The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The British Crime Survey talks to the same people every year. It asks them if they've been the victim of a crime. And if so what. It's anonymous. And it is generally considered to be extremely accurate.
In particular, it picks up on crimes that people never bother reporting to the police.
Now, there are some issues with it. If there is a particular group of people who are resistant to being surveyed - say young women, often in care, with low education, and who are very suspicious of the state - then it will miss that group.
But for 95% of the population, it's going to be really accurate.
They never ask me and I have committed plenty of crimes
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
Indeed, and the anecdotes are that rapes went unreported in the past.
@williamglenn is being sarcastic. Bezos said the opposite.
Fortunately, we have British Crime Survey data, so we know that what you posit - massive underreporting of rapes in the past - is real.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The British Crime Survey talks to the same people every year. It asks them if they've been the victim of a crime. And if so what. It's anonymous. And it is generally considered to be extremely accurate.
In particular, it picks up on crimes that people never bother reporting to the police.
Now, there are some issues with it. If there is a particular group of people who are resistant to being surveyed - say young women, often in care, with low education, and who are very suspicious of the state - then it will miss that group.
But for 95% of the population, it's going to be really accurate.
They never ask me and I have committed plenty of crimes
Well, yes, the clue is in the name.
It's a survey and they talk to a subset of the population.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
1970 to 2004 (which is when the final set of increases arrived up north) as banks went from 3+1 mortgages to 3+3 and 4+4 income ratios..
Mortgages aren't remotely the issue, since would-be owners need to compete against landlords and roughly half of all landlord purchases of property is cash-only.
The issue is that supply is nowhere near demand. There are not enough buildings.
If there were more supply then people wouldn't need to max out their mortgage as they could afford a different home instead.
If there were more supply then not as many people would go in to let as buy to let isn't as attractive when you don't have any tenants in your empty property as would-be tenants are now actually-owners instead.
Even if there were more homes house prices will still remain high as long as there are significant numbers of 2 earner couples, lenders lending 4+ times income and unless immigration also falls significantly
If we built 10 million new homes over the next decade and had net migration of 2 million over that decade, do you think prices would rise or fall?
People spend a higher proportion of income on property than before, that's not because of 2 earner families, its because supply and demand is broken by an imbalanced market and too many restrictions preventing prices from falling down to a free market equilibrium.
Well we wouldn't have much countryside left and of course many of those 2 million would buy many of the new homes.
If only 1 earner was the norm only 1 earner would be needed to buy the average house, hence reducing average house prices without even a single new home being built
We'd have plenty of countryside left, over 90% of the country is countryside today so even if we doubled our quantity of homes we'd still have over 80% of the country being countryside. Oh and that's England-only data, not Scotland or Wales which is even more extreme.
No, it wouldn't, since not everyone is buying from any amounts of earners - or mortgages. You'd simply have landlords snapping up more homes, cash only, and more people paying their income on rent.
Which would even then have a hugely detrimental affect on our farmland and food supply and natural beauty of our countryside.
Most home buyers are now 2 earner couples, landlords are specialist buy to let and 50 years ago when most home buyers were 1 earner couples house prices were lower and there were no more landlords than now
You conflate cause and effect.
Competition drives prices down. 50 years ago a TV a fraction of the quality of the one you can get affordably today, would cost much more in real terms than one does today. Why hasn't the fact that people have two incomes increased the price of televisions like it has property? Because competition has boosted their quality and their supply.
Technology has improved across the board. It should be cheaper today to build a home than it was 50 years ago thanks to technological improvements - its not, not because of the cost of materials, but because of the cost of the land. Even without building anything, the land costs too much.
That's got sod all to do with the amount of incomes of earners and everything to do with the supply and demand of land with permission. Permission is tightly controlled which means it costs too much, that's the effect of state controlled restrictions - and why I oppose state planning and controls across the board in the economy - and why all right wingers typically do, except for this one area where you oppose a free market.
We now have Local Plans which set clearly where development can go in each council area.
We didn't 50 years ago but still had lower prices as fewer 2 earner couples were buying
"Local Plans" are a bad thing that heavily restrict where development can go. All such socialist/soviet tractor plans tend to fail.
We weren't blighted with such bullshit 50 years ago, agreed. So prices were lower and 1 person could buy.
Best time for development was the 1930s, before the godawful Labour government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act. Abolish that socialist bullshit, set the market free, and we'd have free market prices and people wouldn't need to spend 2 incomes on a property.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The BCS is probably understating the reduction in rape and sexual assault, while the police reports are missing it completely.
I was sexually assaulted in 1988, never told anyone about it at the time.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that we have objective dats on the incidence of rape and sexual assault - the British Crime Survey, and that shows a sharp decline in their incidence in the last 20 years.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The British Crime Survey talks to the same people every year. It asks them if they've been the victim of a crime. And if so what. It's anonymous. And it is generally considered to be extremely accurate.
In particular, it picks up on crimes that people never bother reporting to the police.
Now, there are some issues with it. If there is a particular group of people who are resistant to being surveyed - say young women, often in care, with low education, and who are very suspicious of the state - then it will miss that group.
But for 95% of the population, it's going to be really accurate.
They never ask me and I have committed plenty of crimes
Well, yes, the clue is in the name.
It's a survey and they talk to a subset of the population.
I feel diminished now my crimes havent been reported
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
My assumption is that the incidence of rape in broadly similar Western European countries is likely to be around the same, and that large differences in levels of reported rape are therefore more likely to be due to differences in the rate of reporting rape, than in the actual incidence of rape.
Data from the British Crime Survey appears to support this assumption.
If rapes are more likely to be reported in Britain then that is a good thing, and hopefully, if the criminal justice system can get better at convicting the rapists reported, this will in time lead to a reduction in rapes being committed.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
1970 to 2004 (which is when the final set of increases arrived up north) as banks went from 3+1 mortgages to 3+3 and 4+4 income ratios..
Mortgages aren't remotely the issue, since would-be owners need to compete against landlords and roughly half of all landlord purchases of property is cash-only.
The issue is that supply is nowhere near demand. There are not enough buildings.
If there were more supply then people wouldn't need to max out their mortgage as they could afford a different home instead.
If there were more supply then not as many people would go in to let as buy to let isn't as attractive when you don't have any tenants in your empty property as would-be tenants are now actually-owners instead.
Even if there were more homes house prices will still remain high as long as there are significant numbers of 2 earner couples, lenders lending 4+ times income and unless immigration also falls significantly
If we built 10 million new homes over the next decade and had net migration of 2 million over that decade, do you think prices would rise or fall?
People spend a higher proportion of income on property than before, that's not because of 2 earner families, its because supply and demand is broken by an imbalanced market and too many restrictions preventing prices from falling down to a free market equilibrium.
Well we wouldn't have much countryside left and of course many of those 2 million would buy many of the new homes.
If only 1 earner was the norm only 1 earner would be needed to buy the average house, hence reducing average house prices without even a single new home being built
We'd have plenty of countryside left, over 90% of the country is countryside today so even if we doubled our quantity of homes we'd still have over 80% of the country being countryside. Oh and that's England-only data, not Scotland or Wales which is even more extreme.
No, it wouldn't, since not everyone is buying from any amounts of earners - or mortgages. You'd simply have landlords snapping up more homes, cash only, and more people paying their income on rent.
Which would even then have a hugely detrimental affect on our farmland and food supply and natural beauty of our countryside.
Most home buyers are now 2 earner couples, landlords are specialist buy to let and 50 years ago when most home buyers were 1 earner couples house prices were lower and there were no more landlords than now
You conflate cause and effect.
Competition drives prices down. 50 years ago a TV a fraction of the quality of the one you can get affordably today, would cost much more in real terms than one does today. Why hasn't the fact that people have two incomes increased the price of televisions like it has property? Because competition has boosted their quality and their supply.
Technology has improved across the board. It should be cheaper today to build a home than it was 50 years ago thanks to technological improvements - its not, not because of the cost of materials, but because of the cost of the land. Even without building anything, the land costs too much.
That's got sod all to do with the amount of incomes of earners and everything to do with the supply and demand of land with permission. Permission is tightly controlled which means it costs too much, that's the effect of state controlled restrictions - and why I oppose state planning and controls across the board in the economy - and why all right wingers typically do, except for this one area where you oppose a free market.
We now have Local Plans which set clearly where development can go in each council area.
We didn't 50 years ago but still had lower prices as fewer 2 earner couples were buying
"Local Plans" are a bad thing that heavily restrict where development can go. All such socialist/soviet tractor plans tend to fail.
We weren't blighted with such bullshit 50 years ago, agreed. So prices were lower and 1 person could buy.
Best time for development was the 1930s, before the godawful Labour government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act. Abolish that socialist bullshit, set the market free, and we'd have free market prices and people wouldn't need to spend 2 incomes on a property.
Yes I know you would build all over the countryside and greenbelt with no controls. Indeed as you yourself state we had the TCPA before Local Plans and still much lower prices before you started getting 2 earner couples getting mortgages.
Fortunately candidates with such an agenda have zero chance of ever getting elected
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
1970 to 2004 (which is when the final set of increases arrived up north) as banks went from 3+1 mortgages to 3+3 and 4+4 income ratios..
Mortgages aren't remotely the issue, since would-be owners need to compete against landlords and roughly half of all landlord purchases of property is cash-only.
The issue is that supply is nowhere near demand. There are not enough buildings.
If there were more supply then people wouldn't need to max out their mortgage as they could afford a different home instead.
If there were more supply then not as many people would go in to let as buy to let isn't as attractive when you don't have any tenants in your empty property as would-be tenants are now actually-owners instead.
Even if there were more homes house prices will still remain high as long as there are significant numbers of 2 earner couples, lenders lending 4+ times income and unless immigration also falls significantly
If we built 10 million new homes over the next decade and had net migration of 2 million over that decade, do you think prices would rise or fall?
People spend a higher proportion of income on property than before, that's not because of 2 earner families, its because supply and demand is broken by an imbalanced market and too many restrictions preventing prices from falling down to a free market equilibrium.
Well we wouldn't have much countryside left and of course many of those 2 million would buy many of the new homes.
If only 1 earner was the norm only 1 earner would be needed to buy the average house, hence reducing average house prices without even a single new home being built
We'd have plenty of countryside left, over 90% of the country is countryside today so even if we doubled our quantity of homes we'd still have over 80% of the country being countryside. Oh and that's England-only data, not Scotland or Wales which is even more extreme.
No, it wouldn't, since not everyone is buying from any amounts of earners - or mortgages. You'd simply have landlords snapping up more homes, cash only, and more people paying their income on rent.
Which would even then have a hugely detrimental affect on our farmland and food supply and natural beauty of our countryside.
Most home buyers are now 2 earner couples, landlords are specialist buy to let and 50 years ago when most home buyers were 1 earner couples house prices were lower and there were no more landlords than now
You conflate cause and effect.
Competition drives prices down. 50 years ago a TV a fraction of the quality of the one you can get affordably today, would cost much more in real terms than one does today. Why hasn't the fact that people have two incomes increased the price of televisions like it has property? Because competition has boosted their quality and their supply.
Technology has improved across the board. It should be cheaper today to build a home than it was 50 years ago thanks to technological improvements - its not, not because of the cost of materials, but because of the cost of the land. Even without building anything, the land costs too much.
That's got sod all to do with the amount of incomes of earners and everything to do with the supply and demand of land with permission. Permission is tightly controlled which means it costs too much, that's the effect of state controlled restrictions - and why I oppose state planning and controls across the board in the economy - and why all right wingers typically do, except for this one area where you oppose a free market.
We now have Local Plans which set clearly where development can go in each council area.
We didn't 50 years ago but still had lower prices as fewer 2 earner couples were buying
there were lower prices 50 years ago because we've had 50 years of inflation
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
You're telling us you don't have to be religious to be a bigot ... but it helps?
As someone with a little "form" in local Government finance matters, the question I'd be asking of any reform of Council Tax is what you are trying to achieve.
For most councils, the big three expenditure items currently are Child Social Care, Adult Social Care and Housing (and only unitary authorities do all three).
When we talk about social care, it's usually focused around care for adults and especially the elderly and even more especially those with profound challenges such as dementia whereas the more expensive care over time is the care required by children many of whom have conditions that frankly would have been fatal not long ago but now enable them to live well beyond their young years but still require high levels of personal care.
Reforms to "social care" have to be about both the care requirements of children as well as those of adults and looking at the challenges faced by unpaid carers (there are a lot of them) which include the ability to find even part time employment.
It's a series of interconnected issues which aren't simple to resolve and require time and thought, something which has eluded most Governments in recent times.
If you are going to bring all aspects of social care under central Government control (via a National Care Agency perhaps) then the requirement to fund it locally disappears but that then becomes a central Govenrment expenditure to be met out of general taxation. Increasing VAT, NI or Income Tax to fund a national care solution balanced by encouraging as many as possible to save for their retirement and possible care?
The current funding imbroglio is bankrupting not just poorly run Councils but well run Councils as well as the demands are relentless and inflation within the care sector often runs in front of official measures.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
My assumption is that the incidence of rape in broadly similar Western European countries is likely to be around the same, and that large differences in levels of reported rape are therefore more likely to be due to differences in the rate of reporting rape, than in the actual incidence of rape.
Data from the British Crime Survey appears to support this assumption.
If rapes are more likely to be reported in Britain then that is a good thing, and hopefully, if the criminal justice system can get better at convicting the rapists reported, this will in time lead to a reduction in rapes being committed.
ok so I ask again. why are Swedish women not reporting rapes?
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Hoping for it is fine, expecting it when most of them are smelly little mysognists like you is another thing
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
1970 to 2004 (which is when the final set of increases arrived up north) as banks went from 3+1 mortgages to 3+3 and 4+4 income ratios..
Mortgages aren't remotely the issue, since would-be owners need to compete against landlords and roughly half of all landlord purchases of property is cash-only.
The issue is that supply is nowhere near demand. There are not enough buildings.
If there were more supply then people wouldn't need to max out their mortgage as they could afford a different home instead.
If there were more supply then not as many people would go in to let as buy to let isn't as attractive when you don't have any tenants in your empty property as would-be tenants are now actually-owners instead.
Even if there were more homes house prices will still remain high as long as there are significant numbers of 2 earner couples, lenders lending 4+ times income and unless immigration also falls significantly
If we built 10 million new homes over the next decade and had net migration of 2 million over that decade, do you think prices would rise or fall?
People spend a higher proportion of income on property than before, that's not because of 2 earner families, its because supply and demand is broken by an imbalanced market and too many restrictions preventing prices from falling down to a free market equilibrium.
Well we wouldn't have much countryside left and of course many of those 2 million would buy many of the new homes.
If only 1 earner was the norm only 1 earner would be needed to buy the average house, hence reducing average house prices without even a single new home being built
We'd have plenty of countryside left, over 90% of the country is countryside today so even if we doubled our quantity of homes we'd still have over 80% of the country being countryside. Oh and that's England-only data, not Scotland or Wales which is even more extreme.
No, it wouldn't, since not everyone is buying from any amounts of earners - or mortgages. You'd simply have landlords snapping up more homes, cash only, and more people paying their income on rent.
Which would even then have a hugely detrimental affect on our farmland and food supply and natural beauty of our countryside.
Most home buyers are now 2 earner couples, landlords are specialist buy to let and 50 years ago when most home buyers were 1 earner couples house prices were lower and there were no more landlords than now
You conflate cause and effect.
Competition drives prices down. 50 years ago a TV a fraction of the quality of the one you can get affordably today, would cost much more in real terms than one does today. Why hasn't the fact that people have two incomes increased the price of televisions like it has property? Because competition has boosted their quality and their supply.
Technology has improved across the board. It should be cheaper today to build a home than it was 50 years ago thanks to technological improvements - its not, not because of the cost of materials, but because of the cost of the land. Even without building anything, the land costs too much.
That's got sod all to do with the amount of incomes of earners and everything to do with the supply and demand of land with permission. Permission is tightly controlled which means it costs too much, that's the effect of state controlled restrictions - and why I oppose state planning and controls across the board in the economy - and why all right wingers typically do, except for this one area where you oppose a free market.
We now have Local Plans which set clearly where development can go in each council area.
We didn't 50 years ago but still had lower prices as fewer 2 earner couples were buying
"Local Plans" are a bad thing that heavily restrict where development can go. All such socialist/soviet tractor plans tend to fail.
We weren't blighted with such bullshit 50 years ago, agreed. So prices were lower and 1 person could buy.
Best time for development was the 1930s, before the godawful Labour government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act. Abolish that socialist bullshit, set the market free, and we'd have free market prices and people wouldn't need to spend 2 incomes on a property.
Yes I know you would build all over the countryside and greenbelt with no controls. Indeed as you yourself state we had the TCPA before Local Plans and still much lower prices before you started getting 2 earner couples getting mortgages.
Fortunately candidates with such an agenda have zero chance of ever getting elected
I would not build "all over" the countryside, I would simply give people the choice to do so. A choice that they would not exercise, but would impact the market because the very threat of competition lowers prices.
The land for a house with consent can go for £100k+, while the same land without consent can be worth about £1k. Let people build wherever they want and they won't suddenly want a thousand homes each, almost everyone still wants only one home, but they can choose where that home goes so if someone demands £100k for the land but someone else wants only £10k for it and someone else will accept £5k, then the price immediately without changing the quantity of houses built already.
I'd expect some extra construction due to lower costs, but not that much extra would be needed, the mere threat of competition would be enough to transform the market immediately.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
My assumption is that the incidence of rape in broadly similar Western European countries is likely to be around the same, and that large differences in levels of reported rape are therefore more likely to be due to differences in the rate of reporting rape, than in the actual incidence of rape.
Data from the British Crime Survey appears to support this assumption.
If rapes are more likely to be reported in Britain then that is a good thing, and hopefully, if the criminal justice system can get better at convicting the rapists reported, this will in time lead to a reduction in rapes being committed.
ok so I ask again. why are Swedish women not reporting rapes?
Wasn’t Sweden fifth in the list for reported rapes after the England, Grenada, Botswana and Lesotho so effectively second in terms of larger developed countries. So clearly they are reporting rapes because if they aren’t really then they’ve got a massive problem on those figures.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
He may not have much choice. The fiscal rules are going to require tax rises.
The right ones yes, but we simply cannot go on borrowing and spending and taxing
If we tax more we will borrow less. A mansion tax or similar will bring us in line with rest of the world, encourage downsizing and splitting of properties to help our housing crisis
Most nations don't have a massive mansion tax
Most nations do have land taxes. Even America does.
So do we, stamp duty
That's not a land tax, its a tax on sales. Completely different.
Stamp duty should be abolished and replaced with an annual land tax, like capitalist America has.
We also have council tax
Yes but stamp duty is a block on people moving and downsizing - it really shouldn't exist on primary properties if you want to move for work or downsize when they retire.
The ideal solution would be to remove stamp duty and increase council tax so that it (as a minimum) collects what was previously collected by stamp duty...
And again increasing council tax would encourage people in larger houses to move as they no longer needed a property of that size.
Absolutely.
There are a record number of empty bedrooms in the UK, at a time there are serious housing shortages. Why? Because the tax system diascourages people from moving to smaller properties.
Complete madness.
For primary residences, let's cut stamp duty to 0% - yes, really - and replace it with a 1% tax on property value. (And make it 3% for homes that are lived in less than 180 days a year.)
It would have exactly the effect you suggest. It would discourage people from havig second home and/or living in houses that are too big for them, and it would make trading down "free".
Londoners would revolt if such a system came in.
So what?
I have an apartment in Central London that I use perhaps 100 days a year. That's not efficient use of housing.
Either I should pay handsomely for the privelege of blocking housing that could be used for someone who lives and works in London, or I should move. My proposal encourages me to move.
Someone who lives in a five bedroom home, where the kids have left home... well, if they want to trade down (and I'm not forcing them), then they shouldn't have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so. And if they do do so, then they should benefit too from a lower tax bill.
I'm not convinced that stamp duty is as much a deterrent as other considerations. It's not about money. We, a retired couple, live in a larger house than we strictly need. But, until my knees give in, we don't want to move. Two reasons, that I suspect others share: 1. We have kids and grandkids and like to have spare room(s) when they come to stay, particularly the grandkids. 2. The sheer hassle of moving is a real deterrent. One of us (clue: not me) has accumulated so much stuff that the prospect of having to pack everything up is terrifying - and it wouldn't all fit in a smaller space. (No, it can't be thrown away, apparently).
Good evening
My wife and I are the same, but also our home is the family's home having moved into it nearly 50 years ago just before our third child was born which was the reason to move to a 4 bedroom home
It is full of memories, and of course is a treasure trove of family heirlooms, and our grandchildren delight in popping over to see us
We are both in our 80's, and my knees are a terrible problem but we simply could not move not least because we have no desire to, nothwithstanding the stairs, and this will remain our home until it is inherited by our children, one of whom may well buy it from his siblings
Yes, our daughter doesn’t want us to sell because she wants to move in when we’ve gone. She will need to have a chat with our son, though.
Nearly two-thirds of voters (64 percent) say they prefer giving most undocumented immigrants in the United States a pathway to legal status, while 31 percent say they prefer deporting most undocumented immigrants in the United States, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
The bad thing is, I'm not even surprised. Taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to the poor is the entire point of the Labour Party. Take that away and it's just a bunch of metropolitan elite nostrums...oh.
Question for you
Take half of the wealth in the country of the rich, redistribute it to the poor......wait ten years do you think the poor wont be poor again?
As they used to say in Lancashire of the nouveau riche; "Clogs to clogs in three generations.".
On a tour of the Woolworth Building our guide explained the dynastic struggles of the family that no longer owned it. "It's always the same," he sighed. "The first generation makes the money, the second generation manages it ... and the third generation just pisses it away."
The Great Gatsby was just one of a hundred Gilded Age stories describing rich kids from the Mid-West heading 'back east' to blow grandpa's money on high life in the Hamptons. It almost makes one believe in Karma.
As they probably also say in Lancashire (I'm guessing here) 'There's nowt new under the sun'.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
We can start by encouraging reporting, so that prosecutions can happen.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
The bad thing is, I'm not even surprised. Taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to the poor is the entire point of the Labour Party. Take that away and it's just a bunch of metropolitan elite nostrums...oh.
Question for you
Take half of the wealth in the country of the rich, redistribute it to the poor......wait ten years do you think the poor wont be poor again?
Some of the formerly rich will certainly be absolutely destitute...
I mean, imagine taking Rees-Mogg's wealth off him so he actually had to try and earn a living.
Rees Mogg worked in the City, founded a hedge fund, was an MP for 14 years and a Cabinet minister.
All of it using inherited wealth. Apart from the cabinet minister, which he was totally inept at and appointed to because there was literally nobody else.
I worked as an academic, civil servant, author, publisher and then a teacher and have founded my own very successful international tutoring business which in five years has grown from me working with one person to an organisation with clients on five continents employing multiple tutors.
Your point being?
You know your business is doomed, don’t you
I don’t say this nastily. Your CV is genuinely impressive. Well done. I admire anyone who gets up and goes, like you
But doomed nonetheless
No more doomed than, say, travel writing. I have more concerns for translators. My Chinese MSc student relies on a translation so on her phone for much of the time. It's almost instant and as far as I know, accurate.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
We have done a lot in the past decade to see more reporting of rapes, and as a result the reporting has gone up, while the incidence according to independent surveys has gone down. Which fits with the big picture of people saying they never reported in the past but would encourage people to do so now.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Even if it were usually about power, it is presumably sometimes about sex. So it would reduce the incidence of rape.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I thought you were a Christian !!!!!!!!!
Yes but I am a heathen and christians have a habit of killing us
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
The bad thing is, I'm not even surprised. Taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to the poor is the entire point of the Labour Party. Take that away and it's just a bunch of metropolitan elite nostrums...oh.
Question for you
Take half of the wealth in the country of the rich, redistribute it to the poor......wait ten years do you think the poor wont be poor again?
Some will, some won't. Many rich deserve their wealth thru wisdom and risk taking. Many poor deserve their poverty thru indolence and ignorance. But many fall outside those categories and will grow rich or poor due to new circumstances and luck. Redistribution prevents a class structure crystallising and the stupid perpetually growing rich thru inheritance.
Every now and then you have to switch the blender on. You do it slowly and cautiously and minimise the distruption, or you let things ossify and wait for the revolution.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The British Crime Survey talks to the same people every year. It asks them if they've been the victim of a crime. And if so what. It's anonymous. And it is generally considered to be extremely accurate.
In particular, it picks up on crimes that people never bother reporting to the police.
Now, there are some issues with it. If there is a particular group of people who are resistant to being surveyed - say young women, often in care, with low education, and who are very suspicious of the state - then it will miss that group.
But for 95% of the population, it's going to be really accurate.
The reality is that we really don't have sufficient information to know for certain either way, IMO, and those who profess certainty either way are relying on belief rather than data.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Even if it were usually about power, it is presumably sometimes about sex. So it would reduce the incidence of rape.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Yep. We see remarkable numbers of footballers accused. They can't be short of hot, willing partners. Exhibit A Peter Crouch.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Absolutely. Sexual assaults (and rape) is primarily assault. There are many simpler ways to get sexual pleasure.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
I have 61 years of experience doing that and it works
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
I think they are two separate issues, there is the argument about what that table shows and the issue of rape full stop. I’m guessing wildly but I think we are all on the same side here in being anti-rape yes?
The table though looks askew - do you honestly believe that there is nearly double the incidence of rapes in England as France? Two societies that are actually pretty similar with a similar make up of mass immigrants.
If you do believe this stat that is thrown up by that table then we have a huge fucking problem. If you however have a brain you will know that the stats aren’t reliable and are wrong.
They can only show such disparity because of one of three reasons. Either the French do not collect stats on reported rapes accurately, the French do no report the numbers fully for some reason, or there is a massive cultural difference between the French and the English in their willingness to report rape. Obviously there is a fourth reason in that it’s true and England is the place where rape is the highest level in the world. Many South Africans would likely disagree.
So which of the three do you think applies. Once we can work out whether it’s an issue with the figures or we have a significantly larger rape problem in England then we can start asking why.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Absolutely. Sexual assaults (and rape) is primarily assault. There are many simpler ways to get sexual pleasure.
On line age verification for certain... websites... waves hello.
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Absolutely. Sexual assaults (and rape) is primarily assault. There are many simpler ways to get sexual pleasure.
Indeed people can mostly afford all the sex they want.....rape is not about sex its about control
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Simpler still to just stop importing so many low status young men. Especially from those cultures which tend to view women as of lesser value.
On a general statistical point, why are rapes (or criminal stuff generally) reported on an England & Wales basis - rather than on a UK or England only basis? Yes I know there is a common legal jurusfiction, but the data is readily available - why report in this way??
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
We can start by encouraging reporting, so that prosecutions can happen.
Sure but that does not make Being top of this table a cause for celebration unless you know the difference is entirely down to better reporting, and we do not know that. it is obvious I have a fundamental value difference with people on here about this. you do not want to face that the UK might have a very real issue here, I think we might. At least we both hope i'm wrong.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
My assumption is that the incidence of rape in broadly similar Western European countries is likely to be around the same, and that large differences in levels of reported rape are therefore more likely to be due to differences in the rate of reporting rape, than in the actual incidence of rape.
Data from the British Crime Survey appears to support this assumption.
If rapes are more likely to be reported in Britain then that is a good thing, and hopefully, if the criminal justice system can get better at convicting the rapists reported, this will in time lead to a reduction in rapes being committed.
ok so I ask again. why are Swedish women not reporting rapes?
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Simpler still to just stop importing so many low status young men. Especially from those cultures which tend to view women as of lesser value.
I mentioned before living in a working class muslim enclave. I lived there with a girl and we had lived together 3 years before there and 4 years there. She was southern irish and very pro immigration. We split because of the tensions there, being called white trash, spat on, neighbours telling us she needed to cover up etc. Sadly while we were trying to move was taking too long as no one wanted to buy there and she finally got to the end of her tether and moved back to ireland
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
We can start by encouraging reporting, so that prosecutions can happen.
Sure but that does not make Being top of this table a cause for celebration unless you know the difference is entirely down to better reporting, and we do not know that. it is obvious I have a fundamental value difference with people on here about this. you do not want to face that the UK might have a very real issue here, I think we might. At least we both hope i'm wrong.
Many countries have a problem with rape. The Pelicot trial in France demonstrated how easy it is to find willing rapists online, even in a sleepy rural backwater.
On a general statistical point, why are rapes (or criminal stuff generally) reported on an England & Wales basis - rather than on a UK or England only basis? Yes I know there is a common legal jurusfiction, but the data is readily available - why report in this way??
Presumably because the legal system is different in Scotland and (maybe?) Northern Ireland.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
I think they are two separate issues, there is the argument about what that table shows and the issue of rape full stop. I’m guessing wildly but I think we are all on the same side here in being anti-rape yes?
The table though looks askew - do you honestly believe that there is nearly double the incidence of rapes in England as France? Two societies that are actually pretty similar with a similar make up of mass immigrants.
If you do believe this stat that is thrown up by that table then we have a huge fucking problem. If you however have a brain you will know that the stats aren’t reliable and are wrong.
They can only show such disparity because of one of three reasons. Either the French do not collect stats on reported rapes accurately, the French do no report the numbers fully for some reason, or there is a massive cultural difference between the French and the English in their willingness to report rape. Obviously there is a fourth reason in that it’s true and England is the place where rape is the highest level in the world. Many South Africans would likely disagree.
So which of the three do you think applies. Once we can work out whether it’s an issue with the figures or we have a significantly larger rape problem in England then we can start asking why.
There are also big discrepancies between countries with regard to what the definition of “rape” is. It’s not overly long ago when an Italian judge ruled that it couldn’t be rape as the victim was wearing tight jeans.
In the UK we consider rape to be rape between a man and a wife - not so sure that’s the same in most places. Are we comparing definitions like for like in that table?
As an aside, I suspect if you created a scatter chart with propotion of the population who are young men on one axis, and number of rapes on the other, then you would see a remarkable degree of correlation. Young men commit most of the rapes, and therefore the more young men there are, the higher the incidence of rape.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
Sorry disagree. Rape is not usually about sex but power
Absolutely. Sexual assaults (and rape) is primarily assault. There are many simpler ways to get sexual pleasure.
Indeed people can mostly afford all the sex they want.....rape is not about sex its about control
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
I’m going to get myself banned if I go nearer this topic so I will merely say: Quite so
Ancient history never was my strong point, but wasn't your stalker at the Speccie accused of rape, spending several months on remand in the Scrubs?
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
Maybe just me as a parent but I saw that as a rite of passage
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
We can start by encouraging reporting, so that prosecutions can happen.
Sure but that does not make Being top of this table a cause for celebration unless you know the difference is entirely down to better reporting, and we do not know that. it is obvious I have a fundamental value difference with people on here about this. you do not want to face that the UK might have a very real issue here, I think we might. At least we both hope i'm wrong.
Many countries have a problem with rape. The Pelicot trial in France demonstrated how easy it is to find willing rapists online, even in a sleepy rural backwater.
Why oh why isn't Rachel Reeves introducing a mansion tax/property tax on homes worth over, say £2m? Would raise a fortune and be in keeping with Labour values. Also very hard to avoid.
The bad thing is, I'm not even surprised. Taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to the poor is the entire point of the Labour Party. Take that away and it's just a bunch of metropolitan elite nostrums...oh.
Question for you
Take half of the wealth in the country of the rich, redistribute it to the poor......wait ten years do you think the poor wont be poor again?
Some of the formerly rich will certainly be absolutely destitute...
I mean, imagine taking Rees-Mogg's wealth off him so he actually had to try and earn a living.
Rees Mogg worked in the City, founded a hedge fund, was an MP for 14 years and a Cabinet minister.
All of it using inherited wealth. Apart from the cabinet minister, which he was totally inept at and appointed to because there was literally nobody else.
I worked as an academic, civil servant, author, publisher and then a teacher and have founded my own very successful international tutoring business which in five years has grown from me working with one person to an organisation with clients on five continents employing multiple tutors.
Your point being?
You know your business is doomed, don’t you
I don’t say this nastily. Your CV is genuinely impressive. Well done. I admire anyone who gets up and goes, like you
But doomed nonetheless
No more doomed than, say, travel writing. I have more concerns for translators. My Chinese MSc student relies on a translation so on her phone for much of the time. It's almost instant and as far as I know, accurate.
Much of my profession is doomed. I am resigned to it
However one of the few forms that will survive is travel writing
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
I think they are two separate issues, there is the argument about what that table shows and the issue of rape full stop. I’m guessing wildly but I think we are all on the same side here in being anti-rape yes?
The table though looks askew - do you honestly believe that there is nearly double the incidence of rapes in England as France? Two societies that are actually pretty similar with a similar make up of mass immigrants.
If you do believe this stat that is thrown up by that table then we have a huge fucking problem. If you however have a brain you will know that the stats aren’t reliable and are wrong.
They can only show such disparity because of one of three reasons. Either the French do not collect stats on reported rapes accurately, the French do no report the numbers fully for some reason, or there is a massive cultural difference between the French and the English in their willingness to report rape. Obviously there is a fourth reason in that it’s true and England is the place where rape is the highest level in the world. Many South Africans would likely disagree.
So which of the three do you think applies. Once we can work out whether it’s an issue with the figures or we have a significantly larger rape problem in England then we can start asking why.
There are also big discrepancies between countries with regard to what the definition of “rape” is. It’s not overly long ago when an Italian judge ruled that it couldn’t be rape as the victim was wearing tight jeans.
In the UK we consider rape to be rape between a man and a wife - not so sure that’s the same in most places. Are we comparing definitions like for like in that table?
Well obviously not.
How likely is it that any of the many Russian rapes in occupied Ukraine will be reported, let alone prosecuted?
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
I think they are two separate issues, there is the argument about what that table shows and the issue of rape full stop. I’m guessing wildly but I think we are all on the same side here in being anti-rape yes?
The table though looks askew - do you honestly believe that there is nearly double the incidence of rapes in England as France? Two societies that are actually pretty similar with a similar make up of mass immigrants.
If you do believe this stat that is thrown up by that table then we have a huge fucking problem. If you however have a brain you will know that the stats aren’t reliable and are wrong.
They can only show such disparity because of one of three reasons. Either the French do not collect stats on reported rapes accurately, the French do no report the numbers fully for some reason, or there is a massive cultural difference between the French and the English in their willingness to report rape. Obviously there is a fourth reason in that it’s true and England is the place where rape is the highest level in the world. Many South Africans would likely disagree.
So which of the three do you think applies. Once we can work out whether it’s an issue with the figures or we have a significantly larger rape problem in England then we can start asking why.
So now we are no longer celebrating being top? good. if the table is simply wrong, then it is wrong. could happen but i would be cautious of simply dismissing it before we knew why. it was the celebration I find odd, because behind these reports are broken lives.
I just laid Rupert Lowe to be next PM at 29/1 on Betfair. I honestly couldn't believe what I was seeing. Surely the true odds should be a million to one?
Since you are discussing rape, the career of former Seattle mayor Ed Murray may be of interest:
Edward Bernard Patrick Murray (born May 2, 1955) is an American politician from the state of Washington who most recently served as the 53rd mayor of Seattle from 2014 to 2017. A Democrat, he was previously a state legislator, first with the Washington State House of Representatives from 1996 to 2007, then the Washington State Senate from 2007 to 2013.
In 2017, Murray faced multiple allegations of child abuse, rape and sexual molestation, including from a family member and his adopted son. He denies the allegations.[2] Murray resigned as mayor of Seattle on September 12, 2017.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
My eldest when he was three told my colleagues
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
I took my son to a schoolfriends birthday party once.....
mistake one we turned up on a rocket III mistake two when asked by the other parents mingling in the kitchen...what do you do for a living...I play cards....was in my professional poker career times
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
Yes, or your son being brought home in an ambulance having drunk most of a bottle of gin at someone else's party. These are the experiences that we learn our boundaries from.
Been there, done that, and ribbed the lad about it last week.
I just laid Rupert Lowe to be next PM at 29/1 on Betfair. I honestly couldn't believe what I was seeing. Surely the true odds should be a million to one?
It's a bit like David Miliband, who wasn't even an MP, was favourite to be next Labour leader and in the top five to be next PM.
There's some really dumb/wishcasting punters out there.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
My eldest when he was three told my colleagues
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
You should be relieved. He could have said "Daddy is a smackhead."
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
My eldest when he was three told my colleagues
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
You should be relieved. He could have said "Daddy is a smackhead."
Worst one I ever had was the police raiding the house after the neighbours saw me slit his throat....or so they thought. Practice knives and was teaching him knife fighting so they were blunt
I just laid Rupert Lowe to be next PM at 29/1 on Betfair. I honestly couldn't believe what I was seeing. Surely the true odds should be a million to one?
It's a bit like David Miliband, who wasn't even an MP, was favourite to be next Labour leader and in the top five to be next PM.
There's some really dumb/wishcasting punters out there.
There must be!
Lowe is the same price as Boris. Obviously Johnson isn't an MP, but if he did become one, he would likely also be LotO, and more chance of being PM than Badenoch now, so I guess that has to be a factor. I can't see that either though
But Lowe? I just can't believe anyone could think he was a 3% chance of next PM. It's almost impossible
Since you are discussing rape, the career of former Seattle mayor Ed Murray may be of interest:
Edward Bernard Patrick Murray (born May 2, 1955) is an American politician from the state of Washington who most recently served as the 53rd mayor of Seattle from 2014 to 2017. A Democrat, he was previously a state legislator, first with the Washington State House of Representatives from 1996 to 2007, then the Washington State Senate from 2007 to 2013.
In 2017, Murray faced multiple allegations of child abuse, rape and sexual molestation, including from a family member and his adopted son. He denies the allegations.[2] Murray resigned as mayor of Seattle on September 12, 2017.
Politicians have a pretty bad record when it comes to rape and sexual abuse: Cyril Smith in the UK; Roy Moore, Andrew Cuomo, Ed Murray, Dennis Hastert, etc.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The BCS is probably understating the reduction in rape and sexual assault, while the police reports are missing it completely.
I was sexually assaulted in 1988, never told anyone about it at the time.
Sad to hear that, hanging is too good for people who do that.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
My eldest when he was three told my colleagues
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
You should be relieved. He could have said "Daddy is a smackhead."
A friend had taught him a smackhead is somebody who is being silly and needs a smack around the head.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
My eldest when he was three told my colleagues
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
You should be relieved. He could have said "Daddy is a smackhead."
A friend had taught him a smackhead is somebody who is being silly and needs a smack around the head.
I just laid Rupert Lowe to be next PM at 29/1 on Betfair. I honestly couldn't believe what I was seeing. Surely the true odds should be a million to one?
It's a bit like David Miliband, who wasn't even an MP, was favourite to be next Labour leader and in the top five to be next PM.
There's some really dumb/wishcasting punters out there.
There must be!
Lowe is the same price as Boris. Obviously Johnson isn't an MP, but if he did become one, he would likely also be LotO, and more chance of being PM than Badenoch now, so I guess that has to be a factor. I can't see that either though
But Lowe? I just can't believe anyone could think he was a 3% chance of next PM. It's almost impossible
I have a theory.
Betfair puts those bets into the system, because people like you will take them as you - correctly - ajudge that the right price for Lowe is probably 1,000 to 1.
But here's the thing. You've now trapped some of your Betfair balance. If you keep your bet for two years, you will have made 3%. But Betfair will have made 7% on the interest, plus taken a small chunk of your winnings.
I just laid Rupert Lowe to be next PM at 29/1 on Betfair. I honestly couldn't believe what I was seeing. Surely the true odds should be a million to one?
Mr Lowe is presumably on the other side of the bet.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
I just laid Rupert Lowe to be next PM at 29/1 on Betfair. I honestly couldn't believe what I was seeing. Surely the true odds should be a million to one?
🎶The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one...🎶
Presumably the chain reaction goes:
1 Labour continue to struggle (possible, maybe even likely) 2 Labour don't respond by easing Starmer out (seems unlikely) 3 Farage is butterflied out (could happen) 4 Lowe becomes the new leader of the populist right (there would be a helluva scramble- I wonder who wants it and who gets it in a Farage Bus Situation?) 5 Lowe wins against Starmer. (How? He has all of Farage's negatives and few of his positives.)
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Young women seem to be doing a good job on their own at not hooking up with such troglodytes.
Indeed it takes two to tango.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Indeed: there's nothing more fulfiling than your teenage children having a party and you coming back to a trashed house. It's a real highlight of fatherhood.
My eldest when he was three told my colleagues
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
You should be relieved. He could have said "Daddy is a smackhead."
A friend had taught him a smackhead is somebody who is being silly and needs a smack around the head.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
Why do you think the British Crime Survey shows a sharp reduction in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the last 20 years?
Because it’s bollocks
Nah, the bollocks is the reported data.
Why did so many people, less than ten years ago, when the Me Too movement happened come out and say that they were abused but never reported it?
And why are you now comparing data to ten years ago, pre-Me Too, and pretending nothing has changed in the interval?
Its not our fault you're too thick to understand the data.
Jeff Bezos: "When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
British Crime Survey data shows a sharp reduction in rape and sexual assault.
So, now the question is which is more likely to be correct, the BCS or police reports?.
They're probably both wrong in different ways.
The BCS is probably understating the reduction in rape and sexual assault, while the police reports are missing it completely.
I was sexually assaulted in 1988, never told anyone about it at the time.
Sad to hear that, hanging is too good for people who do that.
If you belive the figures of reported rapes compared with conviction rates, then reflect on how easy it was for Pelicot to recruit fellow rapists then we would be stringing up men by the million. These are not rare crimes.
Modern economics, worldwide, probably doesn't lend itself to it either. Both parents need to work, full-time, in most places, and childcare is thus either absent or expensive. And children, in turn, are time and cash hungry to raise.
By the same token, if the world regressed to a more primitive economic state then I'd expect birth rates to rise again.
The problem, as always, is housing. If you don't have to pay rent or a mortgage then one income is fine to live on. One income should be enough to live on, and save for a deposit, and pay a mortgage.
Remove planning controls, collapse house prices back to a fair market rate, and then we wouldn't need 2 incomes just to keep heads above water. Wouldn't need to pay for childcare either.
A second income should be to pay for luxuries, not essentials.
If most women didn't work full time you wouldn't need 2 incomes for a home either, as that doubles the mortgage most couples can get and in turn doubles the house price
No, house prices, like all goods, are based on supply and demand. Supply isn't high enough.
If there were an abundance of supply, then it wouldn't matter that people could afford more, they'd have no reason to do so as alternative, affordable, houses are available.
Land for just a 3/4 bed house with consent costs £100k+ without any building. Land without consent costs £10k per acre.
That is the problem there. Mortgages are neither here nor there, it is supply and demand.
Even if we didn't build a single extra home, house prices would near halve overnight if most couples only had one earner seeking a mortgage as the price offered from the average couple for a home would be much lower.
Building new homes might help a bit as well but only if immigration also falls to reduce demand for homes
The trouble with that logic, is that imagine you could snap your fingers, and create a world where almost all women stayed at home, and this had the effect of halving houseprices.
How long would it be before some couples were wandering past the estate agents windows going "if you do 15 hrs a week whilst the kids are in school, we could afford this mansion, rather than a three bed semi... ". At which point the spiral starts again until everything is back where it is now, with two incomes needed for most people to afford a modest house.
The only fix for house prices is to get a grip of supply by relaxing planning, and reduce demand by reducing immigration to zero.
Which would still be part time work even then, not 2 full time worker mortgages as now
No, because it's a spiral. Once our everyone's wife is at 15 hrs a week, then it becomes "we could afford this mansion if you did an extra 10hrs a week..." and so on, until ultimately you're back at two full time salaries.
That's basically what happened in the UK between 1970 and 2000, which is why house price growth rocketed away from income growth.
1970 to 2004 (which is when the final set of increases arrived up north) as banks went from 3+1 mortgages to 3+3 and 4+4 income ratios..
Mortgages aren't remotely the issue, since would-be owners need to compete against landlords and roughly half of all landlord purchases of property is cash-only.
The issue is that supply is nowhere near demand. There are not enough buildings.
If there were more supply then people wouldn't need to max out their mortgage as they could afford a different home instead.
If there were more supply then not as many people would go in to let as buy to let isn't as attractive when you don't have any tenants in your empty property as would-be tenants are now actually-owners instead.
Even if there were more homes house prices will still remain high as long as there are significant numbers of 2 earner couples, lenders lending 4+ times income and unless immigration also falls significantly
If we built 10 million new homes over the next decade and had net migration of 2 million over that decade, do you think prices would rise or fall?
People spend a higher proportion of income on property than before, that's not because of 2 earner families, its because supply and demand is broken by an imbalanced market and too many restrictions preventing prices from falling down to a free market equilibrium.
Well we wouldn't have much countryside left and of course many of those 2 million would buy many of the new homes.
If only 1 earner was the norm only 1 earner would be needed to buy the average house, hence reducing average house prices without even a single new home being built
We'd have plenty of countryside left, over 90% of the country is countryside today so even if we doubled our quantity of homes we'd still have over 80% of the country being countryside. Oh and that's England-only data, not Scotland or Wales which is even more extreme.
No, it wouldn't, since not everyone is buying from any amounts of earners - or mortgages. You'd simply have landlords snapping up more homes, cash only, and more people paying their income on rent.
Which would even then have a hugely detrimental affect on our farmland and food supply and natural beauty of our countryside.
Most home buyers are now 2 earner couples, landlords are specialist buy to let and 50 years ago when most home buyers were 1 earner couples house prices were lower and there were no more landlords than now
You conflate cause and effect.
Competition drives prices down. 50 years ago a TV a fraction of the quality of the one you can get affordably today, would cost much more in real terms than one does today. Why hasn't the fact that people have two incomes increased the price of televisions like it has property? Because competition has boosted their quality and their supply.
Technology has improved across the board. It should be cheaper today to build a home than it was 50 years ago thanks to technological improvements - its not, not because of the cost of materials, but because of the cost of the land. Even without building anything, the land costs too much.
That's got sod all to do with the amount of incomes of earners and everything to do with the supply and demand of land with permission. Permission is tightly controlled which means it costs too much, that's the effect of state controlled restrictions - and why I oppose state planning and controls across the board in the economy - and why all right wingers typically do, except for this one area where you oppose a free market.
We now have Local Plans which set clearly where development can go in each council area.
We didn't 50 years ago but still had lower prices as fewer 2 earner couples were buying
"Local Plans" are a bad thing that heavily restrict where development can go. All such socialist/soviet tractor plans tend to fail.
We weren't blighted with such bullshit 50 years ago, agreed. So prices were lower and 1 person could buy.
Best time for development was the 1930s, before the godawful Labour government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act. Abolish that socialist bullshit, set the market free, and we'd have free market prices and people wouldn't need to spend 2 incomes on a property.
Yes I know you would build all over the countryside and greenbelt with no controls. Indeed as you yourself state we had the TCPA before Local Plans and still much lower prices before you started getting 2 earner couples getting mortgages.
Fortunately candidates with such an agenda have zero chance of ever getting elected
I would not build "all over" the countryside, I would simply give people the choice to do so. A choice that they would not exercise, but would impact the market because the very threat of competition lowers prices.
The land for a house with consent can go for £100k+, while the same land without consent can be worth about £1k. Let people build wherever they want and they won't suddenly want a thousand homes each, almost everyone still wants only one home, but they can choose where that home goes so if someone demands £100k for the land but someone else wants only £10k for it and someone else will accept £5k, then the price immediately without changing the quantity of houses built already.
I'd expect some extra construction due to lower costs, but not that much extra would be needed, the mere threat of competition would be enough to transform the market immediately.
'Let people build wherever they want', so that is most Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, much of our countryside built on to the highest bidder. With no guarantee of accompanying infrastructure either.
Another walk with the dog - this in a much better temperature. All in, we did about 6 miles. They were on the way home again after their holiday and dropped back in.
My photo quota is Hardwick Hall herb garden - a corner where they are fighting a campaign against the bindweed. The pyramids are normal hops.
Tautological dog for scale. It's a big herb garden, at just under 3/4 of an acre.
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
Sorry why should they play ball, they know what they want if men cant meet that then the fault is on the men
So apparently the 90% of men who are not rich and good looking Alpha males have to be lifelong single and celibate because most women are chasing an unattainable for most 10% of men!
Netflix’s adaptation of The Leopard is fantastic. A swooning portrayal of pre-lapsarian Sicily
It is very good, though I’ve no idea how people could endure those banquets, in full evening dress, in the Sicilian heat, without air conditioning.
We used to do banquets in full armour in july and it was hot. I remember we did one in late july in a northern hotel so wasn't to hot but the hotel owner actually closed the bar at 5am as he had run out of alcohol which we found amusing
It is not to defend HYUFD's stance, which I disagree with, but two 20ish girls I spoke to recently were furious with 'Emily Pankhurst' for forcing women into the workplace 'How dare she make that decision for everyone else?'.
There's no conflict between feminism and women choosing not to work and look after their kids: the point is that it has to be a choice and not forced. But being beholden to a partner for money can also make them subservient to the partner if the partner is so inclined. Which again is fine if it is a free choice; but also somewhat goes against some feminist thinking.
However, it is interesting to see people say that women should be able to choose not to work, and those who want to ban the hijab, niqab or burqa as they are 'forced' on women.
If a woman can choose to be subservient to a partner in a relationship, why can another woman not choose to wear such headgear?
The issue with the hijab, niquab and burqua....I agree with you if they choose it. However some dont choose that life and have it forced on them. I give an example my son had been dating a girl for a couple of years and they were getting on for two years when they were getting towards two years, she had been round the house lots eaten with us, she was bright. They were getting serious so had to ask her do your parents know, did talk it over with my son first about what might happen. Yes her parents objected 1 month later she had been to pakistan and was married to a cousin she had never met. Now personally I think that might have been forced and now instead of the bright friendly intelligent girl I remember next time I saw her was traipsing along 2m behind her new husband eyes downcast and ignoring all her old friends from school
Indeed. But it's the same with women not working and having to look after loads of babies: some don't choose that life and have it forced upon them.
In fact, that was probably the norm just a few decades ago.
And that's where @HYUFD wants us to return to. And like the burqa etc, it is because of a particular religious interpretation.
It is not just the very religious, as already stated young men across the western world are increasingly voting for far right and populist right parties in part because they back their support for a return to more traditional gender roles
Lets cull young men then it will sort the issue
Or they could cull the likes of you
I however am not the problem young men are expecting stuff they cant have
Yes having a committed relationship with a woman and the prospect of fatherhood as every generation of men before them has had is something they are no longer entitled to in your view.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
Nobody is "entitled" to a relationship.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
Sorry why should they play ball, they know what they want if men cant meet that then the fault is on the men
So apparently the 90% of men who are not rich and good looking Alpha males have to be lifelong single and celibate because most women are chasing an unattainable for most 10% of men!
That is their problem not the womens problem unless you think we should force women to fuck them
The Irish mystery continues. What is the Home Office doing and why?
“It would take 5 minutes for any native born Irish person to demonstrate they speak English fluently. There are to my knowledge no exclusive Gaelic speakers. So this is just a route where non-English speakers can come here via Ireland. Why are we doing this?”
Having to pay for and attend an interview/test to prove you can speak English is a pretty substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for applications.
This has been done because the DUP wanted it to be as easy for an Irish person living in Britain to gain British citizenship as it is for a British person living in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
That's it. Your paranoia about a backdoor for non-English speakers gaining British citizenship is a sad reflection of your monomania about immigration.
But it does make it extremely easy for non English speaking Irish people, with no knowledge of the UK, to gain British citizenship. Does it not? Kind of a back door for anyone who wants to become a British citizen but might be rejected by us in these tests
And given that Ireland is handing out passports to refugees like candy, that may be quite a few people
So maybe not so paranoid after all, you craven, pitiful halfwit
Such a person needs several years of residency in Ireland before they can gain Irish citizenship, and then they would need five years of residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship. This is not some sort of quick-fix loophole, and I seriously doubt that there are going to be large numbers of Irish citizens applying for British citizenship, English-speaking or not.
You're so wrong, so often, and so insecure about it. So lame.
I just want to check
Was it you that said this yesterday? -
“The fact that Britain is top of the [world rape tables] is actually an encouraging sign”
Jeez I think I’d retire from PB for a week if I said something that mortifyingly inane and stupid. Impressive
The only people mortifyingly stupid would be those who didn't understand the point he was making.
Oh.
By your logic - and that of this thicko @LostPassword - the higher and higher Britain goes in terms of reported rapes the better and better it is, and if we end up with 1000x the reported rapes of any other country this is evermore “encouraging” coz it shows our women are increasingly confident
Presumably the goal is 4 thousand rapes a minute. Then we will be the most sexually enlightened place in the visible universe
That's not what I said and, despite the evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that you are that stupid to think that I did.
Is it better that 100% of rapes are reported to police or 16%?
It is better that there are fewer rapists than more. It is a fucking odd thing to celebrate. You think women are less likely to report rapes in Sweden? why? chances are more English women are being raped and you are celebrating it.
Question: were more people raped by Catholic priests in the 1970s (when the reported level was zero) or now?
I do not know. i would guess less. BUT you are assuming that the higher position of the UK on that list is due to solely to reporting. you have no basis to believe that. Far more likely that more women are actually being raped. if you can show me why Swedish women should be less likely to report rapes I am all ears.
If you can show me why the population of England is committing rape at almost twice the rate that the population of France is I am also all ears too.
I could have a guess but that is all it would be. We are top of reported rapes in the world. and the blaze response is "must be better reporting" yeah not a big fan of that response. lets instead think about what more we can do about rapes in the UK.
I think they are two separate issues, there is the argument about what that table shows and the issue of rape full stop. I’m guessing wildly but I think we are all on the same side here in being anti-rape yes?
The table though looks askew - do you honestly believe that there is nearly double the incidence of rapes in England as France? Two societies that are actually pretty similar with a similar make up of mass immigrants.
If you do believe this stat that is thrown up by that table then we have a huge fucking problem. If you however have a brain you will know that the stats aren’t reliable and are wrong.
They can only show such disparity because of one of three reasons. Either the French do not collect stats on reported rapes accurately, the French do no report the numbers fully for some reason, or there is a massive cultural difference between the French and the English in their willingness to report rape. Obviously there is a fourth reason in that it’s true and England is the place where rape is the highest level in the world. Many South Africans would likely disagree.
So which of the three do you think applies. Once we can work out whether it’s an issue with the figures or we have a significantly larger rape problem in England then we can start asking why.
So now we are no longer celebrating being top? good. if the table is simply wrong, then it is wrong. could happen but i would be cautious of simply dismissing it before we knew why. it was the celebration I find odd, because behind these reports are broken lives.
Firstly I’m not celebrating no longer being top.
If we are going to take the table as accurate and that England and Wales are the rapiest nation in the world, what are your best estimates of why we are so?
I’m hoping we aren’t thinking it’s because English and Welsh women like a good drink so end up in vulnerable situations because we aren’t going to victim blame. Whilst Sweden, our next real country on the list produces women who also love, in my experience, drinking as much as the E&away women do so do the Icelanders for example and they have wildly different figures, so even if victim blaming was acceptable it wouldn’t really stand up to scrutiny would it?
Or is it because of all the young Muslim male immigrants with nothing to do? Is it their cultural disregard for women that’s behind the figures? If so why is France half our rate when they have the same numbers of young Muslim male immigrants and Germany also has a huge number without the massive reporting figure.
Is it because the English are especially vile people? Not only did we steal everything for the British museum and invent slavery and colonise everyone we also just cannot stop raping people?
Are we really really badly brought up and have terrible attitudes towards women, worse than every country in the world?
I’m a bit stuck really, but looking forward to hearing what you think is behinfpd us having the biggest rape problem in the world then we can set about finding a solution.
Comments
Fortunately, we have British Crime Survey data, so we know that what you posit - massive underreporting of rapes in the past - is real.
It's a survey and they talk to a subset of the population.
We weren't blighted with such bullshit 50 years ago, agreed. So prices were lower and 1 person could buy.
Best time for development was the 1930s, before the godawful Labour government introduced the Town and Country Planning Act. Abolish that socialist bullshit, set the market free, and we'd have free market prices and people wouldn't need to spend 2 incomes on a property.
I was sexually assaulted in 1988, never told anyone about it at the time.
Data from the British Crime Survey appears to support this assumption.
If rapes are more likely to be reported in Britain then that is a good thing, and hopefully, if the criminal justice system can get better at convicting the rapists reported, this will in time lead to a reduction in rapes being committed.
Fortunately candidates with such an agenda have zero chance of ever getting elected
As someone with a little "form" in local Government finance matters, the question I'd be asking of any reform of Council Tax is what you are trying to achieve.
For most councils, the big three expenditure items currently are Child Social Care, Adult Social Care and Housing (and only unitary authorities do all three).
When we talk about social care, it's usually focused around care for adults and especially the elderly and even more especially those with profound challenges such as dementia whereas the more expensive care over time is the care required by children many of whom have conditions that frankly would have been fatal not long ago but now enable them to live well beyond their young years but still require high levels of personal care.
Reforms to "social care" have to be about both the care requirements of children as well as those of adults and looking at the challenges faced by unpaid carers (there are a lot of them) which include the ability to find even part time employment.
It's a series of interconnected issues which aren't simple to resolve and require time and thought, something which has eluded most Governments in recent times.
If you are going to bring all aspects of social care under central Government control (via a National Care Agency perhaps) then the requirement to fund it locally disappears but that then becomes a central Govenrment expenditure to be met out of general taxation. Increasing VAT, NI or Income Tax to fund a national care solution balanced by encouraging as many as possible to save for their retirement and possible care?
The current funding imbroglio is bankrupting not just poorly run Councils but well run Councils as well as the demands are relentless and inflation within the care sector often runs in front of official measures.
Hence they will vote ever more far right and populist right
The land for a house with consent can go for £100k+, while the same land without consent can be worth about £1k. Let people build wherever they want and they won't suddenly want a thousand homes each, almost everyone still wants only one home, but they can choose where that home goes so if someone demands £100k for the land but someone else wants only £10k for it and someone else will accept £5k, then the price immediately without changing the quantity of houses built already.
I'd expect some extra construction due to lower costs, but not that much extra would be needed, the mere threat of competition would be enough to transform the market immediately.
If you want a relationship, work on pleasing the other person more than you try to please yourself.
Of course, the people most likely to emigrate are young men, and therefore the more immigration you have, then the more young men, and also an imbalance between the number of young men and young women, which almost certainly increases the number of rapes.
If you wanted to lower the incidence of rape, the simplest way would probably be to import lots of young women. If there are lots more women than men, then even low status men are able to get girlfriends and wives, and therefore are less likely to commit rape.
I have more concerns for translators. My Chinese MSc student relies on a translation so on her phone for much of the time. It's almost instant and as far as I know, accurate.
There's pretty good survey evidence that most women want more children than the TFR, so clearly there is a lack of suitable men at the right age. In large part that's because it is common for men to be either unable or unwilling to sustain a long term relationship. Commitment-phobes in the dating parlance.
One thing that we should embrace as a culture is the joys of fatherhood, particularly in long term relationships. I have done many interesting things in my life, travel, successful career and other material pleasures, but none compare with the pleasures of family life. I've recently got back from a holiday with both boys and their partners to mark Mrs Foxys 60th. It was a real delight to be all together, and an experience that we will all treasure until the end of our days.
Every now and then you have to switch the blender on. You do it slowly and cautiously and minimise the distruption, or you let things ossify and wait for the revolution.
We see remarkable numbers of footballers accused.
They can't be short of hot, willing partners.
Exhibit A Peter Crouch.
The table though looks askew - do you honestly believe that there is nearly double the incidence of rapes in England as France? Two societies that are actually pretty similar with a similar make up of mass immigrants.
If you do believe this stat that is thrown up by that table then we have a huge fucking problem. If you however have a brain you will know that the stats aren’t reliable and are wrong.
They can only show such disparity because of one of three reasons. Either the French do not collect stats on reported rapes accurately, the French do no report the numbers fully for some reason, or there is a massive cultural difference between the French and the English in their willingness to report rape. Obviously there is a fourth reason in that it’s true and England is the place where rape is the highest level in the world. Many South Africans would likely disagree.
So which of the three do you think applies. Once we can work out whether it’s an issue with the figures or we have a significantly larger rape problem in England then we can start asking why.
I'm convinced that many young people (particularly women) substitute pet love for child love to some extent.
EXCL: Jeremy Corbyn and team repeatedly urged Zarah Sultana to walk back on launch of new party last week
Leaked texts show Team Corbyn fury as senior aide wrote: “Neither Jeremy nor Laura [his wife] deserves to be treated with such a lack of respect"
In the UK we consider rape to be rape between a man and a wife - not so sure that’s the same in most places. Are we comparing definitions like for like in that table?
However one of the few forms that will survive is travel writing
How likely is it that any of the many Russian rapes in occupied Ukraine will be reported, let alone prosecuted?
'Daddy's acting like a smackhead'.
mistake one we turned up on a rocket III
mistake two when asked by the other parents mingling in the kitchen...what do you do for a living...I play cards....was in my professional poker career times
Been there, done that, and ribbed the lad about it last week.
There's some really dumb/wishcasting punters out there.
Lowe is the same price as Boris. Obviously Johnson isn't an MP, but if he did become one, he would likely also be LotO, and more chance of being PM than Badenoch now, so I guess that has to be a factor. I can't see that either though
But Lowe? I just can't believe anyone could think he was a 3% chance of next PM. It's almost impossible
Politicians have a pretty bad record when it comes to rape and sexual abuse: Cyril Smith in the UK; Roy Moore, Andrew Cuomo, Ed Murray, Dennis Hastert, etc.
Betfair puts those bets into the system, because people like you will take them as you - correctly - ajudge that the right price for Lowe is probably 1,000 to 1.
But here's the thing. You've now trapped some of your Betfair balance. If you keep your bet for two years, you will have made 3%. But Betfair will have made 7% on the interest, plus taken a small chunk of your winnings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11878629/Why-time-ditch-alpha-male-addiction-bag-beta.html
Presumably the chain reaction goes:
1 Labour continue to struggle (possible, maybe even likely)
2 Labour don't respond by easing Starmer out (seems unlikely)
3 Farage is butterflied out (could happen)
4 Lowe becomes the new leader of the populist right (there would be a helluva scramble- I wonder who wants it and who gets it in a Farage Bus Situation?)
5 Lowe wins against Starmer. (How? He has all of Farage's negatives and few of his positives.)
Deffo a lay.
Fortunately such a proposition is unelectable
My photo quota is Hardwick Hall herb garden - a corner where they are fighting a campaign against the bindweed. The pyramids are normal hops.
Tautological dog for scale. It's a big herb garden, at just under 3/4 of an acre.
If we are going to take the table as accurate and that England and Wales are the rapiest nation in the world, what are your best estimates of why we are so?
I’m hoping we aren’t thinking it’s because English and Welsh women like a good drink so end up in vulnerable situations because we aren’t going to victim blame. Whilst Sweden, our next real country on the list produces women who also love, in my experience, drinking as much as the E&away women do so do the Icelanders for example and they have wildly different figures, so even if victim blaming was acceptable it wouldn’t really stand up to scrutiny would it?
Or is it because of all the young Muslim male immigrants with nothing to do? Is it their cultural disregard for women that’s behind the figures? If so why is France half our rate when they have the same numbers of young Muslim male immigrants and Germany also has a huge number without the massive reporting figure.
Is it because the English are especially vile people? Not only did we steal everything for the British museum and invent slavery and colonise everyone we also just cannot stop raping people?
Are we really really badly brought up and have terrible attitudes towards women, worse than every country in the world?
I’m a bit stuck really, but looking forward to hearing what you think is behinfpd us having the biggest rape problem in the world then we can set about finding a solution.