That's not that crazy: before they went all final solution, Nazi Germany wanted all the Jews to leave for Palestine.
Erm, wasn't that the allegedly antisemitic slur that saw Ken Livingstone cancelled?
If I want to be more accurate, I would say that Adolf Eichmann was sent by the Nazi leadership to investigate whether Jewish emigration might solve the "Jewish Question". I have little doubt that -in time- the Nazis would soon have discovered they weren't that keen on Jews whereever they were.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
Yes, and all firms that face VAT also face Corporation Tax too.
And often duties and levies on top of, not instead of, VAT and Corporation Tax.
A Client Account Interest Levy, if it were created and legally-defined, would be a tax just like all others.
1,370 soldiers and 51 artillery and MLRS no longer reporting for duty in the Russian Army after yesterday...
They’re also losing ground on the front lines, having spread themselves too thin to try and avoid the drone wave.
Meanwhile, Russian newspapers aren’t holding back with stories of economic woes, and the Chinese are slowly moving border fences in the far East.
The optimist in me thinks this war must be close to being over now.
It needs some huge economic disaster that even Putin can't hide, to get the Russians having had enough. The prisoners aren't going to war any more. The bungs for recruits from Russia's Bumfuck Nowhere regions are massively reduced (if they ever got the bulk of them anyway). The hydrocarbons sector is stuffed (although noteably, the Ukrainians haven't hit a refinery for a fortnight - to appease Trump?). This winter is particularly cruel in Russia. Inflation is bad and getting worse. Banks are going bust, a huge number of loans are in default. Putin is losing friends and allies abroad. His false flag attacks on his home (if it ever happened at all) has pissed off the Donald.
Hard to see how Putin survives the end of the war. He has expended vast amounts of blood and treasure - for what in Ukraine? And at the cost of the far east of his country being quietly acquired by China. And he hasn't got anything left to stop them with bar nukes.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
** photo removed by me, kinabalu, to save screen real estate **
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Good luck - it's a challenge to post on here only intermittently. Only way to do it is comment but don't engage in any follow up. You have to picture yourself entering a crowded room, shouting something and running off. If you can hold that image it will help.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
The lawyers and judges haven’t yet come to the conclusion that these men are fetishists, and get off on the discomfort they cause to women.
I.c.e is now detaining Sioux Native Americans because they don't look white, now unreleased for unaccountable reasons for a week. Staggering stuff, and what Reform could potentially bring here, if we see again that Trump is Farsge's idol.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
Won’t that just result in law firms handing all client interest back (as they should)
More likely it will just result in law firms deliberately not getting interest on client money, because it's a whole load of admin with very little in it for them.
My wife worked for a large financal asset management outfit. They explicitly told their bank they didn't want interest paid on their client money account, as they didn't want the work of trying to allocate it to clients.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Yes it will be interesting to see if the balance changes now we have a confirmed Starmer 24 supporter back.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
In this case, largely the former. Your belief is fairly directly contradicted by the judgment.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
Me too
‘Rose’ is a lady with a similarly burly physique too. I’m sure that can be intimidating.
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
I think it is more basic than that, and I base this on experience as a patient in at least three hospitals. There just are not proper facilities for changing – true for me as a patient, and apparently also for staff. Change behind that curtain or in that toilet. In the past, communal changing was the norm, and building new, segregated or better still, individual, spaces is in many cases just not practicable.
There are echoes of this in gyms, schools and even racecourses as well.
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"...It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely..."
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
Me too
‘Rose’ is a lady with a similarly burly physique too. I’m sure that can be intimidating.
And allegedly (again) fully intact and rumoured to trying for a baby with his partner.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
As someone who does VAT returns for a company with no income, VAT is absolutely the superior system.
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
As someone who does VAT returns for a company with no income, VAT is absolutely the superior system.
although if you continually claim money back HMRC take a lot of interest...
First poll on Jenrick defection from Merlin, though take account of GB news spin.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast. Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
I am quite ill at the moment and have been for the last month or so, so cannot provide my usual level of detailed analysis.
However, I have read the full judgement and, contra Peggie and Leonardo, this one does indeed look bad for trans rights. Specifically, the judgement finds that 'biological sex' is the basis of workplace facility provision under the 1992 regulations and therefore the trans woman in question should not have been allowed into the shared changing room at all (paras 431–432).
However, the trans person herself did nothing wrong as she was following company policy – it was the company (in this case the NHS) who are therefore liable.
Importantly, this case concerns undressing in shared facilities (i.e. getting undressed in full view of others) and on this point my view has remained consistent – that pre-op trans women should not be getting undressed in shared changing facilities.
Another point to note is that much of the judgement turns on perception, i.e. the nurses perceived the trans woman as a threat even though the judgement found on all counts that she was not threatening, was not a perv, and was simply getting changed as she believed she had the right to do. The court therefore finds she did nothing wrong personally.
However, I also find it noteworthy that the judgement notes that in other circumstances trans women have opted to use alternative facilities, whereas here the trans woman appears to have dug her heels in rather than doing what most people would consider normal – accepting that others are uncomfortable and making alternative arrangements. That is the polite and proper thing to do in a decent society.
Here’s where it gets trickier.
The tribunal suggests that forcing the trans woman into male facilities would likely engage and unlawfully infringe her Article 8 rights (para 439), although this is technically out of scope. It states that had she been required to undress in the men’s, there would be 'a compelling case' of unlawful interference.
So it is not as simple as 'biological man, get in the men’s,' as some gender criticals suggest. The judgement points instead toward third spaces or private, lockable cubicles.
Para 437 is clear that the simplest solution would have been to provide alternative changing facilities for the trans woman rather than compel unwilling women to undress with her.
On the whole, while this is quite a bad judgement for trans people (in that it has a lot to say about the 1992 regulations being based on so-called biological sex) it also states a belief that trans women shouldn't be forced into male spaces, either.
Again - this judgement is about workplace facilities (i.e. not the public loo at Victoria station) and the subject of the case was a shared changing room rather than individual lockable cubicles for undressing - which arguably everywhere should have anyway now, I certainly don't feel comfortable undressing in shared facilities (in front of either women or men!)
I.c.e is now detaining Sioux Native Americans because they don't look white, now unreleased for unaccountable reasons for a week. Staggering stuff.
Not at all surprising, they are the return of the Klan on the federal payroll.
And, of course, they will cause an equal and larger backlash in the opposite direction.
Most people in America think:
(a) border crossings should be stopped (b) people who crossed over illegally should be deported
At the same time, they also believe: (c) that if you came over as a kid -not under your own volition- and are a productive member of society then you should be allowed to stay (d) you came over legally under one of the many programs (like DACA), and have not committed criminal offences, then you should be allowed to stay (e) that minor visas violations are not deportable offences (particularly when people broke visa rules because travel was suspended during the early Covid period)
Oh, and many people also they also think: (f) in the words of Joe Rogan “We shouldn’t have militarized groups of people roaming the streets, just showing up with masks on, snatching people up… Are we really going to be the Gestapo? ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
Yes, and all firms that face VAT also face Corporation Tax too.
And often duties and levies on top of, not instead of, VAT and Corporation Tax.
A Client Account Interest Levy, if it were created and legally-defined, would be a tax just like all others.
It would also remove or reduce any incentive to hold client funds in interest-bearing accounts, likely transferring any benefits from lawyers to bankers (or from TSE to, erm, TSE in pb terms). If the government is serious, why not mandate that all client funds be held in a newly created facility at the Bank of England or NS&I for 100 per cent safety and no private profiteering?
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
Me too
‘Rose’ is a lady with a similarly burly physique too. I’m sure that can be intimidating.
And allegedly (again) fully intact and rumoured to trying for a baby with his partner.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
** photo removed by me, kinabalu, to save screen real estate **
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Good luck - it's a challenge to post on here only intermittently. Only way to do it is comment but don't engage in any follow up. You have to picture yourself entering a crowded room, shouting something and running off. If you can hold that image it will help.
Yes. Well phrased
See? This is the new me. Judicious and pleasant remarks. Unprovocative, measured, affable
If PB is hoping for the old Leon I’m afraid they’re going to be disappointed. I now support the Lib Dems, indeed I think Sir Ed Davey is probably the most titanic figure in modern European politics, a kind of Charlemagne or a Tamurlane, for our time
First poll on Jenrick defection from Merlin, though take account of GB news spin.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast.Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
First poll on Jenrick defection from Merlin, though take account of GB news spin.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast.Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
** photo removed by me, kinabalu, to save screen real estate **
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Good luck - it's a challenge to post on here only intermittently. Only way to do it is comment but don't engage in any follow up. You have to picture yourself entering a crowded room, shouting something and running off. If you can hold that image it will help.
Yes. Well phrased
See? This is the new me. Judicious and pleasant remarks. Unprovocative, measured, affable
If PB is hoping for the old Leon I’m afraid they’re going to be disappointed. I now support the Lib Dems, indeed I think Sir Ed Davey is probably the most titanic figure in modern European politics, a kind of Charlemagne or a Tamurlane, for our time
You think he's holed below the waterline, and sinking fast?
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
As someone who does VAT returns for a company with no income, VAT is absolutely the superior system.
although if you continually claim money back HMRC take a lot of interest...
Did I hear that HMRC would remove your VAT registration if you claimed back too much?
This is normal behaviour when you have a number of linked companies, with for example a local sales team but an offshore revenue entity.
For example Google or Microsoft, who have a sales team in London but the revenue all booked in Dublin.
I.c.e is now detaining Sioux Native Americans because they don't look white, now unreleased for unaccountable reasons for a week. Staggering stuff, and what Reform could potentially bring here, if we see again that Trump is Farsge's idol.
I believe I read that they released one of them but couldn’t locate the other three, I find that combination of repressive fascism and incompetence completely on brand. At least the Nazis were (obsessively) good at record keeping.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Following Farage down the “Climate Change not a priority” hole is huge policy error from Kemi right now.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
She does have this problem now of looking like the more moderate alternative to Honest Bob and his friends, and handling yesterday's issues with a certain amount of wittier, airier aplomb than him, but still with her track record of being friendly with people like Vance, contradicting this potential image.
She needs to decide what horse to ride, which sounds like a Beatles song.
As TSE was quick to point out in his breaking news header, Badenoch owes an amount of her getting top job from being the Bobby Blocker, so this instantly changes things in many ways for her. a lot of Conservative voices share the same view TSE had - like George Osbornes comments, with the immediate feeling this is not necessarily such a great thing for the Conservatives.
Isn’t the point of politics to build broad tent with everybody pissing out? At the moment because Bobby was such a marmite figure, within the Conservative Party and outside, we have Labour and Lib Dem’s joining in on the Con campaign to discredit him. But he is top of the Conservative home members poll. He was final 2 in the last leadership election. If Bobbys attacks on Badenoch’s Conservatives are punchy and effective, and the defections increase, it will turn round to ask was losing Bobby down to policy, or Badenoch’s Psychological Immaturity and personality type?
On the Eve of Badenoch telling her business team to let it be known she has sacked him, Bobby and Kemi had a chat - of course there were attempts to keep him. How long did Badenoch’s call with Jenrick this week urging him to stay actually last, before she snapped and said, okay, fuck off then - and hung up on him?
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
** photo removed by me, kinabalu, to save screen real estate **
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Good luck - it's a challenge to post on here only intermittently. Only way to do it is comment but don't engage in any follow up. You have to picture yourself entering a crowded room, shouting something and running off. If you can hold that image it will help.
Yes. Well phrased
See? This is the new me. Judicious and pleasant remarks. Unprovocative, measured, affable
If PB is hoping for the old Leon I’m afraid they’re going to be disappointed. I now support the Lib Dems, indeed I think Sir Ed Davey is probably the most titanic figure in modern European politics, a kind of Charlemagne or a Tamurlane, for our time
'Titanic' has a double meaning of course. You could, not unreasonably, mean Davey is destined to sink with most of those onboard
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
As someone who does VAT returns for a company with no income, VAT is absolutely the superior system.
VAT is the superior system. Unfortunately, it is much misunderstood, particularly by Americans.
Too many intelligent people think it's effictively a tariff: "ah, you see, you get to claim the VAT back on what you paid if it's not imported, but you don't if the goods are imported".
Explaining to them that it's charged at every step of the way, and therefore the full amount of VAT is charged on any product -even one locally produced- due to each firm in the chain paying a bit is really tough.
1,370 soldiers and 51 artillery and MLRS no longer reporting for duty in the Russian Army after yesterday...
They’re also losing ground on the front lines, having spread themselves too thin to try and avoid the drone wave.
Meanwhile, Russian newspapers aren’t holding back with stories of economic woes, and the Chinese are slowly moving border fences in the far East.
The optimist in me thinks this war must be close to being over now.
I hope you're right: Zelenskky has agreed to freezing the front lines several times, but Putin has always refused - not least because Ukraine will not give up uncaptured land.
Do you think Putin is ready to change his mind?
Not yet, because the word won’t be getting back to him just how much ground they’re losing on the battlefield.
He still thinks they hold Kupyansk and Prokovsk, because that’s what his generals last told him. They’ve held neither town.
I do wonder how much Putin knows, and how much is Putin "wish casting".
There's a tendency for people who've been successful in the past due to perseverance just to assume that the same thing will happen again... because it always has done in the past. There's also a tendency for everyone to believe things that are convenient to them.
We know Putin doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country. He therefore, I'm sure, believes that resistance to his regime is only happening because of a small number of people who've manipulated the people, and therefore just another little push, and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
So long as he persists in this delusion, then the war will continue. (Unless, he were to be defenestrated.)
The trans issue is “Gaza” for people who don’t hate Jews
You mean they hate trans people rather than Jews?
No, it’s a weird issue that people LIKE to get obsessive about (on all sides) even when it has virtually no impact on their personal lives and out of all proportion to its wider significance
I’m watching Al Jazeera English on my hotel tv. All it is, is Gaza. Gaza Gaza Gaza. They just had a 10 minute segment on exactly how much rubble is lying around in Gaza (apparently it would build 13 great pyramids).
It’s fucking weird. Iran gets about 2 minutes. Nothing else is mentioned. Then it’s another hour of Gaza Gaza Gaza
Now they’ve got an expert on concrete talking about the difficulty of reconstruction
It’s pathological. They just don’t care about their viewers or any sense of global news priority. So odd
I get that you hate Jews so for you it seems sensible. But for an objective outsider it’s creepy
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
"No ladies, he wasn't staring at your tits, you just thought he was..."
My eyebrows were raised on reading that bit, I must say. Although this is a much superior judgment the weight given by both Tribunals to how the transwoman felt about it rather than those whose right to a single gender space was being trampled is remarkable and, in my view, wrong.
First poll on Jenrick defection from Merlin, though take account of GB news spin.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast.Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
The trans issue is “Gaza” for people who don’t hate Jews
You mean they hate trans people rather than Jews?
No, it’s a weird issue that people LIKE to get obsessive about (on all sides) even when it has virtually no impact on their personal lives and out of all proportion to its wider significance
I’m watching Al Jazeera English on my hotel tv. All it is, is Gaza. Gaza Gaza Gaza. They just had a 10 minute segment on exactly how much rubble is lying around in Gaza (apparently it would build 13 great pyramids).
It’s fucking weird. Iran gets about 2 minutes. Nothing else is mentioned. Then it’s another hour of Gaza Gaza Gaza
Now they’ve got an expert on concrete talking about the difficulty of reconstruction
It’s pathological. They just don’t care about their viewers or any sense of global news priority. So odd
Part of the problem with Iran - and with many of my friends in LA being Persian, it's a much bigger story here - is that no-one has a fucking clue what's going on there.
People are desperately trying to get in contact with relatives, but phone and Internet are out, and there is little real reporting making it out. They are all praying -Jewish and Muslim alike- for the fall of the Mullahs. And they're also praying that it happens without them losing too many of their friends and family.
First poll on Jenrick defection from Merlin, though take account of GB news spin.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast. Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
GB News is running away with excitement. The law compelling us to vote for Reform exists in draft, the template supplied by Mr Trump, but as yet is not enacted. They need to be more patient.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
It's not offsettable like VAT is.
As someone who now lives in America, I've discovered how irritatingly non-recoverable sales tax is here.
As someone who does VAT returns for a company with no income, VAT is absolutely the superior system.
VAT is the superior system. Unfortunately, it is much misunderstood, particularly by Americans.
Too many intelligent people think it's effictively a tariff: "ah, you see, you get to claim the VAT back on what you paid if it's not imported, but you don't if the goods are imported".
Explaining to them that it's charged at every step of the way, and therefore the full amount of VAT is charged on any product -even one locally produced- due to each firm in the chain paying a bit is really tough.
There’s clearly advantages and disadvantages of both systems, but what really annoys visitors to the US is that the price is never the price.
If I pick up something priced at $4.99, it shouldn’t cost $6.50, and I sure as hell shouldn’t be asked if I want to leave a tip (with options of 20%, 30%, and 40%) on the purchase.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Following Farage down the “Climate Change not a priority” hole is huge policy error from Kemi right now.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
She does have this problem now of looking like the more moderate alternative to Honest Bob and his friends, and handling yesterday's issues with a certain amount of wittier, airier aplomb than him, but still with her track record of being friendly with people like Vance, contradicting this potential image.
She needs to decide what horse to ride, which sounds like a Beatles song.
As TSE was quick to point out in his breaking news header, Badenoch owes an amount of her getting top job from being the Bobby Blocker, so this instantly changes things in many ways for her. a lot of Conservative voices share the same view TSE had - like George Osbornes comments, with the immediate feeling this is not necessarily such a great thing for the Conservatives.
Isn’t the point of politics to build broad tent with everybody pissing out? At the moment because Bobby was such a marmite figure, within the Conservative Party and outside, we have Labour and Lib Dem’s joining in on the Con campaign to discredit him. But he is top of the Conservative home members poll. He was final 2 in the last leadership election. If Bobbys attacks on Badenoch’s Conservatives are punchy and effective, and the defections increase, it will turn round to ask was losing Bobby down to policy, or Badenoch’s Psychological Immaturity and personality type?
On the Eve of Badenoch telling her business team to let it be known she has sacked him, Bobby and Kemi had a chat - of course there were attempts to keep him. How long did Badenoch’s call with Jenrick this week urging him to stay actually last, before she snapped and said, okay, fuck off then - and hung up on him?
No idea where you sourced your last paragraph but here is the BBC report
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
Mixed success again but it does seem to have applied the SC decision in FWS rather than trying to say it says something else.
The nurses seem to be happy, well done to them for standing up.
Neither this one of the Peggie one has found that the transwoman involved has done anything wrong. Which is interesting. Who to believe? In the Peggie case it has been suggested that the tribunal believed the nice middle class doctor rather than the working class nurse. In this case, again, the allegations about the conduct of the transwoman (i.e. man) at the heart of the issue have not been upheld.
Without any more knowledge than the reports one wonders if the decision allows the win for the nurses but avoids criticising the man to avoid controversy?
The trans issue is one of heat not light. Without reading the judgment or thinking about the merits, the situation had been going on for years without objection, until someone objected. One also notes in the background a right-wing Christian pressure group.
Speaking from the consumers' side, something really ought to be done about changing facilities for patients.
The judgment seems very well thought out, and while it's a very long read, it's pretty clear even to a non lawyer. This is probably the kernel of the judgment:
In our judgement, having regard to our findings of fact, Rose Henderson did not engage in conduct that can be described as harassment related to sex or harassment related to gender reassignment within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. This includes the conduct of changing in the changing room without more (that is paragraph 3(a)(i) of the list of issues identified in the above paragraph). We must state at this juncture that we draw a distinction between Rose’s conduct in using the changing room and the Trust’s conduct in permitting Rose use of the changing room (that is paragraph 4(a) of the issues).
In view of the recent rulings on the law, the tribunal could hardly have found otherwise than it did, but irrespective of those rulings, the health trust seems to me have managed the entire case in manner which was pretty incompetent, and created a conflict which could otherwise have been avoided. So it deservedly lost the case (and IMO deserved to have done so irrespective of the recent Supreme Court rulings).
I think for me the issues that are arising out of the these judgements is that organisations (notably so far NHS trusts) have very much gone with the self ID, EDI is best, support for trans etc line and somewhere along the way lost the point about safe spaces for women. Its almost as if 'womens rights' has been won, and now we move onto the next struggle, which is of course, completely wrong.
However its also interesting that in both recent cases the allegations about the man in the womens changing room have not been upheld. So whoever is deciding these things is either not believing the complainants, or deeming it not to be an issue.
None of us was there when Peggie (5 foot nothing) confronted poor Dr Upton (6 foot and then some) and allegedly made him cry. None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe.
The lawyers and judges haven’t yet come to the conclusion that these men are fetishists, and get off on the discomfort they cause to women.
The Governments may be gently leaning on the courts to be gentle with trans men because they are scared of the reaction from the trans lobby.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
** photo removed by me, kinabalu, to save screen real estate **
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Good luck - it's a challenge to post on here only intermittently. Only way to do it is comment but don't engage in any follow up. You have to picture yourself entering a crowded room, shouting something and running off. If you can hold that image it will help.
Yes. Well phrased
See? This is the new me. Judicious and pleasant remarks. Unprovocative, measured, affable
If PB is hoping for the old Leon I’m afraid they’re going to be disappointed. I now support the Lib Dems, indeed I think Sir Ed Davey is probably the most titanic figure in modern European politics, a kind of Charlemagne or a Tamurlane, for our time
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
"No ladies, he wasn't staring at your tits, you just thought he was..."
My eyebrows were raised on reading that bit, I must say. Although this is a much superior judgment the weight given by both Tribunals to how the transwoman felt about it rather than those whose right to a single gender space was being trampled is remarkable and, in my view, wrong.
Does not the law compel them to consider all sides to the case, which they do in quite some detail ?
I think you are mischaracterising the judgment, and the "weight given". What they said is that they weren't convinced by quite a lot of the evidence given by the plaintiffs. It is part of their task to make findings of fact, and they did so; you're entitled to disagree with them, but you did not hear that evidence in full.
What's notable is that Taz and turbotubbs have already decided on the facts without apparently reading the judgment.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
The Tories really need to focus on Lib Dem’s in the old southern blue wall. I suspect those wanting them just to,fight reform want blue on blue action to harm both.
Many of the seats Reform are likely to pick up are red wall never been Tory or only once been Tory. What good,does it the Tories to batter reform in Hull East or Barnsley East ?
They need, IMV as I am not a Tory, to be distinct from them but focus where and who they fight.
Yes. Farage has listed why he thinks Reform are different,
“we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.‘
so Kemi and her team need to unashamedly point out their policy differences with Farage and why Conservatives don’t agree with him.
That’s is what politics is about at the end of the day, campaigning and explaining your own unique positions and why they are different.
As the Party of Government in the UK for most the last 100 years, the UKs success of immigration and integration is owned by the Conservative Party. UKs successful time in Europe is owned by the Conservative Party, and all the pro business and economic good it gave UK is owned by the Conservative Party, for negotiating us in, against Labour policy, and then designing the single market for the EU so that it worked effectively and fairly. The Climate Change Act updated to net zero by Conservative Government gives UK statutory long-term emissions target – being liked by business community when progress is legislated 12 years in advance and monitored by an independent body, the Climate Change Committee - this gives UK institutional rhythm on action, reducing uncertainty and enabling long-term planning, businesses know formal set pieces, such as the CCC’s annual report to parliament, can time interventions accordingly. Inspired by such business friendly approach UK’s Conservative Party built here - over 60 countries have copied UK climate change laws, and half of those have CCC advisory bodies too, making UK, thanks to our Conservative Party, a climate leader in the whole world!
Slap Farage with that.
And ignore the Lib Dem’s who are a greater opponent ?
Not at all no, it is certainly a war on two fronts, I just explained how to fight and win on Eastern Front right now against Farage. The Western Front against Lib Dem’s is more tricky right now, as the voters and seats have been lost because the Conservatives own hard brexit.
Although she should IMO, I don’t think Badenoch is at all close to apologising for damage caused to UK from hard Brexit.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
The trans issue is “Gaza” for people who don’t hate Jews
You mean they hate trans people rather than Jews?
No, it’s a weird issue that people LIKE to get obsessive about (on all sides) even when it has virtually no impact on their personal lives and out of all proportion to its wider significance
I’m watching Al Jazeera English on my hotel tv. All it is, is Gaza. Gaza Gaza Gaza. They just had a 10 minute segment on exactly how much rubble is lying around in Gaza (apparently it would build 13 great pyramids).
It’s fucking weird. Iran gets about 2 minutes. Nothing else is mentioned. Then it’s another hour of Gaza Gaza Gaza
Now they’ve got an expert on concrete talking about the difficulty of reconstruction
It’s pathological. They just don’t care about their viewers or any sense of global news priority. So odd
I get that you hate Jews so for you it seems sensible. But for an objective outsider it’s creepy
Wait till you hear how little coverage Sudan is getting nowadays.
Anyway, on here it seems to be people on one side of both arguments (weirdly often the same people) who go on and on about them. The amount of prurient speculation about people’s genitals is positively creepy.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
I have repeatedly said that the refusal to allow medical care is the biggest issue.
People react badly in stressful situations. It's entirely possible for the ICE officer to have behaved wrongly, without it being a case of murder. But actively preventing medical care from reachin Ms Good, when she was in no way a threat is in no way defensible.
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
"No ladies, he wasn't staring at your tits, you just thought he was..."
My eyebrows were raised on reading that bit, I must say. Although this is a much superior judgment the weight given by both Tribunals to how the transwoman felt about it rather than those whose right to a single gender space was being trampled is remarkable and, in my view, wrong.
Does not the law compel them to consider all sides to the case, which they do in quite some detail ?
I think you are mischaracterising the judgment, and the "weight given". What they said is that they weren't convinced by quite a lot of the evidence given by the plaintiffs. It is part of their task to make findings of fact, and they did so; you're entitled to disagree with them, but you did not hear that evidence in full.
What's notable is that Taz and turbotubbs have already decided on the facts without apparently reading the judgment.
I haven't done this - I observed a lot of the discussion about both cases. Many people were incredulous that Upton's version of events was believed by Judge AI Kemp even though it was demonstrated by the IT witness that his veracity (or recollection) was false. As to what happened re Rose - it surely comes down to 'who do you believe"? Its perfectly possible that the nurses were mistaken in their interpretation. But people tend to know when someone is behaving in a creepy way, or is staring at them.
That's not that crazy: before they went all final solution, Nazi Germany wanted all the Jews to leave for Palestine.
Erm, wasn't that the allegedly antisemitic slur that saw Ken Livingstone cancelled?
If I want to be more accurate, I would say that Adolf Eichmann was sent by the Nazi leadership to investigate whether Jewish emigration might solve the "Jewish Question". I have little doubt that -in time- the Nazis would soon have discovered they weren't that keen on Jews whereever they were.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
“ It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.”
That’s implying it’s just done with authoritarian force and violence for show, rather like NAZI’s would choose to do it.
But that’s not why I’m posting. I’m wondering if your post means you have in mind more effective ways of removing illegal immigrants?
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
Ah you're back then. That's good - not because I especially like your take on things but for the balance of the site. It's lately become a hive of unhinged anti-Labour bile. Your judicious presence will counteract this somewhat.
A gracious remark
I actually returned yesterday with a photo of my latest hardship posting in Bangkok, where I am now. Here it is
** photo removed by me, kinabalu, to save screen real estate **
That said, after initial cold turkey I began to enjoy my absence. I don’t believe I will be commenting remotely as much in the future (perhaps a good thing for all sides)
I also have tremendous amounts of work and travel in hand which will keep me busy and away. I’ve been commissioned to go to Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Iceland and Madeira. And France. And maybe Greenland
Good luck - it's a challenge to post on here only intermittently. Only way to do it is comment but don't engage in any follow up. You have to picture yourself entering a crowded room, shouting something and running off. If you can hold that image it will help.
Yes. Well phrased
See? This is the new me. Judicious and pleasant remarks. Unprovocative, measured, affable
If PB is hoping for the old Leon I’m afraid they’re going to be disappointed. I now support the Lib Dems, indeed I think Sir Ed Davey is probably the most titanic figure in modern European politics, a kind of Charlemagne or a Tamurlane, for our time
I can perhaps (for a fee) give you a scoop on the very nice place he lived in in his early years, which is about 2km from here.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
It must be pretty damn close to c***l w*r in some cities now, with State and Federal police opposed to each other.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
I have repeatedly said that the refusal to allow medical care is the biggest issue.
People react badly in stressful situations. It's entirely possible for the ICE officer to have behaved wrongly, without it being a case of murder. But actively preventing medical care from reachin Ms Good, when she was in no way a threat is in no way defensible.
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
"No ladies, he wasn't staring at your tits, you just thought he was..."
My eyebrows were raised on reading that bit, I must say. Although this is a much superior judgment the weight given by both Tribunals to how the transwoman felt about it rather than those whose right to a single gender space was being trampled is remarkable and, in my view, wrong.
Does not the law compel them to consider all sides to the case, which they do in quite some detail ?
I think you are mischaracterising the judgment, and the "weight given". What they said is that they weren't convinced by quite a lot of the evidence given by the plaintiffs. It is part of their task to make findings of fact, and they did so; you're entitled to disagree with them, but you did not hear that evidence in full.
What's notable is that Taz and turbotubbs have already decided on the facts without apparently reading the judgment.
I haven't done this - I observed a lot of the discussion about both cases. Many people were incredulous that Upton's version of events was believed by Judge AI Kemp even though it was demonstrated by the IT witness that his veracity (or recollection) was false. As to what happened re Rose - it surely comes down to 'who do you believe"? Its perfectly possible that the nurses were mistaken in their interpretation. But people tend to know when someone is behaving in a creepy way, or is staring at them.
Judges may not understand that changing rooms in hospitals may not be as private as the changing rooms in the Garrick.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
I have repeatedly said that the refusal to allow medical care is the biggest issue.
People react badly in stressful situations. It's entirely possible for the ICE officer to have behaved wrongly, without it being a case of murder. But actively preventing medical care from reachin Ms Good, when she was in no way a threat is in no way defensible.
Terrifying and sad how fast and far America has fallen.
Very sobering when you think what might happen here in UK.
First poll on Jenrick defection from Merlin, though take account of GB news spin.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast. Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
GB News is running away with excitement. The law compelling us to vote for Reform exists in draft, the template supplied by Mr Trump, but as yet is not enacted. They need to be more patient.
Well grave times, grave remedies. When the country is broken - broken so badly it resembles nothing so much as an 1980s Amstrad computer with a cracked screen and no plug - it's time for some 'out of our box' thinking.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
This is worse than David Lammy's plans to restrict trial by jury.
Lammy's plan to snatch client account interest 'will force law firms out of business'
The Ministry of Justice's plan to take the interest which law firms make on money sitting in their client accounts will destroy high street and residential conveyancing firms, critics including national firm Taylor Rose have said.
Taylor Rose would have made just £100k profit last year without the millions generated by its client account.
Solicitors Regulation Authority rules currently only require law firms to provide clients with a 'fair sum' in relation to the interest earned on client money. The loose definition leaves scope for firms to retain most, or all, of the interest via agreement with their clients.
Last year the SRA postponed a review of the arrangement, but the Ministry of Justice has proposed requisitioning 50% of the “unearned interest” generated on law firms’ individual client accounts and 75% of the “unearned interest” generated on pooled accounts, which it says it will use to shore up England & Wales' crumbling justice system.
“Law firms thrive when the system is strong, so it follows that they should contribute to strengthening justice”, Lord Chancellor David Lammy said.
In 2024, the UK200 law firms generated over £350m from client account interest, according to data provided to RollOnFriday by Taha & Co.
Won’t that just result in law firms handing all client interest back (as they should)
More likely it will just result in law firms deliberately not getting interest on client money, because it's a whole load of admin with very little in it for them.
My wife worked for a large financal asset management outfit. They explicitly told their bank they didn't want interest paid on their client money account, as they didn't want the work of trying to allocate it to clients.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
DavidL, I don't think "but we pay corporation tax" is a get-out-of-jail-free card for any other legally-defined tax, plenty of which exist.
EG if I want to buy insurance, then there is Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) that gets levied, while the insurance company still pays corporation tax.
Fuel duty, tobacco duty, alcohol duty all apply as well as both VAT and corporation tax.
The energy profits levy (nicknamed a windfall tax) is levied on top of corporation tax.
Energy generator levy is levied on top of corporation tax.
If the government places a legally-defined tax, lets call it a Client Account Interest Levy, then that tax would be due as well as, not instead of corporation tax, just like any other tax that exists anywhere.
Insurance Premium Tax is just VAT for insurance.
Yes, and all firms that face VAT also face Corporation Tax too.
And often duties and levies on top of, not instead of, VAT and Corporation Tax.
A Client Account Interest Levy, if it were created and legally-defined, would be a tax just like all others.
In the ordinary world everything is taxed all the time. How else do you fund TME amounting to about 44% of the total economy.
Think of an employee having an extra £100 to increase the pay of an employee: From this comes: Employers NI, NI, IT, student loan. The rest is the employee's. He goes out, fills up his car with 30 litres of petrol and (understandably) spends the rest on whisky.
The amount of the £100 which the employee has actually received and then spent on actual goods as opposed to taxes is negligible. A few pounds.
From that few pounds x the number of customers the petrol station has to fund all its taxes; the off licence ditto.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
It must be pretty damn close to c***l w*r in some cities now, with State and Federal police opposed to each other.
How does the temperature get turned down?
Thankfully guns are not widely distributed or anything…
It does look like Trump wants a confrontation. If I.c.e acts like a paramilitary racial force abive the law, which there is increasing documentation and evidence of, more people will obviously try and restrict its activities, enraging the agents further.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
Are they actually paid to remove illegal immigrants. I suspect they are just as happy to attempt to remove them as that avoids a whole lot of paperwork but keeps the performance art Trump likes in place.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Following Farage down the “Climate Change not a priority” hole is huge policy error from Kemi right now.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
She does have this problem now of looking like the more moderate alternative to Honest Bob and his friends, and handling yesterday's issues with a certain amount of wittier, airier aplomb than him, but still with her track record of being friendly with people like Vance, contradicting this potential image.
She needs to decide what horse to ride, which sounds like a Beatles song.
As TSE was quick to point out in his breaking news header, Badenoch owes an amount of her getting top job from being the Bobby Blocker, so this instantly changes things in many ways for her. a lot of Conservative voices share the same view TSE had - like George Osbornes comments, with the immediate feeling this is not necessarily such a great thing for the Conservatives.
Isn’t the point of politics to build broad tent with everybody pissing out? At the moment because Bobby was such a marmite figure, within the Conservative Party and outside, we have Labour and Lib Dem’s joining in on the Con campaign to discredit him. But he is top of the Conservative home members poll. He was final 2 in the last leadership election. If Bobbys attacks on Badenoch’s Conservatives are punchy and effective, and the defections increase, it will turn round to ask was losing Bobby down to policy, or Badenoch’s Psychological Immaturity and personality type?
On the Eve of Badenoch telling her business team to let it be known she has sacked him, Bobby and Kemi had a chat - of course there were attempts to keep him. How long did Badenoch’s call with Jenrick this week urging him to stay actually last, before she snapped and said, okay, fuck off then - and hung up on him?
No idea where you sourced your last paragraph but here is the BBC report
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
I have repeatedly said that the refusal to allow medical care is the biggest issue.
People react badly in stressful situations. It's entirely possible for the ICE officer to have behaved wrongly, without it being a case of murder. But actively preventing medical care from reachin Ms Good, when she was in no way a threat is in no way defensible.
The WH reaction - plain lying - was also a massive issue imo.
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
"No ladies, he wasn't staring at your tits, you just thought he was..."
My eyebrows were raised on reading that bit, I must say. Although this is a much superior judgment the weight given by both Tribunals to how the transwoman felt about it rather than those whose right to a single gender space was being trampled is remarkable and, in my view, wrong.
Does not the law compel them to consider all sides to the case, which they do in quite some detail ?
I think you are mischaracterising the judgment, and the "weight given". What they said is that they weren't convinced by quite a lot of the evidence given by the plaintiffs. It is part of their task to make findings of fact, and they did so; you're entitled to disagree with them, but you did not hear that evidence in full.
What's notable is that Taz and turbotubbs have already decided on the facts without apparently reading the judgment.
I don't think so. The question before the Tribunal was whether the statutory rights of the complainers were being breached. They concluded that they were. They had to address whether those rights were being breached by their employer (which they obviously were because they allowed this to continue) and by the transwoman. I think that the fact that a functioning male was using female changing facilities even after she was aware that some of the females were finding this upsetting is frankly enough. Whether she meant to cause that upset or actually did anything to aggravate it was not the point.
This is not a weighing of rights situation. FWS was clear about that. As I said, I think both Tribunals have to some degree fallen into error in focusing on the transwoman's (non existent in relation to this facility) rights. They are right to go on to consider the implications of that and the duties on the employer to her but that was not the point they actually had to decide. Woman's rights are not secondary. In fact, in this context at least, they are primary.
It does look like Trump wants a confrontation. If I.c.e acts like a paramilitary racial force abive the law, which there is increasing evidence of, mote people will obviously try and restrict it, enraging the agents further.
A thing I worry about is how all of this ends here in Minnesota. For the past week, people have stopped their lives to help neighbors. We are invaded and the occupiers are losing, especially in public opinion. But because the crisis is manufactured, it gets even harder for ICE to sell a victory.
These are cruel idiots, so I’m not sure they ever thought any of this through. Each day they are here it becomes clearer how violent and unaccountable they are and how much everyone is against them. I can’t really see them leaving under these circumstances because they don’t know how to take an L.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
It must be pretty damn close to c***l w*r in some cities now, with State and Federal police opposed to each other.
How does the temperature get turned down?
Thankfully guns are not widely distributed or anything…
Indeed, the amusing thing being that those who oppose the actions of the government are also those opposing the general population being armed.
I'm not sure that's the win the Lib Dems think it is. The danger is they signpost to voters in the seats they hold that the sort of people that Lib Dem voters don't like have left the Tories.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
It must be pretty damn close to c***l w*r in some cities now, with State and Federal police opposed to each other.
How does the temperature get turned down?
Thankfully guns are not widely distributed or anything…
Indeed, the amusing thing being that those who oppose the actions of the government are also those opposing the general population being armed.
And the ones who consider ownership of firearms to be necessary to stop a tyrannical government pissing all over their precious constitution are keeping their gun cases locked.
I'm not sure that's the win the Lib Dems think it is. The danger is they signpost to voters in the seats they hold that the sort of people that Lib Dem voters don't like have left the Tories.
There can’t be many Lib Dem v reform contests. Maybe a couple in Devon and a couple in Cornwall
Strongly recommend the German Language movie “Tank” on Amazon Prime. Compelling and intelligent - it manages to humanise a Tiger tank crew on the Eastern Front in WW2, but doesn’t shy away from the horrors - including the Final Solution
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
I have repeatedly said that the refusal to allow medical care is the biggest issue.
People react badly in stressful situations. It's entirely possible for the ICE officer to have behaved wrongly, without it being a case of murder. But actively preventing medical care from reachin Ms Good, when she was in no way a threat is in no way defensible.
I've just realised that ICE are using Chicago PD as training videos
For those who don't know, this an American TV series, which follows the exploits of a special unit of the Chicago police. The unit is led by a police officer who was released from prison. For crimes he did actually commit. He tortures suspects and hangs out with Mafia bosses at a social club. He (the police officer) commits one/two actual murders per series.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
Apparently ICE are patrolling the airport
And got into an altercation with the TSA...
If is of course explicitly permitted 1st Amendment Protected Speech to film officers in the course of their activities if the individual does not interfere.
But not understanding such rights, or deliberately ignoring them, is absolutely routine in some settings.
Strongly recommend the German Language movie “Tank” on Amazon Prime. Compelling and intelligent - it manages to humanise a Tiger tank crew on the Eastern Front in WW2, but doesn’t shy away from the horrors - including the Final Solution
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in the gulag, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
It must be pretty damn close to c***l w*r in some cities now, with State and Federal police opposed to each other.
How does the temperature get turned down?
Thankfully guns are not widely distributed or anything…
Indeed, the amusing thing being that those who oppose the actions of the government are also those opposing the general population being armed.
Which is entirely consistent if the aim is a less violent society.
Cops kill ~1300 people every year in the USA with their guns. For all the gun holders, it's a little under 50k including suicides.
UK? Cops discharged a firearm at a person in 2024 and 2025 at 2 and 4 incidents respectively.
...None of us was there when 'Rose' stripped to his tatty and full of holes boxer shorts and stared at women undressing (allegedly). So we cannot know. But I know who I believe...
"It is a symptom of the fact that a biological male was in such close proximity with women who were or who might be in states of partial undress that has led, in our judgement, to various people holding these perceptions that Rose was staring or taking longer than normal...Where people were already anxious and concerned about Rose’s presence, as was the case of those who gave evidence on these things, any eye contact, or question is likely to be interpreted adversely."
"No ladies, he wasn't staring at your tits, you just thought he was..."
My eyebrows were raised on reading that bit, I must say. Although this is a much superior judgment the weight given by both Tribunals to how the transwoman felt about it rather than those whose right to a single gender space was being trampled is remarkable and, in my view, wrong.
How do you mean, David?
My understanding of the judgement is it validated the women feeling uncomfortable about a transgender woman sharing their space and deemed it unacceptable that they had had to. There is no 'don't be so silly' air about it.
What it didn't do, based on the evidence presented, was judge that the transgender woman herself behaved in a pervy manner.
Can anyone explain how Jenricks defection unites the right? I would have thought it makes arrangements between Reform and the Conservatives more difficult. Its personal. Badenoch will not work with Jenrick.
Hopefully the Tories will now clock that they have to fight Reform.
That is exactly it. Good post.
It will now dawn in the Conservative Party, you cannot beat Reform by photocopying their policies, but explaining why your own policies are different.
Ironically it’s Farage who yesterday has told the Conservative Party exactly how to take him on and better him.
“you know” [you know it’s Farage when it’s starts with you know and then a pause] “we will not be a Tory party 2.0 because we have a completely different set of policies and people [who join] have to say they admit that net zero, mass migration, North Sea taxes and many other things were a terrible mistake.
Okay. Simples. Defending immigration over the last 100 years, and the successful racially integrated country we have become is one policy differential the Conservatives can hammer Farage with. The success of the Conservatives Net Zero initiatives to combat climate change is another. Under the Conservatives the UK lead the world on combatting climate change. Some to reel off - UK first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010. Commitment to phasing out unabated coal power by 2025.
The trouble is, Kemi is terminally online and supping from the alt-right meme goblet. That means she gets a constant stream of extremely anti-net zero American messaging and probably thinks the British public is united in dismissing climate change as a hoax.
The polling reality is that the fight against global warming is one of the topics Brits are most united in supporting. But her social feed isn’t going to be telling her that.
There is a lot of truth in your post. Following Farage down the “Climate Change not a priority” hole is huge policy error from Kemi right now.
But party policy it’s not just one person with one feed in reality is it. It’s a whole team of policy wonks, close colleagues, business managers etc, and what extent they all draw from the same Mad, US Neo Con feed so they are an echo chamber, and not robust discussion group.
Conservative Party policy under Badenoch now needs to come under the spotlight. Is Badenoch Policy platform actually shrinking the parties appeal across the electorate, and puts it in direct fight with Reform for the same group of “not enough to win” voters?
If there isn’t policy clarity by the time of the campaign, it will be as disastrous as the one under Sunak. You can’t just put meat on the bones at the last moment, you need to be winning voters back long before that, with the aroma of beef rib roasting in your oven.
She does have this problem now of looking like the more moderate alternative to Honest Bob and his friends, and handling yesterday's issues with a certain amount of wittier, airier aplomb than him, but still with her track record of being friendly with people like Vance, contradicting this potential image.
She needs to decide what horse to ride, which sounds like a Beatles song.
As TSE was quick to point out in his breaking news header, Badenoch owes an amount of her getting top job from being the Bobby Blocker, so this instantly changes things in many ways for her. a lot of Conservative voices share the same view TSE had - like George Osbornes comments, with the immediate feeling this is not necessarily such a great thing for the Conservatives.
Isn’t the point of politics to build broad tent with everybody pissing out? At the moment because Bobby was such a marmite figure, within the Conservative Party and outside, we have Labour and Lib Dem’s joining in on the Con campaign to discredit him. But he is top of the Conservative home members poll. He was final 2 in the last leadership election. If Bobbys attacks on Badenoch’s Conservatives are punchy and effective, and the defections increase, it will turn round to ask was losing Bobby down to policy, or Badenoch’s Psychological Immaturity and personality type?
On the Eve of Badenoch telling her business team to let it be known she has sacked him, Bobby and Kemi had a chat - of course there were attempts to keep him. How long did Badenoch’s call with Jenrick this week urging him to stay actually last, before she snapped and said, okay, fuck off then - and hung up on him?
No idea where you sourced your last paragraph but here is the BBC report
Comments
And often duties and levies on top of, not instead of, VAT and Corporation Tax.
A Client Account Interest Levy, if it were created and legally-defined, would be a tax just like all others.
Hard to see how Putin survives the end of the war. He has expended vast amounts of blood and treasure - for what in Ukraine? And at the cost of the far east of his country being quietly acquired by China. And he hasn't got anything left to stop them with bar nukes.
My wife worked for a large financal asset management outfit. They explicitly told their bank they didn't want interest paid on their client money account, as they didn't want the work of trying to allocate it to clients.
@DavidL I wish I could find a bank like your firm’s.
Your belief is fairly directly contradicted by the judgment.
‘Rose’ is a lady with a similarly burly physique too. I’m sure that can be intimidating.
There are echoes of this in gyms, schools and even racecourses as well.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62nwl7j44gt
He gave it to my grandfather, who then gave it to my dad and one day, it will be mine.
It's our family hair loom.
'Fresh data from Merlin, shared exclusively with GB News, showed that a fifth of Britons were now compelled to vote for Reform following Mr Jenrick’s defection.
Nineteen per cent of those polled were now tempted to back Mr Farage's party, trumping the 13 per cent who said they were now less likely to do so.
The majority of respondents revealed the move had made no difference, with 54 per cent sharing it had no impact on their voting intention.
Thirteen per cent remained unsure of where their ballot would be cast. Figures from among Conservative votes also proved striking, with 22 per cent hinting they could follow Mr Jenrick in switching to Reform.
Within that cohort, the same percentage said they were less likely to back Mr Farage’s party following the defection.
48 per cent of Tory voters said the move had not changed their mind and seven per cent had been left conflicted.'
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/robert-jenrick-refrom-polling-support-nigel-farage-kemi-badenoch
However, I have read the full judgement and, contra Peggie and Leonardo, this one does indeed look bad for trans rights. Specifically, the judgement finds that 'biological sex' is the basis of workplace facility provision under the 1992 regulations and therefore the trans woman in question should not have been allowed into the shared changing room at all (paras 431–432).
However, the trans person herself did nothing wrong as she was following company policy – it was the company (in this case the NHS) who are therefore liable.
Importantly, this case concerns undressing in shared facilities (i.e. getting undressed in full view of others) and on this point my view has remained consistent – that pre-op trans women should not be getting undressed in shared changing facilities.
Another point to note is that much of the judgement turns on perception, i.e. the nurses perceived the trans woman as a threat even though the judgement found on all counts that she was not threatening, was not a perv, and was simply getting changed as she believed she had the right to do. The court therefore finds she did nothing wrong personally.
However, I also find it noteworthy that the judgement notes that in other circumstances trans women have opted to use alternative facilities, whereas here the trans woman appears to have dug her heels in rather than doing what most people would consider normal – accepting that others are uncomfortable and making alternative arrangements. That is the polite and proper thing to do in a decent society.
Here’s where it gets trickier.
The tribunal suggests that forcing the trans woman into male facilities would likely engage and unlawfully infringe her Article 8 rights (para 439), although this is technically out of scope. It states that had she been required to undress in the men’s, there would be 'a compelling case' of unlawful interference.
So it is not as simple as 'biological man, get in the men’s,' as some gender criticals suggest. The judgement points instead toward third spaces or private, lockable cubicles.
Para 437 is clear that the simplest solution would have been to provide alternative changing facilities for the trans woman rather than compel unwilling women to undress with her.
On the whole, while this is quite a bad judgement for trans people (in that it has a lot to say about the 1992 regulations being based on so-called biological sex) it also states a belief that trans women shouldn't be forced into male spaces, either.
Again - this judgement is about workplace facilities (i.e. not the public loo at Victoria station) and the subject of the case was a shared changing room rather than individual lockable cubicles for undressing - which arguably everywhere should have anyway now, I certainly don't feel comfortable undressing in shared facilities (in front of either women or men!)
Most people in America think:
(a) border crossings should be stopped
(b) people who crossed over illegally should be deported
At the same time, they also believe:
(c) that if you came over as a kid -not under your own volition- and are a productive member of society then you should be allowed to stay
(d) you came over legally under one of the many programs (like DACA), and have not committed criminal offences, then you should be allowed to stay
(e) that minor visas violations are not deportable offences (particularly when people broke visa rules because travel was suspended during the early Covid period)
Oh, and many people also they also think:
(f) in the words of Joe Rogan “We shouldn’t have militarized groups of people roaming the streets, just showing up with masks on, snatching people up… Are we really going to be the Gestapo? ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”
See? This is the new me. Judicious and pleasant remarks. Unprovocative, measured, affable
If PB is hoping for the old Leon I’m afraid they’re going to be disappointed. I now support the Lib Dems, indeed I think Sir Ed Davey is probably the most titanic figure in modern European politics, a kind of Charlemagne or a Tamurlane, for our time
"Well, I didn't want to vote Reform, but I was compelled to."
This is normal behaviour when you have a number of linked companies, with for example a local sales team but an offshore revenue entity.
For example Google or Microsoft, who have a sales team in London but the revenue all booked in Dublin.
At least the Nazis were (obsessively) good at record keeping.
a lot of Conservative voices share the same view TSE had - like George Osbornes comments, with the immediate feeling this is not necessarily such a great thing for the Conservatives.
Isn’t the point of politics to build broad tent with everybody pissing out? At the moment because Bobby was such a marmite figure, within the Conservative Party and outside, we have Labour and Lib Dem’s joining in on the Con campaign to discredit him. But he is top of the Conservative home members poll. He was final 2 in the last leadership election. If Bobbys attacks on Badenoch’s Conservatives are punchy and effective, and the defections increase, it will turn round to ask was losing Bobby down to policy, or Badenoch’s Psychological Immaturity and personality type?
On the Eve of Badenoch telling her business team to let it be known she has sacked him, Bobby and Kemi had a chat - of course there were attempts to keep him. How long did Badenoch’s call with Jenrick this week urging him to stay actually last, before she snapped and said, okay, fuck off then - and hung up on him?
ETA: Heh, I see I was a bit slow to this!
Too many intelligent people think it's effictively a tariff: "ah, you see, you get to claim the VAT back on what you paid if it's not imported, but you don't if the goods are imported".
Explaining to them that it's charged at every step of the way, and therefore the full amount of VAT is charged on any product -even one locally produced- due to each firm in the chain paying a bit is really tough.
There's a tendency for people who've been successful in the past due to perseverance just to assume that the same thing will happen again... because it always has done in the past. There's also a tendency for everyone to believe things that are convenient to them.
We know Putin doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country. He therefore, I'm sure, believes that resistance to his regime is only happening because of a small number of people who've manipulated the people, and therefore just another little push, and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
So long as he persists in this delusion, then the war will continue. (Unless, he were to be defenestrated.)
I’m watching Al Jazeera English on my hotel tv. All it is, is Gaza. Gaza Gaza Gaza. They just had a 10 minute segment on exactly how much rubble is lying around in Gaza (apparently it would build 13 great pyramids).
It’s fucking weird. Iran gets about 2 minutes. Nothing else is mentioned. Then it’s another hour of Gaza Gaza Gaza
Now they’ve got an expert on concrete talking about the difficulty of reconstruction
It’s pathological. They just don’t care about their viewers or any sense of global news priority. So odd
I get that you hate Jews so for you it seems sensible. But for an objective outsider it’s creepy
Does this mean you *do* hate Jews?
People are desperately trying to get in contact with relatives, but phone and Internet are out, and there is little real reporting making it out. They are all praying -Jewish and Muslim alike- for the fall of the Mullahs. And they're also praying that it happens without them losing too many of their friends and family.
Disabled lady Aliya Rahman, US citizen, on the way to an appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center, hemmed in with contrary instructions, dragged out of her car, trussed up and put in a cell in detention, denied medication, denied a physician, lost consciousness.
She eventually recovered at the ER.
Homeland Security: "The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/satellite-eutelsat-starlink-musk-defence-communications-9.7038830
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5aK7o6fEJg
If I pick up something priced at $4.99, it shouldn’t cost $6.50, and I sure as hell shouldn’t be asked if I want to leave a tip (with options of 20%, 30%, and 40%) on the purchase.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/crmdmkg8gymt?app-referrer=deep-link&post=asset:3c433cc9-08b1-45f2-a681-3c504d3d2b3f#post
Holy shit.
Renee Good was alive when the bystander physician asked to check her pulse. She was alive when ICE refused to let him help. She was alive when they told him “I don’t care.”
https://bsky.app/profile/arminsamii.bsky.social/post/3mcj6mnjaz22t
I think you are mischaracterising the judgment, and the "weight given". What they said is that they weren't convinced by quite a lot of the evidence given by the plaintiffs. It is part of their task to make findings of fact, and they did so; you're entitled to disagree with them, but you did not hear that evidence in full.
What's notable is that Taz and turbotubbs have already decided on the facts without apparently reading the judgment.
Although she should IMO, I don’t think Badenoch is at all close to apologising for damage caused to UK from hard Brexit.
They are using Signal groups to warn people where they are. They are following ICE vehicles around. And they are filiming ICE agents.
Little wonder the ICE agents get frustrated.
The problem is that we pay our law enforcement to remain unflustered in the face of provocations. That's the nature of law enforcement. You are paid to be the arm of the State, but you are also therefore subserviant to the people the State serves - i.e. its citizens. They are allowed to film you, to follow you, and to broadcast your location on Signal.
And whenever ICE overreacts, it means more people join in these resistance groups, making ICE's job that much harder.
Which does raise the question of why ICE is behaving as it does. It certainly doesn't seem a very effective way of removing illegal immigrants from the US.
Anyway, on here it seems to be people on one side of both arguments (weirdly often the same people) who go on and on about them. The amount of prurient speculation about people’s genitals is positively creepy.
People react badly in stressful situations. It's entirely possible for the ICE officer to have behaved wrongly, without it being a case of murder. But actively preventing medical care from reachin Ms Good, when she was in no way a threat is in no way defensible.
That’s implying it’s just done with authoritarian force and violence for show, rather like NAZI’s would choose to do it.
But that’s not why I’m posting. I’m wondering if your post means you have in mind more effective ways of removing illegal immigrants?
How does the temperature get turned down?
Very sobering when you think what might happen here in UK.
And got into an altercation with the TSA...
Think of an employee having an extra £100 to increase the pay of an employee:
From this comes: Employers NI, NI, IT, student loan. The rest is the employee's.
He goes out, fills up his car with 30 litres of petrol and (understandably) spends the rest on whisky.
The amount of the £100 which the employee has actually received and then spent on actual goods as opposed to taxes is negligible. A few pounds.
From that few pounds x the number of customers the petrol station has to fund all its taxes; the off licence ditto.
This is not a weighing of rights situation. FWS was clear about that. As I said, I think both Tribunals have to some degree fallen into error in focusing on the transwoman's (non existent in relation to this facility) rights. They are right to go on to consider the implications of that and the duties on the employer to her but that was not the point they actually had to decide. Woman's rights are not secondary. In fact, in this context at least, they are primary.
A thing I worry about is how all of this ends here in Minnesota. For the past week, people have stopped their lives to help neighbors. We are invaded and the occupiers are losing, especially in public opinion. But because the crisis is manufactured, it gets even harder for ICE to sell a victory.
These are cruel idiots, so I’m not sure they ever thought any of this through. Each day they are here it becomes clearer how violent and unaccountable they are and how much everyone is against them. I can’t really see them leaving under these circumstances because they don’t know how to take an L.
https://bsky.app/profile/normcharlatan.bsky.social/post/3mck7kgfas22j
https://bsky.app/profile/libdems.org.uk/post/3mckc6hex5s2r
They had to resort to gorilla warfare!
https://x.com/incelsco/status/2011943142237299076
Women are only clicking on 5% of men.
VG
For those who don't know, this an American TV series, which follows the exploits of a special unit of the Chicago police. The unit is led by a police officer who was released from prison. For crimes he did actually commit. He tortures suspects and hangs out with Mafia bosses at a social club. He (the police officer) commits one/two actual murders per series.
But not understanding such rights, or deliberately ignoring them, is absolutely routine in some settings.
The problem is undertraining, at the very least.
Hmm...I think its the third actually.
Cops kill ~1300 people every year in the USA with their guns. For all the gun holders, it's a little under 50k including suicides.
UK? Cops discharged a firearm at a person in 2024 and 2025 at 2 and 4 incidents respectively.
My understanding of the judgement is it validated the women feeling uncomfortable about a transgender woman sharing their space and deemed it unacceptable that they had had to. There is no 'don't be so silly' air about it.
What it didn't do, based on the evidence presented, was judge that the transgender woman herself behaved in a pervy manner.
What are you taking issue with?
He was at the shadow cabinet meeting the day before notwithstanding he was about to jump ship
I read all your advice to Kemi but I do not expect she will sees it as you do