I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
Since Norman and Norma Normal are not on UC I doubt it plays much on their mind either way. Indeed British birth rate figures are in line with other western nations not exceptionally lowered post 2010.
Fixing housing costs so people can afford a home of their own in their 20s and not approaching past child bearing ages would do wonders to help things though.
Housing costs will help a lot, for sure. (Though the flipside of "any tax cuts just filter down to property owners" is "any tax rises filter down to property owners" as well.)
But the point is not so much people who are on UC now... it's whether people think they are at any risk of depending on UC, even temporarily, over the next fifteen years. Do they feel lucky? Do they?
It was a convenient bit of symbolism, sure. But even if the aim was to discourage the unjust, it also hit the just. And that is never just.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
I don't think they should care. Insisting on stamping out that arrangment is bad for the individuals, bad for the businesses, and bad for the economy.
I really cannot fathom what sort of demented idiot would think that the solution to the next 10 years is to have the same obsession with membership of the EU as we have had in the last 10. Who wants to go through that all again? Who really believes that we would get an acceptable deal from the EU? Who on earth thinks that the uncertainty this would cause would be helpful? It is really ridiculous.
I know that those who lost the Brexit vote are not used to losing. I know that their views are far more important than the rest of us. I get that they find this psychologically difficult. But enough. Just enough. Move on and address our real problems rather than this displacement activity.
Come on, it's not those who "lost" who are doing all the complaining - it's the "winners".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hah!!
Not been a bleat out of the Referendum losers since the day of the vote. Nope. Utterly silent.
Well, I'm glad I made you laugh but you know that's not what I meant.
Any even slight hint of building a relationship with the EU and up pop the cheerleaders for LEAVE, the Mail and the Express, with the tired old headline "Brexit Betrayal". Even now, more than nine years ago, we cannot have a relationship with the EU without the B words being flashed across the newspaper headlines.
However, it's apparently only "the losers" who are complaining - I must come to your universe one day where up is down, white is black and the Conservatives won in 2024.
The Mail and the Express don't speak for anyone other than the Mail and the Express.
Most leavers wanted (and still want) a relationship with the EU, just not the one we had.
As someone, who, along with 30% of LD voters at the time, voted LEAVE, I don't disagree.
We couldn't go on as we were with our half-hearted, rebate obsessed, opt-out fixated membership so it was better for both us and the EU we left but I never bought in to the absurdities of "Global Britain" perpetrated by Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others
A trading and economic relationship analogous to what we had in the old EEC would be ideal but unfortunately it all got conflated with Freedom of Movement and the Euro, neither of which the British public are ever likely to accept.
Take it you haven’t been to Europe recently - it took 90 minutes for me to get into Prague on Friday.
Got to say my 60 minute transfer in Schiphol next week would be fun in Mrs Eek couldn’t request assistance
I've been to Europe four times since 2019, and the missus two more. On no occasion has it taken any longer than it did pre-Brexit - never longer than an hour.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
Perhaps. But it also cannot be beyond the wit of tax lawyers to find a workaround for any system the government puts in place. It's their job, and the game is asymetric. Partly because one side has more expensive lawyers, partly because only one side has to declare its poistion in advance, partly because the onus is always on the government to unpick the scams.
It's like that snail farm thing- by the time the powers that be have proved that it's a scam, it's too late.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
Perhaps. But it also cannot be beyond the wit of tax lawyers to find a workaround for any system the government puts in place. It's their job, and the game is asymetric. Partly because one side has more expensive lawyers, partly because only one side has to declare its poistion in advance, partly because the onus is always on the government to unpick the scams.
It's like that snail farm thing- by the time the powers that be have proved that it's a scam, it's too late.
If the government just taxed all incomes at the same rate, no exceptions, there would be less opportunity for scams.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Tell Trump to go fxck himself . Clear that Reform and the Tories are busy fellating Trump and kicking the BBC in the hope that it just turns into another right wing outlet .
That is simply nonsense
Nobody dislikes Trump or Farage more than I do, but the BBC has 'all on their own' given the ammunition to Trump by their utter crass behaviour
Trump's court action is pure theatre, but this crisis must be worrying no 10 following their fawning and patronising of Trump
The BBC needs to compete with all the media and must find alternative means of funding, as the licence fee is just another tax and cannot be justified in this ever changing media environment
ITV are discussing it's sale to Sky and the future of broadcast journalism is under the microscope as never before, accelerated by the BBC itself
Trump did not suffer any reputational damage as everyone already knew he tried to steal the election and he’s a vile corrupt loathsome individual. The BBC should call his bluff and see him in court . Any politician in the UK siding with Trump is traitorous scum .
Well maybe the BBC should not have broadcast 'doctored' news in the first place then we wouldn't be where we are
I don't believe anyone is congratulating the BBC on their foolhardy Panorama edit.
However those halfwits making the extrapolation that the BBC edit means Trump is not guilty of incitement to sedition, and there have been lots phoning in to Iain Dale's LBC show on my journey back from Paignton, need to wake up and smell Trump's diapers.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Even the global average fertility rate is now only 2.3, we don't need to encourage people to have 3 children they can't really afford.
We do want to encourage parents to have 2 children if they can though and get closer to replacement level, currently the UK fertility rate is just 1.41 on average and as long as it remains like that more immigration will likely fill the gap
Haven't got the data to hand, but my understanding is that the major driver of the 1.41 fertility rate is the collapse in people coupling up and durations of relationships because we do not value marriage.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
It’s about Trump being the star of his personal reality TV show. It’s about always having grievances. I don’t know that Trump even thinks as far ahead as the outcome of the action these days!
I don’t know what will happen. Maybe there will be a settlement. But, if there is, I’m certain it will be a lot, lot closer to $0 than to $1bn.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Even the global average fertility rate is now only 2.3, we don't need to encourage people to have 3 children they can't really afford.
We do want to encourage parents to have 2 children if they can though and get closer to replacement level, currently the UK fertility rate is just 1.41 on average and as long as it remains like that more immigration will likely fill the gap
Haven't got the data to hand, but my understanding is that the major driver of the 1.41 fertility rate is the collapse in people coupling up and durations of relationships because we do not value marriage.
God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten Son either!
Message to Rachel Reeves: An extra 5% on Income Tax levied on those that voted for Brexit, to pay for the untold damage they have done to the economy. If fact, and extra 10% on old people who have destroyed their children and grandchildren’s future.
If we have similar on those who insisted we were locked down to avoid the sniffles, I'd accept that.
And a 5% supertax on all public sector workers who have gold plated pensions, too.
Increase the supertax to 100% of payoffs to those that have failed when running organisations when Lessons haven’t been Learned.
Oh dear, another assault on the poor old public sector workers and their pensions from the usual suspects.
I'm sure you know very few public sector workers have "gold plated pensions" (whatever that perjorative actually means). The "blue light" pension is different from the civil service pension which is different from local Government pensions which are in turn different from teachers' pensions.
But - and I speak as a member of such a scheme - almost all of those are miles better than those available in the private sector.
It's part of recruitment and retention - my father spent the last 20 years of his career in the civil service because he knew the index-linked pension would keep him and my Mum going once he stopped work.
Could he have earned more in the private sector? Doubtless but that wasn't the point for him back then.
Of course, the public sector employee takes a deduction every month into the pension (well, they did and do for LPGS) but the key point was the Council also contributed and those earning more contributed more ensuring the pot for all could be funded.
There have been significant reforms in both 2008 and 2014 to LPGS such as the ending of the "85 year rule" and higher contributions for the same result.
Indeed, one of the by-products of these reforms and the one million local Government roles lost under Conservative-led Governments from 2011 was the LPGS fund returned to some form of stability having been in some trouble after the GFC.
Longevity of service or loyalty is rewarded - if you've worked in local Government for 40 years and then retire you will come out with a annual pension probably two thirds to three quarters of final salary but obviously those who weren't in it for so long don't get anything like that.
Doesn’t mean it cannot be reformed further. Changed to a DC fund going forward.
This should be looked at to reduce the burden to the taxpayer.
Yes and remember public sector pensions come in different shapes and sizes but the benefits accrued under previous systems are paid out under those systems so staff who have worked for 30-40 years in the public sector will enjoy the benefits of pension contributions paid under more generous terms in the past than is the case now.
Yes, my wife has 4 pensions from her time jn the public sector including the 95 and 2015 scheme in the NHS.
Retrospective changes would be unfair, as it would for people with existing pensions in the private sector.
However, given the costs, I do think reform to DC going forward is something to consider.
A change large parts of the private sector made 25-30 years ago
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Even the global average fertility rate is now only 2.3, we don't need to encourage people to have 3 children they can't really afford.
We do want to encourage parents to have 2 children if they can though and get closer to replacement level, currently the UK fertility rate is just 1.41 on average and as long as it remains like that more immigration will likely fill the gap
Haven't got the data to hand, but my understanding is that the major driver of the 1.41 fertility rate is the collapse in people coupling up and durations of relationships because we do not value marriage.
Indeed, as I said we need to encourage marriage more with tax breaks and married couples tax allowance etc.
I doubt it will help Labour much, even though it's largely true.
Very interesting comment from the someone at the IEA (I think) on a podcast I was listening to this morning. The gist of it was:
The OBR decided ages ago Brexit would be a 4% hit. This was in their forecasts for several budgets, including last year's.
No-one is briefing that the OBR have changed this calculation, and the IEA wonk suggested that most of the available data suggests the actual outturn is if anything less than a 4% hit.
Reeves claiming that the mess she currently finds herself in is a result of Brexit is therefore utterly implausible, as her black hole has only opened up since the budget last year.
My comment: If Reeves wants a scapegoat for her current black hole, she needs something which has happened after her last budget. Unfortunately for her, that leaves her pretty thin on options, possibly because the true culprit is mainly her own stupidity in going on a massive tax and spend splurge in last year's budget.
The IEA* being a completely independent arbiter in this regard, not an organisation that was funded for a couple of decades to lobby for Brexit.
*Also the brains behind Truss' budget.
Trouble with this particular attempt to play the man rather than the ball is that, assuming the IEA wonk's facts regarding the OBR's stated assumptions are correct (it seems probable that they are), the conclusion that Reeve's can't blame Brexit seems pretty inescapable. Had the OBR downgraded their forecast because they believed Brexit had done more damage than they originally estimated, I'm sure Labour sources would be all over the news telling us all about it. The fact they aren't is sufficient to demonstrate that they haven't.
One needs a better counter argument that "it can't be true because it's the IEA that pointed it out".
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
Who controls their permission to operate in the USA?
He has weaponised his mushroom who heads up the formerly non-political FCC before now. See Jimmy Kimmel.
It's a regime on the way to a fascist stance wherever Trump can make it stick, and he'll operate like Putin - perhaps physical violence excepted.
What happens if he denies all BBC personnel access to the country, and sets his goons on USA staff?
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
Perhaps. But it also cannot be beyond the wit of tax lawyers to find a workaround for any system the government puts in place. It's their job, and the game is asymetric. Partly because one side has more expensive lawyers, partly because only one side has to declare its poistion in advance, partly because the onus is always on the government to unpick the scams.
It's like that snail farm thing- by the time the powers that be have proved that it's a scam, it's too late.
If the government just taxed all incomes at the same rate, no exceptions, there would be less opportunity for scams.
There's a lot to be said for getting rid of all the "reward desirable behaviour X in the tax system" stuff. I'd go with "single curve", rather than "single rate", becuase money looks different at 10K and 100K, and a flat percentage doesn't process that. But yes, keep it simple, and reduce the nooks and crannies. Find other ways to reward things that are good for society and punish things that are bad.
Good luck getting that past the electorate, though. We've already seen the howling about IHT on farmland, which is (in part) as expensive as it is because of its magical tax properties. Ending all the tax shelters would be a one-way ticket to Palookaville for any government that proposed it.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
Disney and Paramount each paid $16m the orange t**t for litigations that were unwinnable for Trump. But Trump had leverage.
Does anyone use the Forest of Dean Railway? Is it accessible?
I just mystery shopped them for various reasons * to do with it being cited as a good example as a model for an idea to recreate the military railway near the Salisbury Plain as a 6-mile passenger channel for new services to do with extra housing targets:
Good morning
I am planning a visit to the Forest of Dean.
Please would you confirm that the Dean Forest Railway is accessible for an adult with a 12 year old child who is a wheelchair user (the child). Is this still the case where the adult is also a wheelchair user?
Do you distinguish between manual wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs?
Please confirm whether all stations and trains are accessible, or what limitations apply.
* The thought is that a heritage railway could be part of a public transport system. Legally not if it can't be accessible, it can't. It can perhaps be a private extension.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Even the global average fertility rate is now only 2.3, we don't need to encourage people to have 3 children they can't really afford.
We do want to encourage parents to have 2 children if they can though and get closer to replacement level, currently the UK fertility rate is just 1.41 on average and as long as it remains like that more immigration will likely fill the gap
Haven't got the data to hand, but my understanding is that the major driver of the 1.41 fertility rate is the collapse in people coupling up and durations of relationships because we do not value marriage.
God didn't marry the mother of His only begotten Son either!
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
There could be political pressure from Washington. I hope it would be resisted but I can imagine it might not be.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
Who controls their permission to operate in the USA?
He has weaponised his mushroom who heads up the formerly non-political FCC before now. See Jimmy Kimmel.
It's a regime on the way to a fascist stance wherever Trump can make it stick, and he'll operate like Putin - perhaps physical violence excepted.
What happens if he denies all BBC personnel access to the country, and sets his goons on USA staff?
Then the BBC can report on the US like we do North Korea or Russia - from afar or via unofficial reporters. Don't give into threats from an odious bully.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
Who controls their permission to operate in the USA?
He has weaponised his mushroom who heads up the formerly non-political FCC before now. See Jimmy Kimmel.
It's a regime on the way to a fascist stance wherever Trump can make it stick, and he'll operate like Putin - perhaps physical violence excepted.
What happens if he denies all BBC personnel access to the country, and sets his goons on USA staff?
He put tariffs on Canada because he didn't like a tv advert.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
Perhaps. But it also cannot be beyond the wit of tax lawyers to find a workaround for any system the government puts in place. It's their job, and the game is asymetric. Partly because one side has more expensive lawyers, partly because only one side has to declare its poistion in advance, partly because the onus is always on the government to unpick the scams.
It's like that snail farm thing- by the time the powers that be have proved that it's a scam, it's too late.
If the government just taxed all incomes at the same rate, no exceptions, there would be less opportunity for scams.
There's a lot to be said for getting rid of all the "reward desirable behaviour X in the tax system" stuff. I'd go with "single curve", rather than "single rate", becuase money looks different at 10K and 100K, and a flat percentage doesn't process that. But yes, keep it simple, and reduce the nooks and crannies. Find other ways to reward things that are good for society and punish things that are bad.
Good luck getting that past the electorate, though. We've already seen the howling about IHT on farmland, which is (in part) as expensive as it is because of its magical tax properties. Ending all the tax shelters would be a one-way ticket to Palookaville for any government that proposed it.
The overwhelming majority, approximately 5/6ths, of the UK workforce are on PAYE.
Squeeky wheels may whine, but it does not mean they are right or a majority.
Big hand for the BBC board, Prescott and Telegraph as license fee payers face a $1bn shakedown by DJT.
Along with the Tory DG's resignation that's quite a stunning act of self-harm.
There is zero reason to believe that the BBC will ever have to pay Trump $1bn. That’s just a figure Trump has plucked out of the air. He sued the NYT for $15bn, got to court and the judge threw the whole case out (although Trump can re-apply). Trump has, I believe, never won a personal libel suit in his life.
Is it about winning, or settling?
Why would the BBC settle unless they risk losing more in court?
Disney and Paramount each paid $16m the orange t**t for litigations that were unwinnable for Trump. But Trump had leverage.
How much did each of them stand to make from the deals that Trump had to approve? Presumably the sort of cost that Jim Hacker described as
The BBC has a young, progressive, workforce and an older management that has tried, often in vain of late, to maintain old standards of impartiality. Not only *can* these two things be true at the same time but this divide is central to the current crisis
In other news isn't it surprising that Labour is not making more of the FTSE performance of late? What odds we're a stock market bubble due to artificially low interest rates. No doubt those inflated asset values will only worsen the productivity problem.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
More babies of varying hues ....As a nation we really do hate children, families, foreigners. Time for more babies to replace the boomers.
As an aside it was only 100 years ago when some antecedents had 8 children and another 9 children. If we want to go back to the 'good old days' make love, not war.
Does anyone use the Forest of Dean Railway? Is it accessible?
I just mystery shopped them for various reasons * to do with it being cited as a good example as a model for an idea to recreate the military railway near the Salisbury Plain as a 6-mile passenger channel for new services to do with extra housing targets:
Good morning
I am planning a visit to the Forest of Dean.
Please would you confirm that the Dean Forest Railway is accessible for an adult with a 12 year old child who is a wheelchair user (the child). Is this still the case where the adult is also a wheelchair user?
Do you distinguish between manual wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs?
Please confirm whether all stations and trains are accessible, or what limitations apply.
* The thought is that a heritage railway could be part of a public transport system. Legally not if it can't be accessible, it can't. It can perhaps be a private extension.
No direct answer for the Forest of Dean, however I am a trustee of a (different) heritage railway. They are particularly difficult to make completely accessible because you are (by it's very nature) using ancient kit which wasn't designed with accessibility in mind.
We've a accessible coach in both our "modern" (I.E. 1950s BR mk1) rake and our 1870s wooden carriage rake, both of which can accommodate a couple wheelchairs. The modified Mk1 was done fairly recently, and required quite a significant rework to turn a single slam door into a 1 1/2 sized door without massively changing the appearance of the coach. It also cost us a toilet cubicle which had to come out to make sufficient space.
We're probably not technically compliant with every bit of accessibility regulation now, but in practical terms what we have allows wheelchair users to use our trains.
Ironically, the biggest non-compliance left I'm aware of is the platform access at our main station - there is ramped access, but the angle is too steep. Unfortunately, fixing it involves moving buildings round to make space and would probably be north of £100k, which we don't currently have down the back of our sofa.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
I quite like Radio 4 Unwind. Does what it says on the tin.
More babies of varying hues ....As a nation we really do hate children, families, foreigners. Time for more babies to replace the boomers.
As an aside it was only 100 years ago when some antecedents had 8 children and another 9 children. If we want to go back to the 'good old days' make love, not war.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
The two child cap encourages LAs to build smaller affordable homes. Which seems shortsighted. What we really like about the the old council houses is the plot and room sizes.
We should want to improve the housing stock in general when we are investing community money. Some sort of adjustment to the rules would be nice.
I have mixed feelings about this as it punishes genuine freelancers but many I worked with in the automotive industry were not freelancers but tax dodgers.
If they forego the perks and protections of being an employee, then I don't think it's fair to call it a tax dodge.
They happily did that because of the benefits of doing so and, yes, many I worked with did it as a tax dodge. But that was the automotive sector. It was considered a rite of passage to go contracting after a period of time to make some money.
It cannot be beyond the wit of the treasury to design a system that can tell a proper freelancer from someone who is doing 9-5 at the same site for months on end with no other sign they are available or will take on other work for a different client?
Perhaps. But it also cannot be beyond the wit of tax lawyers to find a workaround for any system the government puts in place. It's their job, and the game is asymetric. Partly because one side has more expensive lawyers, partly because only one side has to declare its poistion in advance, partly because the onus is always on the government to unpick the scams.
It's like that snail farm thing- by the time the powers that be have proved that it's a scam, it's too late.
If the government just taxed all incomes at the same rate, no exceptions, there would be less opportunity for scams.
There's a lot to be said for getting rid of all the "reward desirable behaviour X in the tax system" stuff. I'd go with "single curve", rather than "single rate", becuase money looks different at 10K and 100K, and a flat percentage doesn't process that. But yes, keep it simple, and reduce the nooks and crannies. Find other ways to reward things that are good for society and punish things that are bad.
Good luck getting that past the electorate, though. We've already seen the howling about IHT on farmland, which is (in part) as expensive as it is because of its magical tax properties. Ending all the tax shelters would be a one-way ticket to Palookaville for any government that proposed it.
A friend used to work in auto industry (staff) and knows people still there who were agency. They are now on circa £20/hour inside IR35, for a chartered mech eng. If they get rid of IR35 the rates will just drop again.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
My heavens, you'll be complaining about Building a Library and Record Review next.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
I quite like Radio 4 Unwind. Does what it says on the tin.
It is the voices that annoy me the most. Cut the drivel and it would be better.
My anti -Trump YouTubers are furious with Democrat Senators Catherine Cortez Masto, Tim Kaine, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Jacky Rosen and Jeanne Shaheen and Independent Angus King (who caucuses with the Dems) for selling out the Affordable Care Act subsidy extension. Schumer is taking the political hit.
Bernie Sanders says 20m Americans will see a doubling, tripling and in some cases quadrupling of the ACA premiums. Bernie says that equates to an additional 50,000 Americans dying unnecessarily every year.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
My heavens, you'll be complaining about Building a Library and Record Review next.
They aren't having a break for a phone in, so they get a pass. Composer of the Week is just about acceptable too.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
Radio 3 appears to have watered down content, plenty of chat shows about a guest;s favourite music, cue for another bleeding chunk from a symphony, and not so many discussions about a composer's works and intention. I can only imagine Hans Keller and Fritz Fritz Spiegl turing in their graves.
Senedd announces it will not be counting May 26 election overnight as it wants the tellers to have a good night's rest !!!!
Overnight counting is something we will not see at all in another generation. Election staff don't like it (understandably, since unlike most of the count staff they are doing other elections stuff all day), there are additional costs, politician's and media moan, and even though we are more immediate in our news than ever, people can wait until the next evening.
I've joked in the past that it is not real democracy unless you find out if you won at 4am in a crappy sports hall in the middle of nowhere next to a dude with a bucket on his head, but I am going to miss it as a spectacle. I don't think the supposed gains or risks (people being tired when doing the counting) needed this as a solution. I think it is good to put the politicians through it somewhat.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
The true Trump Derangement Syndrome is the various people who popped out of the woodwork to claim the BBC would be soon paying Trump $1bn.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
We've had both Wicked! and now sodding Radiohead in the past 30 minutes on Radio 3. A disgrace.
It doesn't deserve to survive.
Radiohead on Radio 3 ?
Is that not some kind of apocalyptic warning?
It certainly caused apoplexy here.
Fortunately we are now reverting to Mahler 8.
The Radio 3 Mixtape at 19.00 really hacks me off, not quite as much as Essential Classics copying Classic FM by only playing bleeding chunks of symphonies and concertos.
I hate that. The artist wrote a complete work. Why not play it all?
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
My heavens, you'll be complaining about Building a Library and Record Review next.
Shifting Building a Library and Record Review to Saturday afternoon really has hacked me off. That change is a capital offence in my humble opinion.
Does anyone remember the way that most returning officers in 2010 tried to do counting on the next day, and it was only because of a determined campaign by Iain Dale that 95% of them were persuaded to change their mind and continue with election night?
Does anyone use the Forest of Dean Railway? Is it accessible?
I just mystery shopped them for various reasons * to do with it being cited as a good example as a model for an idea to recreate the military railway near the Salisbury Plain as a 6-mile passenger channel for new services to do with extra housing targets:
Good morning
I am planning a visit to the Forest of Dean.
Please would you confirm that the Dean Forest Railway is accessible for an adult with a 12 year old child who is a wheelchair user (the child). Is this still the case where the adult is also a wheelchair user?
Do you distinguish between manual wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs?
Please confirm whether all stations and trains are accessible, or what limitations apply.
* The thought is that a heritage railway could be part of a public transport system. Legally not if it can't be accessible, it can't. It can perhaps be a private extension.
No direct answer for the Forest of Dean, however I am a trustee of a (different) heritage railway. They are particularly difficult to make completely accessible because you are (by it's very nature) using ancient kit which wasn't designed with accessibility in mind.
We've a accessible coach in both our "modern" (I.E. 1950s BR mk1) rake and our 1870s wooden carriage rake, both of which can accommodate a couple wheelchairs. The modified Mk1 was done fairly recently, and required quite a significant rework to turn a single slam door into a 1 1/2 sized door without massively changing the appearance of the coach. It also cost us a toilet cubicle which had to come out to make sufficient space.
We're probably not technically compliant with every bit of accessibility regulation now, but in practical terms what we have allows wheelchair users to use our trains.
Ironically, the biggest non-compliance left I'm aware of is the platform access at our main station - there is ramped access, but the angle is too steep. Unfortunately, fixing it involves moving buildings round to make space and would probably be north of £100k, which we don't currently have down the back of our sofa.
Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of difficulties, of course - I have the Midland Railway (Butterley) close by, and also the Peak Rail.
It's a long term campaign down there and they are talking about 10, 20, 30, 40 years away, and I want to make the point to them that the "part of the public transport network" angle will not work if you exclude the part of the public that arguably most need the service.
"But heritage limitations mean we have to discriminate against some people because of the trains" is a pernicious argument to use on a new project, and that needs to be out of their frame.
What it needs is probably light rail (or tram) with a multiuser trail alongside in the same corridor. And if that means there is a need to CPO some land or make other adjustments, then CPO some land - all the powers are available. But such powers are hardly ever used by LHAs for anything except roads, traffic islands etc; that is a cultural issue with LHAs etc.
Their biggest blindspot imo is that they are more about railways than transport, and looking for arguments to prop up a railway based proposal. That's not comprehensive enough.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
The strand of bootlicking is also in much of the left and centre - the main media networks, all those legal firms and so on.
Does anyone remember the way that most returning officers in 2010 tried to do counting on the next day, and it was only because of a determined campaign by Iain Dale that 95% of them were persuaded to change their mind and continue with election night?
I don't, but well done to him. But it's an idea which will keep coming back, not enough people care enough to retain what is, essentially, just a tradition.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
The strand of bootlicking is also in much of the left and centre - the main media networks, all those legal firms and so on.
A different motivation in play there though, more fear than sincere obsequeousness.
My anti -Trump YouTubers are furious with Democrat Senators Catherine Cortez Masto, Tim Kaine, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Jacky Rosen and Jeanne Shaheen and Independent Angus King (who caucuses with the Dems) for selling out the Affordable Care Act subsidy extension. Schumer is taking the political hit.
Bernie Sanders says 20m Americans will see a doubling, tripling and in some cases quadrupling of the ACA premiums. Bernie says that equates to an additional 50,000 Americans dying unnecessarily every year.
Is 50,000 a default Usonian number?
That's roughly how many they kill with their guns and their cars every year.
Senedd announces it will not be counting May 26 election overnight as it wants the tellers to have a good night's rest !!!!
Disappointing imo. Election night is an institution in the UK and I hope it remains so.
Senedd is 100% PR from 2026 so it takes longer to establish the result so I can understand this. Westminster will continue to be counted overnight. I note your other post regarding 2010. Nowadays virtually all Westminster seats are counted overnight.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
Does anyone remember the way that most returning officers in 2010 tried to do counting on the next day, and it was only because of a determined campaign by Iain Dale that 95% of them were persuaded to change their mind and continue with election night?
I don't, but well done to him. But it's an idea which will keep coming back, not enough people care enough to retain what is, essentially, just a tradition.
And never a complete tradition, anyway. A decent swathe of rural and semi-rural seats traditionally counted on Friday morning within our lifetimes.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
What, a rapist? (Not libel according to a US court.) A fraudster? (Also not libel.) A senile old man? (I'm happy to test this one in court.)
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
My anti -Trump YouTubers are furious with Democrat Senators Catherine Cortez Masto, Tim Kaine, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Jacky Rosen and Jeanne Shaheen and Independent Angus King (who caucuses with the Dems) for selling out the Affordable Care Act subsidy extension. Schumer is taking the political hit.
Bernie Sanders says 20m Americans will see a doubling, tripling and in some cases quadrupling of the ACA premiums. Bernie says that equates to an additional 50,000 Americans dying unnecessarily every year.
Is 50,000 a default Usonian number?
That's roughly how many they kill with their guns and their cars every year.
Presumably more gunshot victims will succumb because their ACA premiums will become unaffordable and they are denied hospital treatment.
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Isn't that more a question for Mrs Royale?
I believe my sister traded a third kid for my BIL getting permission to do a transatlantic sailing race
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Isn't that more a question for Mrs Royale?
I believe my sister traded a third kid for my BIL getting permission to do a transatlantic sailing race
"In August 2024, Shah received a letter from around 200 individuals employed by the BBC calling for an investigation into alleged institutional antisemitism at the corporation. Shah dismissed these calls for an investigation, praising the BBC for having an "inclusive" environment."
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
Senedd announces it will not be counting May 26 election overnight as it wants the tellers to have a good night's rest !!!!
Disappointing imo. Election night is an institution in the UK and I hope it remains so.
Think Holyrood announced similar intention.
Do they not appreciate politics as a spectator sport?
Not much point for Holyrood tbf, given that quite a few places take a long time to even gather together the papers to count. Highlands and Islands, see. So everyone has to wait anyway. Not optimal given the small margins and minority governments inherent in the buggered d'Hondt system, where everyone on the regional list has to wait till all the constituencies are in for that region.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
His threat has sufficiently unnerved people as to achieve part of its goal in any case. Ever since he won re-election there has been a strand of bootlicking on the right which has gone beyond pointing out that everyone has to work with him and that many anti-Trumper politicians are in an awkward spot (which is true) but reacted hyper defensively about any past or present things that might upset him, like they are on his personal defence team.
Folk should show a bit more spine, and stop pretending he's anything other than what he is.
That's the challenge. To show who Trump is in such a watertight way that nobody can throw up any chaff.
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
Window, please. Chaff is strictly Usonian, like afterburner.
After the Beeb have politely told him to Arkell v Pressdram, they should tell him to Arkell v Pressdram some more.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Let me only add that the idea of a mendacious shit like Trump, who has built his entire political career on lies and manipulation, seeking to grift money off the UK license payer for a piece of poor journalism which likely misled nobody in the end, is utterly repulsive.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
I thought it interesting that Tom Harwood of GB News thought resignation was over the top.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
Senedd announces it will not be counting May 26 election overnight as it wants the tellers to have a good night's rest !!!!
Overnight counting is something we will not see at all in another generation. Election staff don't like it (understandably, since unlike most of the count staff they are doing other elections stuff all day), there are additional costs, politician's and media moan, and even though we are more immediate in our news than ever, people can wait until the next evening.
I've joked in the past that it is not real democracy unless you find out if you won at 4am in a crappy sports hall in the middle of nowhere next to a dude with a bucket on his head, but I am going to miss it as a spectacle. I don't think the supposed gains or risks (people being tired when doing the counting) needed this as a solution. I think it is good to put the politicians through it somewhat.
It's one thing having errors in a FPTP election, but when it comes to some sort of PR or AV system mistakes can be really, really easy and serious.
Comments
Jake Sherman
@JakeSherman
NEWS -- SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON plans to swear in Rep.-elect ADELITA GRIJALVA before the government funding vote.
This will not change the vote count on the funding bill. But it will put the EPSTEIN discharge petition over the 218-signature threshold.
@PunchbowlNews text subscribers got it first - duh
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1987918278321156146
But the point is not so much people who are on UC now... it's whether people think they are at any risk of depending on UC, even temporarily, over the next fifteen years. Do they feel lucky? Do they?
It was a convenient bit of symbolism, sure. But even if the aim was to discourage the unjust, it also hit the just. And that is never just.
@SarahLongwell25
“Anyone who helps me try to steal an election gets a pardon” is perhaps the most corrupt thing to happen in American history.
That “conservatives” have simply accepted this as the price of admission is the greatest moral and intellectual humiliation.
https://x.com/SarahLongwell25/status/1987848285198172514
It's like that snail farm thing- by the time the powers that be have proved that it's a scam, it's too late.
However those halfwits making the extrapolation that the BBC edit means Trump is not guilty of incitement to sedition, and there have been lots phoning in to Iain Dale's LBC show on my journey back from Paignton, need to wake up and smell Trump's diapers.
All hail social media!
I don’t know what will happen. Maybe there will be a settlement. But, if there is, I’m certain it will be a lot, lot closer to $0 than to $1bn.
Only 49.4% of adults in the UK are now married, globally though 64% of women aged 15-49 of childbearing age are married still
https://ourworldindata.org/marriages-and-divorces
Had the OBR downgraded their forecast because they believed Brexit had done more damage than they originally estimated, I'm sure Labour sources would be all over the news telling us all about it. The fact they aren't is sufficient to demonstrate that they haven't.
One needs a better counter argument that "it can't be true because it's the IEA that pointed it out".
He has weaponised his mushroom who heads up the formerly non-political FCC before now. See Jimmy Kimmel.
It's a regime on the way to a fascist stance wherever Trump can make it stick, and he'll operate like Putin - perhaps physical violence excepted.
What happens if he denies all BBC personnel access to the country, and sets his goons on USA staff?
Good luck getting that past the electorate, though. We've already seen the howling about IHT on farmland, which is (in part) as expensive as it is because of its magical tax properties. Ending all the tax shelters would be a one-way ticket to Palookaville for any government that proposed it.
I just mystery shopped them for various reasons * to do with it being cited as a good example as a model for an idea to recreate the military railway near the Salisbury Plain as a 6-mile passenger channel for new services to do with extra housing targets:
Good morning
I am planning a visit to the Forest of Dean.
Please would you confirm that the Dean Forest Railway is accessible for an adult with a 12 year old child who is a wheelchair user (the child). Is this still the case where the adult is also a wheelchair user?
Do you distinguish between manual wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs?
Please confirm whether all stations and trains are accessible, or what limitations apply.
For anyone wanting a look, it is after Paul Whitewick's latest video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aVJER9GQR4
* The thought is that a heritage railway could be part of a public transport system. Legally not if it can't be accessible, it can't. It can perhaps be a private extension.
Squeeky wheels may whine, but it does not mean they are right or a majority.
commission fees, administrative overheads, operative costs, managerial surcharges. expenses, miscellaneous outgoings.
Basically, check every
brown envelopeevery every account book and everything is completely in order.The Beeb don't have that, and it's not as if they don't have experience of reporting from really unfriendly countries.
4 minutes in:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002m4tl/points-west-lunchtime-news-10112025
https://www.skysports.com/nfl/news/12118/13468012/president-donald-trump-booed-at-washington-commanders-nfl-game-amid-interest-over-new-stadium-being-named-after-him
In many ways, it really is a blooming nasty paper.
In other news isn't it surprising that Labour is not making more of the FTSE performance of late? What odds we're a stock market bubble due to artificially low interest rates. No doubt those inflated asset values will only worsen the productivity problem.
Its the only possible explanation.
See also: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300279467/how-to-rig-an-election/
Art was on WATO today. Fortunately I arrived at my appointment before Montague interviewed him.
Do they not appreciate politics as a spectator sport?
We've a accessible coach in both our "modern" (I.E. 1950s BR mk1) rake and our 1870s wooden carriage rake, both of which can accommodate a couple wheelchairs. The modified Mk1 was done fairly recently, and required quite a significant rework to turn a single slam door into a 1 1/2 sized door without massively changing the appearance of the coach. It also cost us a toilet cubicle which had to come out to make sufficient space.
We're probably not technically compliant with every bit of accessibility regulation now, but in practical terms what we have allows wheelchair users to use our trains.
Ironically, the biggest non-compliance left I'm aware of is the platform access at our main station - there is ramped access, but the angle is too steep. Unfortunately, fixing it involves moving buildings round to make space and would probably be north of £100k, which we don't currently have down the back of our sofa.
I don't know why they've gone quite so far down the Classic FM route. Not having adverts is surely enough to retain most of the audience.
Don't get me started on Radio 3 Wind Up.
We should want to improve the housing stock in general when we are investing community money. Some sort of adjustment to the rules would be nice.
It’s not clear where President Trump is planning to take any legal action against the BBC, but here in the U.K. he is out of time. The limit for libel in the U.K. is 12 months from first publication or broadcast and that was October 28, 2024.
https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1987903834862108766
And as for all the PBers saying it wasn't relevant that no one complained at the time... 😂
Bernie Sanders says 20m Americans will see a doubling, tripling and in some cases quadrupling of the ACA premiums. Bernie says that equates to an additional 50,000 Americans dying unnecessarily every year.
Trump: "Nobody knows what magnets are."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m5cjppgk2l2m
I've joked in the past that it is not real democracy unless you find out if you won at 4am in a crappy sports hall in the middle of nowhere next to a dude with a bucket on his head, but I am going to miss it as a spectacle. I don't think the supposed gains or risks (people being tired when doing the counting) needed this as a solution. I think it is good to put the politicians through it somewhat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/apr/08/election-night-count
It's a long term campaign down there and they are talking about 10, 20, 30, 40 years away, and I want to make the point to them that the "part of the public transport network" angle will not work if you exclude the part of the public that arguably most need the service.
"But heritage limitations mean we have to discriminate against some people because of the trains" is a pernicious argument to use on a new project, and that needs to be out of their frame.
What it needs is probably light rail (or tram) with a multiuser trail alongside in the same corridor. And if that means there is a need to CPO some land or make other adjustments, then CPO some land - all the powers are available. But such powers are hardly ever used by LHAs for anything except roads, traffic islands etc; that is a cultural issue with LHAs etc.
Their biggest blindspot imo is that they are more about railways than transport, and looking for arguments to prop up a railway based proposal. That's not comprehensive enough.
And credit to the occasionally ineffective Ed Davey for being the only party leader to stand up for the BBC on this.
Which can be worse, in a way.
That's roughly how many they kill with their guns and their cars every year.
Personally, I think it’s insane that we expect the director general of the BBC to be across the particulars of every edit of every single programme.
The panorama programme was a disgrace.
But what does the resignation of the DG do to help the matter?
https://nitter.poast.org/tomhfh/status/1987584298430390597#m
I'd like to describe how to do that, what with how I spend my professional time making teenagers do things they don't necessarily want to do.
But it ain't easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyAcvFIJHBc
18 minutes of Jacob Rees-Mogg saying... no spoilers!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Shah