If we hadn't got shot of the 13 colonies, Trump could be our President too*.
*obviously everything else would carry on the same over 250 years.
The irony is that after 250 years, the precise circumstance that the founders most feared is coming to pass, and all the checks and balances they designed to prevent it are failing, because they rely upon fallible humans to be enforcing.
There are some salutary lessons there, and not just for the US.
It’s funny, in a sad way, that the US has ended up with a corrupt despot with the power concentrated in his and his family’s hands with more power to rule than George III had in his time when the Americans described him as a tyrant.
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
We ain't seen nothing yet!
(Burnham is going to be a catastrophe in my view.)
If he's sincere in what he's saying, which is significantly to Starmer's Left, absolutely.
Brace.
I'm quite looking forwards to the 'PM after Burnham' market appearing. Farage I guess will be the fav, but all sorts could be in the frame from the Labour side. With the 400 Labour MPs basically deciding that they are all worse than Burnham it could well be an outsider again. Perhaps it's not going to be a market where one should lay David Miliband!
Another market in which to lay the favourites; hopefully the odds will be decent for a Farage lay, and Streeting is probably a lay too
Yes, both will probably be too short. And some odd longshots too long. Davey, Corbyn, DMil, Khan - all those odd-bods could actually be worth backing if the price is big enough. Of course the shape of Burnham's cabinet will be a big factor. Perhaps mainly for who's been left out.
(I may have included Davey somewhat with tongue in cheek )
Burnham is going to get a GE, so the question becomes whether Labour are likely to be re-elected (at least as largest party). Currently I feel that they might, but a lot depends on whether Reform deflates and/or Farage walks away. But even then I don’t see that Kemi is going to turn herself into a politician that voters will see as a potential PM; as I’ve said before, she is at best the Tories’ Kinnock, and even that assumes she turns her attention to steering the Tories back toward somewhere sensible. And there’s as yet no sign that the Tories are doing any hard thinking about the big challenges of our age; banging on about welfare spending alone isn’t going to get her far.
Largest party/leading the next government is a simple matter of elimination, however improbable the answer may seem. Only three answers are at the starting gate, barring a Foinavon Grand National event: Ref, Con, Lab.
Eliminate Reform because: Farage, £5m, tactical voting, all mad. Nearly eliminate Con because: Kemi isn't the material, lack of a cabinet of strong grey suits, ambiguity about being in bed with extremes, past history, the sheer number of seats they need to hold and win, failing to communicate a vision even when Labour couldn't under Starmer.
Therefore it follows that Labour are value for most seats, and possibly for 325+. Also possible value: 2028 election at about 7/1.
I have been very relieved this morning that Today has majored on the Taylor Swift wedding. No doubt THE story the types who listen to Today need to know all the details and gossip from and listen to the vox pops.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
We ain't seen nothing yet!
(Burnham is going to be a catastrophe in my view.)
If he's sincere in what he's saying, which is significantly to Starmer's Left, absolutely.
Brace.
I'm quite looking forwards to the 'PM after Burnham' market appearing. Farage I guess will be the fav, but all sorts could be in the frame from the Labour side. With the 400 Labour MPs basically deciding that they are all worse than Burnham it could well be an outsider again. Perhaps it's not going to be a market where one should lay David Miliband!
Another market in which to lay the favourites; hopefully the odds will be decent for a Farage lay, and Streeting is probably a lay too
Yes, both will probably be too short. And some odd longshots too long. Davey, Corbyn, DMil, Khan - all those odd-bods could actually be worth backing if the price is big enough. Of course the shape of Burnham's cabinet will be a big factor. Perhaps mainly for who's been left out.
(I may have included Davey somewhat with tongue in cheek )
Burnham is going to get a GE, so the question becomes whether Labour are likely to be re-elected (at least as largest party). Currently I feel that they might, but a lot depends on whether Reform deflates and/or Farage walks away. But even then I don’t see that Kemi is going to turn herself into a politician that voters will see as a potential PM; as I’ve said before, she is at best the Tories’ Kinnock, and even that assumes she turns her attention to steering the Tories back toward somewhere sensible. And there’s as yet no sign that the Tories are doing any hard thinking about the big challenges of our age; banging on about welfare spending alone isn’t going to get her far.
Largest party/leading the next government is a simple matter of elimination, however improbable the answer may seem. Only three answers are at the starting gate, barring a Foinavon Grand National event: Ref, Con, Lab.
Eliminate Reform because: Farage, £5m, tactical voting, all mad. Nearly eliminate Con because: Kemi isn't the material, lack of a cabinet of strong grey suits, ambiguity about being in bed with extremes, past history, the sheer number of seats they need to hold and win, failing to communicate a vision even when Labour couldn't under Starmer.
Therefore it follows that Labour are value for most seats, and possibly for 325+. Also possible value: 2028 election at about 7/1.
Time to place a bet on Cape Verde winning the entire thing?
The “never bet against Andy JS” meme is surely not another casualty of the World Cup? . Along with uninterrupted football and tickets that ordinary people can actually afford.
Perhaps we should add "on politics".
9 out of 10 African nations reached the knockout stages, 2 are left, but most ran their opponents very close. I think we are at the stage where African teams function well and are mostly of a decent quality, the FAs of the better nations don't fatally undermine their increasingly European based teams any more, but the last 32 games exposed a continuing deficit in game management, many lost leads or late parity on route to defeat.
There is no reason at all not to fully include Cape Verde in that overall assessment and the end result was well foretold.
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
We ain't seen nothing yet!
(Burnham is going to be a catastrophe in my view.)
If he's sincere in what he's saying, which is significantly to Starmer's Left, absolutely.
Brace.
I'm quite looking forwards to the 'PM after Burnham' market appearing. Farage I guess will be the fav, but all sorts could be in the frame from the Labour side. With the 400 Labour MPs basically deciding that they are all worse than Burnham it could well be an outsider again. Perhaps it's not going to be a market where one should lay David Miliband!
Another market in which to lay the favourites; hopefully the odds will be decent for a Farage lay, and Streeting is probably a lay too
Yes, both will probably be too short. And some odd longshots too long. Davey, Corbyn, DMil, Khan - all those odd-bods could actually be worth backing if the price is big enough. Of course the shape of Burnham's cabinet will be a big factor. Perhaps mainly for who's been left out.
(I may have included Davey somewhat with tongue in cheek )
Burnham is going to get a GE, so the question becomes whether Labour are likely to be re-elected (at least as largest party). Currently I feel that they might, but a lot depends on whether Reform deflates and/or Farage walks away. But even then I don’t see that Kemi is going to turn herself into a politician that voters will see as a potential PM; as I’ve said before, she is at best the Tories’ Kinnock, and even that assumes she turns her attention to steering the Tories back toward somewhere sensible. And there’s as yet no sign that the Tories are doing any hard thinking about the big challenges of our age; banging on about welfare spending alone isn’t going to get her far.
Largest party/leading the next government is a simple matter of elimination, however improbable the answer may seem. Only three answers are at the starting gate, barring a Foinavon Grand National event: Ref, Con, Lab.
Eliminate Reform because: Farage, £5m, tactical voting, all mad. Nearly eliminate Con because: Kemi isn't the material, lack of a cabinet of strong grey suits, ambiguity about being in bed with extremes, past history, the sheer number of seats they need to hold and win, failing to communicate a vision even when Labour couldn't under Starmer.
Therefore it follows that Labour are value for most seats, and possibly for 325+. Also possible value: 2028 election at about 7/1.
Yes, I think 2028 GE is value at those odds.
If everything looks favourable for Burnham in 2028 in terms of winning a majority, I'm sure as Thatcher and Blair did they'll do four years to aim for another five. Going into the fifth year is usually the act of desperation in the hope, pace Micawber, something will turn up. It can work (1992 being a good example), it doesn't usually (1970, 1979 and 2024 being good examples).
The polling, both published and private, will inform his (assuming it is still Burnham as PM) decision.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
All parties have internal conflicts, but the reason that there are no other candidates other than Burnham is because the others know that they cannot beat him, so have to join him. The Labour party looks to be its most united for years.
I don't think Burnham is one for creating fights with internal enemies (one of Starmers many character flaws).
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
We ain't seen nothing yet!
(Burnham is going to be a catastrophe in my view.)
If he's sincere in what he's saying, which is significantly to Starmer's Left, absolutely.
Brace.
I'm quite looking forwards to the 'PM after Burnham' market appearing. Farage I guess will be the fav, but all sorts could be in the frame from the Labour side. With the 400 Labour MPs basically deciding that they are all worse than Burnham it could well be an outsider again. Perhaps it's not going to be a market where one should lay David Miliband!
I must admit that laying Andy Burnham as next PM "because I think he's a bit of a dickhead" might not have been my greatest betting tip ever.
Hardly anyone thought of him as next PM- look at the prediction comp here. The "not an MP" thing looked insurmountable. This isn't just a clinical coup by someone who couldn't be bothered to stay and fight Corbyn themselves... but that's a dimension of this. And it has been very effectively done.
And I'm not sure that the Labour party have done something entirely wise here and now; a lot of the vibes Andy is giving off feel like they may prove very fragile in the face of reality.
But it's too late now.
The party got spooked by the combination of terrible Locals, Reform's success, and Starmer's toxicity in polls and on the doorstep. They concluded a leader change was necessary to stop Farage becoming PM after the next election and (this is key) further concluded that the problem was more comms and persona than policy.
From there it becomes a no-brainer to coalesce around the person who polls better than any other Labour politician and has just demonstrated with real votes that he can beat Reform. All very explicable and logical - nevertheless the upshot is that a landslide winning PM has been ditched for a Metro Mayor coming from outside parliament and that feels weird. It feels weird because it is weird.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
A site where people like @Roger tells lies about me is not for me any more.
I responded to a poster saying that no-one gave a fuck about Gaza by saying that some people do care a lot and then went on to say that the death of civilians was a tragedy. As well as being one of this site's worst misogynists with a penchant for targeting me in particular (though I imagine any woman with opinions is a problem for him) he also has a problem with English comprehension.
I have no time or energy for people like him. And his presence makes the forum more unpleasant than it should be.
So bye.
Oh no, no Cyclefree please don't leave the site! You make an amazing contribution here with your detailed thoughtful and insightful articles as well as your comments in the threads. I don't always agree with your political stance here but I always respect it and take your point of view on board especially due to your incredible background knowledge of the law and how it plays out politically at our Westminster Parliament. What ever I am when it comes to being a tribal Scottish Conservative, I am a stronger supporter of that Parliament functioning as a collective body to hold the Government of the day to account who ever is in power.
I only wish we had more Cyclefree's up here in Scotland at Holyrood, it would be a far better place as a result! And while I am at it tonight, I really want to see JosiasJessop back posting here if he is still around lurking?! I did not know why you left, but I think I got the gist and understand it after one night lurking here and I hope you and your wife will come back because I got the same shade here many years ago and its why Fitaloon left and wanted me to do the same.
But Cyclefree and JosiasJessop don't let the sods get you down, if you leave they win and this site would become even poorer without you both....
- We cannot afford to lose any female contributors to this forum - there are only a few anyway
Totally agree Big_G_Wales, sadly we have lost too many female contributers on this site due to ill health and I am now only in contact with one former regular here who has no desire to return. But its up to this site and the now regular contributors here to decide if they are man enough to cope with even a few more women contributers here to shake things up. But judging by their dismissive attitude to Kemi Badenoch, I suspect not, and they are in their boring comfort zone and want to keep this a left leaning blinkered Dad-centric mans shed when it comes to politics with a dismissive attitude to powerful women in general despite their many talents....
I agree more F on here would be good, and that some of the tone isn't welcoming to women, but I don't buy the rest of what you're saying. It isn't that left leaning. There's loads of right wing posters. And it isn't particularly down on Kemi Badenoch. Compared to the vitriol about Keir Starmer she gets an easy ride.
And with Cyclefree, she may be outnumbered by the blokes but she receives (rightly) a great deal of respect and appreciation. She's the Killer Queen of PB and imo does not need 'the board' rising up to slag off other posters in order to make her stay. She'll continue to post if she wants to and I very much hope she does.
Came in on this a bit late.
Israel/Gaza seems to have this effect. I try to avoid discussing it these days, because no one ever changes their mind, almost irrespective of events, and I have a fairly strong contempt for the leadership of both sides.
I will really miss Cyclefree if she does go. No doubt there are good reasons for deciding you've had enough of PB, but literally anything Rogerdamus might come up with would not be high on my list.
Dry your eyes, CF isn't going anywhere. The attention seeking windbag has flounced more times than I've missed penalties.
On the whole, I think the big wedding today is a good thing for the US, and the Western world. Our largest domestic problem* is our weakenied families, and so it is good to see two weathy celebrities do the right thing. I hope their example will inspire others, especially our young men. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2026/07/03/taylor-swift-travis-kelces-wedding-guide/
(*Yes, I think it even worse than our grotesquely large national deficits and debt.)
Jim Miller (ce1e4c) — 7/3/2026 @ 2:38 pm
Trump is very supportive of marriage. He's done it 3 times though AIUI the second was a mistake.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
All parties have internal conflicts, but the reason that there are no other candidates other than Burnham is because the others know that they cannot beat him, so have to join him. The Labour party looks to be its most united for years.
I don't think Burnham is one for creating fights with internal enemies (one of Starmers many character flaws).
Or alternatively. Are waiting for a better moment to strike.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
Perhaps unlike others on here, I think Kemi/Tories are a threat.
If she recovers/her party starts to look a realistic prospect, then the tactical voting against Reform will fall away.
In a straight Lab/Reform battle I think Burnham could unite the left.
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
We ain't seen nothing yet!
(Burnham is going to be a catastrophe in my view.)
If he's sincere in what he's saying, which is significantly to Starmer's Left, absolutely.
Brace.
I'm quite looking forwards to the 'PM after Burnham' market appearing. Farage I guess will be the fav, but all sorts could be in the frame from the Labour side. With the 400 Labour MPs basically deciding that they are all worse than Burnham it could well be an outsider again. Perhaps it's not going to be a market where one should lay David Miliband!
I must admit that laying Andy Burnham as next PM "because I think he's a bit of a dickhead" might not have been my greatest betting tip ever.
Hardly anyone thought of him as next PM- look at the prediction comp here. The "not an MP" thing looked insurmountable. This isn't just a clinical coup by someone who couldn't be bothered to stay and fight Corbyn themselves... but that's a dimension of this. And it has been very effectively done.
And I'm not sure that the Labour party have done something entirely wise here and now; a lot of the vibes Andy is giving off feel like they may prove very fragile in the face of reality.
But it's too late now.
The party got spooked by the combination of terrible Locals, Reform's success, and Starmer's toxicity in polls and on the doorstep. They concluded a leader change was necessary to stop Farage becoming PM after the next election and (this is key) further concluded that the problem was more comms and persona than policy. From there it becomes a no-brainer to coalesce around the person who polls better than any other Labour politician and has just demonstrated with real votes that he can beat Reform. All very explicable and logical - but nevertheless the upshot is that a landslide winning PM has been ditched for a Metro Mayor coming from outside parliament and that feels weird. It feels weird because it is weird.
The policy announcements have been awful too. it's almost like Starmer and Reeves sat in a huddle and discussed "what can we announce that will generates minimal fiscal gain and maximum political antagonism".
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
All parties have internal conflicts, but the reason that there are no other candidates other than Burnham is because the others know that they cannot beat him, so have to join him. The Labour party looks to be its most united for years.
I don't think Burnham is one for creating fights with internal enemies (one of Starmers many character flaws).
Labour are in one of the rare moments when they are about to appoint the person they think can win for them. Wanting to win rather than wanting something else is a constant battle, which over the years has given us Brown, Miliband E and Corbyn.
Those who, like me, believe that character/personality type is destiny will note that Burnham is perhaps, using MBTI language, an ENFJ (while Starmer is perhaps ISTJ) in other words they are more or less chalk and cheese, Burnham being a natural leader, Starmer, as we all know, not. Personality type difference explains why when Starmer is in leader speechy mode, our toes curl, when Burnham does the same we switch on the telly and watch.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Whatever you decide to do make sure you download and keep a copy of the doorbell video.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Whatever you decide to do make sure you download and keep a copy of the doorbell video.
Good idea, done, thank you. Although I notice despite him wearing a lanyard, he's wearing it the wrong way around so I can't actually see who it is.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
What sort of outfit/address were the letters from that you returned earlier?
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
What sort of outfit/address were the letters from that you returned earlier?
It was to an address in Coventry, sender unspecified.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Whatever you decide to do make sure you download and keep a copy of the doorbell video.
Good idea, done, thank you. Although I notice despite him wearing a lanyard, he's wearing it the wrong way around so I can't actually see who it is.
You might not have his name but you do now have an image of his face so you can tell if he starts showing up in other parts of your life.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Good morning
Maybe consult a solicitor or Citizens Advice
You do need to deal with this if only for your peace of mind
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Whatever you decide to do make sure you download and keep a copy of the doorbell video.
Good idea, done, thank you. Although I notice despite him wearing a lanyard, he's wearing it the wrong way around so I can't actually see who it is.
I would also check with the land registry on the (very unlikely but not zero) chance that someone is attempting shenanigans. Property title hihack is rare, but does happen; it's not a bad idea to register with them to receive alerts of any changes anyway. Costs nothing and takes little effort.
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
We ain't seen nothing yet!
(Burnham is going to be a catastrophe in my view.)
If he's sincere in what he's saying, which is significantly to Starmer's Left, absolutely.
Brace.
I'm quite looking forwards to the 'PM after Burnham' market appearing. Farage I guess will be the fav, but all sorts could be in the frame from the Labour side. With the 400 Labour MPs basically deciding that they are all worse than Burnham it could well be an outsider again. Perhaps it's not going to be a market where one should lay David Miliband!
I must admit that laying Andy Burnham as next PM "because I think he's a bit of a dickhead" might not have been my greatest betting tip ever.
Hardly anyone thought of him as next PM- look at the prediction comp here. The "not an MP" thing looked insurmountable. This isn't just a clinical coup by someone who couldn't be bothered to stay and fight Corbyn themselves... but that's a dimension of this. And it has been very effectively done.
And I'm not sure that the Labour party have done something entirely wise here and now; a lot of the vibes Andy is giving off feel like they may prove very fragile in the face of reality.
But it's too late now.
The party got spooked by the combination of terrible Locals, Reform's success, and Starmer's toxicity in polls and on the doorstep. They concluded a leader change was necessary to stop Farage becoming PM after the next election and (this is key) further concluded that the problem was more comms and persona than policy.
From there it becomes a no-brainer to coalesce around the person who polls better than any other Labour politician and has just demonstrated with real votes that he can beat Reform. All very explicable and logical - nevertheless the upshot is that a landslide winning PM has been ditched for a Metro Mayor coming from outside parliament and that feels weird. It feels weird because it is weird.
I have the sinking feeling as a leftie liberal that I’m going to be horribly let down again. And it will really sting. Never mind last chance to save the NHS, it feels terminal for the UK that I know and love.
Labour’s enshittification of justice and corporate corruption feels baked in. Burnham is going to fuck the left over. There will be no moral core, no values, no plan, no long term view.
Ambition and arrogance, core principles sacrificed on the altar of expedience. And worse, I quite like Burnham, I think the system is so fucking corrupting that no one can beat it.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
I'd say your instinct is right. They could open the letter.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Whatever you decide to do make sure you download and keep a copy of the doorbell video.
Good idea, done, thank you. Although I notice despite him wearing a lanyard, he's wearing it the wrong way around so I can't actually see who it is.
I would also check with the land registry on the (very unlikely but not zero) chance that someone is attempting shenanigans. Property title hihack is rare, but does happen; it's not a bad idea to register with them to receive alerts of any changes anyway. Costs nothing and takes little effort.
I've already done that, some time ago, but thanks for the suggestion. I don't think this is a property hijack to that degree, but it's still puzzling. I have names for every previous owner of the property back to 1966 and none of them match this person.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
I would be inclined to take it to a solicitor, on the basis that you fear there is some impersonastion against yourelf/fraud against the property.
A letter from them to the sender (assuming a name and address is given inside) should be enough to end the nonsense. Otherwise it might be a letter before action. The next thing might be a county court judgment.
Worth a couple of hundred quid to end any issues and retain peace of mind.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
It's a civil matter, sir ...
It may be someone has purchased a phone on credit using your address (and perhaps a false name). Open the mail and contact whomever and indicate that a) they don't live there and b) remove the address from their list.
This pub furniture on the Thames path in Strand-on-the-Green is a story that could go on a bit, as it is culture war plus local councillors who really do not like each other, and local politics in Chiswick is quite vigorous anyway. I lived on Park Road down there for about 3 years in the early 2000s, in a slightly expensive but very enjoyable one bedroom flat.
(One note: take care not to confuse your Hiltons. I think the protagonist is Alistair Hilton, who is claiming the Green Councillor set the police on him and to my eye overegging his pudding a little - it could go legal, with Adrian Hilton, who is in the debate but is I think the former "Archbishop Cranmer" blogger.)
The basic issue is about unlawful obstructions (the pub outdoor tables and chairs) on a public highway - the Thames Path, which here is either a Public Footpath, or an Adopted Highway in the relevant places. Two pubs, as 'landowners', seem to feel that that, and that they have been doing it for some years, means they should be able to continue to do it without a pavement license.
The local Conservative Councillor (and the Telegraph and the Standard and GB News) have weighed in in support of the pubs (and their customers who like sitting on the Thames Path), and it was a Green Councillor who made a report to ask that it be looked at, around accessibility for less mobile pedestrians to Pass and Repass along the Thames Path unobstructed.
Given my penchant for removing obstructions from public highways so mobility aids can use them, it will be clear where I stand - as long as the path is fully accessible (and there are endless technicalities about how wide it is, and what type of highway it is in each place) and easily useable, they can put their tables there provided there is a license and no obstruction. IMO here the clear path should be 4m wide.
The Council Officers were abrupt in their demands for removal, and after a word from the local councillor have now backed down to say "you can keep your tables whilst we thin about it), which is how it should have been in the first place.
The various bits of media are trying to make this about authoritarian Councils and Councillors banning outside drinking (which is afaics a lie, not that that will stop them), and police vs freedom of speech (around Hilton's twitter comments).
This could run and run. My prediction is that the pubs will cathc up to what the law requires, and then the seating will continue with appropriate adjustments.
All the pubs are recommended. I used to go on riverside dates down there.
4m wide seems very wide for a pathway. Presumably that to allow (for example) two wheelchair users to pass each other, but wouldn’t it be better to have passing bays? Otherwise I doubt that any riverside path in the country will be compliant with your demands
I promise not to take you down a rabbit hole but I'll put a bit of information on the bone !
We have a disease in this country of taking pedestrian space down to the absolute minimum, which makes using footpaths unpleasant when there is a fair amount of foot traffic, and that causes conflict which no one wants. The attitude is nasty, and small minded, and I hate it.
But we have several different recommended widths (Inclusive Mobility, LTN 1/20 and others), depending on volume, transport mode, and purpose. As a matter of principle, the space on a public highway belongs to the public, not to a private business who want to put their stuff on it for their own benefit. Landowners are always trying to do that, and they need to be less selfish. 4m is roughly where it is for a high foot fall environment, and I am making it slightly wider than minimum because using a footpath includes stopping to take in the view, to sit on a bench for a rest, and so on, which I think are common in Strand-on-the-Green.
The required width for a mobility aid to travel safely and comfortably is 1.5m width unobstructed, since the things themselves are up to about 1.0m, sometimes 1.2m, and extra width is required simple eg wheelchairs require width for hands outside to do wheeling. For two way that is 3.0m, minimum. And I don't accept lamp posts, sign posts, pedestrian cages, litter bins, cross pathway advertising hoardings where phone boxes used to be, Horse's f*cking Brobdingnagian phone masts, and all the rest as not being obstructions; they should be off the clear footway - but that is a slightly different tack !
On passing places, I reject the idea out of hand - except for special circumstances such as a pre-existing constraint. We build our normal carriageways for vehicles to be 5.5m width, so two can pass, except where eg we need traffic calming because many drivers cannot control themselves. The principle is precisely the same for footpaths and footways - imo if we think it through, that is a very basic, unarguable implication of Equality Law. Why should we make wheelchair users use passing spaces in everyday travel, when we do not do so for people who are less marginalised, and the facilities for pedestrians cost such little money?
We had an interesting debate the other week about Delivery Robots, which I have been feeding back as "expect serious resistance if you try to prevent these without a very carefully argued case". The association has a new Chairman, who did a very interesting presentation about developing values and a strategy for their centenary, here - provocative, but not especially radical:
But just to focus on the passing places. Let’s say that you have a riverside path that is 5m wide. I’m guessing you need about 2.5m to accommodate a table and two chairs.
But under your approach that is unacceptable in case there is a scenario where two wheelchair users need to pass each other. So the vast majority of people don’t get to enjoy the path.
My approach represents a reasonable accommodation; create a passing place so wheelchairs don’t lose the ability to pass each other, but also enable to space to be shared by others. But apparently that is so unacceptable as to be “rejected out of hand”
Thanks for elaborating. I disagree with your suggestion, but finding an accommodation is why we have local licenses, laws, and committees and councillors to consider needs and the law, and to come up with such an accommodation - which can then be appealed (i think) or challenged in court by either side if it is thought problematic.
The primary value I try and think from in this is equality. We do no allow pubs to spread their tables and chairs across the public highway ie the carriageway on your road or my road, and make all the cars wait in a passing place to wait and squeeze through one by one. Why should we impose that on mobility aid users of the public highway? I see no difference in principle.
Practically a passing place will not work - outside a pub it will have half-drunk people standing in it much of the time. There will be some who think it funny to poke, prod, throw beer, call them a spaz or similar, or do other things. And even sober people are fairly often abusive or threatening or even violent when asked to accommodate. Try asking some selfish parents parking on the yellow zigzag lines outside a primary school to drop off children, putting the other children at risk, to stop doing it (school staff will be abused if they try to act), or ask someone blocking a Zebra zig-zags or a drop kerb to move, and see what the response is. Mobility aid users will not often do that, because they have been verbally abused before and cannot run away - they are vulnerable.
Yes - 4.5m is ambitious, albeit arguable from national guidelines, but one always gets less than asked for so it is good to start thinking from the actual recommendations for good practice. Often much more is possible by being innovative than one expects.
In the case of the City Barge in @Malmesbury 's photo there is 4.25m from the face of the pub wall to the railing on the river edge. The tables take up ~2m perhaps with an extra chair on the end, and I think a shelf on the railing, which would have 0.6-0.8m of people leaning on it. That leaves about 1.5m.
I'd say a practical answer here could be French style 0.8m round cafe tables against the pub wall, taking up 1.2m max, a clear 3m path marked with a line, no shelf on the railing, and moveable chairs and tables if wanted placed on the concrete (?) tidal apron when the tide is out - which in that part of Chiswick is a lot of the time.
But that’s exactly the point. On narrow roads we *do* use passing points for cars.
It’s simply a question of utility. Your suggestion is not a compromise. It’s an insistence on an outcome that gives you all you want and prevents anyone else sharing the space in a reasonable manner.
I was proposing a 4.5m pathway with 2.5m for the table and chairs and 2m to allow full mobility. The only constraint there is when two full width mobility devices need to pass each other. In reality how often does that happen?
In my view there are serious conceptual and legal problems with this idea.
The Thames Path is not analogous to an unclassified single track road somewhere in back end of Shropshire, or one of my backland routes into Derbyshire - it is the most important public footpath in London.
I think in my view you are proposing a compromise with a business that has no reasonable expectation of a compromise since their obstruction of the public highway is unlawful, and you therefore giving away far more than is reasonable. Why should a private business be able to annexe more than half of a public highway for their own purposes? We do not compromise with Travellers who want to camp in our parks, and I would not be allowed to extend my garden across 60% of the road outside because I want space for my children to have a trampoline.
And I don't see the difference - there is no "both sides" to this. This is pedestrian space - essentially full stop, and a pub obstructing it is in the same category as a farmer blocking a public footpath with his tractor or his haystack, or me blocking the road outside with an extension to my garden.
A pavement license is a limited and privileged exception to the legal rule, and I see no reason why there should be any compromise of the lawful public use of the ROW beyond the minimal, if any at all. I do take a moderately strong stance on this, since there is a hell of a long way to push the pendulum back to create a balanced culture around these questions.
We'll see where the Council come down.
PS You may enjoy this account of what happens if pavement tables go too far. A friend went into a shop in York after wheeling along the pavement, and by the time she came out the pavement in both directions was entirely blocked by cafe tables they had put out on both sides, and she was trapped.
Point of order, the Thames Path is a public footpath but it is not a public highway in the way you are intimating. As such the rules about blocking it do not apply as they do on the road. There are rules about maintaining access including disabled access but the analogy with blocking either a road or a pavement alongside a road is not correct. There are different rules for each
Thanks a for the reply and the POI. I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference, though I welcome the opportunity to explore a little further.
According to Hounslow Council, the particular section of Thames Path we are discussing, which is the Strand-0n-the-Green section, is an "Adopted Footway" (in the category "Highway Maintainable at Public Expense"), from when it leaves Thames Road to follow the riverbank to when it rejoins Thames Road (according to the map linked below *). There is a narrow section outside Ship Cottage, and another narrow section marked City Barge pub (27 Thames Street), which are marked as "Unadopted Public" and the one at the City Barge has been occupied by eg with balconies. Their tables are on the "Adopted Footway".
The public (including users of Classified Mobility Aids ** ) have a right to pass and repass over Adopted Footway such as the SOTG riverside path, and it is in the same category as a footpath alongside a carriageway. The same S137 of the Highways Act also applies to it aiui, according to various references.
So I think my analogy holds, in the absence of further detail.
** Don't ask for detail; this is Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 Aids, but others do *not* strictly have that right since the law is 55 years out of date. Wheels for Wellbeing just spent months on a consultation on this and sent in a dense 27,000+ word submission. Printed out, it rolls up like a Millwall Brick.
I think you are looking into this in too much detail. Since the Equalities Act 2010 Councils are supposed to enforce disabled access on ALL public rights of way including footpaths. This includes trying to remove stiles which, personaly, I think is a bloody stupid thing to insist on.
But two points with that. That does not mean public footpaths are treated the same as highways or pavements. So your earlier comments about encroaching on roads is not valid. And the recommendation from the LGA is that footpaths should be clear to a width of 1.5m to 2m. Not that they should be kept clear enough for two mobility devices to pass each other along their entire length. There is nothing illegal about encroaching on a public right of way as long as it remains clear to allow all legal users to pass.
A couple of points in reply.
We have to do detail, because that is how British law works, and is determined. Rights which are not defended will be undermined over time, a "what can we get away with?" process which perhaps dates back to Enclosure. I don't know anyone who wants mobility aid access to *all* public paths, and the removal of *all* stiles; the EA2010 is sensibly framed around concepts such as "reasonable adjustments" and "significant disadvantage"; that cuts out many rural footpaths. My targets tend to be around clearly accessible paths (eg former railway, greenway advertised as "accessible to all", or urban asphalt routes) where the exclusion is by an unlawful obstruction intentionally installed.
I think my comparison holds for the reasons I stated. I think the LGA recommendation (for a footway) is perhaps out of date; afaics it is framed around '2 wheelchairs passing', but the up to date recommendation for mobility aid access is a width of 1.5m, which gives a 3m clear width.
I think your final point is incorrect in law; there are High Court cases establishing the right to use the full width of the PROW. They tend to be in response to unlawful landowner interventions.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
I'd say your instinct is right. They could open the letter.
Or you can open one of the letters. It’s entirely legal to do so if you are doing so to determine what’s going on.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
Perhaps unlike others on here, I think Kemi/Tories are a threat.
If she recovers/her party starts to look a realistic prospect, then the tactical voting against Reform will fall away.
In a straight Lab/Reform battle I think Burnham could unite the left.
Makerfield notwithstanding and that was a personal triumph for Burnham, we still see in local council by-elections on a weekly basis examples of Reform eating into both Conservative and Labour vote share.
Here in East London, we don't see Reform yet they beat the Conservatives and LDs in the Mayoral election in Newham. I imagine where they are organised, they are working hard and this is ultimately where elections are won and lost - where a party has workers and activists, it has a chance, where it doesn't, it doesn't.
The Conservatives (and Labour) used to rely on the two-party system to the extent they knew if people didn't want to vote for the one they could and would vote for the other without prompting. In a multi-party environment, that expectation has gone - votes now have to be earned and where the Conseratives for example have little real organsiation, they are losing out.
Like the LDs, they are retreating back to areas of strength and building there - the Conservatives are quite capable of winning where they have strength and local campaigning history - but to assume they can move beyond those and hoover up votes when there are other options is a notion to be challenged.
Starmer interviewed on BBC earlier. He says you can’t separate foreign policy from domestic policy and effectively states that he is now a foreign policy expert and UK’s foreign policy wins are his most important achievements.
Now I don’t think this will happen - but consider this syllogism.
Premise 1. Serving the country matters more to Starmer anything else in his life. (his claim)
Premise 2. Starmer is a foreign policy expert whose greatest achievements as PM have been his foreign policy wins. (his belief).
Conclusion. Starmer would accept the role as next Foreign Secretary if offered it by PM Burnham as he believes he is the best person for the job and wants to serve the country above everything else.
I’ve had £20 at 16/1 on Starmer being next Foreign Secretary. (I’ve also had £5 at 44 that Rachel Reeves will be replaced as C of E in 2027 or later. Unlikely also - but the odds look too big to me).
Could also mean he's after a foreign job - NATO, UN, Ambassador to USA etc.
I think the bet is value, but on balance I don't think this will happen. Foreign Secretary is a valuable bauble. Burnham won't feel that he needs to use it up appeasing the Starmer faction, because there isn't one to speak of. It would be better to shove Milliband in there to get him away from any decision-making position.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Whatever you decide to do make sure you download and keep a copy of the doorbell video.
Good idea, done, thank you. Although I notice despite him wearing a lanyard, he's wearing it the wrong way around so I can't actually see who it is.
I would also check with the land registry on the (very unlikely but not zero) chance that someone is attempting shenanigans. Property title hihack is rare, but does happen; it's not a bad idea to register with them to receive alerts of any changes anyway. Costs nothing and takes little effort.
I've already done that, some time ago, but thanks for the suggestion. I don't think this is a property hijack to that degree, but it's still puzzling. I have names for every previous owner of the property back to 1966 and none of them match this person.
I think there is a protection flag you can set at the Land Registry to warn you if such attempts are made, but I'm not sure on the detail.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
I had a vaguely similar experience I think about ten years ago. I started getting letters addressed to someone I've never heard of (a middle Eastern name) at my address.
There were perhaps a dozen of them over about a year.
Then a middle-aged German (I assumed from the accent) guy turned up one evening and demanded to see this person. He said he'd flown all the way from Germany. I obviously said (through my entryphone) I'd never heard of him and he'd never lived at this address. After some back and forth the German went away.
I heard anything more or got any more such letters.
What I assume had happened is that the dodgy guy had picked my address at random to conduct a scam and this German (and maybe others) was caught up in it.
But a strange and possibly sinister business overall.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
What sort of outfit/address were the letters from that you returned earlier?
It was to an address in Coventry, sender unspecified.
Try googling something like "Is it lawful to open a letter to my address but to someone else". Lots there. Useful.
On the opening of letters addressed to others. From Postal Services Act 2000.
Seems if you have 'reasonable excuse' (which is very vague in law) you can open it. And will the Old Bill actually want to waste time writing up for the CPS given they won't tackle shoplifters?
Have at it. We'll just speculate otherwise.
84 Interfering with the mail: general.
(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.
(2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
(4)Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
The problem was the OBR prevented Starmer and Reeves from hitting the ground running with an emergency Budget and legislation so instead they simply hit the ground. The WFA announcement sounded at the time like a need to do or say something and as a result it was botched - the concept wasn't unreasonable, WFA was being handed out to people who didn't need it and had it simply been taken from higher rate taxpayers, there'd have been grumbling but that's all.
The free tickets and the largesse of Lord Alli and others was blown up into a national scandal but there's been a sensitivity ever since expenses and duck houses to what politicians are given not because of the fact of them getting nice glasses, shirts and tickets to see Taylor Swift but the expectation of getting something (power, influence) in return.
That's something to which a more adroit incoming administration could and should have been aware - being given a shirt by a friend isn't a crime but Starmer could and should have been on the front foot.
Southport then threw the whole question of immigration into focus and we know that takes us down some dark paths.
There was no detail behind the concept of "change" but Starmer wasn't the first incoming PM elected on such a platform. The problem was, after a decade and a half of self-indulgent Conservative rule which achieved the sum total of bugger all and indeed wasted Government money, time and capital on trivilaities such as leaving the EU, people understandably were impatient for something different and what they seemed to get was at best more of the same and at worst masterly inactivity.
That impatience is at the heart of the political ennui into which we've fallen thanks mainly to two decades of economic stagnation and stagnant living standards from 2008. Now, I'll be blunt, I suspect Farage, Polanski and Davey wouldn't do any better and the first two would be much worse but Conservatives, of which I suspect you are one, continue as an example, to emphasise the carrot of cuts to taxes and stamp duty without explaining in detail the stick of welfare cuts - whose benefits would you cut and by how much? It's not unreasonable to ask such questions and nor is it unreasonable for those affected to protest strongly.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
This pub furniture on the Thames path in Strand-on-the-Green is a story that could go on a bit, as it is culture war plus local councillors who really do not like each other, and local politics in Chiswick is quite vigorous anyway. I lived on Park Road down there for about 3 years in the early 2000s, in a slightly expensive but very enjoyable one bedroom flat.
(One note: take care not to confuse your Hiltons. I think the protagonist is Alistair Hilton, who is claiming the Green Councillor set the police on him and to my eye overegging his pudding a little - it could go legal, with Adrian Hilton, who is in the debate but is I think the former "Archbishop Cranmer" blogger.)
The basic issue is about unlawful obstructions (the pub outdoor tables and chairs) on a public highway - the Thames Path, which here is either a Public Footpath, or an Adopted Highway in the relevant places. Two pubs, as 'landowners', seem to feel that that, and that they have been doing it for some years, means they should be able to continue to do it without a pavement license.
The local Conservative Councillor (and the Telegraph and the Standard and GB News) have weighed in in support of the pubs (and their customers who like sitting on the Thames Path), and it was a Green Councillor who made a report to ask that it be looked at, around accessibility for less mobile pedestrians to Pass and Repass along the Thames Path unobstructed.
Given my penchant for removing obstructions from public highways so mobility aids can use them, it will be clear where I stand - as long as the path is fully accessible (and there are endless technicalities about how wide it is, and what type of highway it is in each place) and easily useable, they can put their tables there provided there is a license and no obstruction. IMO here the clear path should be 4m wide.
The Council Officers were abrupt in their demands for removal, and after a word from the local councillor have now backed down to say "you can keep your tables whilst we thin about it), which is how it should have been in the first place.
The various bits of media are trying to make this about authoritarian Councils and Councillors banning outside drinking (which is afaics a lie, not that that will stop them), and police vs freedom of speech (around Hilton's twitter comments).
This could run and run. My prediction is that the pubs will cathc up to what the law requires, and then the seating will continue with appropriate adjustments.
All the pubs are recommended. I used to go on riverside dates down there.
4m wide seems very wide for a pathway. Presumably that to allow (for example) two wheelchair users to pass each other, but wouldn’t it be better to have passing bays? Otherwise I doubt that any riverside path in the country will be compliant with your demands
I promise not to take you down a rabbit hole but I'll put a bit of information on the bone !
We have a disease in this country of taking pedestrian space down to the absolute minimum, which makes using footpaths unpleasant when there is a fair amount of foot traffic, and that causes conflict which no one wants. The attitude is nasty, and small minded, and I hate it.
But we have several different recommended widths (Inclusive Mobility, LTN 1/20 and others), depending on volume, transport mode, and purpose. As a matter of principle, the space on a public highway belongs to the public, not to a private business who want to put their stuff on it for their own benefit. Landowners are always trying to do that, and they need to be less selfish. 4m is roughly where it is for a high foot fall environment, and I am making it slightly wider than minimum because using a footpath includes stopping to take in the view, to sit on a bench for a rest, and so on, which I think are common in Strand-on-the-Green.
The required width for a mobility aid to travel safely and comfortably is 1.5m width unobstructed, since the things themselves are up to about 1.0m, sometimes 1.2m, and extra width is required simple eg wheelchairs require width for hands outside to do wheeling. For two way that is 3.0m, minimum. And I don't accept lamp posts, sign posts, pedestrian cages, litter bins, cross pathway advertising hoardings where phone boxes used to be, Horse's f*cking Brobdingnagian phone masts, and all the rest as not being obstructions; they should be off the clear footway - but that is a slightly different tack !
On passing places, I reject the idea out of hand - except for special circumstances such as a pre-existing constraint. We build our normal carriageways for vehicles to be 5.5m width, so two can pass, except where eg we need traffic calming because many drivers cannot control themselves. The principle is precisely the same for footpaths and footways - imo if we think it through, that is a very basic, unarguable implication of Equality Law. Why should we make wheelchair users use passing spaces in everyday travel, when we do not do so for people who are less marginalised, and the facilities for pedestrians cost such little money?
We had an interesting debate the other week about Delivery Robots, which I have been feeding back as "expect serious resistance if you try to prevent these without a very carefully argued case". The association has a new Chairman, who did a very interesting presentation about developing values and a strategy for their centenary, here - provocative, but not especially radical:
But just to focus on the passing places. Let’s say that you have a riverside path that is 5m wide. I’m guessing you need about 2.5m to accommodate a table and two chairs.
But under your approach that is unacceptable in case there is a scenario where two wheelchair users need to pass each other. So the vast majority of people don’t get to enjoy the path.
My approach represents a reasonable accommodation; create a passing place so wheelchairs don’t lose the ability to pass each other, but also enable to space to be shared by others. But apparently that is so unacceptable as to be “rejected out of hand”
Thanks for elaborating. I disagree with your suggestion, but finding an accommodation is why we have local licenses, laws, and committees and councillors to consider needs and the law, and to come up with such an accommodation - which can then be appealed (i think) or challenged in court by either side if it is thought problematic.
The primary value I try and think from in this is equality. We do no allow pubs to spread their tables and chairs across the public highway ie the carriageway on your road or my road, and make all the cars wait in a passing place to wait and squeeze through one by one. Why should we impose that on mobility aid users of the public highway? I see no difference in principle.
Practically a passing place will not work - outside a pub it will have half-drunk people standing in it much of the time. There will be some who think it funny to poke, prod, throw beer, call them a spaz or similar, or do other things. And even sober people are fairly often abusive or threatening or even violent when asked to accommodate. Try asking some selfish parents parking on the yellow zigzag lines outside a primary school to drop off children, putting the other children at risk, to stop doing it (school staff will be abused if they try to act), or ask someone blocking a Zebra zig-zags or a drop kerb to move, and see what the response is. Mobility aid users will not often do that, because they have been verbally abused before and cannot run away - they are vulnerable.
Yes - 4.5m is ambitious, albeit arguable from national guidelines, but one always gets less than asked for so it is good to start thinking from the actual recommendations for good practice. Often much more is possible by being innovative than one expects.
In the case of the City Barge in @Malmesbury 's photo there is 4.25m from the face of the pub wall to the railing on the river edge. The tables take up ~2m perhaps with an extra chair on the end, and I think a shelf on the railing, which would have 0.6-0.8m of people leaning on it. That leaves about 1.5m.
I'd say a practical answer here could be French style 0.8m round cafe tables against the pub wall, taking up 1.2m max, a clear 3m path marked with a line, no shelf on the railing, and moveable chairs and tables if wanted placed on the concrete (?) tidal apron when the tide is out - which in that part of Chiswick is a lot of the time.
But that’s exactly the point. On narrow roads we *do* use passing points for cars.
It’s simply a question of utility. Your suggestion is not a compromise. It’s an insistence on an outcome that gives you all you want and prevents anyone else sharing the space in a reasonable manner.
I was proposing a 4.5m pathway with 2.5m for the table and chairs and 2m to allow full mobility. The only constraint there is when two full width mobility devices need to pass each other. In reality how often does that happen?
In my view there are serious conceptual and legal problems with this idea.
The Thames Path is not analogous to an unclassified single track road somewhere in back end of Shropshire, or one of my backland routes into Derbyshire - it is the most important public footpath in London.
I think in my view you are proposing a compromise with a business that has no reasonable expectation of a compromise since their obstruction of the public highway is unlawful, and you therefore giving away far more than is reasonable. Why should a private business be able to annexe more than half of a public highway for their own purposes? We do not compromise with Travellers who want to camp in our parks, and I would not be allowed to extend my garden across 60% of the road outside because I want space for my children to have a trampoline.
And I don't see the difference - there is no "both sides" to this. This is pedestrian space - essentially full stop, and a pub obstructing it is in the same category as a farmer blocking a public footpath with his tractor or his haystack, or me blocking the road outside with an extension to my garden.
A pavement license is a limited and privileged exception to the legal rule, and I see no reason why there should be any compromise of the lawful public use of the ROW beyond the minimal, if any at all. I do take a moderately strong stance on this, since there is a hell of a long way to push the pendulum back to create a balanced culture around these questions.
We'll see where the Council come down.
PS You may enjoy this account of what happens if pavement tables go too far. A friend went into a shop in York after wheeling along the pavement, and by the time she came out the pavement in both directions was entirely blocked by cafe tables they had put out on both sides, and she was trapped.
Point of order, the Thames Path is a public footpath but it is not a public highway in the way you are intimating. As such the rules about blocking it do not apply as they do on the road. There are rules about maintaining access including disabled access but the analogy with blocking either a road or a pavement alongside a road is not correct. There are different rules for each
Thanks a for the reply and the POI. I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference, though I welcome the opportunity to explore a little further.
According to Hounslow Council, the particular section of Thames Path we are discussing, which is the Strand-0n-the-Green section, is an "Adopted Footway" (in the category "Highway Maintainable at Public Expense"), from when it leaves Thames Road to follow the riverbank to when it rejoins Thames Road (according to the map linked below *). There is a narrow section outside Ship Cottage, and another narrow section marked City Barge pub (27 Thames Street), which are marked as "Unadopted Public" and the one at the City Barge has been occupied by eg with balconies. Their tables are on the "Adopted Footway".
The public (including users of Classified Mobility Aids ** ) have a right to pass and repass over Adopted Footway such as the SOTG riverside path, and it is in the same category as a footpath alongside a carriageway. The same S137 of the Highways Act also applies to it aiui, according to various references.
So I think my analogy holds, in the absence of further detail.
** Don't ask for detail; this is Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 Aids, but others do *not* strictly have that right since the law is 55 years out of date. Wheels for Wellbeing just spent months on a consultation on this and sent in a dense 27,000+ word submission. Printed out, it rolls up like a Millwall Brick.
I think you are looking into this in too much detail. Since the Equalities Act 2010 Councils are supposed to enforce disabled access on ALL public rights of way including footpaths. This includes trying to remove stiles which, personaly, I think is a bloody stupid thing to insist on.
But two points with that. That does not mean public footpaths are treated the same as highways or pavements. So your earlier comments about encroaching on roads is not valid. And the recommendation from the LGA is that footpaths should be clear to a width of 1.5m to 2m. Not that they should be kept clear enough for two mobility devices to pass each other along their entire length. There is nothing illegal about encroaching on a public right of way as long as it remains clear to allow all legal users to pass.
A couple of points in reply.
We have to do detail, because that is how British law works, and is determined. Rights which are not defended will be undermined over time, a "what can we get away with?" process which perhaps dates back to Enclosure. I don't know anyone who wants mobility aid access to *all* public paths, and the removal of *all* stiles; the EA2010 is sensibly framed around concepts such as "reasonable adjustments" and "significant disadvantage"; that cuts out many rural footpaths. My targets tend to be around clearly accessible paths (eg former railway, greenway advertised as "accessible to all", or urban asphalt routes) where the exclusion is by an unlawful obstruction intentionally installed.
I think my comparison holds for the reasons I stated. I think the LGA recommendation (for a footway) is perhaps out of date; afaics it is framed around '2 wheelchairs passing', but the up to date recommendation for mobility aid access is a width of 1.5m, which gives a 3m clear width.
I think your final point is incorrect in law; there are High Court cases establishing the right to use the full width of the PROW. They tend to be in response to unlawful landowner interventions.
Like many people who develop what I will kindly describe as 'strong ideas' about a particular subject, you have completely lost sight of the wider context and the greater public good. It is not your problem whether people can enjoy a drink in the sun (indeed it seems clear that you consider such people to be louts) nor (more importantly) that publicans can make a living and remain in business when their rates are rocketing. But these things should and must be considered by anyone who aspires to govern. And ultimately, the tax revenues that they contribute are what will pay for the improvements that you demand.
Regretably, Britain is being ruled by ideologically captured quangos pursuing such single issues with no consequences for the damaging implications. This Green councillor is what happens when these people also get elected.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
No, I am sure there are other stick-in-the-muds. (Sticks-in-the-mud?)
Or people with taste, who haven't disappeared up their own arsehole.
Casino, you live in your arsehole. You have changed your address to your arsehole. Let people have some fun.
It is crass and tacky, but that's America. I don't know why you're even reading about it.
My feeling is they can afford it and how else can Taylor have the wedding she wants with complete control over it and no photographs that she doesn’t control
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
The problem was the OBR prevented Starmer and Reeves from hitting the ground running with an emergency Budget and legislation so instead they simply hit the ground. The WFA announcement sounded at the time like a need to do or say something and as a result it was botched - the concept wasn't unreasonable, WFA was being handed out to people who didn't need it and had it simply been taken from higher rate taxpayers, there'd have been grumbling but that's all.
The free tickets and the largesse of Lord Alli and others was blown up into a national scandal but there's been a sensitivity ever since expenses and duck houses to what politicians are given not because of the fact of them getting nice glasses, shirts and tickets to see Taylor Swift but the expectation of getting something (power, influence) in return.
That's something to which a more adroit incoming administration could and should have been aware - being given a shirt by a friend isn't a crime but Starmer could and should have been on the front foot.
Southport then threw the whole question of immigration into focus and we know that takes us down some dark paths.
There was no detail behind the concept of "change" but Starmer wasn't the first incoming PM elected on such a platform. The problem was, after a decade and a half of self-indulgent Conservative rule which achieved the sum total of bugger all and indeed wasted Government money, time and capital on trivilaities such as leaving the EU, people understandably were impatient for something different and what they seemed to get was at best more of the same and at worst masterly inactivity.
That impatience is at the heart of the political ennui into which we've fallen thanks mainly to two decades of economic stagnation and stagnant living standards from 2008. Now, I'll be blunt, I suspect Farage, Polanski and Davey wouldn't do any better and the first two would be much worse but Conservatives, of which I suspect you are one, continue as an example, to emphasise the carrot of cuts to taxes and stamp duty without explaining in detail the stick of welfare cuts - whose benefits would you cut and by how much? It's not unreasonable to ask such questions and nor is it unreasonable for those affected to protest strongly.
Just a small aside - we should BAN all mention of 'change' from politicians' mouths. Being shot by a firing squad is a 'change'. Nobody wants that. Promising 'change' is writing yourself a massive blank cheque. Anyone saying 'people want change' for the ducking stool please.
No, I am sure there are other stick-in-the-muds. (Sticks-in-the-mud?)
Or people with taste, who haven't disappeared up their own arsehole.
Casino, you live in your arsehole. You have changed your address to your arsehole. Let people have some fun.
It is crass and tacky, but that's America. I don't know why you're even reading about it.
My feeling is they can afford it and how else can Taylor have the wedding she wants with complete control over it and no photographs that she doesn’t control
No offence, but I care about your opinion of it less than I care about the original event, and that is nil.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
SKS was constrained, from day one, by the minimalist manifesto. I didn't matter in the GE campaign because everyone, except a few fellow LinkedIn wankers, was heartily sick of fucking Rishi and the rest of them.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
No, I am sure there are other stick-in-the-muds. (Sticks-in-the-mud?)
Or people with taste, who haven't disappeared up their own arsehole.
Casino, you live in your arsehole. You have changed your address to your arsehole. Let people have some fun.
It is crass and tacky, but that's America. I don't know why you're even reading about it.
My feeling is they can afford it and how else can Taylor have the wedding she wants with complete control over it and no photographs that she doesn’t control
Maybe that's it. It's all for show.
What's that old saying about the inverse correlation between how much is spent on the wedding and how likely the marriage is to last?
I don't exactly expect her to get married down at the local registry office, followed by a reception at the Dog & Duck, but this doesn't exactly scream true love to me, and being genuine.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
Just open the letter and let us all know what it is about.
You have reasonable cause - satisfying our curiosity.
That is two questions: the event and the coverage.
As to the event I don't care how crass and trashy it is, I'm not paying for it.
As to the coverage, IMHO the BBC have the tone wrong. As showbiz coverage (Radio 1 etc) they can do what they like. As world news it should be covered as news. So expressions like 'tie the knot, 'star studded ceremony' and other ludicrous slang should not be used. Vox pops add nothing to the story. News is facts, dates, who, where, when, why, how.
The BBC increasingly struggle between dealing with stuff as news + critical evaluation and dealing with stuff as luvviedom celeb showbiz. They are not the same.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
Thanks. I am going to take it to the police first at least, partly because I will be walking past the police station this morning anyway. They might be willing to be the impartial witnesses - if they are not interested I will do as you say.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
It’s just a misdelivered letter. Open it, on your own without a witness present. You should’ve done this 5 letters back.
Is this why people talk about the UK having become too obsessed with process?
What is crass and tacky is the BBC using five named reporters - all outside. Couldn't get any access inside.
Some minor pleasure to be had that Trump and the Trump adjacent would be dying to be at it but will be furiously feigning indifference. Anyway they're too busy displaying ignorance about furniture.
evan loves worf @esjesjesj Guy too stupid to understand why Mamdani chose that side of the desk
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
It’s just a misdelivered letter. Open it, on your own without a witness present. You should’ve done this 5 letters back.
Is this why people talk about the UK having become too obsessed with process?
I am suggesting a witness in this case because of the background and the trouble taken to do a hand delivery.
Anecdote: one of my children years ago moving into a student house found that they had a continuing subscription to the Economist arriving every week to a name they couldn't identify. I rather think they did the liberal capitalist thing and did nothing apart from open the envelopes. Whether they ended up better informed - six of the nicest and silliest girls you could imagine - I hesitate to say.
No, I am sure there are other stick-in-the-muds. (Sticks-in-the-mud?)
Or people with taste, who haven't disappeared up their own arsehole.
Casino, you live in your arsehole. You have changed your address to your arsehole. Let people have some fun.
It is crass and tacky, but that's America. I don't know why you're even reading about it.
My feeling is they can afford it and how else can Taylor have the wedding she wants with complete control over it and no photographs that she doesn’t control
Maybe that's it. It's all for show.
What's that old saying about the inverse correlation between how much is spent on the wedding and how likely the marriage is to last?
I don't exactly expect her to get married down at the local registry office, followed by a reception at the Dog & Duck, but this doesn't exactly scream true love to me, and being genuine.
Though there's also the "global superstar sleb" factor. From that perspective, Taylor is probably being reasonably restrained.
Based on not very much, she does seem to have kept her head much more than most people in this crazy world.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
SKS was constrained, from day one, by the minimalist manifesto. I didn't matter in the GE campaign because everyone, except a few fellow LinkedIn wankers, was heartily sick of fucking Rishi and the rest of them.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
They screwed up when asked the question about taxes when they should have said
We don't know and we can't guarantee anything because we don't know what's hidden away unnoticed.
Reality is the only people who sensibly say no new taxes is the party currently in power and even then that promise is a hostage to fortune.
If I was Burnham I wouldn't be promising no tax increases and saying - I may need to increase them, if you don't like it sorry and you can complain at the next election if you still dislike it then.
That is two questions: the event and the coverage.
As to the event I don't care how crass and trashy it is, I'm not paying for it.
As to the coverage, IMHO the BBC have the tone wrong. As showbiz coverage (Radio 1 etc) they can do what they like. As world news it should be covered as news. So expressions like 'tie the knot, 'star studded ceremony' and other ludicrous slang should not be used. Vox pops add nothing to the story. News is facts, dates, who, where, when, why, how.
The BBC increasingly struggle between dealing with stuff as news + critical evaluation and dealing with stuff as luvviedom celeb showbiz. They are not the same.
I really dislike Vox Pox. Random thoughts selected and edited. Boring. The only useful Vox Pop I can remember is Brenda from Bristol.
Imagine if PB were managed so that the views of certain individuals were edited, selected and promoted.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
SKS was constrained, from day one, by the minimalist manifesto. I didn't matter in the GE campaign because everyone, except a few fellow LinkedIn wankers, was heartily sick of fucking Rishi and the rest of them.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
They screwed up when asked the question about taxes when they should have said
We don't know and we can't guarantee anything because we don't know what's hidden away unnoticed.
Reality is the only people who sensibly say no new taxes is the party currently in power and even then that promise is a hostage to fortune.
If I was Burnham I wouldn't be promising no tax increases and saying - I may need to increase them, if you don't like it sorry and you can complain at the next election if you still dislike it then.
The wounds of 1992 are still sore.
I mean- John Major and Chris Patten are my kind of Conservatives. But the lesson that everyone has taken from the 1992 election- that a party serious about winning cannot increase the main rates of income tax, ever- has had a pretty awful consequence on all of the stuff around us.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
SKS was constrained, from day one, by the minimalist manifesto. I didn't matter in the GE campaign because everyone, except a few fellow LinkedIn wankers, was heartily sick of fucking Rishi and the rest of them.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
They screwed up when asked the question about taxes when they should have said
We don't know and we can't guarantee anything because we don't know what's hidden away unnoticed.
Reality is the only people who sensibly say no new taxes is the party currently in power and even then that promise is a hostage to fortune.
If I was Burnham I wouldn't be promising no tax increases and saying - I may need to increase them, if you don't like it sorry and you can complain at the next election if you still dislike it then.
The wounds of 1992 are still sore.
I mean- John Major and Chris Patten are my kind of Conservatives. But the lesson that everyone has taken from the 1992 election- that a party serious about winning cannot increase the main rates of income tax, ever- has had a pretty awful consequence on all of the stuff around us.
This last election could've proven otherwise. Cameron and Osborne went into 2010 promising austerity. It can be done.
Good morning one and all. Much sympathy with @ydoethur. When we moved to our present home, some 20+ years ago we kept getting phone calls about (IIRC) a gas bill. The callers didn't/couldn't quote the names of either the previous occupant (the house had been tenanted) or the owner of the property and wouldn't be told they were wrong. Calls went on for some time, at about three monthly intervals until, IIRC, I told them I'd talk to the police if they didn't stop harassing us. That stopped them.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
The standard response was "they can't possibly be any worse".
They certainly haven’t been any worse than the Tories imo. And the fundamental issues they’re dealing with (immigration, borrowing, poor public services, welfare costs, health service issues, defence underfunding, etc , etc.) were all caused by your Tories.
Labour have though been disappointing; I was hoping for more.
"Your Tories"
Grow up.
Grow up, says the man who readily calls posters who out-argue him 'wanker' and 'prick'.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
One of the comedies of “AI” is that it can fill in mountains of mechanistic bullshit with suitably plausible values at great rates.
Partly that, but also outsourcing.
After all, if it has a government logo on it, the natural reaction is to assume a degree of solidity that clearly isn't there in this case. And everyone can pass the buck to someone else.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
SKS was constrained, from day one, by the minimalist manifesto. I didn't matter in the GE campaign because everyone, except a few fellow LinkedIn wankers, was heartily sick of fucking Rishi and the rest of them.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
There is no more analysis required to explain the failure of the Starmer Government beyond what has been written in that second paragraph.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
It’s just a misdelivered letter. Open it, on your own without a witness present. You should’ve done this 5 letters back.
Is this why people talk about the UK having become too obsessed with process?
I am suggesting a witness in this case because of the background and the trouble taken to do a hand delivery.
Anecdote: one of my children years ago moving into a student house found that they had a continuing subscription to the Economist arriving every week to a name they couldn't identify. I rather think they did the liberal capitalist thing and did nothing apart from open the envelopes. Whether they ended up better informed - six of the nicest and silliest girls you could imagine - I hesitate to say.
I'd open it with or without a witness. If someone subsequently says it had a million pound note in it, they're going to need to prove that surely?
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
My late father started having mail in the name of a third party using his address. Our name is a very common Welsh surname. I opened a letter from 3 Communications and it turned out some scoundrel had come across discarded bills (presumably rifling his recycling bin) and helped themselves to an i Phone on a contract with no intention of paying.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Vaguely related, in a "who the heck can we trust" way,
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
One of the comedies of “AI” is that it can fill in mountains of mechanistic bullshit with suitably plausible values at great rates.
I think the issue is people see the scheme as something it simply isn't. The purpose of the scheme is to hold the deposit and to act as arbitration when the deposit gets returned.
Mind you the end result of this type of scam will be registration of all rental properties so that it can be confirmed who owns and is renting it out.
What is crass and tacky is the BBC using five named reporters - all outside. Couldn't get any access inside.
Isn't Graham Norton invited? Couldn't the BBC pay Graham minimum wage per hour (which is what my son gets paid) as a researcher?
Graham Norton (as will Greg James) will want future interviews with Taylor Swift. Neither of them will be saying anything much about the wedding beyond what Taylor wants reported.
Also, regarding that poll a bigger percentage seem to be glad Labour won than actually voted for them. So I’m not sure about buyers’ remorse?
That poll looks to me that Labour have a good chance at retaining power at the next GE. Close to double their current polling are pleased that Starmer won, and a third are undecided.
His biggest risk by far is internal division and opposition from within his MPs. Understandably, not all of them will be impressed that he’s managed to parachute into the top job, and he starts with no real Westminster power base and an agenda that challenges an awful lot of Westminister and Whitehall vested interests, and also still has one or two rivals keeping their knives sharp. And will need to take some tough decisions, not least on where the money is spent. It’s very easy to see a scenario where the combination of these human factors and the left’s perennial tendency to fall out over this, that and the other leads him into a mire of strife, especially if the public shine on his new administration doesn’t last.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
Not disputing what you say, but it's almost unbelievable that a first term government with a huge majority barely halfway through the five years can be described as at its last chance.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
Good morning, everyone.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
There's something in that and from an anti-Labour or anti-"Left" perspective, I understand what you're saying.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
SKS was constrained, from day one, by the minimalist manifesto. I didn't matter in the GE campaign because everyone, except a few fellow LinkedIn wankers, was heartily sick of fucking Rishi and the rest of them.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
They screwed up when asked the question about taxes when they should have said
We don't know and we can't guarantee anything because we don't know what's hidden away unnoticed.
Reality is the only people who sensibly say no new taxes is the party currently in power and even then that promise is a hostage to fortune.
If I was Burnham I wouldn't be promising no tax increases and saying - I may need to increase them, if you don't like it sorry and you can complain at the next election if you still dislike it then.
All they needed to say was ‘no plans’ then raise because of the ‘mess they we were left with.’
That is two questions: the event and the coverage.
As to the event I don't care how crass and trashy it is, I'm not paying for it.
As to the coverage, IMHO the BBC have the tone wrong. As showbiz coverage (Radio 1 etc) they can do what they like. As world news it should be covered as news. So expressions like 'tie the knot, 'star studded ceremony' and other ludicrous slang should not be used. Vox pops add nothing to the story. News is facts, dates, who, where, when, why, how.
The BBC increasingly struggle between dealing with stuff as news + critical evaluation and dealing with stuff as luvviedom celeb showbiz. They are not the same.
The BBC does some excellent journalism. However that is rare.
This,is the sort of crap they call news these days and fill the webpage with.
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
It’s just a misdelivered letter. Open it, on your own without a witness present. You should’ve done this 5 letters back.
Is this why people talk about the UK having become too obsessed with process?
Yes, I wouldn't f*** about. Certainly if someone is trying to stiff one for an iPhone or the deeds of one's house. Anyway we all now need to know!
Morning PB, hope you are well, and wondering if you can offer me some advice on a rather strange problem I have.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
On reflection I suggest this:
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
It’s just a misdelivered letter. Open it, on your own without a witness present. You should’ve done this 5 letters back.
Is this why people talk about the UK having become too obsessed with process?
I am suggesting a witness in this case because of the background and the trouble taken to do a hand delivery.
Anecdote: one of my children years ago moving into a student house found that they had a continuing subscription to the Economist arriving every week to a name they couldn't identify. I rather think they did the liberal capitalist thing and did nothing apart from open the envelopes. Whether they ended up better informed - six of the nicest and silliest girls you could imagine - I hesitate to say.
I'd open it with or without a witness. If someone subsequently says it had a million pound note in it, they're going to need to prove that surely?
When dealing with something unquantifiable and potentially threatening you pre-empt troublemaking from others. Being right and truthful does not prevent hassle on its own. Dishonest people have ways of proving things that are not the case and are adept at averting scrutiny by making false allegations.
Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about would seem to be:
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
"we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
"Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible." "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT." "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Comments
Eliminate Reform because: Farage, £5m, tactical voting, all mad.
Nearly eliminate Con because: Kemi isn't the material, lack of a cabinet of strong grey suits, ambiguity about being in bed with extremes, past history, the sheer number of seats they need to hold and win, failing to communicate a vision even when Labour couldn't under Starmer.
Therefore it follows that Labour are value for most seats, and possibly for 325+.
Also possible value: 2028 election at about 7/1.
Sensible folk within Labour ought to recognise that this restart is likely a last chance for this government and to realise that hanging together is hugely preferable to its well-known alternative.
9 out of 10 African nations reached the knockout stages, 2 are left, but most ran their opponents very close. I think we are at the stage where African teams function well and are mostly of a decent quality, the FAs of the better nations don't fatally undermine their increasingly European based teams any more, but the last 32 games exposed a continuing deficit in game management, many lost leads or late parity on route to defeat.
There is no reason at all not to fully include Cape Verde in that overall assessment and the end result was well foretold.
The polling, both published and private, will inform his (assuming it is still Burnham as PM) decision.
I don't think Burnham is one for creating fights with internal enemies (one of Starmers many character flaws).
Given my very small romantic streak, I've backed the draw at 90 minutes for Mexico vs England but England to qualify at 4/6.
I'm not 100% sure we'll get past Mexico, let alone Brazil, Argentina and France - if we do, we'll desrve the Jules Rimet.
Edit. Beaten by Casino, but since found it at £18.44
From there it becomes a no-brainer to coalesce around the person who polls better than any other Labour politician and has just demonstrated with real votes that he can beat Reform. All very explicable and logical - nevertheless the upshot is that a landslide winning PM has been ditched for a Metro Mayor coming from outside parliament and that feels weird. It feels weird because it is weird.
For the last two months I have been receiving letters - clearly machine produced - for a person who does not live, and as far as I know, has never lived in this house. I just returned them with a notice that they had been misaddressed, which has clearly been ignored as they kept coming. I thought of it as a nuisance, but not that important.
However, yesterday somebody turned up to hand deliver a note to this person. Unfortunately I was at a meeting in Birmingham at the time so could not speak to him or even answer the Ring doorbell, but because it has been hand delivered it has no return address on it. It is stamped 'for immediate attention' and 'private and confidential' (no paradox there)!
I'm not altogether sure what to do about this. I can deal with idiots sending mail to the wrong address, but I don't want random total strangers on my doorstep trying to contact phantoms. Apart from anything else, whoever they are they clearly want to speak to this person very badly and I don't want to find they mistake me for him if they're going to go to these lengths.
My instinct is to take this letter to the police, with a complaint. Is that the right thing to do, or is there another course of action? I'm not willing to open the letter myself.
If she recovers/her party starts to look a realistic prospect, then the tactical voting against Reform will fall away.
In a straight Lab/Reform battle I think Burnham could unite the left.
Those who, like me, believe that character/personality type is destiny will note that Burnham is perhaps, using MBTI language, an ENFJ (while Starmer is perhaps ISTJ) in other words they are more or less chalk and cheese, Burnham being a natural leader, Starmer, as we all know, not. Personality type difference explains why when Starmer is in leader speechy mode, our toes curl, when Burnham does the same we switch on the telly and watch.
Perhaps we'll look back and realise this was just the usual midterm blues, only rather more exaggerated than usual.
What sort of outfit/address were the letters from that you returned earlier?
Maybe consult a solicitor or Citizens Advice
You do need to deal with this if only for your peace of mind
Property title hihack is rare, but does happen; it's not a bad idea to register with them to receive alerts of any changes anyway. Costs nothing and takes little effort.
Labour’s enshittification of justice and corporate corruption feels baked in. Burnham is going to fuck the left over. There will be no moral core, no values, no plan, no long term view.
Ambition and arrogance, core principles sacrificed on the altar of expedience. And worse, I quite like Burnham, I think the system is so fucking corrupting that no one can beat it.
It’s the hope that gets ya
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c982ry2pen3o
A letter from them to the sender (assuming a name and address is given inside) should be enough to end the nonsense. Otherwise it might be a letter before action. The next thing might be a county court judgment.
Worth a couple of hundred quid to end any issues and retain peace of mind.
Miss JGP, I think Labour briefly fell behind the Conservatives early in the first Blair Parliament due to the fuel protests.
That said, I think this government has been especially poor. Partly that's because the situation now (as opposed to then) is not one of deciding where to spend all the lovely money but of trying to get finances in order, partly it's because they stupidly pretended a lack of giveaways/tax cuts was a mean Conservative choice rather than economic reality (so they didn't come up with any remedy in the manifesto), and partly it's because the party and its leader has acted in a way often seen as either antagonistic, stupid, or just incompetent.
It may be someone has purchased a phone on credit using your address (and perhaps a false name). Open the mail and contact whomever and indicate that a) they don't live there and b) remove the address from their list.
We have to do detail, because that is how British law works, and is determined. Rights which are not defended will be undermined over time, a "what can we get away with?" process which perhaps dates back to Enclosure. I don't know anyone who wants mobility aid access to *all* public paths, and the removal of *all* stiles; the EA2010 is sensibly framed around concepts such as "reasonable adjustments" and "significant disadvantage"; that cuts out many rural footpaths. My targets tend to be around clearly accessible paths (eg former railway, greenway advertised as "accessible to all", or urban asphalt routes) where the exclusion is by an unlawful obstruction intentionally installed.
I think my comparison holds for the reasons I stated. I think the LGA recommendation (for a footway) is perhaps out of date; afaics it is framed around '2 wheelchairs passing', but the up to date recommendation for mobility aid access is a width of 1.5m, which gives a 3m clear width.
I think your final point is incorrect in law; there are High Court cases establishing the right to use the full width of the PROW. They tend to be in response to unlawful landowner interventions.
Here in East London, we don't see Reform yet they beat the Conservatives and LDs in the Mayoral election in Newham. I imagine where they are organised, they are working hard and this is ultimately where elections are won and lost - where a party has workers and activists, it has a chance, where it doesn't, it doesn't.
The Conservatives (and Labour) used to rely on the two-party system to the extent they knew if people didn't want to vote for the one they could and would vote for the other without prompting. In a multi-party environment, that expectation has gone - votes now have to be earned and where the Conseratives for example have little real organsiation, they are losing out.
Like the LDs, they are retreating back to areas of strength and building there - the Conservatives are quite capable of winning where they have strength and local campaigning history - but to assume they can move beyond those and hoover up votes when there are other options is a notion to be challenged.
I think the bet is value, but on balance I don't think this will happen. Foreign Secretary is a valuable bauble. Burnham won't feel that he needs to use it up appeasing the Starmer faction, because there isn't one to speak of. It would be better to shove Milliband in there to get him away from any decision-making position.
There were perhaps a dozen of them over about a year.
Then a middle-aged German (I assumed from the accent) guy turned up one evening and demanded to see this person. He said he'd flown all the way from Germany. I obviously said (through my entryphone) I'd never heard of him and he'd never lived at this address. After some back and forth the German went away.
I heard anything more or got any more such letters.
What I assume had happened is that the dodgy guy had picked my address at random to conduct a scam and this German (and maybe others) was caught up in it.
But a strange and possibly sinister business overall.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36yrlzew39o
Not much aircon going to be running in those holiday homes/hotels. Or anything else for that matter - including water.
Seems if you have 'reasonable excuse' (which is very vague in law) you can open it. And will the Old Bill actually want to waste time writing up for the CPS given they won't tackle shoplifters?
Have at it. We'll just speculate otherwise.
(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.
(2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 83 apply to subsection (1) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
(4)Subsections (2) and (3) of section 83 (so far as they relate to the opening of postal packets) apply to subsection (3) above as they apply to subsection (1) of that section.
(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.
I wouldn't be too squeamish at opening a letter by "accident". Accidents happen. You have to protect yourself. Presumably opening the hand delivered letter doesn't contravene any Royal Mail charter. I am so on edge I would want to know what the flock was going on so I could deal with it directly.
Morgan McSweeney was quite right to identify the apparent lack of planning in Labour before the election - the comparison with 1997 was striking.
The problem was the OBR prevented Starmer and Reeves from hitting the ground running with an emergency Budget and legislation so instead they simply hit the ground. The WFA announcement sounded at the time like a need to do or say something and as a result it was botched - the concept wasn't unreasonable, WFA was being handed out to people who didn't need it and had it simply been taken from higher rate taxpayers, there'd have been grumbling but that's all.
The free tickets and the largesse of Lord Alli and others was blown up into a national scandal but there's been a sensitivity ever since expenses and duck houses to what politicians are given not because of the fact of them getting nice glasses, shirts and tickets to see Taylor Swift but the expectation of getting something (power, influence) in return.
That's something to which a more adroit incoming administration could and should have been aware - being given a shirt by a friend isn't a crime but Starmer could and should have been on the front foot.
Southport then threw the whole question of immigration into focus and we know that takes us down some dark paths.
There was no detail behind the concept of "change" but Starmer wasn't the first incoming PM elected on such a platform. The problem was, after a decade and a half of self-indulgent Conservative rule which achieved the sum total of bugger all and indeed wasted Government money, time and capital on trivilaities such as leaving the EU, people understandably were impatient for something different and what they seemed to get was at best more of the same and at worst masterly inactivity.
That impatience is at the heart of the political ennui into which we've fallen thanks mainly to two decades of economic stagnation and stagnant living standards from 2008. Now, I'll be blunt, I suspect Farage, Polanski and Davey wouldn't do any better and the first two would be much worse but Conservatives, of which I suspect you are one, continue as an example, to emphasise the carrot of cuts to taxes and stamp duty without explaining in detail the stick of welfare cuts - whose benefits would you cut and by how much? It's not unreasonable to ask such questions and nor is it unreasonable for those affected to protest strongly.
Dura approved and also works on TV licensing c-nts.
Regretably, Britain is being ruled by ideologically captured quangos pursuing such single issues with no consequences for the damaging implications. This Green councillor is what happens when these people also get elected.
Because the letter was not delivered via the postal service and has no return address you cannot return the letter, or deal with it in any way until another step is taken. FWIW I don't think the police would be interested. The safest and most effective next step is to open it in the presence of a reliable independent witness (to avoid future allegations of it having a million pound note or diamond necklace in it that has vanished), and make a signed written record of what you found therein. The step after that would depend on what you found.
So we knew we weren't getting Marinetti's Manifesto del Futurismo but what we actually got was continuity Sunakism only delivered from four inches higher which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be a profound disappointment.
What's that old saying about the inverse correlation between how much is spent on the wedding and how likely the marriage is to last?
I don't exactly expect her to get married down at the local registry office, followed by a reception at the Dog & Duck, but this doesn't exactly scream true love to me, and being genuine.
You have reasonable cause - satisfying our curiosity.
As to the event I don't care how crass and trashy it is, I'm not paying for it.
As to the coverage, IMHO the BBC have the tone wrong. As showbiz coverage (Radio 1 etc) they can do what they like. As world news it should be covered as news. So expressions like 'tie the knot, 'star studded ceremony' and other ludicrous slang should not be used. Vox pops add nothing to the story. News is facts, dates, who, where, when, why, how.
The BBC increasingly struggle between dealing with stuff as news + critical evaluation and dealing with stuff as luvviedom celeb showbiz. They are not the same.
Is this why people talk about the UK having become too obsessed with process?
Anyway they're too busy displaying ignorance about furniture.
evan loves worf
@esjesjesj
Guy too stupid to understand why Mamdani chose that side of the desk
https://x.com/esjesjesj/status/2073159051559510100?s=20
"I see Nixon's had an arsehole transplant."
"Latest is the arsehole's rejected him..."
Anecdote: one of my children years ago moving into a student house found that they had a continuing subscription to the Economist arriving every week to a name they couldn't identify. I rather think they did the liberal capitalist thing and did nothing apart from open the envelopes. Whether they ended up better informed - six of the nicest and silliest girls you could imagine - I hesitate to say.
Based on not very much, she does seem to have kept her head much more than most people in this crazy world.
Rather than being a flat available for a long-term tenancy, he had actually been shown around a property rented from Booking.com by scammers for a weekend and used to dupe people looking for a place to live into paying deposits...
What baffled him was this: how had a fraudulent estate agent been able to gain real membership of government-approved schemes designed to protect renters from dodgy estate agents?
https://www.londoncentric.media/p/london-rental-scammers-property-redress-scheme
We don't know and we can't guarantee anything because we don't know what's hidden away unnoticed.
Reality is the only people who sensibly say no new taxes is the party currently in power and even then that promise is a hostage to fortune.
If I was Burnham I wouldn't be promising no tax increases and saying - I may need to increase them, if you don't like it sorry and you can complain at the next election if you still dislike it then.
The only useful Vox Pop I can remember is Brenda from Bristol.
Imagine if PB were managed so that the views of certain individuals were edited, selected and promoted.
I mean- John Major and Chris Patten are my kind of Conservatives. But the lesson that everyone has taken from the 1992 election- that a party serious about winning cannot increase the main rates of income tax, ever- has had a pretty awful consequence on all of the stuff around us.
Much sympathy with @ydoethur. When we moved to our present home, some 20+ years ago we kept getting phone calls about (IIRC) a gas bill. The callers didn't/couldn't quote the names of either the previous occupant (the house had been tenanted) or the owner of the property and wouldn't be told they were wrong. Calls went on for some time, at about three monthly intervals until, IIRC, I told them I'd talk to the police if they didn't stop harassing us.
That stopped them.
One of the comedies of “AI” is that it can fill in mountains of mechanistic bullshit with suitably plausible values at great rates.
Anyway, are you not a Tory?
After all, if it has a government logo on it, the natural reaction is to assume a degree of solidity that clearly isn't there in this case. And everyone can pass the buck to someone else.
Mind you the end result of this type of scam will be registration of all rental properties so that it can be confirmed who owns and is renting it out.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everybody-Loves-Our-Dollars-Laundering-ebook/dp/B0DVLLL1X3/
A book on modern cross border money laundering. Currently £1.99 on the kindle..
NEW THREAD
This,is the sort of crap they call news these days and fill the webpage with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgev8jrw20po
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
"we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
"Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Taxes will rise. We all know it.
"[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
"we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
"Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"
So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.
To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).
Taxes will rise. We all know it.