Well, I wasn't expecting that. My head canon said that Labour would still do well in London. But I also expected Lib and Gre to do well also. If this is real (and I'm not saying it isn't), then this is really bad for everybody but Reform. My head hurts. ☹️
Reform still polling about 10% worse in London than they are on nationally isn’t that great for them. Where they are polling better in London is mainly the suburbs which are demographically closer to the rest of the country than inner London
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) often assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you get, the less shit you get.
This is clearly wrong.
If there is more bread because the bread is thicker, then you get the same absolute amount of shit and just less shit as a proportion of the overall meal. But there could also be more bread in the other two dimensions: your sandwich covers a wider area. Then the proportion of shit will presumably stay the same and the absolute amount of shit will go up.
Indeed, when considering all of this, we need to consider that shit provokes a disgust response and can contaminate. That is, a drop of sewage in a barrel of wine spoils the barrel, but a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage makes no difference. There is an asymmetry. The exact amount or proportion of shit doesn't matter: any amount is generally disastrous.
(There was a great study by Paul Rozin where they wanted to study how this disgust response develops in children; or, at what age will children not put shit in their mouths? They couldn't actually experiment with shit, so they concocted a mix of chocolate spread and blue cheese that they said smelt and looked like shit, but which was safe to eat, and then offered this to various ages of children.)
What's that? I was taking this all too literally....? I don't understand...
Reforms increase in polling apparently coming from the Lib Dem’s and Greens . Unless we’re supposed to believe voters moved to Labour from them making up for a big swing to Reform from Labour .
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
On topic, hypothetical polling about difficult economic and ethical questions is of little value. I remember polls in the 1980s that showed consistent support for higher taxes and higher public spending, but the government that did that the least in our recent history still won four elections on the trot.
Also, focusing on the government revenue side of things misses a more important point. The real damage high marginal tax rates do is not to government revenues - the effects there are ambiguous. It's to the wealth-creating private sector and the economy as a whole. And there, studies are as conclusive as these things ever are in social science - increasing the tax burden does not simply redistribute wealth, it significantly and chronically reduces the size of the economy overall.
I doubt the polling would be the same if that crucial point were highlighted.
Though during the decades of post war prosperity and growth from the 1950's onwards we (and the USA, France, Germany, Italy etc) had income tax rates significantly higher than current levels,
Not by the 1970s, the economy and GDP per capita only grew again under Thatcher
Total fiction.
The actual figures are: 1960s Average growth: 2.5 % 1970s Average growth: 2.3 % 1980s Average growth: 2.5 % 1990s Average growth: 1.8 % 2000s Average growth: 1.9 % 2010s Average growth: 1.6 %
So the fastest growth rate we have had since the 1960s was under Thatcher in the 1980s, thanks for the confirmation
Or despite no oil shock, north sea oil revenues, it revolution and big bang, UK only grew by 0.2% more pa than in the terrible 70s... Lost opportunity
The Big Bang was helped along by Thatcher and if it was not for her tax cuts and Union controls the economy would have declined in the 1980s
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
Most of you missing the point that gross inequality might be more than just a little bit corrosive.
The fact that inequality gets passed down the generations via inherited wealth, inequality of opportunity, etc. - meaning that we seldom put the best people in the top jobs - adds salt to the wounds that damage our country.
How would you define the top 100 jobs in Britain, and how many of them would that apply to? Would Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves be on the list?
Typically narrow thinking on your part.
This illustrates the issue:
Business: 68% of FTSE 100 chairs and 37% of FTSE 100 chief executives were privately educated. Law: 62% of senior judges were privately educated. Politics: 52% of the House of Lords are privately educated, and 47% of the shadow cabinet are too. Media: One-third of regular newspaper columnists attended private schools, and one-third of high-profile actors are privately educated, per this report from The Stage. Civil Service: 47% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were privately educated.
In less than two years the stock market is up by a quarter. Yet the economy is pretty moribund. I know we're inflating things but isn't this a little strange? Money too cheap?
FTSE100 companies earn most of their income abroad.
Go down to the 250, 350, AIM or small caps it’s a different picture.
I’m not sure Reeves offering a stamp duty holiday on shares that list will help either,
It may stop a firm or two moving their main listing to the US which I believe is the City's current worry.
The plan is being reported as only being companies shares that list, not the ones already listed. The worry is also the lack of new listings as well.
So if Visma do list then under this plan no stamp duty. However companies already listed you still pay it.
She may go the whole hog and scrap it full stop to avoid issues like this.
Reforms increase in polling apparently coming from the Lib Dem’s and Greens . Unless we’re supposed to believe voters moved to Labour from them making up for a big swing to Reform from Labour .
As we know from the polling ever since GE'24, most of Reform's vote is coming from their previous voters + former non-voters. As we have to constantly remind people on PB, just because one party is up and another is down does not mean that voters are switching allegiances - it's mainly due to voters having different propensities to express a preference.
That's also why the Reform figure is so wildly different across pollsters. Everyone is guessing how likely those voters will actually turn up - if it's like Brexit, they are on 35%. If it's like a normal GE, they are much lower.
Some people seem to think rather contradictory things.
1. Large-scale unskilled migration has been used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages: we need to reduce migration, and pay our home-made unskilled workers more so that we don't need immigrants. 2. It's outrageous to raise the minimum wage so much - it will put our home-made workers out of work.
Haven’t you noticed that the gig economy is about insulating big employers from illegally employing people, and in effect paying them below minimum wage?
See Deliveroo. Guess who their favourite employees are?
The minimum wage was introduced to stop wages collapsing to zilch with free movement of labour. Using it to try and force pay rises probably won’t work.
Yep were going to end up like the French and a two-tier employment system.
Tier 1: high minimum wages and protections for those formally employed. Hard to get rid of.
Tier 2: lots of 'self-employed' with below minimum wage earnings and no security or protections.
And the percentage of workers in tier 2 will then increase over time.
...I'd have thought Labour would have been better off improving protections for the current deliveroo drivers etc and not creating latent demand for more people to be employed in that way.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
https://x.com/KerryKennedyRFK/status/1992984601728577558 (1/4) The Trump administration is ordering the State Department to label countries with abortion access, LGBTQ+ protections, DEI policies, and even hate-speech safeguards as human rights violators.
(2/4) At the same time, Pres. Trump is sanctioning ICC judges, prosecutors, and human rights advocates who bring forward evidence of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
(3/4) We're witnessing the weaponization of a once useful system the United States helped build. The State Department's Human Rights reports are being stripped of categories documenting attacks on peaceful assembly in China, torturous prisons in El Salvador, and violence against minority communities, and will be used as harassment tools instead..
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Am I the only PBer to have been "called up" twice?
Way back in 1994, I had duty at Snaresbrook Crown Court, and then in 2006 at Cambridge (I lived/worked there 2004-2007).
I was called up twice, but was granted an exemption on the grounds that the second call up was only nine months after the first one. Not sure if that counts.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
Mm. But professional jurors are also dependent on their employer. The State.
What price the next Colston statue-washing trial. or the next Ponting?
The Heythrop Hunt has been looking for new recruits in the Vatican?
Southampton three nil up at halftime against Leicester
If Saints win, it'll be four league wins in a row. When we got to two it was our best league run for eighteen months, all under caretaker manager Tonda Eckert
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
But statutory hols, unless it's a zero contract. So effectively 52.
https://x.com/KerryKennedyRFK/status/1992984601728577558 (1/4) The Trump administration is ordering the State Department to label countries with abortion access, LGBTQ+ protections, DEI policies, and even hate-speech safeguards as human rights violators.
(2/4) At the same time, Pres. Trump is sanctioning ICC judges, prosecutors, and human rights advocates who bring forward evidence of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
(3/4) We're witnessing the weaponization of a once useful system the United States helped build. The State Department's Human Rights reports are being stripped of categories documenting attacks on peaceful assembly in China, torturous prisons in El Salvador, and violence against minority communities, and will be used as harassment tools instead..
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
Mm. But professional jurors are also dependent on their employer. The State.
What price the next Colston statue-washing trial. or the next Ponting?
A professional juror would not be looking for further preferment, which is the main hold the judicial hierarchy have over judges.
Just remembered, I was almost had over by a scam call last week, pretending to be from Amazon. My only excuse for such stupidity is I had my four year old son tugging on my trouser leg as I was on the phone. Maybe he was in on it!
Anyway an Asian lady called saying there’d been some suspicious activity on my account, and there’d be a text from them arriving soon with a six digit code, which they needed to unlock it. The text arrived, from Amazon,
Amazon: ****** is your sign-in code. For your security, don't share it. Amazon will never contact you to ask for this code.
I checked it was really from them and it was, so preceded to read the code to her. After the first five digits I read the end of the message and realised it might be a scam. Asked her to hold on a minute and she started just constantly asking for the last number, over and again before I put the phone down. A lucky escape, it was for £450.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
Mm. But professional jurors are also dependent on their employer. The State.
What price the next Colston statue-washing trial. or the next Ponting?
A professional juror would not be looking for further preferment, which is the main hold the judicial hierarchy have over judges.
Atd that level? They'd be hoping for employment in the next trial. So be on their best behaviour.
(Which, come to think of it, raises interesting questions about their contract when they've worked 2 years.)
In less than two years the stock market is up by a quarter. Yet the economy is pretty moribund. I know we're inflating things but isn't this a little strange? Money too cheap?
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
Mm. But professional jurors are also dependent on their employer. The State.
What price the next Colston statue-washing trial. or the next Ponting?
A professional juror would not be looking for further preferment, which is the main hold the judicial hierarchy have over judges.
Atd that level? They'd be hoping for employment in the next trial. So be on their best behaviour.
(Which, come to think of it, raises interesting questions about their contract when they've worked 2 years.)
Again, you're missing the point of the totality of my idea. These would not be people who needed to work, or would be concerned about further employment.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
Though you get holiday pay for non-working weeks and that counts to the year, so x52 is correct.
Actually its slightly over 52 (365.25/7 = 52.18 weeks per year), which rounds it up to over £26.5k
Speaking of jury trials: Then governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards, once got off a great line:
In February 1985, soon after his third term began, Edwards was forced to stand trial on charges of mail fraud, obstruction of justice, and bribery, brought by U.S. Attorney John Volz. The charges were centered around an alleged scheme in which Edwards and his associates received almost $2 million in exchange for granting preferential treatment to companies dealing with state hospitals. Edwards proclaimed his innocence and insisted that the charges were politically motivated by Volz and the Republican Party. The first trial resulted in a mistrial in December 1985, while a second trial in 1986 resulted in an acquittal. After Edwards and his four co-defendants were acquitted, the hotel where the jurors had been sequestered revealed that half of the jurors had stolen towels as they left.[37] Edwards quipped that he had been judged by a "jury of my peers"
(If the name seems vaguely familiar, that's probably because -- when he was running against David Duke -- some supporters displayed bumper stickers that said: "Vote for the crook. It's important." (That got borrowed later by some French guy.) )
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Wrong way of thinking. Hire people as magistrates (in effect) to act as professional jurors. People who have finished in one career and want to give back to the community. Give them £25,000 a year and working hours between 10 and 4 for 45 weeks and I reckon there would be interest in it.
Dangerous, no? The Athenians discovered the problem of professional jurors, didn't they (as with much else in politics).
A hell of a lot less dangerous than cases heard solely by judges.
Mm. But professional jurors are also dependent on their employer. The State.
What price the next Colston statue-washing trial. or the next Ponting?
A professional juror would not be looking for further preferment, which is the main hold the judicial hierarchy have over judges.
Atd that level? They'd be hoping for employment in the next trial. So be on their best behaviour.
(Which, come to think of it, raises interesting questions about their contract when they've worked 2 years.)
Again, you're missing the point of the totality of my idea. These would not be people who needed to work, or would be concerned about further employment.
I did wonder about that. But it must be meaningful to them in some way. If they volunteer, see.
It'd be like being told to piss off from being the verger in the parish church*.
Interesting idea, anyway: just not quite got my head around it fully.
*Or asked to resign from the kirk session, mutatis mutandis.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
But statutory hols, unless it's a zero contract. So effectively 52.
Even zero contracts are obliged to offer statutory holidays, based on hours actually worked accruing.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
But statutory hols, unless it's a zero contract. So effectively 52.
Even zero contracts are obliged to offer statutory holidays, based on hours actually worked accruing.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Am I the only PBer to have been "called up" twice?
Way back in 1994, I had duty at Snaresbrook Crown Court, and then in 2006 at Cambridge (I lived/worked there 2004-2007).
I was called up twice, but was granted an exemption on the grounds that the second call up was only nine months after the first one. Not sure if that counts.
Twice, 2017 and 2024, cost me several thousand. Second time was a total farce. Friend who was called up a few months ago was dismissed as soon as possible each day so they only paid for less than 4 hours even though the likelihood for most people is that you still miss a full day of work.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
Isn't the purpose of a jury to be a panel of your peers. I would have thought there were plenty of back office city workers willing to listen to a fraud trial, and probably a few companies willing to spare people they don't really want but can't remove...
This might be the issue if as I mentioned some trials are lasting nearly two years.
What you can claim
There’s a limit to how much you can claim for each day you’re at court.
Loss of earnings, childcare and other care costs
How much you can claim to cover loss of earnings and care costs depends on the length of your jury service and how many hours you spend at court each day.
For the first 10 days of jury service, you can claim up to:
£64.95 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £32.47 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court If your jury service lasts longer than 10 working days, the amount you can claim increases. You’ll be able to claim up to:
£129.91 a day if you spend more than 4 hours at court £64.95 a day if you spend 4 hours or less at court
Am I the only PBer to have been "called up" twice?
Way back in 1994, I had duty at Snaresbrook Crown Court, and then in 2006 at Cambridge (I lived/worked there 2004-2007).
I was called up twice, but was granted an exemption on the grounds that the second call up was only nine months after the first one. Not sure if that counts.
Twice, 2017 and 2024, cost me several thousand. Second time was a total farce. Friend who was called up a few months ago was dismissed as soon as possible each day so they only paid for less than 4 hours even though the likelihood for most people is that you still miss a full day of work.
Was called up a few weeks ago, complete waste of time, two weeks a not one actual minute in a court room.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
But statutory hols, unless it's a zero contract. So effectively 52.
Even zero contracts are obliged to offer statutory holidays, based on hours actually worked accruing.
So either way its 52 if employed.
Oh, really? Didn't know that, thanks.
Statutory rate is 12.07% of hours worked are accrued as holiday pay.
Meaning that an employer hiring someone on minimum wage is committing to £14.24 (£12.71 x 1.1207) of direct wages per hour worked even before Employer NICs [EDIT: Or Pension contributions] are added on top.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Speaking seriously, people on PB are lulled into a false sense of security by the general wonderfulness of us all, and start posting personally-identifiable details. This can get weird - @Charles posted so much info I could have handed his birthday card to him in person - and it should never be forgotten it's also dangerous. I have an article patiently waiting for @rcs1000 or @TheScreamingEagles to check the metadata to confirm it's anonymised, and I think such caution is wise.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Or stop sharing Instagram posts that prompt people to look at your account
Either is fine!
I'm done mate. That's weird.
You’re weird
You shared the Instagram post on here, I clicked on it and it had a link to your profile, so I looked. What’s weird about that? A couple of people on here follow me and I follow them back. Won’t be joining the harem following you though, don’t worry
If you have hens that lay golden eggs, trying to squeeze more eggs out of them (or threatening to cut them open to get all of the eggs out) teaches them to fly
So, you're saying that additional taxation makes people work harder than ever before?
It always makes me laugh that the well-off (which let's be honest includes most of us on here) often assume that higher taxation leads to less inclination to work. That may be the case for the well-off (although in my experience most successful people work hard because they enjoy it, not directly because they calculate each penny they will earn).
But in any case, when you are less well-off if finances get tight whether because of increased costs or reduced income the first inclination is to see if you have get some extra hours, work longer, earn a bit more. I can remember this only too well from my younger day - a lot of Laffer followers seem to have completely forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is like to be really tight for money.
Life is like a shit sandwich. The more bread you get, the less shit you get.
This is clearly wrong.
If there is more bread because the bread is thicker, then you get the same absolute amount of shit and just less shit as a proportion of the overall meal. But there could also be more bread in the other two dimensions: your sandwich covers a wider area. Then the proportion of shit will presumably stay the same and the absolute amount of shit will go up.
Indeed, when considering all of this, we need to consider that shit provokes a disgust response and can contaminate. That is, a drop of sewage in a barrel of wine spoils the barrel, but a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage makes no difference. There is an asymmetry. The exact amount or proportion of shit doesn't matter: any amount is generally disastrous.
(There was a great study by Paul Rozin where they wanted to study how this disgust response develops in children; or, at what age will children not put shit in their mouths? They couldn't actually experiment with shit, so they concocted a mix of chocolate spread and blue cheese that they said smelt and looked like shit, but which was safe to eat, and then offered this to various ages of children.)
What's that? I was taking this all too literally....? I don't understand...
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
Not been on here much but why is @Leon banned again?
I'm just back from Thailand and want to thank him for the excellent travel advice he gave me, which was very valuable.
Can I PM him even though he is banned??
I don't think he's banned any more.
Oh.
Waiting for a popular groundswell to demand his return / still trying to compose a satisfying new pseudonym / busy / can't be bothered anymore.
Delete according to taste.
I like the last one best.
His alter ego on X has posted about his conviction that we are past AGI and that he had a conversation with an AI that he believes is conscious. Of course, he cannot relate any of that on here for very good reasons, so I suspect he’s sulking, or just busy on projects.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Do we know if any of the Palestine Action t-shirt cases have gone through a court yet?
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Speaking seriously, people on PB are lulled into a false sense of security by the general wonderfulness of us all, and start posting personally-identifiable details. This can get weird - @Charles posted so much info I could have handed his birthday card to him in person - and it should never be forgotten it's also dangerous. I have an article patiently waiting for @rcs1000 or @TheScreamingEagles to check the metadata to confirm it's anonymised, and I think such caution is wise.
I agree there is a need for caution, but then sometimes there is paranoia. I have never posted anything I wouldn’t be prepared to say in a court of law, or to someone’s face.
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Do we know if any of the Palestine Action t-shirt cases have gone through a court yet?
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Is she embarrassed for supporting the assault with a sledgehammer of a policewoman?
Not been on here much but why is @Leon banned again?
I'm just back from Thailand and want to thank him for the excellent travel advice he gave me, which was very valuable.
Can I PM him even though he is banned??
I don't think he's banned any more.
Oh.
Waiting for a popular groundswell to demand his return / still trying to compose a satisfying new pseudonym / busy / can't be bothered anymore.
Delete according to taste.
I like the last one best.
His alter ego on X has posted about his conviction that we are past AGI and that he had a conversation with an AI that he believes is conscious. Of course, he cannot relate any of that on here for very good reasons, so I suspect he’s sulking, or just busy on projects.
I think AGI is a very unhelpful concept currently.
The reality is that the small context windows of current LLMs make it so that even the best AI is a little bit like a genius... who remembers little more than fragments of what happened an hour ago.
Better - much better - than humans in many ways. But severely lacking in others.
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
How would you characterize the fake electors scheme?
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Speaking seriously, people on PB are lulled into a false sense of security by the general wonderfulness of us all, and start posting personally-identifiable details. This can get weird - @Charles posted so much info I could have handed his birthday card to him in person - and it should never be forgotten it's also dangerous. I have an article patiently waiting for @rcs1000 or @TheScreamingEagles to check the metadata to confirm it's anonymised, and I think such caution is wise.
I agree there is a need for caution, but then sometimes there is paranoia. I have never posted anything I wouldn’t be prepared to say in a court of law, or to someone’s face.
I may be being very stupid but where is the metadata in a header than one writes? It's not like the original word doc just gets uploaded online.
Are there any videos of Rachel Reeves playing in public chess competitions? Would be interesting to watch if so. But I'm guessing they would have surfaced by now.
If a business can't pay people fairly the business has been a business too long.
What is dramatically unfair about paying an 18 year old with no work experience, no kids, living with mum and dad and working for beer money £9.50 per hour?
Well it's breaking the law but apart from that fundamental issue...
Nice to see which side of the Reform voter you are on (see my comment earlier today for gory details).
I have not seen the comment earlier but you missed my edit that unemployment rates are by far the highest in that demographic.
Driving up minimum wage fastest in a demographic already suffering the highest unemployment rates, might not be the smartest move.
That demographic if I'm correct is between 18-24, which includes a lot of people going to Uni because there were no jobs available and a lot of people who cost £12.21 an hour not £10.
It's a mess that is I think unfixable, because companies at the moment simply are not recruiting which isn't surprising when it costs £15 an hour to employ someone...
Yes, some get Student Loans to live on rather than work then face 9% extra tax on minimum wage jobs afterwards. Great ...
But a staggering one in eight are NEET.
If you are on minimum wage you will be below the threshold for repaying student loans.
40 x 12.71 x 52 = £26,438.80
Threshold = £25,000
There aren't fifty-two work weeks in a work year. The number usually used is I think forty-eight. This is due to Bank Holidays (and other things?)
Though you get holiday pay for non-working weeks and that counts to the year, so x52 is correct.
Actually its slightly over 52 (365.25/7 = 52.18 weeks per year), which rounds it up to over £26.5k
Ah, noted. I was basing it on my happy memories of being a contractor back in the day, when I was on stacks but not paid for Bank Holidays. Things have obviously changed. ☹️
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Do we know if any of the Palestine Action t-shirt cases have gone through a court yet?
Not that I am aware.
Hmmm. I don't think it's particularly healthy that the police go around arresting people but don't even have the courage to actually try and convict them; all the more dangerous when it is something political like this.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Speaking seriously, people on PB are lulled into a false sense of security by the general wonderfulness of us all, and start posting personally-identifiable details. This can get weird - @Charles posted so much info I could have handed his birthday card to him in person - and it should never be forgotten it's also dangerous. I have an article patiently waiting for @rcs1000 or @TheScreamingEagles to check the metadata to confirm it's anonymised, and I think such caution is wise.
I agree there is a need for caution, but then sometimes there is paranoia. I have never posted anything I wouldn’t be prepared to say in a court of law, or to someone’s face.
It's more a case of posting info about yourself or your location, job etc. This is not a private space and everything on here is readable by the entire planet.
Not been on here much but why is @Leon banned again?
I'm just back from Thailand and want to thank him for the excellent travel advice he gave me, which was very valuable.
Can I PM him even though he is banned??
I don't think he's banned any more.
Oh.
Waiting for a popular groundswell to demand his return / still trying to compose a satisfying new pseudonym / busy / can't be bothered anymore.
Delete according to taste.
I like the last one best.
His alter ego on X has posted about his conviction that we are past AGI and that he had a conversation with an AI that he believes is conscious. Of course, he cannot relate any of that on here for very good reasons, so I suspect he’s sulking, or just busy on projects.
I worry about people who can't tell the difference between an LLM chatbot and a real human.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Or stop sharing Instagram posts that prompt people to look at your account
Either is fine!
I'm done mate. That's weird.
You’re weird
You shared the Instagram post on here, I clicked on it and it had a link to your profile, so I looked. What’s weird about that? A couple of people on here follow me and I follow them back. Won’t be joining the harem following you though, don’t worry
Not sorry to see you go if you do anyway
Fucking hell. I wouldn't dream of checking you out on social media. You are not the sort of character I would want to associate with in real life so I certainly wouldn't waste my time looking for who you were.
I can categorically say I have never searched down another poster's details.
You are fucking bonkers mate. Shove PB up your arse. Don't bother getting in the last word either that's it.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Do we know if any of the Palestine Action t-shirt cases have gone through a court yet?
Not that I am aware.
Hmmm. I don't think it's particularly healthy that the police go around arresting people but don't even have the courage to actually try and convict them; all the more dangerous when it is something political like this.
She had a Palestine flag with her, as she pointed she's spent the last three years regularly standing with a Ukraine flag outside the Russian embassy, never been arrested.
Why does the Chancellor have a chess board on her desk, and not her first female Chancellor trophy?
“Dear Santa,
For Christmas this year I would like some unexpected economic growth. I’ve been good and been nice to Keir all year, even when he’s bored me to tears. Yours, Rachel.”
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Speaking seriously, people on PB are lulled into a false sense of security by the general wonderfulness of us all, and start posting personally-identifiable details. This can get weird - @Charles posted so much info I could have handed his birthday card to him in person - and it should never be forgotten it's also dangerous. I have an article patiently waiting for @rcs1000 or @TheScreamingEagles to check the metadata to confirm it's anonymised, and I think such caution is wise.
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
I know that @DavidL cannot comment on this. But it is worth remembering - when considering Lammy's idiotic suggestion - that Scottish judges misapplied the law in rape trials and this was not clear until, finally, the Supreme Court reviewed the issue just a week or so ago.
Rape trials may continue to have juries.
But the point is this: if judges can get the law wrong on something like this (see also the recent LIBOR case) it is utterly foolish to give them the sole power to determine both facts and law when the liberty of an individual is at risk.
Comments
If there is more bread because the bread is thicker, then you get the same absolute amount of shit and just less shit as a proportion of the overall meal. But there could also be more bread in the other two dimensions: your sandwich covers a wider area. Then the proportion of shit will presumably stay the same and the absolute amount of shit will go up.
Indeed, when considering all of this, we need to consider that shit provokes a disgust response and can contaminate. That is, a drop of sewage in a barrel of wine spoils the barrel, but a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage makes no difference. There is an asymmetry. The exact amount or proportion of shit doesn't matter: any amount is generally disastrous.
(There was a great study by Paul Rozin where they wanted to study how this disgust response develops in children; or, at what age will children not put shit in their mouths? They couldn't actually experiment with shit, so they concocted a mix of chocolate spread and blue cheese that they said smelt and looked like shit, but which was safe to eat, and then offered this to various ages of children.)
What's that? I was taking this all too literally....? I don't understand...
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvg84knn2p5o
Threshold = £25,000
So if Visma do list then under this plan no stamp duty. However companies already listed you still pay it.
She may go the whole hog and scrap it full stop to avoid issues like this.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/nov/03/reeves-recognise-reality-astrazeneca-killed-stamp-duty-shares
That's also why the Reform figure is so wildly different across pollsters. Everyone is guessing how likely those voters will actually turn up - if it's like Brexit, they are on 35%. If it's like a normal GE, they are much lower.
Way back in 1994, I had duty at Snaresbrook Crown Court, and then in 2006 at Cambridge (I lived/worked there 2004-2007).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/25/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-prison
..
MacFadyen should get an Emmy for this.
HIGHER taxi fares
https://x.com/KerryKennedyRFK/status/1992984601728577558
(1/4) The Trump administration is ordering the State Department to label countries with abortion access, LGBTQ+ protections, DEI policies, and even hate-speech safeguards as human rights violators.
(2/4) At the same time, Pres. Trump is sanctioning ICC judges, prosecutors, and human rights advocates who bring forward evidence of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
(3/4) We're witnessing the weaponization of a once useful system the United States helped build. The State Department's Human Rights reports are being stripped of categories documenting attacks on peaceful assembly in China, torturous prisons in El Salvador, and violence against minority communities, and will be used as harassment tools instead..
How Saudi Arabia and Qatar Benefited From Rule Changes to Reach the World Cup
A soccer governing body that both countries have helped bankroll gave them extra rest and home-field advantage to set up World Cup qualification.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/world/asia/saudi-arabia-qatar-world-cup-rules.html
I think it might time I left this place.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
What price the next Colston statue-washing trial. or the next Ponting?
If Saints win, it'll be four league wins in a row. When we got to two it was our best league run for eighteen months, all under caretaker manager Tonda Eckert
Can Italy and Norway be in the same group though they met in qualifying? I can't see any rule that says no.
Anyway an Asian lady called saying there’d been some suspicious activity on my account, and there’d be a text from them arriving soon with a six digit code, which they needed to unlock it. The text arrived, from Amazon,
Amazon: ****** is your sign-in code. For your security, don't share it. Amazon will never contact you to ask for this code.
I checked it was really from them and it was, so preceded to read the code to her. After the first five digits I read the end of the message and realised it might be a scam. Asked her to hold on a minute and she started just constantly asking for the last number, over and again before I put the phone down. A lucky escape, it was for £450.
(Which, come to think of it, raises interesting questions about their contract when they've worked 2 years.)
https://www.schroders.com/en-ch/ch/professional/insights/six-charts-that-show-how-cheap-uk-equities-are/
Either is fine!
Actually its slightly over 52 (365.25/7 = 52.18 weeks per year), which rounds it up to over £26.5k
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
It'd be like being told to piss off from being the verger in the parish church*.
Interesting idea, anyway: just not quite got my head around it fully.
*Or asked to resign from the kirk session, mutatis mutandis.
So either way its 52 if employed.
Friend who was called up a few months ago was dismissed as soon as possible each day so they only paid for less than 4 hours even though the likelihood for most people is that you still miss a full day of work.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Meaning that an employer hiring someone on minimum wage is committing to £14.24 (£12.71 x 1.1207) of direct wages per hour worked even before Employer NICs [EDIT: Or Pension contributions] are added on top.
You shared the Instagram post on here, I clicked on it and it had a link to your profile, so I looked. What’s weird about that? A couple of people on here follow me and I follow them back. Won’t be joining the harem following you though, don’t worry
Not sorry to see you go if you do anyway
Jeez...
At a time of full employment might make sense.
No. Scotland will be in Italy’s group, along with Argentina and Japan. England’s group will be Australia, Uzbekistan and Curacao.
The reality is that the small context windows of current LLMs make it so that even the best AI is a little bit like a genius... who remembers little more than fragments of what happened an hour ago.
Better - much better - than humans in many ways. But severely lacking in others.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80gj2knrx4o
Oh, hold on, not that...
This summarises the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
I can categorically say I have never searched down another poster's details.
You are fucking bonkers mate. Shove PB up your arse. Don't bother getting in the last word either that's it.
For Christmas this year I would like some unexpected economic growth. I’ve been good and been nice to Keir all year, even when he’s bored me to tears. Yours, Rachel.”
(I guess with a 2-0 victory over Jamaica, and then holding them to a draw on the return match.)
Rape trials may continue to have juries.
But the point is this: if judges can get the law wrong on something like this (see also the recent LIBOR case) it is utterly foolish to give them the sole power to determine both facts and law when the liberty of an individual is at risk.