"In the last 17 seasons, Brawn GP and Ferrari have led the constructors' championship for the same number of races Brawn GP only competed in 1 of these 17 seasons"
Strong speech by Jenrick and even referenced Lord Heseltine amidst his usual rightwing populism. I still think he is more the natural rightwing successor to Farage than the best Tory leader to take on Farage as well as Starmer though.
His plan to scrap the Sentencing Council will also mean much more work for the Justice Secretary in setting sentencing guidelines for each offence for judges to follow
"In the last 17 seasons, Brawn GP and Ferrari have led the constructors' championship for the same number of races Brawn GP only competed in 1 of these 17 seasons"
There’s a rumour of a board meeting at Ferrari today, big boss turning up to read int riot act to the F1 team.
They even gave Lewis a brilliant strategy, for the first time in months, and then had the same failure on both cars.
With next year's regulations overhaul, if the rumours of the Mercedes engine being the best are true it could be another rough time for Ferrari.
The main thing I'll be looking for in the 2026 driver market are the odds on Russell (with perhaps a look at Alonso), each way.
Given the little that we do know about next year’s development, a small bet on Russell at this stage probably makes the most sense.
Don't think the market's up yet. I might be inclined to wait, given he just won the last race the market might actually remember he's a lead driver at a top team.
R4 Today gave the LOTO a dead easy ride this morning and she was not very good.
Kemi had not worked out how to deal with the Jenrick 'no white faces, not my preferred country' comment. SFAICS she actually had to dispense with his shadow ministerial services in order to be credible and serious.
“No one falls for selective reporting any more. We can read @RobertJenrick's comments for ourselves, and see what he said, namely that ethnic enclaves are a sign of failure. There was a time when mischievous Guardian headlines could do real damage, but that power has vanished.”
Noting that Jenrick has picked Handsworth as his suburb of contempt, which is adjacent to Smethwick. Is there a great deal of difference between Jenrick's campaign this week and Peter Griffith's campaign 61 years ago?
Besides not using the "N" word directly, I can't see a difference.
Jenrick is obviously lying. Nobody could spend an hour and a half on the streets of Handsworth, or anywhere else in the UK, without seeing a "white face" unless they had their eyes glued to the pavement.
By contrast, there are still lots of places in the UK where you could wander around for an hour and a half and not see any "non-white" faces. But I wouldn't call them enclaves or accuse them of a lack of integration.
That is certainly true of the small town in Gloucestershire where I live, Al. It is remarkable to see a black face here in the same way that it was remarkable to see one in Hackney, where I grew up, in the 1950s.
After spending an entire morning defending his suggestion that there are too many non-white faces in the UK, Robert Jenrick ends his speech with the line: "Let's take our country back".
Jenrick is obviously lying. Nobody could spend an hour and a half on the streets of Handsworth, or anywhere else in the UK, without seeing a "white face" unless they had their eyes glued to the pavement.
By contrast, there are still lots of places in the UK where you could wander around for an hour and a half and not see any "non-white" faces. But I wouldn't call them enclaves or accuse them of a lack of integration.
That is certainly true of the small town in Gloucestershire where I live, Al. It is remarkable to see a black face here in the same way that it was remarkable to see one in Hackney, where I grew up, in the 1950s.
I wonder how "integrated" the local village near Jenrick's manor house is in the sense he uses?
After spending an entire morning defending his suggestion that there are too many non-white faces in the UK, Robert Jenrick ends his speech with the line: "Let's take our country back".
Jenrick is obviously lying. Nobody could spend an hour and a half on the streets of Handsworth, or anywhere else in the UK, without seeing a "white face" unless they had their eyes glued to the pavement.
By contrast, there are still lots of places in the UK where you could wander around for an hour and a half and not see any "non-white" faces. But I wouldn't call them enclaves or accuse them of a lack of integration.
That is certainly true of the small town in Gloucestershire where I live, Al. It is remarkable to see a black face here in the same way that it was remarkable to see one in Hackney, where I grew up, in the 1950s.
I wonder how "integrated" the local village near Jenrick's manor house is in the sense he uses?
Isn't it near Leominster? Probably a fair number of Radnorshire Welsh are integrated I would have thought. I don't suppose he likes them very much either.
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
After spending an entire morning defending his suggestion that there are too many non-white faces in the UK, Robert Jenrick ends his speech with the line: "Let's take our country back".
Why not go full on "vote Labour ... for a neighbour "
He is endlessly sneered at by mainly Tories as he quietly goes about building a machine to win seats and build a base...
I thought the Tory conference would be bad, I had no idea it would be this bad. You cannot outflank refuk to the right and yet that is still the Badenoch play. The Big Policy Announcements ripping up the work of their own governments - Coutinho slagging off the policies of SofS Coutinho being the funniest of the lot.
And then the Thatcher worship. A fucking museum this year. Of a woman who would not be welcome in today's Tory party as despite her economic policies the aim was to lift working people - a very strong safety net to catch the people at the bottom, significant investment into regions, Britain at the heart of international order, free trade. All now heresy in todays ReformCosplay and ScrewtheUnion party.
While the Conservatives are suffering (largely self-inflicted woe) the Lib Dems should not be feeling smug.
We have two main parties, both very very unpopular. Cui bono? Not the Lib Dems. They've been eclipsed by the latest Farage vehicle, content to be the approved party of Waitrose shoppers in leafy suburbs, uncontaminated by the need to appeal to the Great Unwashed, unsullied by the vulgarity of popular support.
Which is a shame, because, for all their wrongness about many things, I think the Lib Dems would be far better/less bad for the country than Prime Minister Nigel Farage, which is what we may end up with after the next election.
The LibDems don't appear to have a coherent concept of Government, rather than an assembly of miscellaneous ideas - they seem subconsciously to accept the idea that they're a supporting party rather than an alternative government, and I think their mediocre national poll rating reflects that, though the focus on winnable seats pays off. Reform do appear to see themselves as a possible government, albeit a bonkers one. I'd like to feel that Labour does too, not least as we're actually in Government (and I'm a CLP chair), but we seem locked into tactical planning, keeping the show on the road, not breaking explicit promises and occasionally making a gesture to one wing or another.
This is a reasonable critique of the LibDems. What we are missing is Big Picture politics and so far we've been as timid as the other parties. Signs of life though - standing up to the authoritarian axis (Trump / Putin / Farage).
Starmer's government is continuity Sunak. BadEnoch has gone bye bye - and is being threatened by badder "all I see are darkies" Jenrick We know that half of what Reform say is gibberish. Like Kent county council you can't translate slogans into policy, especially when the slogan isn't anchored in reality. But there is a vision.
Poll after poll shows the LibDems growing as the LabCon collapse, but there isn't another great leap forward because we lack the vision thing. Here is mine: a new Beveridge report to rewrite the social economy.
Good morning
The conservatives at present are in a dire position, but cheering their demise will hand Farage the keys to no 10 with a considerable majority.
Years ago we had good Lib Dem representation, indeed one of friends was very active but you wouldn't know her politics as she concentrated on local issues
Today they seem to have gone and largely stand as independents, and as for Wales they really have little or no influence
What we are witnessing is the collapse of the main parties and trust in politics with Reform effectively attracting the NOA vote
At my wife and my ages the next GE is a very long way away, and anyone who says they know the future trajectory of UK politics is wishcasting
As for Badenoch I doubt she will last beyond May 26 unless she surprises on the upside, but if Jenrick arrives then anything could happen, and frankly I prefer Badenoch to continue than Jenrick take over
I am not cheering their demise - the opposite. But as your party seems intent on destroying itself, can only sit on the outside and gawp at the spectacle.
JENRICK: There's too many darkies!!! Badenoch: How dare you ask me about that? There's nothing wrong with opinions.
It's the end of the road.
Actual facts seem to be about 9-10% are described as some form of "white" for Handsworth in the 2021 census as far as I can see.
And that's people just living there. During day will be lots of comings and goings of all sorts of workers, tradesmen, shoppers, visitors out on the streets he was filming in.
So seems v unlikely he did not see a white face depending how many hours he was there filming. imho.
That sounds extremely strange. I had a £1300 rebate from last year via self assessment and it was paid in under two weeks. Have they given you a reason for this delay?
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
Did Kemi miss a trick? Jenrick's provocations today were the perfect excuse to sack him, reducing him to a wilderness Enoch Powell figure. She'd have removed a rival and got a few bonus points from the centrist dads. Opportunity gone begging I'd say.
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and General Medical Council are generally pretty averse to striking people off. They often go for something like an apology and re-training. I think the public would possibly be quite alarmed at multiple cases where someone was allowed to continue to practice. I say this as someone who has done work for the GMC on their fitness to practice procedures and who's mum was up before the GMC in 1972/3 on a misconduct case (and won, getting the GMC to change its rules in the process; the whole thing was because someone was out to get her for her abortion work; she was defended in that case by a young Robert Alexander).
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service and General Medical Council are generally pretty averse to striking people off. They often go for something like an apology and re-training. I think the public would possibly be quite alarmed at multiple cases where someone was allowed to continue to practice. I say this as someone who has done work for the GMC on their fitness to practice procedures and who's mum was up before the GMC in 1972/3 on a misconduct case (and won, getting the GMC to change its rules in the process; the whole thing was because someone was out to get her for her abortion work; she was defended in that case by a young Robert Alexander).
Tbf, that's also clearly true of the SRA given Womble Bond Dickinson have yet to be barred for their actions in the Horizon scandal.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
The most recent taken of the two is Yougov. Looks much closer with them and a hung parliament forecast, Reform and Labour both down 2% with the Tories, LDs, Greens and SNP all up but the LDs now tied with the Tories for third will also worry Conservative MPs
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
(Actually, JD Vance spun exactly the same line of bullshit last week...)
Jenrick it seems is positioning himself as the UK Vance, who is a mate of his and he met in the Cotswolds in the summer, to Farage's Trump.
The heir apparent of the nationalist and populist right and the intellectual heft to the charismatic frontman
Reform are populist.
The Conservatives are unpopulist.
Generic is trying to orchestrate a mutiny on a ship that is holed below the waterline.
And yet within a couple of points of Labour so maybe both holed below the waterline
Efficiency of vote distribution is all at these levels. Another area the Tories are failing. Put Lab, LD and Cons all on 18%. The Tories are a long way last in seats.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as physical evidence.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Indeed. And that goes for any medico speaking about any minority/group in such terms.
WATO's Sarah Montague lapping up Jenrick's attack on the Judges. She's not buying Sumption's defence of the Judges. Sarah says the 11 Judges named by Jenrick shouldn't be allowed to sit on the bench.
Sarah is impressed by all the Conference policy announcements. Sarah suggests a pact with Reform. The party line in no deal, but the delegates are all over a pact. Desmond Swaine wants to work with Tice but not Farage. Sir Simon Clarke not so convinced.
Philpy is on board with Jenrick. " Judges are not impartial and are allowing foreign pedos to stay in the country".
Rob Ford says the Tories are a one winged plane. A plane with a right wing.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That is a stronger combined showing for the centre and left-of-centre parties than for quite a good while. The combined Labour. Lib dem, Green and SNP share is 53%. Even without the SNP, it's 49%, to the Tories and Reform''s 44%.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
At the moment, any USP is good for them. Labour are seen to be failing on economic policy, Reform aren’t serious on the topic, and on the face of it, it should be exactly the sort of messaging the Tory Party of old should be shooting for.
Reform Lite (or even Reform +, given some of the stuff coming out of them today) isn’t going to get them anywhere. Farage has already parked his tanks on that lawn and he is a much more competent operator in that sphere than Badenoch will ever be.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
Politics shouldn't be solely about appealing to the voters' existing prejudices, but about engaging in debate in order to change minds and shape those prejudices.
I'm not surprised that Labour and the Tories are both chasing the people who are currently putting Reform in the lead on about one-third of the vote. But one of the reasons they're failing is that only Farage and Reform are currently shaping the national debate to their advantage.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
At the moment, any USP is good for them. Labour are seen to be failing on economic policy, Reform aren’t serious on the topic, and on the face of it, it should be exactly the sort of messaging the Tory Party of old should be shooting for.
Reform Lite (or even Reform +, given some of the stuff coming out of them today) isn’t going to get them anywhere. Farage has already parked his tanks on that lawn and he is a much more competent operator in that sphere than Badenoch will ever be.
They've already got a USP. As @Sean_F memorably put it, a Trade Union for the over 70's. Unless they are prepared to take on them, and then their figures would be microscopic, there's no room for radicalism on anything else. They are showing their usual capacity to nimbly evolve, though. From the Party of Grandparents to the Party of your racist Grandparent.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
My mistake. If she'd actually harmed a Jewish patient that's much worse, I'd agree.
But accidentally without discrimination? It's difficult to compare but a perception of a health service that does not discriminate is critically important. My understanding is that black people often have worse health outcomes (e.g. vaccines) because they think they will receive worse care than their white counterparts - a perception that is well-founded frankly looking back over history.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
Reflecting on the Jenrick speech, I'm not sure he believes any of it, based on previous groups he has attacked and compared to "oppressed white men"- which are many and varied, including women and disabled people (when he was complaining about the sentencing council). He is mainly trying to coral white men who want to feel victimised behind him.
Is he a irremediable xenophobe, or merely possessed of a bottomless cynicism?
To me this has a bit of a feel of a Conservative version of the process UKIP went through in ~2014 to 2016.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
OT - There are probably closer to four than to three years until any election and it seems inconceivable that Lab and the Cons will not have attempted a serious relauch in the interim. The LD are polling pretty well (by recent standards) and will increase that share in the GE campaign but the likelihood of them or anyone else breaking through is easy to over-estimate.
Not that it can't happen - just ask the UUP in NI or the Unionist parties in Scotland or (soon) the Welsh Lab party.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as physical evidence.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Indeed. And that goes for any medico speaking about any minority/group in such terms.
Contrast with Richard Jolly…
There are various other cases that may be of interest. Manoj Sen was struck off this month for anti-Semitic comments on social media. Ragheb Nouman was struck off in 2015 in part for anti-Indian comments to a colleague, but also for incompetence. Mohammad Sohail last year received a 10-month suspension for sending "extremely offensive" comments about Black people to a Black woman. Cameron Hurwood was struck off from being a nurse in 2017 for racist comments, sexual harassment and delivering substandard care. There was a 2023 case in Australia where a doctor was suspended for 12 months for making racist (anti-Aboriginal) comments to a colleague.
Aseem Malhotra, the one who said that the COVID-19 vaccine gave the King and Princess of Wales cancer, has not been struck off, although I believe a complaint is currently going through the system.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
I imagine that may be.
But, I think that such remarks undermine patient confidence, and are grossly offensive towards colleagues.
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
I imagine that may be.
But, I think that such remarks undermine patient confidence, and are grossly offensive towards colleagues.
Perhaps his care was equally substandard to everyone.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
I imagine that may be.
But, I think that such remarks undermine patient confidence, and are grossly offensive towards colleagues.
Perhaps his care was equally substandard to everyone.
The doctor is a she.
But, I imagine if I were to post a comment that another law firm is “a Jewish supremacist cesspit”, I’d find myself in hot water.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
My mistake. If she'd actually harmed a Jewish patient that's much worse, I'd agree.
But accidentally without discrimination? It's difficult to compare but a perception of a health service that does not discriminate is critically important. My understanding is that black people often have worse health outcomes (e.g. vaccines) because they think they will receive worse care than their white counterparts - a perception that is well-founded frankly looking back over history.
I agree that it is important the health service is perceived to not discriminate. The evidence, indeed, is that institutional discrimination in the system is largely against non-white staff and patients.
If someone accidentally provides substandard care, you want to know whether that was just a one-off accident or whether they are incompetent (not fit to practise). All healthcare professionals occasionally make mistakes. If the GMC get involved, they test the doctor's competence. If you perform badly on those tests, then you face a high chance of being at least suspended for a period.
So, no, a one off case of accidentally providing poor service without discrimination is unlikely to lead to significant disciplinary action, but an investigation may demonstrate persistent poor service.
Reflecting on the Jenrick speech, I'm not sure he believes any of it, based on previous groups he has attacked and compared to "oppressed white men"- which are many and varied, including women and disabled people (when he was complaining about the sentencing council). He is mainly trying to coral white men who want to feel victimised behind him.
Is he a irremediable xenophobe, or merely possessed of a bottomless cynicism?
To me this has a bit of a feel of a Conservative version of the process UKIP went through in ~2014 to 2016.
Jenrick clearly wants to position himself to the right of Farage, and I suspect he's set his sights beyond even Tommy. We could be talking Britain Putin here.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
I imagine that may be.
But, I think that such remarks undermine patient confidence, and are grossly offensive towards colleagues.
Perhaps his care was equally substandard to everyone.
The doctor is a she.
But, I imagine if I were to post a comment that another law firm is “a Jewish supremacist cesspit”, I’d find myself in hot water.
That's something you'd expect Anal Sheikh to say.
I am friends with a former racist, the tipping point for him was when an Asian doctor got to the bottom of his nan's illness, whereas a plethora of white British doctors hadn't previously.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
I imagine that may be.
But, I think that such remarks undermine patient confidence, and are grossly offensive towards colleagues.
Perhaps his care was equally substandard to everyone.
The doctor is a she.
But, I imagine if I were to post a comment that another law firm is “a Jewish supremacist cesspit”, I’d find myself in hot water.
That's something you'd expect Anal Sheikh to say.
I am friends with a former racist, the tipping point for him was when an Asian doctor got to the bottom of his nan's illness, whereas a plethora of white British doctors hadn't previously.
Her response to the tribunal verdict,
“Free Palestine and Britain from Jewish supremacy”,
is the kind of declaration you’d have expected from Colin Jordan or Unity Mitford.
Via Freshwater Strategies, 3-5 Oct (+/- vs 29-31 Aug)
Not really in agreement with the good Sir and his electoral prognostications.
I will stake 50p on the Tories comfortably seeing off the yellow peril too.
Which shade of yellow? If you put the current polling average into Electoral Calculus the Tories fall to fifth on seats, behind the Lib Dems and the SNP (and Reform and Labour, obvs).
The Tories are staring down the barrel at oblivion.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
I don't agree with a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure, but I agree there should be a space for such a party. However, for some reason (social media?), we don't currently have such a party. On the right, we instead have two parties saying the fundamental problem is that immigrants are bad. I wish the Conservatives were focusing on a message of a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure.
One British, one French, all three working in America. That is America's scientific edge that Trump endangers by restricting visas. That is also the British brain drain because academia is underfunded.
Quantum computing shows it is not just AI that has the tech nerds promising breakthroughs real soon now!
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
That’s pretty damning from Sir John. What an awful thing to say. The Tories are bad but Lib Dem’s !!
What is wrong with the Lib Dems?
Labour are aimlessly treading water lost between Palestine and Israel and hamstrung by their ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge from 14 years in Opposition. Whilst the Tories, where do you start? And the Greens, loud, excitable and as green and mad as a bag of frogs. And as for Farage, magic remedies from the MAGA right, uncosted, unhinged and unquesttioned.
At least the Greens and Reform have some interesting ideas, even if they are completely crazy. I think that is at least part of why Labour aren't doing well - I really hope the budget has something innovative it even if the kind of wholesale reform I want to see isn't there. Local fuel duty rates based on rurality index?
I like the idea of local fuel duty, but isn't it utterly impractical? My car does nearly 1k miles on a tank, I already plan my filling points to buy fuel where it's cheapest. Local duty just means that everyone will fill up at rural locations rather than big cities (the cheapest place I go semi-regularly is currently a Morrisons in Breadbury, just off the M67, although if I'm anywhere near Whitchurch I get a tank full from DA Roberts in Grindley Brook - he's usually the UK's cheapest filling station).
See - it's working because now we're talking about a hypothetical Labour policy.
It would have to be gentle gradation between no fuel duty in Benbecula to full whack in central London. It would never be perfect and cause some perverse outcomes in some cases, but far far better than something entirely counter-productive like charging on mileage which harms rural communities and incentivises short journeys.
The best motoring tax would be a flat £1 charge per journey.
How’s about not taxing mobility.
We don't, if you're rich and have an EV.
Tax is only for the little people, don't you know?
For many years, the Official Policy was that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would replace petrol - essentially, electric cars that generate their electricity from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled reaction.
The reason that this was official policy was that
1) Hydrogen would be produced by the oil companies in existing refineries. So no job losses or massive economic effects. Small problem. This is bollocks. A facility to produce hydrogen is nothing like a refinery.
2) Hydrogen could be piped through the natural gas network. Also bollocks - aside from the incompatibility of materials and hydrogen, the network is in the wrong places.
3) people would fill up at reworked filling stations and be taxed as per petrol. Specific mention was made that pure electric vehicles would be next to impossible to tax on fuel and hence constraining usage would become very difficult.
Aside from the additional problem of hydrogen fuel cell cars not actually existing (much)….
It’s actually quite surprising that there wasn’t legislation to the effect that home chargers would be required to be installed on a separate meter, purely so that the tax could be collected on the naughty car electrons rather than the nice house electrons.
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
They should buy a few fast jets and stop depending on the goodwill of the UK.
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
They should buy a few fast jets and stop depending on the goodwill of the UK.
The present government has sort of said that they intend to, eventually. They seem to be looking at the Gripen.
But at a time when two-thirds of the Naval Service is tied up for lack of sailors and mechanics they are taking things slowly before spending money on equipment that would face being mothballed for lack of trained personnel to use it.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
That’s pretty damning from Sir John. What an awful thing to say. The Tories are bad but Lib Dem’s !!
What is wrong with the Lib Dems?
Labour are aimlessly treading water lost between Palestine and Israel and hamstrung by their ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge from 14 years in Opposition. Whilst the Tories, where do you start? And the Greens, loud, excitable and as green and mad as a bag of frogs. And as for Farage, magic remedies from the MAGA right, uncosted, unhinged and unquesttioned.
At least the Greens and Reform have some interesting ideas, even if they are completely crazy. I think that is at least part of why Labour aren't doing well - I really hope the budget has something innovative it even if the kind of wholesale reform I want to see isn't there. Local fuel duty rates based on rurality index?
I like the idea of local fuel duty, but isn't it utterly impractical? My car does nearly 1k miles on a tank, I already plan my filling points to buy fuel where it's cheapest. Local duty just means that everyone will fill up at rural locations rather than big cities (the cheapest place I go semi-regularly is currently a Morrisons in Breadbury, just off the M67, although if I'm anywhere near Whitchurch I get a tank full from DA Roberts in Grindley Brook - he's usually the UK's cheapest filling station).
See - it's working because now we're talking about a hypothetical Labour policy.
It would have to be gentle gradation between no fuel duty in Benbecula to full whack in central London. It would never be perfect and cause some perverse outcomes in some cases, but far far better than something entirely counter-productive like charging on mileage which harms rural communities and incentivises short journeys.
The best motoring tax would be a flat £1 charge per journey.
How’s about not taxing mobility.
We don't, if you're rich and have an EV.
Tax is only for the little people, don't you know?
For many years, the Official Policy was that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would replace petrol - essentially, electric cars that generate their electricity from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled reaction.
The reason that this was official policy was that
1) Hydrogen would be produced by the oil companies in existing refineries. So no job losses or massive economic effects. Small problem. This is bollocks. A facility to produce hydrogen is nothing like a refinery.
2) Hydrogen could be piped through the natural gas network. Also bollocks - aside from the incompatibility of materials and hydrogen, the network is in the wrong places.
3) people would fill up at reworked filling stations and be taxed as per petrol. Specific mention was made that pure electric vehicles would be next to impossible to tax on fuel and hence constraining usage would become very difficult.
Aside from the additional problem of hydrogen fuel cell cars not actually existing (much)….
It’s actually quite surprising that there wasn’t legislation to the effect that home chargers would be required to be installed on a separate meter, purely so that the tax could be collected on the naughty car electrons rather than the nice house electrons.
It’s too late to do it now.
Such a change would have the disadvantage of more house fires as idiots used the normal 13A household supply, no?
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
I like the George Bernard Shaw class OPVs.
Very taken with a couple of them in the Liffey when visiting Dublin some years back.
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
I like the George Bernard Shaw class OPVs.
They could have James Joyce class drones that bore enemies to death via interminable stream of consciousness.
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
I like the George Bernard Shaw class OPVs.
Have you been onboard one?
They've had them open for public visits in Cork and Dublin a few times. Nearly as often as they've been to sea, recently.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
Have they had any thoughts as to which countries they will call on to lend a hand when the Russians invade?
That’s pretty damning from Sir John. What an awful thing to say. The Tories are bad but Lib Dem’s !!
What is wrong with the Lib Dems?
Labour are aimlessly treading water lost between Palestine and Israel and hamstrung by their ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge from 14 years in Opposition. Whilst the Tories, where do you start? And the Greens, loud, excitable and as green and mad as a bag of frogs. And as for Farage, magic remedies from the MAGA right, uncosted, unhinged and unquesttioned.
At least the Greens and Reform have some interesting ideas, even if they are completely crazy. I think that is at least part of why Labour aren't doing well - I really hope the budget has something innovative it even if the kind of wholesale reform I want to see isn't there. Local fuel duty rates based on rurality index?
I like the idea of local fuel duty, but isn't it utterly impractical? My car does nearly 1k miles on a tank, I already plan my filling points to buy fuel where it's cheapest. Local duty just means that everyone will fill up at rural locations rather than big cities (the cheapest place I go semi-regularly is currently a Morrisons in Breadbury, just off the M67, although if I'm anywhere near Whitchurch I get a tank full from DA Roberts in Grindley Brook - he's usually the UK's cheapest filling station).
See - it's working because now we're talking about a hypothetical Labour policy.
It would have to be gentle gradation between no fuel duty in Benbecula to full whack in central London. It would never be perfect and cause some perverse outcomes in some cases, but far far better than something entirely counter-productive like charging on mileage which harms rural communities and incentivises short journeys.
The best motoring tax would be a flat £1 charge per journey.
How’s about not taxing mobility.
We don't, if you're rich and have an EV.
Tax is only for the little people, don't you know?
For many years, the Official Policy was that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would replace petrol - essentially, electric cars that generate their electricity from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled reaction.
The reason that this was official policy was that
1) Hydrogen would be produced by the oil companies in existing refineries. So no job losses or massive economic effects. Small problem. This is bollocks. A facility to produce hydrogen is nothing like a refinery.
2) Hydrogen could be piped through the natural gas network. Also bollocks - aside from the incompatibility of materials and hydrogen, the network is in the wrong places.
3) people would fill up at reworked filling stations and be taxed as per petrol. Specific mention was made that pure electric vehicles would be next to impossible to tax on fuel and hence constraining usage would become very difficult.
Aside from the additional problem of hydrogen fuel cell cars not actually existing (much)….
It’s actually quite surprising that there wasn’t legislation to the effect that home chargers would be required to be installed on a separate meter, purely so that the tax could be collected on the naughty car electrons rather than the nice house electrons.
It’s too late to do it now.
Such a change would have the disadvantage of more house fires as idiots used the normal 13A household supply, no?
The potentially dangerous issue would be people abstracting electricity by bypassing the meter in the first place, as often seen at cannabis farms installed in houses, but most of the early adopters of EVs really wouldn’t be the sort of people you’d expect to do that!
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Wow. Robert Jenrick doubles down by branding a black journalist's questions "ridiculous" and saying that the problem is not his comments, but "journalists like you who pop up and try to knock me down", adding that "this is the reason why terrorist attacks happen". ~AA
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
I like the George Bernard Shaw class OPVs.
They could have James Joyce class drones that bore enemies to death via interminable stream of consciousness.
And tbf to Mr Joyce, Ulysses, of 'bread in brown paper' etc., was not his only work. I am still traumatized by reading as a schoolboy about the pandybats in his autobiographical novel. That didn't bore me to death!
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Tourists get confused between RAF Valley and the “Mach Loop” location all the time. They’re about 30 miles apart.
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Quite alarming, isn’t it!
The real worry has to be when the professional travel writers become enamoured of AI.
AI is pretty good at giving you a summary of things to do, but beyond the superficial I would be very hesitant on trusting it, particularly outside of population centres. When I have asked it for ideas for hikes/walks around a particular place, I have found it can spit out a lot of nonsense that (on further research) shows that paths/trails are exceptionally challenging, remote or non-existent (yet it will present this to you as if this is a simple, well-established route). This is less of a problem in the UK, where we have limited ‘truly remote’ places, but is hugely problematic in countries like Spain or Greece where the wilds really are the wilds and you’ll be out in high temperatures.
Instead, use the AI as the starting point to get an idea and then try and find someone’s account of having done the activity.
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
Have they had any thoughts as to which countries they will call on to lend a hand when the Russians invade?
I am sure they have the draft for an excellent speech to give to the UN General Assembly. It will receive some applause, some studied indifference, and a degree of awkward shuffling about and staring at feet.
I expect that De Valera would be spinning in his grave if he realised the extent to which the Irish defence plan amounts to begging the British for help.
That said, the Irish fishing fleet did see off the Russian navy recently, so hopefully it won't come to that.
Ireland is increasing its Defence budget by 11% next year (from a low base) to €1.49bn. This will allow for a new Defence Forces uniform. And some new radios. Modern radios.
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
They should buy a few fast jets and stop depending on the goodwill of the UK.
I would imagine if anyone (else) tried to invade Ireland, they would be taken down to the pub for a few pints of Guinness and discussion about whether their family was Irish or not.
That’s pretty damning from Sir John. What an awful thing to say. The Tories are bad but Lib Dem’s !!
What is wrong with the Lib Dems?
Labour are aimlessly treading water lost between Palestine and Israel and hamstrung by their ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge from 14 years in Opposition. Whilst the Tories, where do you start? And the Greens, loud, excitable and as green and mad as a bag of frogs. And as for Farage, magic remedies from the MAGA right, uncosted, unhinged and unquesttioned.
At least the Greens and Reform have some interesting ideas, even if they are completely crazy. I think that is at least part of why Labour aren't doing well - I really hope the budget has something innovative it even if the kind of wholesale reform I want to see isn't there. Local fuel duty rates based on rurality index?
I like the idea of local fuel duty, but isn't it utterly impractical? My car does nearly 1k miles on a tank, I already plan my filling points to buy fuel where it's cheapest. Local duty just means that everyone will fill up at rural locations rather than big cities (the cheapest place I go semi-regularly is currently a Morrisons in Breadbury, just off the M67, although if I'm anywhere near Whitchurch I get a tank full from DA Roberts in Grindley Brook - he's usually the UK's cheapest filling station).
See - it's working because now we're talking about a hypothetical Labour policy.
It would have to be gentle gradation between no fuel duty in Benbecula to full whack in central London. It would never be perfect and cause some perverse outcomes in some cases, but far far better than something entirely counter-productive like charging on mileage which harms rural communities and incentivises short journeys.
The best motoring tax would be a flat £1 charge per journey.
How’s about not taxing mobility.
We don't, if you're rich and have an EV.
Tax is only for the little people, don't you know?
For many years, the Official Policy was that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would replace petrol - essentially, electric cars that generate their electricity from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled reaction.
The reason that this was official policy was that
1) Hydrogen would be produced by the oil companies in existing refineries. So no job losses or massive economic effects. Small problem. This is bollocks. A facility to produce hydrogen is nothing like a refinery.
2) Hydrogen could be piped through the natural gas network. Also bollocks - aside from the incompatibility of materials and hydrogen, the network is in the wrong places.
3) people would fill up at reworked filling stations and be taxed as per petrol. Specific mention was made that pure electric vehicles would be next to impossible to tax on fuel and hence constraining usage would become very difficult.
Aside from the additional problem of hydrogen fuel cell cars not actually existing (much)….
It’s actually quite surprising that there wasn’t legislation to the effect that home chargers would be required to be installed on a separate meter, purely so that the tax could be collected on the naughty car electrons rather than the nice house electrons.
It’s too late to do it now.
Such a change would have the disadvantage of more house fires as idiots used the normal 13A household supply, no?
The potentially dangerous issue would be people abstracting electricity by bypassing the meter in the first place, as often seen at cannabis farms installed in houses, but most of the early adopters of EVs really wouldn’t be the sort of people you’d expect to do that!
About 3x faster. 7kw Vs 2.3 kw. In the UK anyway, where domestic supply is single phase.
Comments
His plan to scrap the Sentencing Council will also mean much more work for the Justice Secretary in setting sentencing guidelines for each offence for judges to follow
Besides not using the "N" word directly, I can't see a difference.
After spending an entire morning defending his suggestion that there are too many non-white faces in the UK, Robert Jenrick ends his speech with the line: "Let's take our country back".
The heir apparent of the
nationalist and populist right and the intellectual heft to the charismatic frontman
F*****' shortarsed racist tw@t.
(No I was not very keen on his speech.)
But still. Oof
🚨 POLL | Reform lead by 15%
➡️ REF – 35% (+2)
🔴 LAB – 20% (-)
🔵 CON – 18% (+1)
🟠 LD – 13% (-2)
[Green % was not reported in article]
Via Freshwater Strategies, 3-5 Oct (+/- vs 29-31 Aug)
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1975497271879082109?s=19
That sounds extremely strange. I had a £1300 rebate from last year via self assessment and it was paid in under two weeks. Have they given you a reason for this delay?
A bit early yet. What are your views on Jenrick's intervention and Badenoch's acceptance?
Not sure how this plays out but it is certainly divisive
I doubt we are anywhere near close to healing the divisions in our country
is a bit different from this: (Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 27% (-2)
LAB: 20% (-2)
CON: 17% (+1)
LDM: 17% (+2)
GRN: 12% (+1)
SNP: 4% (+1)
Via
@YouGov
, 5-6 Oct.
Changes w/ 28-29 Sep.)
I will listen to her speech tomorrow and see what she has to say
The Conservatives are unpopulist.
Generic is trying to orchestrate a mutiny on a ship that is holed below the waterline.
Must be to do with likelihood to vote weighting?
Some variation between the pollsters observed.
Thieves snatch Bronze Age gold in four-minute museum heist
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9zxdpwn73o
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Another area the Tories are failing.
Put Lab, LD and Cons all on 18%. The Tories are a long way last in seats.
Contrast with Richard Jolly…
Sarah is impressed by all the Conference policy announcements. Sarah suggests a pact with Reform. The party line in no deal, but the delegates are all over a pact. Desmond Swaine wants to work with Tice but not Farage. Sir Simon Clarke not so convinced.
Philpy is on board with Jenrick. " Judges are not impartial and are allowing foreign pedos to stay in the country".
Rob Ford says the Tories are a one winged plane. A plane with a right wing.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough.
There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That is a stronger combined showing for the centre and left-of-centre parties than for quite a good while. The combined Labour. Lib dem, Green and SNP share is 53%. Even without the SNP, it's 49%, to the Tories and Reform''s 44%.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Reform Lite (or even Reform +, given some of the stuff coming out of them today) isn’t going to get them anywhere. Farage has already parked his tanks on that lawn and he is a much more competent operator in that sphere than Badenoch will ever be.
I'm not surprised that Labour and the Tories are both chasing the people who are currently putting Reform in the lead on about one-third of the vote. But one of the reasons they're failing is that only Farage and Reform are currently shaping the national debate to their advantage.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Plus, there's a treasure trove from Jenrick's stint in government such as boasting about putting asylum seekers into hotels.
Unless they are prepared to take on them, and then their figures would be microscopic, there's no room for radicalism on anything else.
They are showing their usual capacity to nimbly evolve, though.
From the Party of Grandparents to the Party of your racist Grandparent.
But accidentally without discrimination? It's difficult to compare but a perception of a health service that does not discriminate is critically important. My understanding is that black people often have worse health outcomes (e.g. vaccines) because they think they will receive worse care than their white counterparts - a perception that is well-founded frankly looking back over history.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
Is he a irremediable xenophobe, or merely possessed of a bottomless cynicism?
To me this has a bit of a feel of a Conservative version of the process UKIP went through in ~2014 to 2016.
There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Not that it can't happen - just ask the UUP in NI or the Unionist parties in Scotland or (soon) the Welsh Lab party.
Aseem Malhotra, the one who said that the COVID-19 vaccine gave the King and Princess of Wales cancer, has not been struck off, although I believe a complaint is currently going through the system.
But, I think that such remarks undermine patient confidence, and are grossly offensive towards colleagues.
I will stake 50p on the Tories comfortably seeing off the yellow peril too.
But, I imagine if I were to post a comment that another law firm is “a Jewish supremacist cesspit”, I’d find myself in hot water.
If someone accidentally provides substandard care, you want to know whether that was just a one-off accident or whether they are incompetent (not fit to practise). All healthcare professionals occasionally make mistakes. If the GMC get involved, they test the doctor's competence. If you perform badly on those tests, then you face a high chance of being at least suspended for a period.
So, no, a one off case of accidentally providing poor service without discrimination is unlikely to lead to significant disciplinary action, but an investigation may demonstrate persistent poor service.
I am friends with a former racist, the tipping point for him was when an Asian doctor got to the bottom of his nan's illness, whereas a plethora of white British doctors hadn't previously.
“Free Palestine and Britain from Jewish supremacy”,
is the kind of declaration you’d have expected from Colin Jordan or Unity Mitford.
The Tories are staring down the barrel at oblivion.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdjzm2gv7qo
Then, AI came for the travel writers...
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20250926-the-perils-of-letting-ai-plan-your-next-trip
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98d00nq47jo
One British, one French, all three working in America. That is America's scientific edge that Trump endangers by restricting visas. That is also the British brain drain because academia is underfunded.
Quantum computing shows it is not just AI that has the tech nerds promising breakthroughs real soon now!
(And military radar, and upgrading APCs).
It’s too late to do it now.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/research-at-cambridge/nobel-prize
But at a time when two-thirds of the Naval Service is tied up for lack of sailors and mechanics they are taking things slowly before spending money on equipment that would face being mothballed for lack of trained personnel to use it.
A bit of urgency would be nice, though.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
They've had them open for public visits in Cork and Dublin a few times. Nearly as often as they've been to sea, recently.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
https://api.teslaowners.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/tesla-charger-10.png
The potentially dangerous issue would be people abstracting electricity by bypassing the meter in the first place, as often seen at cannabis farms installed in houses, but most of the early adopters of EVs really wouldn’t be the sort of people you’d expect to do that!
https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-are/naval-service/the-fleet/le-james-joyce-p62/
And tbf to Mr Joyce, Ulysses, of 'bread in brown paper' etc., was not his only work. I am still traumatized by reading as a schoolboy about the pandybats in his autobiographical novel. That didn't bore me to death!
https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-are/naval-service/the-fleet/le-james-joyce-p62/
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
AI is pretty good at giving you a summary of things to do, but beyond the superficial I would be very hesitant on trusting it, particularly outside of population centres. When I have asked it for ideas for hikes/walks around a particular place, I have found it can spit out a lot of nonsense that (on further research) shows that paths/trails are exceptionally challenging, remote or non-existent (yet it will present this to you as if this is a simple, well-established route). This is less of a problem in the UK, where we have limited ‘truly remote’ places, but is hugely problematic in countries like Spain or Greece where the wilds really are the wilds and you’ll be out in high temperatures.
Instead, use the AI as the starting point to get an idea and then try and find someone’s account of having done the activity.
I expect that De Valera would be spinning in his grave if he realised the extent to which the Irish defence plan amounts to begging the British for help.
That said, the Irish fishing fleet did see off the Russian navy recently, so hopefully it won't come to that.