries and deaths from drink-driving (1). It has sadly not fallen to zero, but it is now seen as much more socially unacceptable than it was before. There are lots of people who till tell someone: "You're drunk!" and stop them from driving back from the pub or party by taking their keys, calling them a taxi, or whatever.
A great way of stopping bad behaviour is to make it socially unacceptable; and that is a question of not just targeting offenders, but others who might be able to dissuade potential offenders. Such messaging helps with that.
With Labour apparently following the Cameron playbook, have they won over any former moderate voters who would now pick Labour over Reform?
This may be useful in tight contests. The New Statesmen opines this be the case.
Why don't you do a straw poll of PB? BG North Wales, Marquee Mark, David L are all very moderate Tories, ask them if they would lend their vote to Sir in order to keep Reform out. Some of them might do?
Good morning
I would not vote for Starmer under any circumstances
I would. As I said before the last election if we had still been in Dundee West instead of Angus I would have voted Labour in the hope of keeping the SNP out. I feel pretty similar about Reform. Had I been in Runcorn I would have voted Labour.
As I have lamented a few times recently positive reasons to vote for anyone are thin to non existent. It is a matter of voting against the worst rather than for anything good.
Actually we are in a similar position living under devolved governments and I can understand the need to keep SNP away from government and voting Labour makes sense
Here in Wales I want Welsh Labour out of Office and will not vote Labour
So you suggest voting for a useless London based party who shat all over Scotland for 50 years just for spite to stop a Scottish party , bad as they are , running Scotland. That is pathetic pathetic and would count as bigoted bullshit.
As you know I and my Scots wife are Unionist so voting to prevent the Nationalists is pure common sense
You would eb happy with Canada being part of USA as well and England taking over Ireland again
Not so sunny today, but still no rain. What a dry place Scotland is!
My wife experiences a strange phenomenon. Whenever she goes somewhere for the first time, the weather is usually wonderful and this convinces her to return. On return (and all subsequent visits) the weather is no optimal... Happened in the Lakes, Scotland, Devon, you name it.
Comments
He was first and Reform second and Labour third last time
https://x.com/narendramodi/status/1919736905115054505?t=8R6W9dbKmChBtUudkiZ3hw&s=19
I welcome trade deals but I am sure the usual people will say they don't like this one because it was done by Labour. Despite apparently being "pro trade", just not when Labour are in government.
However, Sky indicate it could be worth 4 billion in 10 years time so not an immediate boost
I for one welcome a new trade deal with India. Chalk this up to yet another Brexit benefit from having our own trade policy.
For my final post of today, I leave with a question, which is, why on Earth would people want Boris Johnson back, the man that caused immigration to sky-rocket. What would Reform voters support about that? But oddly the poll I've seen suggests some of them do support him still, is it just "vibes"?
Good day.
he’s very passive-aggressive,
but he wants to come across as nice…”
https://www.dw.com/en/live-tv/channel-english
And secondly I am certain that you can also use the land beneath the solar units for stuff such as sheep grazing or rearing free range chicken. You might lose some solar radiation but there will be enough for grass to grow to some extent. After all the sun tends to move around during the day.
*Ok not scientifically correct...
Anyway Merz and a handful of (soon ex-) CDU MPs plus the AfD would be far short of a majority, even if you think Merz secretly wants a coalition with the AfD.
If he offers them something then they'll vote him. It'll be a challenge, but the Greens could be brought on board to keep out the AfD.
(The public thinks all "Indian Chefs" are working in Indian restaurants. Not even close...)
So Boris would regain enough Reform voters for the Conservatives to take the lead, though still well short of a majority but most current Reform voters would still stick with Farage. Labour's vote would stay the same against Kemi or Boris with the LDs doing fractionally worse against Boris but again keeping the vast majority of their vote
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14682919/Boris-Johnson-save-Tories-Poll-beat-Farage-Reform-oust-Badenoch.html
If you're interested in food security, you'd cut all subsidies to grazing livestock, which is loss-making and generates few calories, and transfer them to horticulture. We're short on vegetables, importing them from Europe and elsewhere.
28% of land use is grazing; only 2% veg.
That would have the positive side-effect of opening up much more land for *whatever*, including solar farms, houses, insects, beaver swamps for flood prevention and so on. Massive reduction in our methane emissions too.
If you want to preserve AONB and National Parks, then you need subsidise landowners to do something different again - if you think sheep farming is culturally significant in the Lake District, then you'll need to pay them more for that than they can make from solar. You might have a different subsidy for maximising insects too, which have declined by over 60%. And so on.
My guess is both parties are thinking the same thing. US trade - basket case, EU not going anywhere, China politically impossible. So you're left with India and the UK respectively.
New piece: Trump’s approval rating among low-engagement voters has fallen 30 points since Jan, the worst decline for any group. The GOP’s big advantage with hard-to-reach voters has evaporated as economic turmoil & toxic politics turns them away from Trump
https://bsky.app/profile/gelliottmorris.com/post/3loitxxs33g2b
Almost every shop now has a 'Zero Tolerance' sign up in big letters front and centre. Abusive behaviour towards their staff will NOT be tolerated.
However, they have LOTS of Tolerance for theft and shoplifting, which is a form of abusive behaviour, and it absolutely will be tolerated. Obviously, there is no sign for this.
So, that's society today: unpleasant words and behaviour prosecuted, and actual real crime isn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/06/uk-and-india-agree-trade-deal-after-three-years-of-negotiations
When I worked in that sector it was always stressed in any training not to get involved in any forms of theft, that it is not worth the risk. That your safety is more important than anything taken.
Quite right too.
I bet the companies concerned are partly (mainly) doing it to protect themselves too. "Ooh, but we put up a sign!"
Back in the day, it would be "trespassers would be prosecuted" or "shoplifters will be prosecuted".
Not any more.
No point in voting Con to keep out Ref if Con are then going to support a Ref government.
Sometimes people have a total breakdown, and there's a bit of context - so you need some tolerance, and let some things go - and other times you need to lay down the law and teach someone a lesson.
The black and white shit is another sign of our process culture and inability to apply judgement and nuance, in my opinion.
How much do you think shoplifting costs the company across their estate?
It knows the rozzers will investigate the hurty words but won't bother at all with shoplifters.
Chris Murphy 🟧
@ChrisMurphyCT
·
2h
Today I’m introducing a bill - the MEME Act - to ban a President or Member of Congress from issuing a meme coin.
If anything does take place they can point to all the signs and training they do to try and wriggle out of any liability.
Don't I get a sign?
This needs to be spoofed.
Everyone including Horse was calling for your return a short while ago. For the record I preferred it when you were away.
Shall we just say it hasn’t been thought through given how TCS and co work
325 votes in favour, more than 316 required.
289 against, one abstention, three invalid votes.
For a firm like Tesco it will account for about 1/2%. Stock turnover is enormous, margin small.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VQRLujxTm3c&pp=ygUNZ3RhIDYgdHJhaWxlcg==
I'd also do some modest others, such as expecting all forms of transport (eg mobility scooters, cycles) to be considered in Residents Parking Schemes, and I would also redefine all Council provided and Council funded (including the past) paths to be Rights of Way - which engages the Highways Act 1980 in upkeep, obstruction removal etc.
The local footbridge I have across the M1 which was built at the same time is still not a Public Right of Way, and it will be tricky to remove the three sets of double chicane barriers that were installed obstructing it in around 1982.
Gains/(Losses) by each mayoral candidate to council vote
Con +6791 (Nick Fletcher)
Yorkshire Party +1164 (Did not stand for council)
SDP +929 (Did not stand for council)
Labour +696
Workers +434 (Did not stand for council)
British Democrats +337
Mexborough 1st (877) (Did not stand for mayoral)
TUSC (882)
LD (1745)
Ind (2227)
Grn (4512)
Rfm (5138)
In parts of London the shops are changing it so it's harder to sweep a shelf. But ultimately even a rucksack of stolen goods is worth almost nothing to a Tesco.
20 million incidents of theft a year. £2bn in losses. A complete epidemic:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp82jvd3g54o.amp
It is also driving violence and abuse against shopworkers "also rose by 50%, with more than 2,000 such incidents recorded on average per day."
These are interlinked.
All very Papal conclavy this week.
It's always happened to an extent, but seems much worse in recent years. A fair number of men have no emotional resources other than threats of violence. There's a subset of men that are simultaneously fragile and toxic so quite unpredictable.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-trade-deal-india-uk-british-business-jonathan-reynolds
I do think violence and abuse has increased though. There is an entitlement that wasn't there before.
This can work both ways. Whenever I get a "computer says no" response from an employee, without any attempt at empathy or taking my own personal situation into account, I can feel the red mist descend. And Revenue Protection can often be very aggressive from the get-go.
I wonder if social media and phones have a lot to answer for this.
You don't think that's a problem?
Ditto dodgy asylum seekers in 4 star hotels as honest people spend years trying to get the right to remain
Meanwhile tax payers are quietly enraged, and very high taxpayers simply leave
This is the frog boiling of an entire nation and it will end with a reform government and then something worse if we don’t change course
NEWT HREAD
It's like drink-driving. AIUI the rates have been falling over the decades, as have the number of injuries and deaths from drink-driving (1). It has sadly not fallen to zero, but it is now seen as much more socially unacceptable than it was before. There are lots of people who till tell someone: "You're drunk!" and stop them from driving back from the pub or party by taking their keys, calling them a taxi, or whatever.
A great way of stopping bad behaviour is to make it socially unacceptable; and that is a question of not just targeting offenders, but others who might be able to dissuade potential offenders. Such messaging helps with that.
(1): https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.php
They want to either explain it away or deny it's a problem at all.
Social acceptability isn't driven by Sadiq Khan's bullshit.