Completely off topic, but this has been puzzling me for a while: Why did Boris Johnson choose to be "Boris" in politics than, for example, "Alexander"?
(In the US, Boris is often used for "Russian" jokes.
Example: Ivan: "How are you doing today, Boris?" Boris: "Average." Ivan: "What do you mean,average?" Boris: "Worse than yesterday, better than tomorrow. So, average." )
Boris sounds quite chummy in British English. Not sure why, but it does. (Not sure if the word chummy translates well into American English).
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It might be China sees an opportunity because of the tariff situation. Could Europe afford to put sanctions on China ? I’ll have to watch it on Iplayer .
I dont think personally china will attack taiwan currently. The situation with the clown in chief is so febrile internationally that they will want to see how it shakes out first. The chinese are patient
For example if you were china, you can send an invasion fleet to taiwan....how confident are you that tango man might not actually say back off or the nukes are in the air if he is in the wrong mood?
Completely confident.
The man is a coward. He'll never fight anyone who can fight back.
Yet he has imposed far higher tariffs on Chinese imports than on the imports of any other nation
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
On Polymarket, the current market odds are 14% for China invading an inhabited part of Taiwan during 2025.
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
Its a bbc report wait for a reliable source is my advice
Now if it was BBC Verify I would agree...but "BBC Understands" means the people in the know have been on the blower and asked us to report the situation.
GB News understands that asylum hotels were searched as part of the operation and that some of the men had an irregular route of entry to Britain.
Most stories that has GB News understands I would give a massive wide breath, but this is a Mark White story who one of the few proper credible journalists they have (20 years at Sky)
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
On Polymarket, the current market odds are 14% for China invading an inhabited part of Taiwan during 2025.
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
Its a bbc report wait for a reliable source is my advice
Now if it was BBC Verify I would agree...but "BBC Understands" means the people in the know have been on the blower and asked us to report the situation.
"A prolific thief has been banned from every Tesco, Tesco Express, Home Bargains and Spar store in the country after he was convicted of shoplifting at Preston Magistrates Court.
Magistrates gave 42-year-old John Molyneux, of Greenwood in Bamber Bridge a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) as a result of the offences, and he must comply with it for two years following his appearance in court.
It prohibits him from entering any Tesco, Tesco Express, Home Bargains or Spar in the country as well as Thorntons on Hough Lane in Leyland, and Gee Tees on Station Road in Bamber Bridge."
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
My understanding is the sea is so rough for 9 months of the year and the coast line is brutal, there is a very small window of around 3 months every year that it is even possible to mount an invasion to the small areas of the coastline.
Yes, there's a definite window where such an operation would need to be mounted. And the forces involved will be so huge it would take months to assemble them - if China decides to go for Taiwan we'll have plenty of notice.
To be honest, if he does go for it expect Xi to implement a total blockade rather than an invasion. Stop all air and sea traffic from reaching Taiwan, coupled with long-range missile strikes on important infrastructure. People with no food, fuel or electricity can't resist indefinitely. Amphibious invasions are difficult and risky, a blockade will absolutely work if they can keep it up.
I saw someone get arrested for shoplifting the other day. Police car appeared suddenly, blocking pavement and out popped two officers who grabbed the person, whilst leaving their companion alone. Seemed very slick.
Definitely my lived experience (not totally sure what the 'lived' bit adds there other than winding up some people) is that shoplifting seems more common as do security guards in shops... feel sorry for the retail workers.
Lived experience means experience. Sadly it's become a sociology catchphrase. Sociology catchphrases worming their way into activist discourse and thereby into general discourse is not a great development. They become magic, ungainsayable mantras.
You could, I suppose, contrast lived experience with vicarious experience. But that's already distinguished by 'vicarious'.
I'd say "lived" experience implies something direct and constant, and of a weighty matter, so it does add something if used correctly.
Eg for me:
My lived experience of Hampstead says that RUK have no chance here. That works.
My lived experience of Waitrose is that their tomatoes are overripe. That doesn't work. Not a weighty matter.
My lived experience of Bruges is it's a lovely little town. Doesn't work. Not constant. I've only been once for a short holiday.
But of those 3 items
The first is wrong the other two are true
I think Hampstead will have one of the lowest RUK scores in the UK. Certainly, it was something like 75:25 Remain:Leave.
Lowest score != refuk losing
Sure: but unless you're positing a situation where RUK gets 620+ MPs, then Hampstead is unlikely to go Purple. I mean, anything's possible, but I think it'd be one of the last seats to flip.
In west hampstead 25% of children apparently live in poverty, suggests there are lots of poor people in hampstead...maybe they haven't been voting up to now
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
On Polymarket, the current market odds are 14% for China invading an inhabited part of Taiwan during 2025.
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
I don't think a Chinese invasion of the Taiwanese mainland is feasible, without utterly horrendous losses. Taiwan has a lot of pretty capable aircraft, and a small (but growing) submarine fleet.
How would you get hundreds of thousands of troops across the Taiwan strait?
It's simply not feasible.
On the other hand, a blockade of Taiwan could probably be very effective, especially if the goal was to essentially bring the RoC into China's orbit without bloodshed. Effectively, the Chinese government would make it clear it could starve / strange Taiwan to death.
There is a lot of weight being placed on Reform having to run a council or two and how it will cause them all these issues. Making a right balls of things locally hasn't stopped other parties on a national level in the past. The get out is always the national government are shit, they caused all these problems, vote us in nationally and we can do something about it.
Ultimately a lot of people vote in GE for whichever leader they like, or they think their local MP is a good'un despite their party being shits. The council being crap at being the council these days is sort taken as read and separate, in fact I bet a lot of people don't even know which party control their council.
There is a lot of weight being placed on Reform having to run a council or two and how it will cause them all these issues. Making a right balls of things locally hasn't stopped other parties on a national level in the past. The get out is always the national government are shit, they caused all these problems, vote us in nationally and we can do something about it.
Ultimately a lot of people vote in GE for whichever leader they like, or they think their local MP is a good'un despite their party being shits. The council being crap at being the council these days is sort taken as read and separate, in fact I bet a lot of people don't even know which party control their council.
e.g. Wales being run terribly for donkeys years has had no effect on Labour at a UK level. In fact, I bet when the Tories were in power the negative stories about Welsh NHS and education probably did them more harm than Labour as people just hear NHS / schools / local services are shit and go well that those bloody Tories isn't it.
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
On Polymarket, the current market odds are 14% for China invading an inhabited part of Taiwan during 2025.
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
"A prolific thief has been banned from every Tesco, Tesco Express, Home Bargains and Spar store in the country after he was convicted of shoplifting at Preston Magistrates Court.
Magistrates gave 42-year-old John Molyneux, of Greenwood in Bamber Bridge a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) as a result of the offences, and he must comply with it for two years following his appearance in court.
It prohibits him from entering any Tesco, Tesco Express, Home Bargains or Spar in the country as well as Thorntons on Hough Lane in Leyland, and Gee Tees on Station Road in Bamber Bridge."
Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!
Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!
Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!
Express, Mirror and Star splash VE Day on their front pages. The other papers ignore it (or print actual news depending on your point of view). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5r5zrwvxxo
"Labour MPs have ramped up pressure on the Treasury, calling for an economic reset after the Reform UK surge in the local elections and saying that the economy is stuck in a “doom loop”.
The warning comes from the influential Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of loyalist new MPs who have lobbied the government to go further on planning and energy reforms. Its chair said that, without drastic action, the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was on course to become prime minister."
"Labour MPs have ramped up pressure on the Treasury, calling for an economic reset after the Reform UK surge in the local elections and saying that the economy is stuck in a “doom loop”.
The warning comes from the influential Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of loyalist new MPs who have lobbied the government to go further on planning and energy reforms. Its chair said that, without drastic action, the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was on course to become prime minister."
"Labour MPs have ramped up pressure on the Treasury, calling for an economic reset after the Reform UK surge in the local elections and saying that the economy is stuck in a “doom loop”.
The warning comes from the influential Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of loyalist new MPs who have lobbied the government to go further on planning and energy reforms. Its chair said that, without drastic action, the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was on course to become prime minister."
Trouble is, HM Treasury is terrified of repeating the disastrous Truss growth plan and has captured the Chancellor's mind.
Also, from your link: “We’ve had polling recently showing that Reform voters are by far the most financially insecure of all the major parties. Putting money in those people’s pockets is just as essential as robust immigration policy in showing them Labour can deliver.”
Reform is NOTA. Its support is skint voters whose fundamental belief that this lot cannot possibly be worse than those who have gone before.
There is a lot of weight being placed on Reform having to run a council or two and how it will cause them all these issues. Making a right balls of things locally hasn't stopped other parties on a national level in the past. The get out is always the national government are shit, they caused all these problems, vote us in nationally and we can do something about it.
Ultimately a lot of people vote in GE for whichever leader they like, or they think their local MP is a good'un despite their party being shits. The council being crap at being the council these days is sort taken as read and separate, in fact I bet a lot of people don't even know which party control their council.
e.g. Wales being run terribly for donkeys years has had no effect on Labour at a UK level. In fact, I bet when the Tories were in power the negative stories about Welsh NHS and education probably did them more harm than Labour as people just hear NHS / schools / local services are shit and go well that those bloody Tories isn't it.
I remember a few years back watching an edition of BBC Question Time from Wales. There was a debate about the poor state of the Welsh NHS and a member of the audience living there blamed the Westminster Conservative government for this. They were completely unaware that Health was devolved and the Welsh Labour government and not the UK government was totally responsible for running the NHS in Wales for years.
John Rentoul in the Indy's overnight email says polls show both Starmer's likely successors, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting, are in danger of losing their seats and reminds us that according to the book Get In, John Healey (now Defence Secretary) might have been favoured if Starmer and Rayner had been forced out over Currygate. Rentoul says Healey is currently available at odds of 50/1.
Fwiw, imo Starmer will retire before the 2029 general election so the above will not apply.
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
On Polymarket, the current market odds are 14% for China invading an inhabited part of Taiwan during 2025.
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
I don't think a Chinese invasion of the Taiwanese mainland is feasible, without utterly horrendous losses. Taiwan has a lot of pretty capable aircraft, and a small (but growing) submarine fleet.
How would you get hundreds of thousands of troops across the Taiwan strait?
It's simply not feasible.
On the other hand, a blockade of Taiwan could probably be very effective, especially if the goal was to essentially bring the RoC into China's orbit without bloodshed. Effectively, the Chinese government would make it clear it could starve / strange Taiwan to death.
Pakistan's success against India's airforce this week - in Indian airspace - suggests that China's airforce might be able to shoot down Taiwan's planes relatively easily.
Their air to air radars and missiles significantly outrage anything Taiwan has, and they seem to be very effective against non stealth aircraft.
Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!
Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!
"Labour MPs have ramped up pressure on the Treasury, calling for an economic reset after the Reform UK surge in the local elections and saying that the economy is stuck in a “doom loop”.
The warning comes from the influential Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of loyalist new MPs who have lobbied the government to go further on planning and energy reforms. Its chair said that, without drastic action, the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was on course to become prime minister."
The war or blockade will be brought to an end when public opinion in the West and Israel itself is revolted, so if I were a Palestine-supporting squillionaire, I'd look at taking out adverts in the American press (and Israeli press if permitted) just showing emaciated Palestinians without further comment, and somehow stop Iran, its proxies and other useful idiots.
I think Kemi's doing a good job in the circumstances and hope she makes it to the general election.
If Kemi makes it to the GE, the Conservatives have lost the will to live.
She would never make it in real life. She lacks the skills, personality and drive to build a team and put a plan into action. The only place for her would be some lacklustre quango type organisation. Oh, wait.
So… last night Kemi had drinks for Tory MPs. A Tory source tell my colleague @PaulTwinn :
“Only 25 MPs showed up to Kemi’s drinks last night - Huddlestone having to ring around to get people there. One MP said: “The Prosecco was flat and the atmosphere was flatter still.” “
That Malthouse letter was from a group of Tory MPs who've decided they're doomed, and so just don't care anymore- they want to make an impact for themselves in other ways.
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
On Polymarket, the current market odds are 14% for China invading an inhabited part of Taiwan during 2025.
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
I don't think a Chinese invasion of the Taiwanese mainland is feasible, without utterly horrendous losses. Taiwan has a lot of pretty capable aircraft, and a small (but growing) submarine fleet.
How would you get hundreds of thousands of troops across the Taiwan strait?
It's simply not feasible.
On the other hand, a blockade of Taiwan could probably be very effective, especially if the goal was to essentially bring the RoC into China's orbit without bloodshed. Effectively, the Chinese government would make it clear it could starve / strange Taiwan to death.
Pakistan's success against India's airforce this week - in Indian airspace - suggests that China's airforce might be able to shoot down Taiwan's planes relatively easily.
Their air to air radars and missiles significantly outrage anything Taiwan has, and they seem to be very effective against non stealth aircraft.
That is assuming, of course, that the Pakistani success was down to good air defence tech from China and not poor training or use of kit by India.
The importance of good training is often forgotten and people assume that if you have good fighter jets, for example, you will be fine but if you don’t use them properly then you are a gonner.
Local Co-op was almost out of fruit and vegetables thanks to the cyber-attack. It's one thing for there to be a shortage due to a bad harvest or panic buying in a pandemic, but this isn't either of those.
I noticed that yesterday up in the highlands - no fresh veg and no fresh bread.
Though Donald Trump used the language of a "trade deal", this is likely to be more limited then that - a more specific deal to reduce tariffs on specific things.
From the the British side, they specifically want to reduce tariffs on British steel and cars.
From the US side, they want something on pharmaceuticals and technology.
Though Donald Trump used the language of a "trade deal", this is likely to be more limited then that - a more specific deal to reduce tariffs on specific things.
From the the British side, they specifically want to reduce tariffs on British steel and cars.
From the US side, they want something on pharmaceuticals and technology.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Burglary has pretty much dropped though because there is little you can steal from a house that holds any fenceable value not because of any governmental policies
Most moves in crime rates are nothing to do with governmental policies.
Like shoplifting, that correlates with the cost of living crisis?
Groceries as perctange of average household expenditure today: 15%. 1970, 30%, 1910 60%. Of course, rent has almost the reverse trajectory, and averages don't tell the whole story.
Most theft is to resell though?
Organised crime, of course.
Or the local druggies. As certainly has been the case in my town and Durham. Then sold in local pubs, no questions asked.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All of which are tiny population wise....bigger the population harder it is to manage just saying.
I don't see why that should be the case - otherwise we could thrive by just chopping the UK into scores of little bits?
I think there is a little bit of truth in it: smaller units tend to be more efficient generally. If you look at former Eastern European communist countries, there's almost a complete inverse correlation between size and how well they've done: so Estonia and Slovenia have done the best, while Russia (at the other extreme) has done the worst.
And I think in smaller units, the leaders are physically closer to the people, and therefore generally more receptive to their needs.
(This small and nimble wins is why I voted for Brexit.)
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTPPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTTPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
The media briefing now is much more muted saying it is not a trade deal, it is a limited specific deal. I think they have basically got the tariffs down on cars. The question is what did they have to give up. Maybe they threw in the Chagos Islands.
My worry with dealing with Trump is you put yourself out there and do a deal and then next week he watches something on NewsMax and decided car tariffs aren't required, so there was a) no need for a deal and b) in a worse position because given something for nothing.
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTTPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
The real irony is if there is an actual deal, rather than a memorandum of understanding to seek a deal, it would have been negotiated by Sunak and Biden.
"Labour MPs have ramped up pressure on the Treasury, calling for an economic reset after the Reform UK surge in the local elections and saying that the economy is stuck in a “doom loop”.
The warning comes from the influential Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of loyalist new MPs who have lobbied the government to go further on planning and energy reforms. Its chair said that, without drastic action, the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was on course to become prime minister."
I presume on Trump’s own claim that countries were kissing his ass to get trade deals that the UK was the most assiduous in polishing the Trump ring. May take a while to get the taste of that out of the collective mouth.
For all the fanfare from the American president, and the relief it may bring some sectors, this is far from what we have traditionally thought of as a trade deal.
Rather it will be a carve-out - some exemptions from some the of trade barriers that president Trump has imposed in recent weeks.
Moreover, what is announced today is only the framework of terms of this narrow agreement, and there’ll be much work to be done on negotiations and the legal paperwork in the coming months. But some areas remain off the table - including food standards.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
Prosecco is up there with pineapple on pizza and radiohead live....
Come on nothing is worse than radiohead live except maybe coldplay
Coldplay did produce one genuinely excellent album. The rest of their discography is rubbish, mind.
Shall we admit we have different musical tastes then, as in I have one and you don't?
I think we'd agree that 90% of Coldplay is shit. I just happen to be quite fond of A Rush of Blood to the Head. Which is odd, because at the time I was breaking up with my (then) girlfriend, and listened to it about 300 times because I was really depressed.
For future reference when depressed Leonard Cohen is the goto guy for driving you to even deeper depression just saying
Imagine a Leonard Cohen gig, with The Verve and The Smiths as support acts.
That sounds like it would be a bitter sweet symphony.
John Simpson on BBC2: the attack on Taiwan will probably come sooner rather than later.
It's quite hard to attack Taiwan, due to the large amount of sea that the invasion force would need to cross. At the very least, we'd get lots of warning because China would need to martial its forces in ports on its Eastern seaboard.
My understanding is the sea is so rough for 9 months of the year and the coast line is brutal, there is a very small window of around 3 months every year that it is even possible to mount an invasion to the small areas of the coastline.
Yes, there's a definite window where such an operation would need to be mounted. And the forces involved will be so huge it would take months to assemble them - if China decides to go for Taiwan we'll have plenty of notice.
To be honest, if he does go for it expect Xi to implement a total blockade rather than an invasion. Stop all air and sea traffic from reaching Taiwan, coupled with long-range missile strikes on important infrastructure. People with no food, fuel or electricity can't resist indefinitely. Amphibious invasions are difficult and risky, a blockade will absolutely work if they can keep it up.
He has some level of moral 'cover' now though due to Trump's bullshit about neighbouring countries really belonging to him.
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTTPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
The media briefing now is much more muted saying it is not a trade deal, it is a limited specific deal. I think they have basically got the tariffs down on cars. The question is what did they have to give up. Maybe they threw in the Chagos Islands.
My worry with dealing with Trump is you put yourself out there and do a deal and then next week he watches something on NewsMax and decided car tariffs aren't required, so there was a) no need for a deal and b) in a worse position because given something for nothing.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's also because 20% of our prison capacity is people on remand, who have not yet been tried yet. That's approximately 18,000 at present.
Of the order of 20-25% of those do not receive a prison sentence. That's nearly 4,000 unnecessarily taken up prison spaces right there.
The place to start is with Court capacity, and interventions which reduce recidivism to be a basic, not a nice-to-have. Prison capacity may help, but that's a tailpipe solution.
(It did not help that the last Govt made about 3 promises to built X prison places by Y date, and missed all of them iirc.
I think Kemi's doing a good job in the circumstances and hope she makes it to the general election.
If Kemi makes it to the GE, the Conservatives have lost the will to live.
She would never make it in real life. She lacks the skills, personality and drive to build a team and put a plan into action. The only place for her would be some lacklustre quango type organisation. Oh, wait.
And, there are a large number of middle-class graduates employed in precisely such roles.
Completely off topic, but this has been puzzling me for a while: Why did Boris Johnson choose to be "Boris" in politics than, for example, "Alexander"?
(In the US, Boris is often used for "Russian" jokes.
Example: Ivan: "How are you doing today, Boris?" Boris: "Average." Ivan: "What do you mean,average?" Boris: "Worse than yesterday, better than tomorrow. So, average." )
Boris sounds quite chummy in British English. Not sure why, but it does. (Not sure if the word chummy translates well into American English).
Boris is more chummy - Boris the Bold was around in children's TV when he was young, was he not? Apparently he adopted the usage at Eton in 1977 of his own volition, at around 11.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's also because 20% of our prison capacity is people on remand, who have not yet been tried yet. That's approximately 18,000 at present.
Of the order of 20-25% of those do not receive a prison sentence. That's nearly 4,000 unnecessarily taken up prison spaces right there.
The place to start is with Court capacity, and interventions which reduce recidivism to be a basic, not a nice-to-have. Prison capacity may help, but that's a tailpipe solution.
(It did not help that the last Govt made about 3 promises to built X prison places by Y date, and missed all of them iirc.
They should all be commoditised like Premier Inn, except with windows into the rooms and locks on the outside with guard rooms. And without the 4* bit, obviously.
In fact, I think that's what the MoJ is trying to do to renew the estate.
I would like to put out a screed on what the Tories must do to recover, but embarrassingly I think Kemi Badenoch's strategy is broadly correct. She cannot copy Reform, because what's the point, and she cannot really forge close ties, because Reform don’t want them, and nor does most of what's left of the PCP. It would be even more suicidal to abandon conservatism completely and embrace centrism, when the broad direction of political travel is in the opposite direction, and those interested in centrism already have Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Nationalist Parties (in Wales and Scotland) to satisfy their prediliction. It would be a rat joining a sinking ship.
So what she must do is be seen as sufficiently different (and better) than Reform to protect the leafy shires from them and ensure the usual Tory recovery happens there, but vigorously oppose Labour from the right. Therefore her 'have a plan' differentiation strategy is broadly the right one, but the problem is we've seen no plans, and none look imminent. She has had some successes recently - coming out against Net Zero and then Tony Blair agreeing, doing well on the unnamed issue, being vindicated on women and biological sex. It's all a lot more positive than getting into a Twitter spat about Reform's 'made up' membership numbers.
But like Dura Ace said, it is all going at a glacially slow pace. 'Further and Faster' should really be Kemi's takeaway from the local elections, not Starmers.
The paradox is this: what we should have done in 2010 is cut back on social welfare, pensions (state and public) and cash benefits in favour of the core duties of the State but, then, whoever did it would have been straight out of power in 2015.
Instead, the Tories bought another 9 years, somewhat fractiously, but with precisely the same outcome for them and an eviscerated State as well.
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTPPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
The press reporting is using the phrase “framework for a deal”. So at best it is only heads of agreement
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTPPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
The press reporting is using the phrase “framework for a deal”. So at best it is only heads of agreement
Trump - BIGLY-EST TRADE DEAL EVERRRRR
Reality - We have agreed what to chat about when having a chat about doing a very limited carve out for very specific industries.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
I would like to put out a screed on what the Tories must do to recover, but embarrassingly I think Kemi Badenoch's strategy is broadly correct. She cannot copy Reform, because what's the point, and she cannot really forge close ties, because Reform don’t want them, and nor does most of what's left of the PCP. It would be even more suicidal to abandon conservatism completely and embrace centrism, when the broad direction of political travel is in the opposite direction, and those interested in centrism already have Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Nationalist Parties (in Wales and Scotland) to satisfy their prediliction. It would be a rat joining a sinking ship.
So what she must do is be seen as sufficiently different (and better) than Reform to protect the leafy shires from them and ensure the usual Tory recovery happens there, but vigorously oppose Labour from the right. Therefore her 'have a plan' differentiation strategy is broadly the right one, but the problem is we've seen no plans, and none look imminent. She has had some successes recently - coming out against Net Zero and then Tony Blair agreeing, doing well on the unnamed issue, being vindicated on women and biological sex. It's all a lot more positive than getting into a Twitter spat about Reform's 'made up' membership numbers.
But like Dura Ace said, it is all going at a glacially slow pace. 'Further and Faster' should really be Kemi's takeaway from the local elections, not Starmers.
Kemi's problem is her energy, visibility, engagement, and advocacy.
I agree the strategic position the Conservatives are in is so acute that changing leader isn't likely to change much.
They should try and work out why Boris with his layman terms soundbites still connects, and why that resonates.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Food doesn't necessarily need state provision though and can be provided by the private sector. Defence and justice must necessarily be provided by the state.
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTPPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
The press reporting is using the phrase “framework for a deal”. So at best it is only heads of agreement
Trump - BIGLY-EST TRADE DEAL EVERRRRR
Reality - We have agreed what to chat about when having a chat about doing a very limited carve out for very specific industries.
Trump really is desperate to meet the King and have his state visit
This trade deal that we're about to get with Gilead. If the Big News is the removal of the recently applied Trump tariffs then what's the point. We've been pining for a deal ever since Brexit, and potentially we're now getting a deal to reset the clock to the golden age where we didn't have a deal.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Remind me of all those State-run supermarkets that help us do that then?
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Food doesn't necessarily need state provision though and can be provided by the private sector. Defence and justice must necessarily be provided by the state.
You need a geography that is externally defended and internally governed in order for that food to be efficiently produced, marketed and traded.
The State's involvement is purely a regulatory one. But with anarchy, no-one's going to bother to farm.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Surely defence is not just about protecting land in of itself but natural resources such as food and water sources, so that is included.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Surely defence is not just about protecting land in of itself but natural resources such as food and water sources, so that is included.
Defence includes defending the land and waterways.
That's particularly important if, say, you're up against Vikings - who covet your fertile land and use the rivers to attack you.
There is a lot of weight being placed on Reform having to run a council or two and how it will cause them all these issues. Making a right balls of things locally hasn't stopped other parties on a national level in the past. The get out is always the national government are shit, they caused all these problems, vote us in nationally and we can do something about it.
Ultimately a lot of people vote in GE for whichever leader they like, or they think their local MP is a good'un despite their party being shits. The council being crap at being the council these days is sort taken as read and separate, in fact I bet a lot of people don't even know which party control their council.
I think it being County not District may be significant. They are the ones running the "must have" services, and control the expenditure of 80-90% of the Council Tax revenue.
But they are obsessing about "woke" or "DEI" expenditure which even they are claiming, without being clear what they include, only makes up 0.05%-0.1% of the budget.
They are putting their political capital into dog ends and things which are smaller than rounding errors.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Food doesn't necessarily need state provision though and can be provided by the private sector. Defence and justice must necessarily be provided by the state.
You need a geography that is externally defended and internally governed in order for that food to be efficiently produced, marketed and traded.
The State's involvement is purely a regulatory one. But with anarchy, no-one's going to bother to farm.
The private sector is great at providing food, until it isn’t. In an emergency, the state is the provider of last resort.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Food doesn't necessarily need state provision though and can be provided by the private sector. Defence and justice must necessarily be provided by the state.
You need a geography that is externally defended and internally governed in order for that food to be efficiently produced, marketed and traded.
The State's involvement is purely a regulatory one. But with anarchy, no-one's going to bother to farm.
The private sector is great at providing food, until it isn’t. In an emergency, the state is the provider of last resort.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Food doesn't necessarily need state provision though and can be provided by the private sector. Defence and justice must necessarily be provided by the state.
You need a geography that is externally defended and internally governed in order for that food to be efficiently produced, marketed and traded.
The State's involvement is purely a regulatory one. But with anarchy, no-one's going to bother to farm.
The private sector is great at providing food, until it isn’t. In an emergency, the state is the provider of last resort.
But that doesn't put it at the top of a list of state provisioning. Provider of last resort is probably pretty far down the list.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Surely defence is not just about protecting land in of itself but natural resources such as food and water sources, so that is included.
There are many threats to food supplies that don’t come under defence.
But maybe the point here is that nations are complicated things with many interlocking parts, so it’s a bit simplistic to use this language of the “first obligation” of the state. States have to do many things.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Surely defence is not just about protecting land in of itself but natural resources such as food and water sources, so that is included.
Defence includes defending the land and waterways.
.
Well we clearly cannot deter/defend against a few small boats so that’s something we’re incapable of.
I think given the timing of the deal it’s not going to be great ! And of course could be embarrassing if down the line the EU end up with better terms .
A framework deal would look strange , so you’ve negotiated for months to decide what you’re going to be negotiating on !
The film industry issue I expect hasn’t been agreed given that was only spewed out by Trump a few days ago .
One thing that definitely won’t be in any deal is chlorinated chicken or hormone beef . That would stop any deal with the EU .
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Food doesn't necessarily need state provision though and can be provided by the private sector. Defence and justice must necessarily be provided by the state.
You need a geography that is externally defended and internally governed in order for that food to be efficiently produced, marketed and traded.
The State's involvement is purely a regulatory one. But with anarchy, no-one's going to bother to farm.
The private sector is great at providing food, until it isn’t. In an emergency, the state is the provider of last resort.
The state is the distributor in that case. The food will still have been produced by the private sector. The state just steps in to control logistics.
All doors temporarily locked. Had to unlock them for me so I could get in
“Disruption by shoplifters, Sir”
But remember we are all imagining it, as @Eabhal assures us
Jeezo, this has really upset you.
FWIW, my local Scotmid regularly gets cleaned out by a group of 16-year olds. I'm not suggesting it's not happening, just that the sudden obsession with it is a bit odd.
The big spike happened in 2020 and I don't recall any conniptions about it then. It's similar to small boats to a lesser extent, with the giant leap happening in 2022.
I respect your lived experience, of course.
Lived experience is code for own facts.
This is actual EXPERIENCE.
We've both seen it over the last 48 hours. It's rife.
You're a Moron. That's my lived experience of you.
My lived experience from 8 years ago = constant shoplifting and getting spoken to by the police for energetically removing headtorches from a thief.
We never reported it.
That's my concern about these statistics. Has something happened that makes it more likely that these offences are reported or is this a genuine increase? My anecdotal impression is very much the latter but there may be other reasons.
Well, my lived experience is that the local Lidl now has a bouncer on the door, as does Sainsbury's.
The local corner shop has put up a glass wall for the checkout.
Something has changed.
I remember drink shops in particular having glass walls and metal bars 20 years ago. But I am not disputing there has been an increase. When people stop enforcing the law people take advantage. It is (wrongly) regarded as a victimless crime.
And its ridiculous it is like this. When I was a fiscal in Dundee 25 years ago we would get the Sheriff to go off the bench and we (prosecution and defence) would look at the videos. If the accused could be ID'd they pled. It they couldn't the case was dropped. The percentage where the CCTV was so poor that ID was not possible was high.
These days CCTV can give you an identification at least a couple of hundred yards away. It is incredibly clear. Catching these people, if we could be bothered, should be easy.
Obviously, some of the PB oldies have rose tinted glasses on, and remember the 80s as a time when you could leave your front door open, go on holiday for a fortnight, and the local kids would go in and vacuum your house for you and leave your kitchen immaculate.
Despite their obvious senility, it is clear that shoplifting has gotten significantly more prevalent since funding for the police and courts was slashed, because the likelihood of negative consequences for those who do is close to zero.
I would ask: whence came this absurd idea that shoplifting shall not be prosecuted?!
It seems to have emerged in the UK and the USA at roughly the same time
Probably when it was seen as more expense than it was worth.
At societal level, that's obviously silly- in many areas, we get as much crime as we are willing to collectively walk past- but a dessicated spreadsheet shagger would prioritise other crimes which allow more solved cases for less hassle and expense.
If you manage by KPI- and the UK has done little else since the Blair years, and it's a global trend- expect KPI to bite you on the bum.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look how good the stats are on physical violence, theft (primarily because burglaries have dropped off), and so on.
If you were to take a cold look at it, it's fraud and sexual assault that you would spend all the cash on. Both can be devastating to people in a way that shoplifting simply is not - the ROI there is unbeatable.
(but I do understand the broken window theory. I also think there is an intrinsic value in just walking around in a broadly crime free society).
Agreed- the principle is pretty sensible. Put the money where it will do most good first, and work down from there. It's a similar sort of idea to QALYs in medicine. The catch is that you have to get the "benefit" calculation spot-on, and there seems to be a reality check missing here.
The other problem is what happens if the money runs out before you get to the bottom of your list of crimes you would like to stop? Which is almost certainly the case at the moment. We want less shoplifting, less grafitti... does that want extend to paying more, or having less of something else, to achieve it? The reality is... probably not.
On a more serious note to my earlier postings about bolt cutters. What you get is what we have now which is private law. Get burglared you don't go to the police you go have a word with some people if you want your stuff back and some money changes hand....been there done that
Is it private law or just the birth of a new proto-State that may grow to replace the old one?
Don't think they plan to form a government, just people who dont mind making some untaxed money to get your stuff back
Ah! A nascent security apparatus!
Not really as they are generally criminal themselves....in my case I really wanted the laptop back because it had lots of irreplacable photo's of my son. I know for a fact however as a group they had murdered, committed assaults, run guns and drugs etc
This is why we need a really tough brutal hard right government. Why should you have to buy off criminal gangs to get your stuff back. You pay your taxes and obey the law, you deserve so much better and I am done with the liberals
This is not Britain. We are losing Britain. We need a severe rightwing government to restore order and medically blind litterlouts and sort this shit out
Or we could just fund the police and courts properly. Lots of left wing countries seem to have managed that.
Increasingly not true. Increasingly, as I travel the world, the countries that are doing well have significantly authoritarian governments that inflict serious punishments on minor offenders. Their cities are clean, crime is low, graffiti does not exist, young women can go solo jogging at 10pm with no fear
I want that for my daughters, I want that for the UK
Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland all wave hello.
All have - to you - extremely low levels of incarceration, all of which pursue policies which you would regard as wanky and liberal. And yet, all have extremely low levels of petter and serious crime.
All those countries have incarceration rates of around 50 out of every 100,000 people. By contrast,
USA: 664 per 100k UK: 130 per 100k
The problem is not the lack of severity of the punishment, it is the fact that we aren't successfully arresting and prosecuting people.
If we successfully prosecute more people then presumably the incarceration rate will go up?
The way I look at is like this:
Criminals think about - chance of getting caught - likelihood of getting punished - distance in the future before said punishment happens and - severity of punishment
If it 1% * 1% * 3 years then it doesn't matter whether you are removing a hand or not, the deterrence isn't there.
It is much more important to staff up, and speed up the justice system than it is to fuck around with the severity.
If we were catching most shoplifters, and we were punishing most shoplifters, then we could say "Oh, the punishment isn't severe enough". But I don't believe that's the problem: I believe the problem is that shoplifters aren't being caught, aren't being prosecuted, and when trials do happen, they're three years in the future, meaning the likelihood of a guilty verdict is massively diminished.
And even if you do get a guilty verdict you're likely to just get a suspended sentence from our revolving door justice system.
And that's because we haven't invested in enough prison capacity.
Politicians like to say "tougher sentences", because that's easy and it shows they're doing something.
But if there aren't prison places, then all that happens is that other people get let out earlier.
The fundamental problem is one of lack of money. Really, we should be spending 50% more on the police and the prisons, and twice as much on the judicial system.
It's certainly true that delivering justice is a more fundamental obligation of the state than delivering public services or delivering benefits.
Indeed: the very first obligation of the state is a legal system.
The first is defence and the second is justice.
What is the point of defence and justice if you are starving to death? The first obligation is ensuring people can eat.
Speaking of Hampstead, my wife and I went on a nostalgia tour on bank holiday Monday after dropping the kids off to my parents. It really is such a beautiful part of London, we even eyed up some of the estate agency windows but then realised how stupid we were being.
Presumably after you stopped looking in estate agents windows you were feeling peckish, so went to M and S and shoplifted lunch?
So what she must do is be seen as sufficiently different (and better) than Reform to protect the leafy shires from them and ensure the usual Tory recovery happens there, but vigorously oppose Labour from the right. Therefore her 'have a plan' differentiation strategy is broadly the right one, but the problem is we've seen no plans, and none look imminent.
I think this "usual Tory recovery" is politically problematic. Up until last Thursday the Cons controlled essentially all the Shire Councils, as well as the national Government, and the "usual Tory recovery" has been nowhere in sight for the last 15 years (OK 10-15), whilst Local Authorities were gutted like a dead fish. Who would believe it? The .. er .. lived experience of Conservative lead Government is that "usual Tory recovery" is a fairy story.
I can look around on Google Streetview from 2008/2009 if I want to see just how far County Councils have fallen, and see the deterioration in the quality of the public realm since then. Talk to younger people and they are surprised how good it used to be.
The last "usual Tory recovery" is dated back to at least 1991, and perhaps more credibly to ~1985, because Nigel Lawson eventually generated a collapse due to his own hubris.
My politics are probably more centrist than yours are, and have moved somewhat from centre-right to more centre-left, and away from the Liberal wing of the Tories, under the tutelage of Johnson, Truss, Sunak et al turning the Conservative Party into a chaotic rabble.
I think given the timing of the deal it’s not going to be great ! And of course could be embarrassing if down the line the EU end up with better terms .
A framework deal would look strange , so you’ve negotiated for months to decide what you’re going to be negotiating on !
The film industry issue I expect hasn’t been agreed given that was only spewed out by Trump a few days ago .
One thing that definitely won’t be in any deal is chlorinated chicken or hormone beef . That would stop any deal with the EU .
I think the one to watch may be the Digital Services Tax, and whether Mr Trump actually makes any concessions from his starting base line - not from his exaggerated attempted front-foot position.
I wonder if the Chicken Tax will be abolished or reduced, so Land Rover can start building Tonka Trucks for the USA?
kemi badenoch reminds me of the always angry production assistant in Drop the Dead Donkey, can we make that the new PB only tenuous link between leader of opposition and mid tier 90s sitcom please
Comments
I would sell these odds & I think the correct odds are something like 1%.
Xi isn't Putin & he won't blunder into a military conflict for no reason.
Xi's main goal is the economic development of China. He wants to make the country into an economic superpower, through things like investment in AI. He won't risk China's economic strength by needlessly attacking Taiwan.
https://polymarket.com/event/will-china-invade-taiwan-in-2025?tid=1746658794174
Most stories that has GB News understands I would give a massive wide breath, but this is a Mark White story who one of the few proper credible journalists they have (20 years at Sky)
This would likely be the first shot.
Magistrates gave 42-year-old John Molyneux, of Greenwood in Bamber Bridge a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) as a result of the offences, and he must comply with it for two years following his appearance in court.
It prohibits him from entering any Tesco, Tesco Express, Home Bargains or Spar in the country as well as Thorntons on Hough Lane in Leyland, and Gee Tees on Station Road in Bamber Bridge."
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2025-05-07/man-banned-from-every-tesco-in-uk-after-shoplifting-conviction
To be honest, if he does go for it expect Xi to implement a total blockade rather than an invasion. Stop all air and sea traffic from reaching Taiwan, coupled with long-range missile strikes on important infrastructure. People with no food, fuel or electricity can't resist indefinitely. Amphibious invasions are difficult and risky, a blockade will absolutely work if they can keep it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampstead_and_Highgate_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
I don't think a Chinese invasion of the Taiwanese mainland is feasible, without utterly horrendous losses. Taiwan has a lot of pretty capable aircraft, and a small (but growing) submarine fleet.
How would you get hundreds of thousands of troops across the Taiwan strait?
It's simply not feasible.
On the other hand, a blockade of Taiwan could probably be very effective, especially if the goal was to essentially bring the RoC into China's orbit without bloodshed. Effectively, the Chinese government would make it clear it could starve / strange Taiwan to death.
The party will soon discover councils have almost no money left.
By Megan Kenyon"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/05/reform-faces-an-uphill-battle-in-power
Ultimately a lot of people vote in GE for whichever leader they like, or they think their local MP is a good'un despite their party being shits. The council being crap at being the council these days is sort taken as read and separate, in fact I bet a lot of people don't even know which party control their council.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6evFodAHYvI
Private Eye has clipped the John Hemming MP story that was posted here the other day. (80-seconds video)
Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvqv247gd7o
Blockbuster meets Netflix.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5r5zrwvxxo
(Reach papers vs the rest, come to think of it.)
The warning comes from the influential Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of loyalist new MPs who have lobbied the government to go further on planning and energy reforms. Its chair said that, without drastic action, the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was on course to become prime minister."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/07/keeping-farage-from-no-10-is-a-battle-for-uks-future-heart-and-soul-labour-mps-told
Also, from your link: “We’ve had polling recently showing that Reform voters are by far the most financially insecure of all the major parties. Putting money in those people’s pockets is just as essential as robust immigration policy in showing them Labour can deliver.”
Reform is NOTA. Its support is skint voters whose fundamental belief that this lot cannot possibly be worse than those who have gone before.
Fwiw, imo Starmer will retire before the 2029 general election so the above will not apply.
“Why should the people who arrived first at the bus stop be the first to get on the bus?”
https://www.takimag.com/article/right-on-queue/
Their air to air radars and missiles significantly outrage anything Taiwan has, and they seem to be very effective against non stealth aircraft.
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-set-to-announce-us-will-agree-trade-deal-with-uk-reports-13363630
“But today I want to say that I got it wrong and I condemn Israel for what it is doing to the Palestinian people in Gaza"
–Conservative MP Mark Pritchard
https://x.com/AdHaque110/status/1919953788267381212
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/07/world/europe/syria-france-al-shara-macron.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk8.T2s_.t-JrOIzqg_XJ&smid=url-share
She would never make it in real life. She lacks the skills, personality and drive to build a team and put a plan into action. The only place for her would be some lacklustre quango type organisation. Oh, wait.
That Malthouse letter was from a group of Tory MPs who've decided they're doomed, and so just don't care anymore- they want to make an impact for themselves in other ways.
The importance of good training is often forgotten and people assume that if you have good fighter jets, for example, you will be fine but if you don’t use them properly then you are a gonner.
From the the British side, they specifically want to reduce tariffs on British steel and cars.
From the US side, they want something on pharmaceuticals and technology.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn91dxzv4pnt
That's shocking. Shocking, I tell you.
.
As long as Meghan and the children stayed in the US.
If Starmer has achieved a trade deal with the US then fair play that will be a success for him though I expect some on his benches and the Lib Dems will be less than happy as it is clear that with CPTPPA, India and US trade deals rejoining the EU becomes a highly unlikely
My worry with dealing with Trump is you put yourself out there and do a deal and then next week he watches something on NewsMax and decided car tariffs aren't required, so there was a) no need for a deal and b) in a worse position because given something for nothing.
Rather it will be a carve-out - some exemptions from some the of trade barriers that president Trump has imposed in recent weeks.
Moreover, what is announced today is only the framework of terms of this narrow agreement, and there’ll be much work to be done on negotiations and the legal paperwork in the coming months. But some areas remain off the table - including food standards.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn91dxzv4pnt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguqFdlGCsc
It's also because 20% of our prison capacity is people on remand, who have not yet been tried yet. That's approximately 18,000 at present.
Of the order of 20-25% of those do not receive a prison sentence. That's nearly 4,000 unnecessarily taken up prison spaces right there.
The place to start is with Court capacity, and interventions which reduce recidivism to be a basic, not a nice-to-have. Prison capacity may help, but that's a tailpipe solution.
(It did not help that the last Govt made about 3 promises to built X prison places by Y date, and missed all of them iirc.
(Unless we’ve given something up that could cause backlash, in which case it might be quite helpful…)
Wiki notes that his family call him "Al".
In fact, I think that's what the MoJ is trying to do to renew the estate.
So what she must do is be seen as sufficiently different (and better) than Reform to protect the leafy shires from them and ensure the usual Tory recovery happens there, but vigorously oppose Labour from the right. Therefore her 'have a plan' differentiation strategy is broadly the right one, but the problem is we've seen no plans, and none look imminent. She has had some successes recently - coming out against Net Zero and then Tony Blair agreeing, doing well on the unnamed issue, being vindicated on women and biological sex. It's all a lot more positive than getting into a Twitter spat about Reform's 'made up' membership numbers.
But like Dura Ace said, it is all going at a glacially slow pace. 'Further and Faster' should really be Kemi's takeaway from the local elections, not Starmers.
Instead, the Tories bought another 9 years, somewhat fractiously, but with precisely the same outcome for them and an eviscerated State as well.
Reality - We have agreed what to chat about when having a chat about doing a very limited carve out for very specific industries.
I agree the strategic position the Conservatives are in is so acute that changing leader isn't likely to change much.
They should try and work out why Boris with his layman terms soundbites still connects, and why that resonates.
The State's involvement is purely a regulatory one. But with anarchy, no-one's going to bother to farm.
That's particularly important if, say, you're up against Vikings - who covet your fertile land and use the rivers to attack you.
But they are obsessing about "woke" or "DEI" expenditure which even they are claiming, without being clear what they include, only makes up 0.05%-0.1% of the budget.
They are putting their political capital into dog ends and things which are smaller than rounding errors.
NEW THREAD
But maybe the point here is that nations are complicated things with many interlocking parts, so it’s a bit simplistic to use this language of the “first obligation” of the state. States have to do many things.
A framework deal would look strange , so you’ve negotiated for months to decide what you’re going to be negotiating on !
The film industry issue I expect hasn’t been agreed given that was only spewed out by Trump a few days ago .
One thing that definitely won’t be in any deal is chlorinated chicken or hormone beef . That would stop any deal with the EU .
I can look around on Google Streetview from 2008/2009 if I want to see just how far County Councils have fallen, and see the deterioration in the quality of the public realm since then. Talk to younger people and they are surprised how good it used to be.
The last "usual Tory recovery" is dated back to at least 1991, and perhaps more credibly to ~1985, because Nigel Lawson eventually generated a collapse due to his own hubris.
My politics are probably more centrist than yours are, and have moved somewhat from centre-right to more centre-left, and away from the Liberal wing of the Tories, under the tutelage of Johnson, Truss, Sunak et al turning the Conservative Party into a chaotic rabble.
So I don't think that narrative will fly.
I wonder if the Chicken Tax will be abolished or reduced, so Land Rover can start building Tonka Trucks for the USA?