Do_I_Not_Like_That 724548 9752533 wrote:
I really need to check up on ... before I make sweeping statements like this.
You do. Your enthusiasm is great and you make some great points but you could do with paying more attention to the details and reality. I hope that doesn't sound too bitchy? I can't tell any more.
Popular searches provided by Pornhub.
Who goes searching for septagenarian wotsits with a toupee in order to bang one out?
I'm a bit confused, why are we looking at 2016 popular searches. Given the May had just stepped into Downing Street, Boris the Clown for some bizarre reason was put into the FO it's not surprising they were more popular searches. I'd be more interested to the see the changes in the 2017 searches.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,
and it's not much better for Britain with rising sea levels.
Sea levels will rise, but the rest is largely uncertain. One potential theory is the gulf stream will move south because of extra cold water from the poles. That would make the UK more akin to what Canada experiences at the same latitude. The EU would then get mild and very wet (especially on the coast). We simply don't know how everything will pan out and that's the great risk with climate change. We are charging headlong, in reality ignoring the experts with a blind hope it will be all right on the night. What is probably likely to happen though is that it will generate mass migration that makes what is going on now seem like nothing.
This what I'm saying: the UK needs to start preparing ASAP. To hell with HS2, get the flood defences fixed.
From a EU point of view, if more migrants are headed their way, especially from sub-Sahara Africa (who'll suffer terribly from drought this century ) then they'd better have a contingency plan in place.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to anybody, but I'm more concerned with climate change than trade deals, WTO, May, Barnier, Juncker et al.
Bad heat waves, drought in Southern Europe, crop failure, and lack of fresh water, are what's in store for the EU nations,
and it's not much better for Britain with rising sea levels.
Sea levels will rise, but the rest is largely uncertain. One potential theory is the gulf stream will move south because of extra cold water from the poles. That would make the UK more akin to what Canada experiences at the same latitude. The EU would then get mild and very wet (especially on the coast). We simply don't know how everything will pan out and that's the great risk with climate change. We are charging headlong, in reality ignoring the experts with a blind hope it will be all right on the night. What is probably likely to happen though is that it will generate mass migration that makes what is going on now seem like nothing.
This what I'm saying: the UK needs to start preparing ASAP. To hell with HS2, get the flood defences fixed.
From a EU point of view, if more migrants are headed their way, especially from sub-Sahara Africa (who'll suffer terribly from drought this century ) then they'd better have a contingency plan in place.
Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
WTO rules are a base framework for those to use who haven't negotiated a better deal, we shouldn't be relying on them for very long at all if possible. They don't cover a huge amount of legislation and agreement wrt to air travel, science and security for example. It will take a huge amount of effort and expense to sort out those deals and agreements all over again from scratch, and we will very much be the weaker cousin if we come to sort out a deal with the EU after spending time operating under WTO rules. It really should be avoided, which is why the vast majority of other nations try to avoid relying on them solely.
It's not as simple as this. We still have to negotiate with the WTO to agree the terms we go back to them under.
In the light of its co-existence with the EU in the WTO, the rights, commitments and concessions of the UK under WTO rules are currently tied in with those of the EU. Following Brexit, the UK will no longer be covered by the common schedules which the EU submitted for all its Member States. The application, therefore, of WTO law on the UK following Brexit will depend on resetting the terms of the British membership in the Organisation. This would be the case across a wide range of economic activities covered by the WTO agreements. The schedules of concessions and commitments on market access, for instance, as well as the UK’s list of exemptions from the MFN treatment obligation would have to be reset and resubmitted. They would also have to be accepted by the other WTO parties.
In the light of the above, a process of negotiation would ensue between the UK and the WTO parties. Given that the existing arrangements constitute part of a package deal, resetting their terms would not be a straightforward exercise: it would entail a complex process which could take time and the successful outcome of which would depend on the political will of the other WTO parties. This point has been made by the WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo on a number of occasions (for instance, in his interview in the Financial Times on 26 May 2016).
The WTO rules have been viewed as a safe fall back option for the trade relations between the UK and the rest of the world following Brexit. The application of these rules, however, would not be automatic. The process of resetting and negotiating the terms of British membership in the WTO would require considerable work.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Didn't David Davis threaten to quit if Green was ousted? Could be very interesting if he does.
Vote of no confidence and GE by next year?
If that happens, I genuinely believe we could be looking at a truly socialist labour govt, as people go, what the feth, we're screwed anyway, might as well give the other lot a go.
Sea levels will rise, but the rest is largely uncertain. One potential theory is the gulf stream will move south because of extra cold water from the poles. That would make the UK more akin to what Canada experiences at the same latitude. The EU would then get mild and very wet (especially on the coast). We simply don't know how everything will pan out and that's the great risk with climate change. We are charging headlong, in reality ignoring the experts with a blind hope it will be all right on the night. What is probably likely to happen though is that it will generate mass migration that makes what is going on now seem like nothing.
This what I'm saying: the UK needs to start preparing ASAP. To hell with HS2, get the flood defences fixed.
From a EU point of view, if more migrants are headed their way, especially from sub-Sahara Africa (who'll suffer terribly from drought this century ) then they'd better have a contingency plan in place.
If all the icesheets melt not even barriers will help. You are talking metres here. That means not only coastal sections, but every god damn river will rise as well (especially near the sea). London is particularly vulnerable. It doesn't also help that the south east is slowly rebounding after the last ice age. The ice over Scotland pushed down Scotland but raised the SE. Now the ice has gone it is in reverse. It takes a long time as rock doesn't relax very quickly but it's still happening. If you get this and extreme cold, you might also find it is the UK populace migrating!
As for migrants it won't be just an EU issue, it will be a global issue. The UK won't avoid it either.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Didn't David Davis threaten to quit if Green was ousted? Could be very interesting if he does.
Vote of no confidence and GE by next year?
I think you'll find he does the typical Tory thing. Do the complete opposite of what they promised....
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Other than he’s massively wasting work time downloading porn. Who the hell does than on company time, so to speak. And then he continues to deny having anything to do with it but really as explanations go that isn’t good enough.
Far be it from me to defend a Tory MP, but “company time” or “wasting work time” isn’t really an issue for MPs. It’s not a job with a set of defined responsibilities and goals like you and me. Really he did nothing illigal and apparently MPs are not bound by IT rules (although this seems wrong, but presumably the law is all they have to worry about) so really he did nothing wrong. People may not like that he was looking at porn, but that’s not illigal and something I would guess almost everyone here does.
Yes. I can’t see this government lasting very much longer. May just doesn't have the leadership or management skills to hold all of this together. She’s rearranging deckchairs at the the moment in an attempt to hide the iceberg. All it will take is one big scandal or another disagreement in the Tory party and they will tear themselves apart. The only those she has is that no one exploits any issues for fear of being branded a traitor by the red tops.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Other than he’s massively wasting work time downloading porn. Who the hell does than on company time, so to speak. And then he continues to deny having anything to do with it but really as explanations go that isn’t good enough.
More importantly, if I was watching bongo on my work PC, I'd be out on my ear before I knew what was happening, as would anyone, except perhaps those paid to edit gentleman's relish videos, on account it'd be really difficult to do their job without it.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Has he released a statement yet ?
.... or is he planning on knocking one out later ..?
They really are an absolute shower. I would say 'tcoch, typical Tories', but I think that would be genuinely unfair to the non-Parliamentary Tory Party (just because I don't agree with you, doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong).
But the current Government just seem singularly incapable of getting anything done without messing it right up.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Other than he’s massively wasting work time downloading porn. Who the hell does than on company time, so to speak. And then he continues to deny having anything to do with it but really as explanations go that isn’t good enough.
More importantly, if I was watching bongo on my work PC, I'd be out on my ear before I knew what was happening, as would anyone, except perhaps those paid to edit gentleman's relish videos, on account it'd be really difficult to do their job without it.
Why shouldn't any MP doing the same be fired?
An MP is responsible to his constituents and to Parliament as a whole. He isn't an employee of a company to be hired and fired.
Because with the mess they're making of Brexit, and no convenient scapegoat in site, I'd say in 10-15 years they much just be coming back from the political wilderness.
Following on from my concerns about US bluster, now it seems that Liam Fox is attempting to ensure that UK/US trade deals are conducted in secret until 4 years after their completion. So comfortably into Labour's term of office.
That does not bode well at all for the NHS, amongst other things.
We should be very concerned indeed, the only reason for such secrecy would be because they know that the public would not accept what they are doing, and we absolutely should not just trust Liam Fox to not feth this up. We need to demand that parliament has oversight, if we can manage it for Brexit, we can manage it elsewhere.
The United Kingdom, after Russia, is the second country of origin for Rotterdam in terms of volume for goods shipped. After Germany, Belgium and Russia, the United Kingdom is fourth in terms of total throughput with a 40 million tonnes (8.5% of the Rotterdam total throughput). British import from Rotterdam consists mainly of Roll-on / Roll-off (RoRo) cargo, containers and liquid bulk. The British export to the Netherlands consists mainly of liquid bulk (especially North Sea oil) and shortsea and RoRo cargo.
As a result of the Brexit, maintaining the quality and capacity of customs will be the highest priority for the Port of Rotterdam. According to the Dutch customs authorities, as of 30 March 2019 more than a hundred well-trained extra customs officers will be required in the Rotterdam Rijnmond area. In addition to this, extra inspections and inspection points for the Dutch food and consumer product safety authority (NVWA) are needed. Furthermore the necessary additional veterinarians to execute the inspections will be a major challenge as well. Of course, this will also apply to customs in the UK. It remains to be seen whether customs capacity from 2019 can handle all the extra declarations.
Customs declarations may increase waiting times, subsequently increasing costs for freight forwarders, operators and terminal operators as well as creating additional congestion in the port area. Short sea and RoRo terminals expect available waiting space for lorries to be limited. This will be one of the major challenges for Port of Rotterdam authority to facilitate. Not only space at the terminal but also waiting times may have an impact on the use of the public infrastructure and could result in congestion on the route (for example on the highway A15) to terminals.
Can't wait for Operation Stack : Redux to kick down here in Kent.
r_squared wrote: Following on from my concerns about US bluster, now it seems that Liam Fox is attempting to ensure that UK/US trade deals are conducted in secret until 4 years after their completion. So comfortably into Labour's term of office.
Sounds a lot like what the US were trying to do with TPP - Keep it private until it's too late to do anything about it. Because they know it won't go down well with, well, anybody but US companies.
The 4 years is presumably related to how long it'd take to enact some of the changes - harder to roll things back if it's already started.
Everyone who even mentioned sovereignty should be screaming at their MPs about this.
Because with the mess they're making of Brexit, and no convenient scapegoat in site, I'd say in 10-15 years they much just be coming back from the political wilderness.
The Brexit bill passed another hurdle last night in The Commons. It's still on.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Aaaand Green is out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42434802 The porn on the computer was IMO icky but not something to make a huge fuss about. However as is often the case its the cover up and lies that are the real issue. Especially when he's also accused of using his position to make "unwanted advances" to women.
Other than he’s massively wasting work time downloading porn. Who the hell does than on company time, so to speak. And then he continues to deny having anything to do with it but really as explanations go that isn’t good enough.
I freely admit that I'm no expert on IT, and this could be complete horsegak, but somebody, somewhere, was saying that websites can often have dodgy thumbnails embedded in them, and that even if it's a normal website, you may inadvertently pick the thumbnails up.
Like I say, I'm no IT man, so is this possible? Is Green possibly innocent on that account?
Still deserved to go for false statements, mind you.
..defence treaty with Poland.... went well in 39 eh ?
Birmingham has been named as host city for the 2022 Commonwealth Games - the most expensive sports event to be held in Britain since the London Olympics.
The city's was the only bid submitted to the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) by the deadline of 30 September, after it was chosen ahead of Liverpool as Britain's candidate.
After Birmingham's bid was initially deemed to not meet the necessary criteria, previously interested cities such as Victoria in Canada and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia were given another two months to apply, but no bids materialised.
what a triumph indeed.
Scraped through despite being the only entrant.
.. Still, good for B'ham.
Whilst I don't really give a flying feth about the games or atheltics in general, I'm pleased for those who do and despite being South East based am quite happy it's gone somewhere other than London.
.... do Villa or b'ham city need new stadiums perchance ..?
Because with the mess they're making of Brexit, and no convenient scapegoat in site, I'd say in 10-15 years they much just be coming back from the political wilderness.
The Brexit bill passed another hurdle last night in The Commons. It's still on.
I was meaning the general pig's ear they're making of it.
We won't pay a penny! Well, ok. We will. £40,000,000,000.
We'll get a better deal on everything and it'll be easy! Well, ok. No we won't. This is going to be long and drawn out, and our self inflicted 'red lines', only put in place to placate the most swivel eyed amongst the populace are actually boxing us into a corner.
They need us more than we need them! Well, ok. No they don't. Please trade with us. Please? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Go on, we'll be your best friend.
It's a bad idea from the get go, and they're making it worse and worse. Tory Infighting and a dishonesty, Tory supporting media lead to the vote and the outcome. Lie upon lie was spouted, and rubbish campaigns were fought. And now because people in areas of high unemployment think it's all to do with the EU and migrants taking their jobs (and not, you know, an uncaring Westminster), we're about to get a good seeing to politically.
All because Tories. And the idiots have no scape goat for when it all inevitably blows up in our faces.
I freely admit that I'm no expert on IT, and this could be complete horsegak, but somebody, somewhere, was saying that websites can often have dodgy thumbnails embedded in them, and that even if it's a normal website, you may inadvertently pick the thumbnails up.
Like I say, I'm no IT man, so is this possible? Is Green possibly innocent on that account?
Still deserved to go for false statements, mind you.
It's possible, in that any website can contain any image which needs to be downloaded even if it's not visible. But why would they do that?
Arkams razor and all - you don't get rack up that much naughty content by getting trolled from genuine websites. So he's either lying about that, or been on, I dunno, warez sites or something.
I freely admit that I'm no expert on IT, and this could be complete horsegak, but somebody, somewhere, was saying that websites can often have dodgy thumbnails embedded in them, and that even if it's a normal website, you may inadvertently pick the thumbnails up.
Like I say, I'm no IT man, so is this possible? Is Green possibly innocent on that account?
Still deserved to go for false statements, mind you.
It's possible, in that any website can contain any image which needs to be downloaded even if it's not visible. But why would they do that?
Arkams razor and all - you don't get rack up that much naughty content by getting trolled from genuine websites. So he's either lying about that, or been on, I dunno, warez sites or something.
Agreed, but the whole situation is a mess, a dumpster fire. A public inquiry needs to be conducted for the following reasons:
Police raiding the Commons without a search warrant. The police need to be slapped down hard for this.
Police incompetence with the original investigation.
Retired police officers breaching their own code by hanging onto files and evidence.
Gak poor IT security at the heart of Government
A minister of her Majesty's government disgracing the office with his actions
Let's shine the light of a public. inquiry on this wretched nest of vipers.
Yet if some police hadn’t wrongfully revealed these things Damian Green’s deception would never have been uncovered. Sometimes you have to break a few rules to publicly expose frauds and liars. Otherwise they can hide and their allies sweep it under the carpet so that they are never held to account.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yet if some police hadn’t wrongfully revealed these things Damian Green’s deception would never have been uncovered. Sometimes you have to break a few rules to publicly expose frauds and liars. Otherwise they can hide and their allies sweep it under the carpet so that they are never held to account.
That's the start of a slippery slope that only ends in 1984.
You need to do this things officially and clear. Breaking eggs and omlettes have no place with the police.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yet if some police hadn’t wrongfully revealed these things Damian Green’s deception would never have been uncovered. Sometimes you have to break a few rules to publicly expose frauds and liars. Otherwise they can hide and their allies sweep it under the carpet so that they are never held to account.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care at all if another Tory gets exposed as a liar and booted from office, that's great, but, he hadn't broken the law or ministerial code until he started lying after they were revealed. It's almost like a honey trap, revealing something mildly scandalous in order to see if he'll trip himself up, which he did.
The thing is, we expect and know our politicians to lie to us, they do it ll the time, and in ways sometimes so blatant it takes your breath away, look at Trump for example. Why do we tolerate this, or make excuses I wonder?
Personally I think our Govt and Parliament is in need of total and complete reform, from the ground up. The archaic traditions and ceremony seem important, but are wholly inappropriate if the members cannot act with integrity and with the best interests of the country first and foremost.
I would start by relocating the whole Government to the Midlands, a new Parliament with a new, non-adverserial setup, proportional representationand re-drawing of the constituency borders to reflect current populations, with a mandate to re-draw them every 10 years to keep current.
A second house of representatives to be created, with the hereditary Lords removed. We are a 21st century country, starting out on a new path, and we're saddled with archaic and inefficient Govt because of tradition, it needs to change, and many MPs actually agree with it too.
Also, no more referenda, ever. If you want a voice, use your elected parliamentary representative.
I think people are missing the point here: if the police are doing this to MPs and Government ministers, then what chance has Joe Public got when dealing with the Police?
The police had no business raiding Green's office, and Labour should have been brought to book for it, and they also tried to stich up Andrew Mitchell.
Now, I don't give two hoots for Tory MPs, but I do care very strongly about the Rule of Law.
After last week's rape trial debacle, the Police are in serious need of a hard slap from the government.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yet if some police hadn’t wrongfully revealed these things Damian Green’s deception would never have been uncovered. Sometimes you have to break a few rules to publicly expose frauds and liars. Otherwise they can hide and their allies sweep it under the carpet so that they are never held to account.
That's the start of a slippery slope that only ends in 1984.
You need to do this things officially and clear. Breaking eggs and omlettes have no place with the police.
The system shouldn’t enable coverups that require police to break rules and leak things. I wonder if Cameron and May knew about what he was using his computers for? The public and his constituents have a right to know if he is doing his job properly as they’re voting him into public office. This isn’t a 1984 slippery slope, if the system we have allows people to cover up impropriety to remain in public office then it needs exposing even if rules need breaking. The rules are a problem here. Had it not been revealed, Damian Green would have continued to keep this buried to maintain his image, the public have a right to know what their leaders are doing when representing them in order they make informed votes.
Even if the public do know what their MPs are up too, it's no guarantee that they'll give a damn.
Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem MP for the Orkneys, was more or less branded a liar by a High Court Judge, for his role in the French gate affair. Very serious words.
His lies led to an investigation that cost the taxpayer £1 million.
And yet, he was voted back in at the last election, and has the nerve to appear on TV and talk about credibility.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think people are missing the point here: if the police are doing this to MPs and Government ministers, then what chance has Joe Public got when dealing with the Police?
The police had no business raiding Green's office, and Labour should have been brought to book for it, and they also tried to stich up Andrew Mitchell.
Now, I don't give two hoots for Tory MPs, but I do care very strongly about the Rule of Law.
After last week's rape trial debacle, the Police are in serious need of a hard slap from the government.
I think we have to be careful here. It's easy to pick out bad points and then state it must all be bad. In reality there are thousands of cases that never get flagged as an issue. There are always going to be some issues that's unavoidable.
It is easy for the Tories to cry *fowl* (because they are party full of Turkeys) now because it is one of their MPs, yet, for example, they've consistently delayed implementing schemes to control the press after the phone tapping debacle (which would among some things have affected the same papers that support the Tories).
The police cannot control an individual, if they decide to copy or keep investigation documents on the side then there's not much you can do other than strip search every police officer before and after work. If an ex-employee decides to release information there is not much the company/police can do about it (other than the threat of prosecution) and in reality if you go heavy handed on this you just get anonymous leaks anyway.
On the other hand why did DG lie? He's always protested his innocence. He had no reason to lie. He could have quite easily said "Yes they did find porn on my laptop but have no idea how it got there, but I did lend it to Putin to look up our security details the day before"
My question is how much May actually knew. Given they are best buddies, are we saying that he never even mentioned it to her (despite being in charge of the home office)? That seems slightly perplexing.
The police are obliged to investigate charges, they cannot make a decision whether it is politically motivated.
It's important that we don't only see the negatives whilst ignoring the positives.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe his constituents were really keen to stay in the EU.
For sure, Orkney is very pro-EU, but also hostile to Scottish Indy.
Which probably explains why the pro-EU, SNP candidate, who was also a local woman born and bred in Orkney (something that doesn't happen often in that part of the world) , lost out to a non-Orcadian liar, who's only redeeming feature for his supporters is that he's a Unionist.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think people are missing the point here: if the police are doing this to MPs and Government ministers, then what chance has Joe Public got when dealing with the Police?
The police had no business raiding Green's office, and Labour should have been brought to book for it, and they also tried to stich up Andrew Mitchell.
Now, I don't give two hoots for Tory MPs, but I do care very strongly about the Rule of Law.
After last week's rape trial debacle, the Police are in serious need of a hard slap from the government.
I think we have to be careful here. It's easy to pick out bad points and then state it must all be bad. In reality there are thousands of cases that never get flagged as an issue. There are always going to be some issues that's unavoidable.
It is easy for the Tories to cry *fowl* now because it is one of their MPs, yet they've consistently delayed implementing schemes to control the press after the phone tapping debacle (which would among some things have affected the same papers that support the Tories).
The police cannot control an individual, if they decide to copy or keep investigation documents on the side then there's not much you can do other than strip search every police officer before and after work. If an ex-employee decides to release information there is not much the company/police can do about it (other than the threat of prosecution) and in reality if you go heavy handed on this you just get anonymous leaks anyway.
The police are obliged to investigate charges, they cannot make a decision whether it is politically motivated.
It's important that we don't only see the negatives whilst ignoring the positives.
Whatever you think of Green, and my opinion of him is rock bottom, the Police had no search warrant. The speaker should have told them to go hang, and Labour should have been shot down in flames for this politically motivated attack at the time. And as others have pointed out, the raid was given the nod by Jacqui Smith, who's own husband got into a certain amount of bother over porn. The irony.
And another thing, phone tapping by non-security people is already illegal. We don't need another law for it, just enforcement of the current law.
Following on from my concerns about US bluster, now it seems that Liam Fox is attempting to ensure that UK/US trade deals are conducted in secret until 4 years after their completion. So comfortably into Labour's term of office.
That does not bode well at all for the NHS, amongst other things.
We should be very concerned indeed, the only reason for such secrecy would be because they know that the public would not accept what they are doing, and we absolutely should not just trust Liam Fox to not feth this up. We need to demand that parliament has oversight, if we can manage it for Brexit, we can manage it elsewhere.
Yeah this should be throwing up all sorts of red flags. Not only is Liam Fox the sort of person that should always be accompanied by a responsible adult, but the current US administration is run by an actual con man and his cronies.
It is absolutely shameful. A complete denial of our parliamentary system and democratic oversight.
The only possible reason for this secrecy is to allow The Powers That Be to prepare a savage shafting for the rest of us, and keep it secret until it is a fait accompli.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Yet if some police hadn’t wrongfully revealed these things Damian Green’s deception would never have been uncovered. Sometimes you have to break a few rules to publicly expose frauds and liars. Otherwise they can hide and their allies sweep it under the carpet so that they are never held to account.
That's the start of a slippery slope that only ends in 1984.
You need to do this things officially and clear. Breaking eggs and omlettes have no place with the police.
The system shouldn’t enable coverups that require police to break rules and leak things. I wonder if Cameron and May knew about what he was using his computers for? The public and his constituents have a right to know if he is doing his job properly as they’re voting him into public office. This isn’t a 1984 slippery slope, if the system we have allows people to cover up impropriety to remain in public office then it needs exposing even if rules need breaking. The rules are a problem here. Had it not been revealed, Damian Green would have continued to keep this buried to maintain his image, the public have a right to know what their leaders are doing when representing them in order they make informed votes.
Then do it right. The end result is the same, but if the police have a tinkle that someone is breaking the law, they go investigate.
Watching porn on a work computer isn't against the law. Normally it's against company policy, so it's probably against some code of conduct, but it's also an in house job. If they don't want to sack him over it, that's their decision. It might bite them on the ass later on, but it isn't good for the police to be releasing personal information about someone doing something that is only morally unacceptable. That's not what the police are for. They investigate actual crimes, not moral ones.
I'll say it till I am blue in the face though. If any of you ever have the misfortune to be on the wrong side of a police investigation make sure you are lawyered up.
Normally I’d agree - in the case of a private company. But he’s an MP and without someone prepared to ‘leak’ it the party/government would conceal it from constituents and the public. There’s a clear public interest argument when he’s doing something inappropriate instead of the job he was elected for. In his case, the public have a right to know.
It's important that we don't only see the negatives whilst ignoring the positives.
Whatever you think of Green, and my opinion of him is rock bottom, the Police had no search warrant. The speaker should have told them to go hang, and Labour should have been shot down in flames for this politically motivated attack at the time. And as others have pointed out, the raid was given the nod by Jacqui Smith, who's own husband got into a certain amount of bother over porn. The irony.
No they didn't have a warrant....however they were given written consent by the Serjeant at Arms to enter. If my understanding is correct it is the 'employers' decision as to whether the police can enter a premises not the individual that might be considered an issue. The Police therefore did follow the correct procedure. They did not need a warrant because they were given this written consent to enter (that the Serjeant didn't ask the Clerk of the House is a different issue).
And another thing, phone tapping by non-security people is already illegal. We don't need another law for it, just enforcement of the current law.
The point is though (and it's not just Tories) is that the government will create merry hell if something is done badly against them, but if it doesn't benefit them to take action in other cases it is put to one side and quietly forgotten about.
r_squared wrote:Just a couple of points. I appreciate the positivism, I think you and DINLT are kindred spirits in that regards, however just to make sure I'm clear...
The ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) is not part of the EU and we will still be subject to that, I'm guessing you meant the ECJ (European Court of Justice)?
My understanding is that the government wants to withdraw from the ECHR, which they can't do while we're still a member of the EU as it's part of the requirements for EU membership. It's unclear whether or not they actually intend to replace it with a new sort of "bill of rights" or whether such a thing is even necessary.
I definitely agree that we need to get a deal that is at least positive, but I recognise that the chances are it will absolutely not be better than the one we had in economic terms.
Agreed. I'm expecting any deal to provide less access than the current single market system. I think it's simply not plausible that we will get continued single market access while leaving the EU and meeting some of the governments stated goals such as an end to free movement. The question is what kind of deal we get, which fundamentally is a matter of what we're prepared to trade away for other things in return. It's been revealed today that the EU sees virtually a carbon copy of the Canada-EU agreement as a kind of last ditch, back up option if all elses fails, so at this point a hard brexit is probably off the table unless the government opts to purposely go that route. That at least gives May et al something to start working from.
WTO rules are a base framework for those to use who haven't negotiated a better deal, we shouldn't be relying on them for very long at all if possible.
Agreed. I think the outlook based off today's news is quite promising that the "nuclear option" is off the table now. As long as Theresa works with all the voices in her party she should be able to come up with a good compromise deal.
Your last paragraph is basically talking about the UK rationalising and specialising, however we actually have already done this as a service economy. The problem is that the service economy relies on being a member if the single market, or a deal being struck that means we can continue to rely on the banks. Hopefully they will come up with something that allows our economy to continue to function as it is for the time being before we restructure it into something else, maybe a giant silicon valley? Tech companies and IT innovation across the whole country. You never know.
See, that's what we could use more of; people thinking about good ideas for the future! We have the so-called "Silicon Fen" around Cambridge, so one option would be to pump even more investment into that. Or we could look at other universities like Oxford and the other major players in the Russell group and build enterprise zones around them, investing in top notch broadband, lower business rates etc. The banks I'm not too worried about because they seem to have already figured out a work around and indeed the noises coming from Mark Carney and others would seem to suggest that they might already be a step ahead of the curve.
Whirlwind wrote:It's not as simple as this. We still have to negotiate with the WTO to agree the terms we go back to them under.
We've already agreed with the EU what our schedule of commitments will be, which is basically inheriting their tariffs and a portion of their lower tariff quotas based on our historical imports. The WTO works in a way where we don't actually require approval for our schedule, it is what it is. The other countries vote on whether to confirm the schedule, but you need to understand that even if they don't, the trade continues as normal. Their only real recourse is if they think we're trying to shaft them, in which case they enter negotiations with us bilaterally. After that they can try a legal option, but they have to prove some kind of material loss, which is notoriously difficult and most lawyers in this area seem to agree we'd likely win any challenge. We can of course smoothe the process over just by being reasonable i.e. there's no good reason for us to have high tariffs on things like citrus fruits.
Our PM and her managers (the right wing press) have made it clear that human rights are a horrible inconvenience to being able to remove people’s rights, arbitrarily detain people and send people you don’t like to be tortured or killed.
To be frank, the colour of your passport is irrelevant. What's important is how much freedom of travel it gives you.
The "Iconic" blue passport is another of those "Brexiteer" shibboleths. There is no EU rule that makes the UK have a red passport. We could have made it blue any time we wanted.
I've always kept my passports in a leather wallet of a different colour.
I'll say it till I am blue in the face though. If any of you ever have the misfortune to be on the wrong side of a police investigation make sure you are lawyered up.
With this and the sexual harrisment cases - they should really be looking at the basic human resources element of Parliment - after all most of us have to live by rules and regs - it should not be yet another thing that MPs haev exceptions on. people working for and with MPs should havethe smae level of protection as elsewhere.
The "Iconic" blue passport is another of those "Brexiteer" shibboleths. There is no EU rule that makes the UK have a red passport. We could have made it blue any time we wanted.
Never let it be said that leave don't uphold their campaign promises.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I actually had a blue passport, back in the day.
To be frank, the colour of your passport is irrelevant. What's important is how much freedom of travel it gives you.
The "Iconic" blue passport is another of those "Brexiteer" shibboleths. There is no EU rule that makes the UK have a red passport. We could have made it blue any time we wanted.
I've always kept my passports in a leather wallet of a different colour.
Let the good times fething roll indeed.
I have an old, expired, burgundy passport. I may burn it in an act of defiance.
I'm surprised that Farage isn't out organising a mass bonfire of burgundy passports.
I'll say it till I am blue in the face though. If any of you ever have the misfortune to be on the wrong side of a police investigation make sure you are lawyered up.
With this and the sexual harrisment cases - they should really be looking at the basic human resources element of Parliment - after all most of us have to live by rules and regs - it should not be yet another thing that MPs haev exceptions on. people working for and with MPs should havethe smae level of protection as elsewhere.
There should be a robust process overseen by a reputable independent body, agreed and adhered to by all the parties to which MPs belong. (Including independents.) This would cover the activities of MPs and their directly employed staff.
There should also be a proper HR function for parliamentary employees.
Never let it be said that leave don't uphold their campaign promises.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I actually had a blue passport, back in the day.
To be frank, the colour of your passport is irrelevant. What's important is how much freedom of travel it gives you.
The "Iconic" blue passport is another of those "Brexiteer" shibboleths. There is no EU rule that makes the UK have a red passport. We could have made it blue any time we wanted.
I've always kept my passports in a leather wallet of a different colour.
Let the good times fething roll indeed.
I have an old, expired, burgundy passport. I may burn it in an act of defiance.
I'm surprised that Farage isn't out organising a mass bonfire of burgundy passports.
Defiance of what? Of the non-existent rule that doesn't make you have a red rather than a blue passport?
I would say I couldn't care less what my passport looks like as long as it lets me pass ports, and this new one will let me pass ports with more work than before, so whatever it looks like it's a step backwards.
I think I'll renew my burgundy (?) passport before the changeover just to be a rebel.
Here is the country in the middle of the worst political, economic and social crisis for a generation, and people are rattling on about the ability to have a blue cover passport, which we could have done anyway.
One of the most important "priorites" perhaps should be ejukayshun.
It was mentioned a few pages ago, when the electoral commission investigation into the possibly dodgy funding of various Leave campaigns was being discussed.
I'll say it till I am blue in the face though. If any of you ever have the misfortune to be on the wrong side of a police investigation make sure you are lawyered up.
With this and the sexual harrisment cases - they should really be looking at the basic human resources element of Parliment - after all most of us have to live by rules and regs - it should not be yet another thing that MPs haev exceptions on. people working for and with MPs should havethe smae level of protection as elsewhere.
There should be a robust process overseen by a reputable independent body, agreed and adhered to by all the parties to which MPs belong. (Including independents.) This would cover the activities of MPs and their directly employed staff.
There should also be a proper HR function for parliamentary employees.
Agreed. I'm expecting any deal to provide less access than the current single market system. I think it's simply not plausible that we will get continued single market access while leaving the EU and meeting some of the governments stated goals such as an end to free movement. The question is what kind of deal we get, which fundamentally is a matter of what we're prepared to trade away for other things in return. It's been revealed today that the EU sees virtually a carbon copy of the Canada-EU agreement as a kind of last ditch, back up option if all elses fails, so at this point a hard brexit is probably off the table unless the government opts to purposely go that route. That at least gives May et al something to start working from.
Still doesn't solve the Irish border or no border problem, though.
Well the advantage of the having a separate blue passports is that they will come to represent people losings rights, freedom of movement, worsening living conditions, huge homeless increases, degraded NHS, expensive food, the rich milking the poor, a social care system that collapses and the turds that make up the Tory party (blue brown colour). So at least we'll at least have a visual cue of the stupidity of what we are undertaking and a reference to the people that implemented it.
However given the costs the country has, paying for a different design I'm sure was really worth it. They'll probably double the price to pay for it...
Kilkrazy wrote:UK membership of the ECHR predates its membership of the EU by over 20 years.There is no reason to leave the jurisdiction of the ECHR.
May in particular has a number of objections to it, going back to her time as the home secretary. I think her specific grievances are related to the deportation of people charged with terror related offences and the like.
jouso wrote:Still doesn't solve the Irish border or no border problem, though.
They'll figure out a fudge in the end. Probably create a special cross border pass for people that routinely travel back and forth. People are talking about the border as if this is the first time a border has ever existed between two countries, whereas in reality there's a long history to draw from to find possible solutions.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:We interrupt the standard political bickering to bring you this very important message. On the night of 20th December 2017, the Coatbridge Community Foodbank was targeted by vandals, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage.
. Don't understand some peoples mentality. What a bunch of lowlifes. Any updates on whether they've got leads or caught the ?
Whirlwind wrote:Well the advantage of the having a separate blue passports is that they will come to represent people losings rights, freedom of movement, worsening living conditions, huge homeless increases, degraded NHS, expensive food, the rich milking the poor, a social care system that collapses and the turds that make up the Tory party (blue brown colour). So at least we'll at least have a visual cue of the stupidity of what we are undertaking and a reference to the people that implemented it. However given the costs the country has, paying for a different design I'm sure was really worth it. They'll probably double the price to pay for it...
Guessing you're not a tory voter The passports are updated every few years to integrate the latest security measures. The contract for making them was due anyway, so the story is something of a non-story, except for those that really like blue passports. I actually quite like Burgandy, like when Arsenal did their retro kit that one year.
A public war or words erupted though in the public press conference. A fresh steaming turd has greater diplomatic skills than Boris the Clown.
You'd rather Boris allowed his counterpart to lie and misrepresent the comments of a UK minister for political gain? Boris plays the buffoon well, but I for one am glad he stood up for himself and against that rancid regime.
jouso wrote:Still doesn't solve the Irish border or no border problem, though.
They'll figure out a fudge in the end. Probably create a special cross border pass for people that routinely travel back and forth. People are talking about the border as if this is the first time a border has ever existed between two countries, whereas in reality there's a long history to draw from to find possible solutions.
That's still a border. People would still be checked even if it's just to be waved through.
jouso wrote: That's still a border. People would still be checked even if it's just to be waved through.Not to mention the required infrastructure.
Which isn't anywhere near as onerous as people make out. We do checks at most ports anyway. The Good Friday Agreement is not going to collapse just because people have to show their papers at a crossing point.
jouso wrote: That's still a border. People would still be checked even if it's just to be waved through.Not to mention the required infrastructure.
Which isn't anywhere near as onerous as people make out. We do checks at most ports anyway. The Good Friday Agreement is not going to collapse just because people have to show their papers at a crossing point.
Trust me, NI is not the same as Dover. That statement suggests that you dont understand the problem, if I'm honest.
jouso wrote: That's still a border. People would still be checked even if it's just to be waved through.Not to mention the required infrastructure.
Which isn't anywhere near as onerous as people make out. We do checks at most ports anyway. The Good Friday Agreement is not going to collapse just because people have to show their papers at a crossing point.
Yes it is. I know someone else has said it but I think it needs repeating. This statement shows you don’t understand the basis, background or position of the good Friday agreement, or the delicate balance it requires to maintain. The legal and visible link to the rest of Ireland is one of the key parts of peace being maintained. Republicans at the moment can feel like Ireland is near as dam it one country, and Unionists can feel they are still part of the UK. The second you put any check or slow down that is gone, and any stop won’t just be “waving people through”. Putting a checkpoint on the N1 would be like putting one on the M40. Brexit is just about to throw all of this up in the air.
jouso wrote: That's still a border. People would still be checked even if it's just to be waved through.Not to mention the required infrastructure.
Which isn't anywhere near as onerous as people make out. We do checks at most ports anyway. The Good Friday Agreement is not going to collapse just because people have to show their papers at a crossing point.
Yes it is. I know someone else has said it but I think it needs repeating. This statement shows you don’t understand the basis, background or position of the good Friday agreement, or the delicate balance it requires to maintain. The legal and visible link to the rest of Ireland is one of the key parts of peace being maintained. Republicans at the moment can feel like Ireland is near as dam it one country, and Unionists can feel they are still part of the UK. The second you put any check or slow down that is gone, and any stop won’t just be “waving people through”. Putting a checkpoint on the N1 would be like putting one on the M40. Brexit is just about to throw all of this up in the air.
Agreed. You simply can't have any checks if you want an open border, however soft they may be. You would require some form of ID, questions or whatever to make it a worthwhile endeavour which it would never be. It would also be against the Good Friday Agreement which is free unrestricted movement. The whole issue was managed to be parked but hasn't really resolved anything.
As I understand it, the current Irish border works basically like a Schengen border. There are no checks at all. It's not like Dover of Heathrow, where an EU passport holder has to present their passport and will automatically be allowed in.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the current Irish border works basically like a Schengen border. There are no checks at all. It's not like Dover of Heathrow, where an EU passport holder has to present their passport and will automatically be allowed in.
I flew from Dublin to Birmingham the other day and didn’t have to go through passport control. That was both confusing and enjoyable. I had to show my passport going the other way.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the current Irish border works basically like a Schengen border. There are no checks at all. It's not like Dover of Heathrow, where an EU passport holder has to present their passport and will automatically be allowed in.
You'd be right, it's a completely free border. But the options are limited to basically three;
1) A border between Ireland and the EU, obviously unacceptable for them.
2) A border between the UK and Northern Ireland, which the DUP would find unacceptable.
3) Border between NI and Eire, which is almost certainly the option that will be taken.
I honestly think people are being overly dramatic. The fudge that is the Northern Irish Assembly has managed to keep everyone happy (well, sort of) for a long time now. Given the alternatives, I think everyone will ultimately settle into the routine of having a border again. There's almost certainly going to be a pass system (the same will likely be used in Gibraltar) where regular travellers such as traders and people working across the border get some kind of fast pass that allows them to effectively jump the queue and buzz right through with no/minimal checks, same for ambulances etc. In effect I suspect for some people the border will remain open for all intents and purposes. And even if there are increased checks, nobody wants to go back to the old days. NI has come a long way in a short time and the younger generations in particular coming through seem much more relaxed about the issue.
Going to have to agree with the others here bouncing boredom these statements really make it appear that you don't understand the situation in NI.
The problem with stormont is that both SF and the DUP have both gone to the extremes of their beliefs in the previous election and neither can't really back down. In the past year there has been a doubling in paramilitary shootings with there being a beliefs that sides are starting to recruit again. While many younger people have moved on from sectarianism, the political ideals are still there, and having never seen the conflict truly is IMO something that actually encourages people to be moved to more extremes, all they know of the troubles is the songs of martyrs and men defending their country as well as seeing murals of men who died in it.
The whole issue with the border is just one thing in the currently worsening situation in NI that needs to be considered. I don't personally believe that we will go back to actions like in 1972, however, I do think that there is a very real chance of things getting nasty again over here.
Young people are happy to be in Europe yet we are still leaving. A hoarder of any kind will break the Good Friday agreement and will bring violence. There are still weapons cashes hidden, there are still people who know how to make bombs and there are still people disaffected and angry. You just need to go to an NIFL or GAA and see the people heading to the members suites or go in to one of the rougher pubs it Dublin or Belfast to find that things have not changed all that much for some people. If we have any visible boarder people will see it as a step back towards unionism and people will die. Whatever he outcome the government need to work hard to avoid any visible boarder and honor the deals they made.
May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.
Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.
The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.
Things are not as bad as people predicted.
Amen. Sadly I think the whole argument has got that bitter that remainers want the UK to fail after or during independence and leavers want the EU to fail with or without the UK. Rather than us all accepting the result and forming a working relationship as most countries do.
We really need to as a country get our act together and unite to some or any extent.
This bitterness will do more harm than any ending of a trade group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry I must add the border between NI and the ROI is far from a free border as farmers and traders well know. Exporting animals into ROI from NI brings with it a mountain of paperwork and government checks from relevant departments on both sides of the border. We also have different VAT rates which causes a paper trail for any business doing cross border trade. It has also provided a huge illegal trade in smuggling worth well into the tens of millions per year. Largely controlled by the still very much active border units of the IRA. Only last year the ex IRA commander in south Armagh was tried in relation to a host of illegalities in and around the border trade issue.
The border only doesn’t exist if your a PAYE civilian who only ventures across the border for holidays. Businesses know it exists and guess what we work round it.
Unite behind what? Behind letting the government and Mrs May do whatever she wants? That’s both silly and undemocratic. There is clearly no vision, and you can’t ask anyone, leave or remain, to support any deal no matter what.
I note that remain supporters have been criticised for not supporting the government yet there has been no criticism of the leave supporters attacking the government for agreeing to pay more than they would like to the EU...
May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.
Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.
The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.
Things are not as bad as people predicted.
Amen. Sadly I think the whole argument has got that bitter that remainers want the UK to fail after or during independence and leavers want the EU to fail with or without the UK. Rather than us all accepting the result and forming a working relationship as most countries do.
We really need to as a country get our act together and unite to some or any extent.
This bitterness will do more harm than any ending of a trade group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry I must add the border between NI and the ROI is far from a free border as farmers and traders well know. Exporting animals into ROI from NI brings with it a mountain of paperwork and government checks from relevant departments on both sides of the border. We also have different VAT rates which causes a paper trail for any business doing cross border trade. It has also provided a huge illegal trade in smuggling worth well into the tens of millions per year. Largely controlled by the still very much active border units of the IRA. Only last year the ex IRA commander in south Armagh was tried in relation to a host of illegalities in and around the border trade issue.
The border only doesn’t exist if your a PAYE civilian who only ventures across the border for holidays. Businesses know it exists and guess what we work round it.
The only way for that state of affairs to continue, would be for the UK to agree to maintain border controls that maintain the EU's integrity. That will mean that we would not be able to open our door to another nation to offer them a deal wrt to movement without getting agreement from the EU.
That's probably the only way I can see this moving forward, and I guess that what they meant by alignment. It will also mean that we will have to let the EU take the lead, if they decide to restrict movement from one country, say the USA for example, we'd have to follow suit, or have a hard border with passport controls.
Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Going to have to agree with the others here bouncing boredom these statements really make it appear that you don't understand the situation in NI.
I just think people are grossly underestimating how much of the furore is driven by the needs to the opposite parties in NI to talk a tough talk until an agreement can be reached over the future of Stormont. These are people who were once bitter enemies, but now are bitter enemies with a smile and a handshake and a taste of what it likes to live in (relative) peace and with a degree of power. Never underestimate the desire of politicians to do whatever it takes and agree to whatever they have to in order to line their own pockets and secure their own position. Talk is cheap, a politicians pension pot isn't. I'm expecting them to come up with a fudge that keeps everyone sweet and I think that when push comes to shove, all the bluffing hands will fold in the face of either getting on with things or a return to fighting.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Going to have to agree with the others here bouncing boredom these statements really make it appear that you don't understand the situation in NI.
I just think people are grossly underestimating how much of the furore is driven by the needs to the opposite parties in NI to talk a tough talk until an agreement can be reached over the future of Stormont. These are people who were once bitter enemies, but now are bitter enemies with a smile and a handshake and a taste of what it likes to live in (relative) peace and with a degree of power. Never underestimate the desire of politicians to do whatever it takes and agree to whatever they have to in order to line their own pockets and secure their own position. Talk is cheap, a politicians pension pot isn't. I'm expecting them to come up with a fudge that keeps everyone sweet and I think that when push comes to shove, all the bluffing hands will fold in the face of either getting on with things or a return to fighting.
My point is though that it won't be people returning to fighting it will be a younger group who never truly experienced the troubles and just see it as the glorious revolution or defence of ''Ulster'' probably led by a hardcore group of men who never gave up the fight. In some ways I also feel that even the return to Stormont may not overly affect the outcome of any future violence as the two many parties don't have the same hold over the paramilitaries as they used to, SF only got into power because of their influence of the Provos but it wont be these ones who would be out fighting and so even them getting back into an executive won't hold much sway over the hard lines. In the same way the DUP being paly with the UDA isn't going to stop them killing people if they wanted to.
You have a point on the younger folk. I know in my local town during the troubles there were about 20 UVF members now there are at least 200 hundred (judging by the crowd going into their headquarters for their Sunday meetings). But any of the experienced men are long gone. They are all young fellas.
The UDA has grown exponentially too. But for those who don’t know the UDA barely functions as an organisation anymore. It has no central leadership and has descended into various local gangs who hate each other with a passion. My local UDA brigade would be one of the largest and most violent UDA units has gone so far that they have officially left the main UDA organisation. Last year they killed two members of their own unit when they fell out. When people show pictures of Dee Stitt they don’t realise that his North Down Battalion are at war with the South East Antrim UDA and East Belfast UDA. South Belfast is probably the only unit that would have any cohesive leadership and membership but it’s also the unit least involved in violence and criminality.
Overall the UDA couldn’t return to a military campaign if they tried. The UVF probably could and it was them who previously took the violence to Dublin when Dublin tried interfering in NI affairs before and I’ve no doubt they would do again.
I make the point on loyalists as people are so focused on SF trying to scare people they forget that the ROI government are playing a dangerous game talking about moving the border to the sea or trying to impose joint authority. Support for the UVF across NI has never been higher, even at the height of the troubles.
So, you're saying that we should be wary of a "threat" of violence offered by Loyalists over perceived interference by Dublin, but should ignore any percieved republican threat of renewed violence over a hard border as over-blown hyperbole?
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the current Irish border works basically like a Schengen border. There are no checks at all. It's not like Dover of Heathrow, where an EU passport holder has to present their passport and will automatically be allowed in.
You'd be right, it's a completely free border. But the options are limited to basically three;
1) A border between Ireland and the EU, obviously unacceptable for them.
2) A border between the UK and Northern Ireland, which the DUP would find unacceptable.
3) Border between NI and Eire, which is almost certainly the option that will be taken.
You've missed two.
4) Remaining in the EU after another referendum
5) Leaving the EU but maintaining free trade and freedom of movement (which is the default position if nothing is agreed).
Sorry I must add the border between NI and the ROI is far from a free border as farmers and traders well know. Exporting animals into ROI from NI brings with it a mountain of paperwork and government checks from relevant departments on both sides of the border.
Exporting animals is more restricted because of trying to restrict things like Foot and Mouth and what was Mad Cow Disease. The issues with NI/Eire is freedom of movement and not giving those that associate themselves with the EIRE the ability to move forward and backwards between them freely. What happens with arbitrary goods doesn't have the same emotional response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote: You have a point on the younger folk. I know in my local town during the troubles there were about 20 UVF members now there are at least 200 hundred (judging by the crowd going into their headquarters for their Sunday meetings). But any of the experienced men are long gone. They are all young fellas.
The UDA has grown exponentially too. But for those who don’t know the UDA barely functions as an organisation anymore. It has no central leadership and has descended into various local gangs who hate each other with a passion. My local UDA brigade would be one of the largest and most violent UDA units has gone so far that they have officially left the main UDA organisation. Last year they killed two members of their own unit when they fell out. When people show pictures of Dee Stitt they don’t realise that his North Down Battalion are at war with the South East Antrim UDA and East Belfast UDA. South Belfast is probably the only unit that would have any cohesive leadership and membership but it’s also the unit least involved in violence and criminality.
Overall the UDA couldn’t return to a military campaign if they tried. The UVF probably could and it was them who previously took the violence to Dublin when Dublin tried interfering in NI affairs before and I’ve no doubt they would do again.
I make the point on loyalists as people are so focused on SF trying to scare people they forget that the ROI government are playing a dangerous game talking about moving the border to the sea or trying to impose joint authority. Support for the UVF across NI has never been higher, even at the height of the troubles.
To be honest this has even more worrying undertones than I think you are realising. We have:-
More people are potentially exposed to 'extreme' views than there was during the troubles
They are still willing to use violence to meet their aims
There are many young people, which although lacks experience implies, the Nationalists/Unionists divide isn't healing quickly (though both DUP and SF have to take some blame here)
They are currently leaderless, without an overall aim. However as shown by Wrexit give people a simple answer and a 'charismatic' leader that is willing to spout nonsense and then all of a sudden you have a larger number of people with one aim (and any type of border could be a catalyst).
I don’t think there is any possibility of any full scale resumption of violence at all from any group. We already have low level republican violence but I can’t see it getting momentum again nor can I see the groups getting access to weapons as they previously did. But we could see more low level stuff.
I’m just saying if you are going to get all wrapped up over a possIble return to violence from republican groups remember that your pandering to them will have a cause and effect in the loyalist community. All I’ve heard from mainland remainers is how much republican violence could return. They forget or don’t care that as they shout this loyalists are listening. And their communities will demand they respond in defence or attack. I’m even more concerned or annoyed if you like by leavers using the border to try and further their cause not realising or caring that they are destabilising NI by allowing Sinn Fein to piggyback on their stupidity to cause further chaos.
Knockagh wrote: I don’t think there is any possibility of any full scale resumption of violence at all from any group. We already have low level republican violence but I can’t see it getting momentum again nor can I see the groups getting access to weapons as they previously did. But we could see more low level stuff.
I’m just saying if you are going to get all wrapped up over a possIble return to violence from republican groups remember that your pandering to them will have a cause and effect in the loyalist community. All I’ve heard from mainland remainers is how much republican violence could return. They forget or don’t care that as they shout this loyalists are listening. And their communities will demand they respond in defence or attack. I’m even more concerned or annoyed if you like by leavers using the border to try and further their cause not realising or caring that they are destabilising NI by allowing Sinn Fein to piggyback on their stupidity to cause further chaos.
'Never say never' comes to mind. I think partially it comes down to whether both sides can tap into old funding or not. We know the IRA had support from the US so it depends on whether they can still tap into that resource?
However even any low level violence is a bad thing. Because of the close knit groups I wonder whether it will as easy for security services to identify attacks. The real risk is that any increase in violence will then divide the security services attention and they will be fighting on two fronts both in terms of ISIS and any NI violence. With limited funds that likely means increased success for both sides.
@whirlwind I agree we are more polarised as a society than we have been since the troubles ended, but that’s a situation that has been cultivated since the days of Tony Blair. He left us with the most appalling legacy. The GFA is no perfect solution folks. It institutionalised sectarianism. It legislated around it and made it a permanent feature in society. It didn’t heal anything it just put in place a permanent stalemate. Honestly that was never going to end well.
I remember at the time people who said that were told the agreement was a stepping stone to get us out of violence and once we moved on it would have to be replaced. It never was and sectarianism took deeper roots, without the violence to turn people off tribalism they flocked to it.
May is still PM - everybody predicted she'd by gone by Xmas.
Brexit negotiations are onto Phase II. Again, doom and disaster were predicted.
The UK was supposed to be in recession by now. We're not.
Things are not as bad as people predicted.
We've had this argument before, not everyone predicted and immediate recession, rather stifled growth compared to the global economy so out economy is contracting relatively. The more rational views have been pretty much spot on.
UK investment is only 2.1% compared to a 6% investment that should be expected.
Phase I only just survived but effectively fudged the issues into Phase II without resolving them.
The UK government has done no analysis on the impacts of leaving so is 'guessing'
Number of people employed is decreasing.
Food going rotten in fields
Increasing shortage of nurses as people leave the country
Still after 18 months you did manage to get a Tory blue passport cover (which you could have had anyway). So Wrexit has managed to achieve one thing that the EU didn't stop us having anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote: @whirlwind I agree we are more polarised as a society than we have been since the troubles ended, but that’s a situation that has been cultivated since the days of Tony Blair. He left us with the most appalling legacy. The GFA is no perfect solution folks. It institutionalised sectarianism. It legislated around it and made it a permanent feature in society. It didn’t heal anything it just put in place a permanent stalemate. Honestly that was never going to end well.
I remember at the time people who said that were told the agreement was a stepping stone to get us out of violence and once we moved on it would have to be replaced. It never was and sectarianism took deeper roots, without the violence to turn people off tribalism they flocked to it.
This was always going to be the way at least initially. It's going to take hundreds of years for this to resolve and perhaps longer. At it's base is a religious divide that's got to go first. Before anything progresses anyone that remembers anything has to die off until you get to a point where people don't even see the injustices both sides have inflicted on the other. Expecting anything to be solved in 20 years was never going to happen. Perhaps in 200...
And then one low-level action goes wrong and someone gets killed, the other side feels the need to retaliate and we're back in the same old circle.
I have to agree with Whirlwind that the situation you describe is worrying. From my own dealings in NI (which by chance are for the most part with Catholics) I can see both groups are for the most part separate, like a company with Catholic ownership will have +90% Catholic staff and the token Protestant to prove they're an equal opportunity employer. With a lot of dismissive attitudes regarding "the others".
I've no doubt things are much better in Pharma or the urban service economy but at the primary sector level out in the sticks the divide is still visible.
I agree the passport colour thing is too ridiculous for words. As a unionist living in NI I don’t care if my passport is pink with yellow spots as long as it still says United Kingdom on it. I’m not even overly fussed if it say EU I would prefer it didn’t but it’s not world end if it did.
Knockagh wrote: I agree the passport colour thing is too ridiculous for words. As a unionist living in NI I don’t care if my passport is pink with yellow spots as long as it still says United Kingdom on it. I’m not even overly fussed if it say EU I would prefer it didn’t but it’s not world end if it did.
My suspicion is that it's blue because that's the Tories colour. If their colour was orange it would have been that colour. It's just convenient for them that the old passports were that colour.
I think it would have made a greater statement if it was associated to a general principle rather than nationalistic ideology. For example it could have used the LGBT rainbow colours as a representative of being an inclusive nation for example. It would also make our passports truly unique and not stuck in the past of what used to be.
Knockagh wrote: Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.
“GFA is not damaged by Brexit and there will be no violence”
Two sentences later
“The good Friday agreement is damaged by Brexit and SF are trying to use it to o cause chaos”...
Right...
No one is pushing for Dublin’s involvement, but like it or not they have an interest and part of the reason for the good Friday agreement working was the very fact of the closer integration and freedoms between EU countries. Brexit shreds all of this. We may not return to the bombings we have seen in the past, but sectarian violence will go up if there is a boarder.
Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.
In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.
On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.
Knockagh wrote: Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.
“GFA is not damaged by Brexit and there will be no violence”
Two sentences later
“The good Friday agreement is damaged by Brexit and SF are trying to use it to o cause chaos”...
Right...
No one is pushing for Dublin’s involvement, but like it or not they have an interest and part of the reason for the good Friday agreement working was the very fact of the closer integration and freedoms between EU countries. Brexit shreds all of this. We may not return to the bombings we have seen in the past, but sectarian violence will go up if there is a boarder.
Sorry Steve I’m desperately trying to find that second quote your attributing to me? Maybe you could point it out? Because it’s not there.
What I said was “Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste” a little different Steve. Please don’t make things up.
Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.
In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.
On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.
Having expereinced several "Branding" processes - this would have cost a fortune to have even got to this stage - vast sums wasted.
Knockagh wrote: Steve no offence but you need to think a little. Your views on NI are fairly naive. Saying a visible border will cause people to die is silly.
Remember the last border economic checkpoints were imposed by the ROI not NI or the UK and subsequent checkpoints were more interested in stopping Semtex than petrol or people.
The GFA is in no way damaged by Brexit. Point me to the paragraphs you are talking about? What is damaging the GFA is the threats from the government in ROI that they will push for joint authority in NI which there is no provision for in the GFA. It also reneges on their removing articles 2&3 from their constitution meaning they agreed to remove any claim of sovereignty they desired over NI. This was the key to the loyalist ceasefire and any attempt to roll this back by remainers by hyping up sectarian tensions and pushing for Dublin interference in NI affairs to further their own agenda will not be looked kindly on by loyalists.
Setting all that aside the GFA is effectively dead anyway. No one is seeing a way through the mess SF have created. Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste. ‘Never waste a crisis’ he said. What we need here is calm space not either side using us or speaking naively about a situation they haven’t given a toss about in decades.
“GFA is not damaged by Brexit and there will be no violence”
Two sentences later
“The good Friday agreement is damaged by Brexit and SF are trying to use it to o cause chaos”...
Right...
No one is pushing for Dublin’s involvement, but like it or not they have an interest and part of the reason for the good Friday agreement working was the very fact of the closer integration and freedoms between EU countries. Brexit shreds all of this. We may not return to the bombings we have seen in the past, but sectarian violence will go up if there is a boarder.
Sorry Steve I’m desperately trying to find that second quote your attributing to me? Maybe you could point it out? Because it’s not there.
What I said was “Don’t forget Gerry Adams himself said Brexit was an opportunity for Chaos in NI he wasn’t going to waste” a little different Steve. Please don’t make things up.
I don’t think that me reading Chaos as a synonym for violence is unreasonable in the context of this:
Knockagh wrote: I don’t think there is any possibility of any full scale resumption of violence at all from any group. We already have low level republican violence but I can’t see it getting momentum again nor can I see the groups getting access to weapons as they previously did. But we could see more low level stuff.
I’m just saying if you are going to get all wrapped up over a possIble return to violence from republican groups remember that your pandering to them will have a cause and effect in the loyalist community. All I’ve heard from mainland remainers is how much republican violence could return. They forget or don’t care that as they shout this loyalists are listening. And their communities will demand they respond in defence or attack. I’m even more concerned or annoyed if you like by leavers using the border to try and further their cause not realising or caring that they are destabilising NI by allowing Sinn Fein to piggyback on their stupidity to cause further chaos.
Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.
In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.
On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.
Having expereinced several "Branding" processes - this would have cost a fortune to have even got to this stage - vast sums wasted.
It’s a real waste if the army want to do the rebranding of their recruitment, do the consulting, find something they want then the government stick their nose in. This seems like political medaling in something they don’t need to be involved in.
It a direct misquote which you put into quotation marks and it doesn’t reflect what i said in anyway. Why would you put it in quote marks if not to deliberately misconstrue what I was saying?
You misconstrued my words to back up your claim that Brexit was a threat to the GFA. I was saying that Adams was using Brexit to threaten the union. Poles apart.
Although in a way I’m glad you did it because you’ve shown exactly what I was saying remainers we’re doing. Using the NI situation, without any care or knowledge of facts to back up their argument and all that does is allow people like Adams to feed the chaos.
It’s a real waste if the army want to do the rebranding of their recruitment, do the consulting, find something they want then the government stick their nose in. This seems like political medaling in something they don’t need to be involved in.
Gotta think of those negative tabloid headlines dontcha know That said I don't see what's wrong with "be the best" being elitist and non-inclusive(and calling it dated totally baffles me). Surely that's the whole point? Don't the armed forces want to attract people who want to push themselves and be challenged?
The research also found the Army's crest - depicting crossed swords, a crown and a lion - to be "non-inclusive" and recommended replacing both with a union jack with the word ARMY in bold underneath.
I don’t even understand what this means. How is the lion, crown and swords not ‘inclusive’? Who is it excluding exactly? Replacing the army’s crest with something so generic doesnt strike me as a solution to anything at all, just stripping the character of something.
Maybe it's the crown? If you're a republican you might not like the idea of serving the crown but want to serve your country Perhaps second generation immigrants too, those who feel British but still have a negative opinion of the crown. Would have to wonder though how many people this is actually stopping joining up.
The research also found the Army's crest - depicting crossed swords, a crown and a lion - to be "non-inclusive" and recommended replacing both with a union jack with the word ARMY in bold underneath.
I don’t even understand what this means. How is the lion, crown and swords not ‘inclusive’? Who is it excluding exactly? Replacing the army’s crest with something so generic doesnt strike me as a solution to anything at all, just stripping the character of something.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Maybe it's the crown? If you're a republican you might not like the idea of serving the crown but want to serve your country Perhaps second generation immigrants too, those who feel British but still have a negative opinion of the crown. Would have to wonder though how many people this is actually stopping joining up.
I would like to think that this is a case of 'political correctness' where the issue is with those creating the rules. Maybe even trying to find something to justify change.
Of course it would be interesting to see data on this.
Howard A Treesong wrote:British armed forces make their allegiance to the queen so if you don’t like a crown on the logo you’ve got a problem.
Fair enough, makes the objection to the crown seem odd then if it's so ingrained in army life, I'd always assumed it was a superficial involvement they had with her.
Is it a Hippocratic oath type affair or something that they make automatically when they sign up?
Mr. Burning wrote: I would like to think that this is a case of 'political correctness' where the issue is with those creating the rules. Maybe even trying to find something to justify change.
Of course it would be interesting to see data on this.
I suspect its less people wanting to justify the change and more wanting to justify there own jobs.
Ketara wrote: I can't imagine many people setting out to join the Army, then changing their minds because they disliked the logo.
To be fair the logo does look like it was designed in the early 70's. In a world where advertising to get a message across is key then having a modern logo might encourage those that haven't even considered it as a career and get them noticed.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: Maybe it's the crown? If you're a republican you might not like the idea of serving the crown but want to serve your country Perhaps second generation immigrants too, those who feel British but still have a negative opinion of the crown. Would have to wonder though how many people this is actually stopping joining up.
I would like to think that this is a case of 'political correctness' where the issue is with those creating the rules. Maybe even trying to find something to justify change.
Of course it would be interesting to see data on this.
Without seeing the reasons it is difficult to explain. However it may be that the younger generation have less empathy with the 'crown' as a symbol and might see it as the wealthy telling the poor what to do etc. (so hence protecting the rich). Also more and more younger people have diverse backgrounds where the crown might be considered reminiscent of a colonial era. It might not just be political correctness, people may simply view it as representing something they don't believe in (even if they do believe in defending the country).
"Best of the Best" could put people off if they don't think they are the best (which realistically they are not, because none of us are). It might also foster elitism in that on day one those at the top might deem themselves better and those at the bottom might be 'bullied' for it (despite the fact that with proper training they could be better then these people).
To be honest this has even more worrying undertones than I think you are realising. We have:-
More people are potentially exposed to 'extreme' views than there was during the troubles
They are still willing to use violence to meet their aims
There are many young people, which although lacks experience implies, the Nationalists/Unionists divide isn't healing quickly (though both DUP and SF have to take some blame here)
They are currently leaderless, without an overall aim. However as shown by Wrexit give people a simple answer and a 'charismatic' leader that is willing to spout nonsense and then all of a sudden you have a larger number of people with one aim (and any type of border could be a catalyst).
Young, stupid, and armed to the teeth. Sounds like all that's left is scream 'Fág an Bealach' and point at something, and the shooting starts all over again.
welshhoppo wrote: If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.
The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.
welshhoppo wrote: If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.
The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.
4) Remaining in the EU after another referendum
5) Leaving the EU but maintaining free trade and freedom of movement (which is the default position if nothing is agreed).
Four is not happening (A Lib Dem amendment for a second ref was voted away overwhelmingly) and five is not the default position if nothing is agreed. If there is no agreement the default position is the so called "hard brexit".
The issues with NI/Eire is freedom of movement and not giving those that associate themselves with the EIRE the ability to move forward and backwards between them freely.
I tapped up an old friend, more of a facebook friend these days, who was one of the many (many) junior level spin doctors back in the Tony Blair days. Supposedly the fudge that's been agreed so far is to encourage NI citizens to get Irish passports while they can, and after brexit said citizens will be able to cross the border back and forth using whichever passport they prefer, which in practice will mean taking both (one for each direction). The effect should be a relatively seamless passage for those that desire it.
We've had this argument before, not everyone predicted and immediate recession, rather stifled growth compared to the global economy so out economy is contracting relatively. The more rational views have been pretty much spot on. IMF prediction is within 0.1%. UK investment is only 2.1% compared to a 6% investment that should be expected. Phase I only just survived but effectively fudged the issues into Phase II without resolving them. The UK government has done no analysis on the impacts of leaving so is 'guessing'. Number of people employed is decreasing. Food going rotten in fields. Increasing shortage of nurses as people leave the country.
So we're back to the "recession that isn't a recession, but let's pretend there is". Much like how you're bemoaning the employment figure, despite the fact that this year employment hit its highest level since records began (we're talking more than 40 years), but just because it dipped below the peak you're now wailing into the wind that it's the end of the economy as we know it. You'd also do well to go a bit further down that BBC article, where you'll notice we actually outperformed the original IMF prediction (wonder why you didn't mention that eh...?) till they revised it mid-year having realised what a boo boo they'd made. But then this is the IMF we're talking about, who have successfully managed to predict virtually all since their founding. On the plus side, maybe the farmers you mentioned will start dipping into their pockets a little and offering a much better wage, to whomever takes it (local or not).
Whirlwind wrote:My suspicion is that it's blue because that's the Tories colour. If their colour was orange it would have been that colour. It's just convenient for them that the old passports were that colour.
It's blue purely because that's the colour they used to be. You're now reading things into the colour of the passport that aren't there. I can only imagine the level of hatred you have for the Tories. And sympathise frankly. Whatever made you hate them that much must have been pretty bad.
Not sure what I think about this. The government has fethed around with the armed services so much that we are now having to pay bonuses to re-recruit soldiers discharged a few years ago to save money, because there aren't enough personnel to cover our commitments.
In such an environment, a re-branding exercise seems a waste of time and effort. OTOH, if the modern generation don't "woke" to slogans like "Be the Best" maybe it would be a good move.
On the third hand, part of the morale of the armed forces is based on tradition.
If you want to understand this, look up an evidence session by Gen. Sir Nick Carter to the defence select committee, or even just one of his speeches. Trust me. You'll read it for a few minutes and everything will make immediate sense. The guy couldn't order a cup of tea without turning it into an exercise in management speak. He's primed for a career after the army full of change management and blue sky thinking. Oh, and then there's Capita who run the army's recruitment system, which has so far been a disaster of a truly epic scale and leaves everyone asking that most intriguing question of our age "How the is Capita still in business?". They make Teflon Tony look like he was made of superglue.
I had my attestation before I arrived at basic training - I did it in the recruiting centre as I recall. In year's past, it used to be known as taking the king's shilling. If you didn't want to swear to God you could make it non-denominational but I don't recall an option to not swear allegiance to the crown. Mind you, my attestation was 15 years ago now.
I do remember having to explain to my training CO the difference between atheism and agnosticism. He wanted to be sure I had specified the right option.
welshhoppo wrote: If you have issues with the Crown, you probably have issues with the ROYAL Navy, the ROYAL Air force, the ROYAL Marines and the ROYAL Tank Regiment.
The only armed force that isn't Royal is the army, thanks to a that business with Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England.
That's not strictly correct because you can still have 'Royal' in front of a name as it can be used to reference that it was chartered by a king or queen. Hence you can call something 'Royal' without having to be directly linked.
Four is not happening (A Lib Dem amendment for a second ref was voted away overwhelmingly) and five is not the default position if nothing is agreed. If there is no agreement the default position is the so called "hard brexit".
Never say never, a year is a long time in politics and both sides seem to be gearing up for a new referendum and there's increasing arguments for and against. That would imply an undercurrent argument, even if the neither the Tories or Labour (yet) are willing to back the idea.
I tapped up an old friend, more of a facebook friend these days, who was one of the many (many) junior level spin doctors back in the Tony Blair days. Supposedly the fudge that's been agreed so far is to encourage NI citizens to get Irish passports while they can, and after brexit said citizens will be able to cross the border back and forth using whichever passport they prefer, which in practice will mean taking both (one for each direction). The effect should be a relatively seamless passage for those that desire it.
I think again you are missing the point. Humans are emotional creatures and a fudge will be seen as that. You can't just wave a wand and say "but you've all got Irish passports now" if that still requires checks at the borders. That creates a divide that is explicitly to be avoided in GFA.
So we're back to the "recession that isn't a recession, but let's pretend there is". Much like how you're bemoaning the employment figure, despite the fact that this year employment hit its highest level since records began (we're talking more than 40 years), but just because it dipped below the peak you're now wailing into the wind that it's the end of the economy as we know it. You'd also do well to go a bit further down that BBC article, where you'll notice we actually outperformed the original IMF prediction (wonder why you didn't mention that eh...?) till they revised it mid-year having realised what a boo boo they'd made. But then this is the IMF we're talking about, who have successfully managed to predict virtually all since their founding. On the plus side, maybe the farmers you mentioned will start dipping into their pockets a little and offering a much better wage, to whomever takes it (local or not).
Except you are wrong the IMF did predict the outcomes. They were within 0.1%, of the actual effects, yes they revised it but that's what they do, however the 0.1% references their prediction at the time of the referendum 18 months ago (did you read the article? - underlined for word blindness).
"The numbers that we are seeing the economy deliver today are actually proving the point we made a year and a half ago when people said, you are too gloomy," she said.
"We were not too gloomy, we were pretty much on the mark, I mean within 0.1% or so - our forecast actually turned out to be the reality of the economy.
"Sterling has depreciated, inflation has gone up, wages have been squeezed as a result, and investments have been slowed down and are certainly lower than where we would expect them to be."
That was the point of the article... And yes I'm not going over the same old ground. If you want to live in a fairy tale land where only a recession means our economy is weakening then that's up to you. You are cherry picking the figures to suit. For example overall unemployment is down which is correct, but employment levels are also falling. That means less income and growth overall. There are effectively less jobs. Unemployment is going down because people are leaving and retiring faster than we are replacing them. Long term that will mean lower growth barring a robotic revolution that the rest of the world forget about.
I can only imagine the level of hatred you have for the Tories. And sympathise frankly. Whatever made you hate them that much must have been pretty bad.
I don't think there is much reason not to given how badly they are screwing over the country now and for future generations.
Whirlwind wrote: Except you are wrong the IMF did predict the outcomes. They were within 0.1%, of the actual effects, yes they revised it but that's what they do, however the 0.1% references their prediction at the time of the referendum 18 months ago (did you read the article? - underlined for word blindness).
Except at the time of the referendum, the report they produced was actually just an averaging of other peoples scenario papers. If they hadn't included a prominent leave paper "their" limited prediction would have been miles off. More to the point, the second scenario included was the adverse scenario, which is the one Christine LaGarde et al supported at the time. That one predicted a significant recession and came nowhere near the actual figures. So in a word, no, they didn't come close. They had a two horse race going and they backed the wrong one.
If you want to live in a fairy tale land where only a recession means our economy is weakening then that's up to you. You are cherry picking the figures to suit.
A more ironic comment could not have been made. I get it, you hate the Tories, you hate Brexit (or Wrexit as you call it) and you're oddly upset that the country hasn't disappeared in a fire ball, but the fact is things are going well and they're going to keep going well, and screaming to the hills about faux recessions is not going to change that.
It's good that the country hasn't exploded in a fireball, but big economies take time to wind down.
The effects of investment in infrastructure, education and so on take [probably 1 to 10] years to feed through. British investment has been lagging for 10 years, and while we've maintained job levels, it is at the expense of wages and productivity.
The situation now is that most of the world has turned the corner on the financial crisis, and the UK hasn't. We are at the moment suffering the continued effect of uncertainty caused by Brexit.
If Brexit actually happens, we will also start to suffer the effects of the trade and skills slowdown caused by whatever settlement is arrived at. Because all of the available options are worse than what we have now.
Now, to look at the bright side, it is possible that after Brexit, the UK's trade negotiators will come up with a series of deals to replace the ones we are dropping out of, and (except for the EU deal) it is possible they may be better than what we've got now.
bouncingboredom wrote: More to the point, the second scenario included was the adverse scenario, which is the one Christine LaGarde et al supported at the time. That one predicted a significant recession and came nowhere near the actual figures. So in a word, no, they didn't come close. They had a two horse race going and they backed the wrong one.
All those scenarios were contingent on art50 being invoked immediately, which didn't happen despite that being what Cameron said he would do.
Everyone keep in mind that Brexit hasn't even happened yet.
bouncingboredom wrote: but the fact is things are going well and they're going to keep going well, and screaming to the hills about faux recessions is not going to change that.
You ignore thefact brexit isn't done yet. You still are #n single market. You still have banking passport. Both of those are going to be GONE. Especially banking. Banks have already started moving staff out of uk and once passports gone more follows. You have no chance to keep that passport. Too many workplaces and money for eu to not take them and many countries are already aiming to get them and effect to uk is irrelevant for eu. Eu wants those and uk has nothing to offer that's worth more than those.
However, this is the true potential of Brexit -- the big vision held by pro-Leave people.
I don't think that is quite correct. It will end well for the multi-millionaires and billionaires that manipulated the media etc as they will be in a position to exploit the circumstances and manipulate the government. These people are likely laughing all the way to the (Panama) banks.
It's highly unlikely to end well for everyone else. Still we'll get our blue passports whilst being forced to work 60 hours a week with no mandatory holiday so that's a plus right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bouncingboredom wrote: Except at the time of the referendum, the report they produced was actually just an averaging of other peoples scenario papers. If they hadn't included a prominent leave paper "their" limited prediction would have been miles off. More to the point, the second scenario included was the adverse scenario, which is the one Christine LaGarde et al supported at the time. That one predicted a significant recession and came nowhere near the actual figures. So in a word, no, they didn't come close. They had a two horse race going and they backed the wrong one.
I'm not quite sure how that makes any sense? They produced multiple reports calling information from different sources. That's not a particular issues as it happens all the time. Climate change reports aren't all from one group, they amalgamate all the different models and identify what they think is most likely. By producing the reports you provide information on the different possibilities. Nevertheless as you've now admitted the IMF were in fact correct with their predictions from 18 months ago.
It's highly unlikely to end well for everyone else. Still we'll get our blue passports whilst being forced to work 60 hours a week with no mandatory holiday so that's a plus right?
I take it we'll see a "Whirlwind for Parliament" next go round, whenever that will be, then?
It's highly unlikely to end well for everyone else. Still we'll get our blue passports whilst being forced to work 60 hours a week with no mandatory holiday so that's a plus right?
I take it we'll see a "Whirlwind for Parliament" next go round, whenever that will be, then?
Not sure whether being serious?? But I'll take it as a compliment...
The basics of this article are that the German Foreign Minister thinks a special trade deal for the UK could be a way to get countries like Turkey and Ukraine closer to the EU without letting them in (due to human rights abuses, etc.)
This seems a positive sign.
Automatically Appended Next Post: [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329]Universities could face fines over 'no-platforming.'
This is an odd one.
On the one hand, I completely agree that universities should be places where people are intellectually challenged with ideas they don't agree with.
On the other hand, I don't think it's the government's place to go around trying to achieve "free speech" by force. Similar to my opiniion that you can't achieve liberal democracy at the point of a bayonet.
Some of the people being ‘no platformed’ is getting ridiculous. It’s painted as though the left wing are shutting out the right wing, but it’s much more cynical than that, it’s censorship within left wing groups, part of some ideological one upmanship. There is a growing attitude that if you don’t enthusiastically support all the progressive movements, you’re the wrong sort of left wing and are prime for attack. When people like Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell are being turned away from events, it’s not right. They’ve done a great deal for different causes and a lot of people are keen to hear them, but because they don’t unquestioningly support certain other progressive movements they become the targets for those with some authority, say NUS leaders at universities, trying to make a name for themselves.
It’s not like turning away the Ku Klux Klan, when you turn away gay rights and feminist activists on absurd excuses like ‘transphobia’, which likely have no relevance to the debate/lecture topic anyway, it’s because you are either using it as a publicity stunt or you actually fear people listening to viewpoints that differ even slightly to your own.
You can spout and vomit forth any old opinion or bile you want. Doesn’t mean I have to provide you with a platform so it patters down upon the masses.
There’s an awful lot of bullshitters out there who say one thing, but do another. And that on all ends of the political spectrum. Sad little losers like Farage and Galloway who both need their heads kicked in to illustrate that their brand of politics is in fact bollocks based on lies and obfuscation of facts.
Nobody. And I mean nobody, should feel obliged to give such mindless, media hungry, cretins the oxygen of publicity.
I agree that no one should be forced to provide a platform, however, who decides who should be heard or not? That's a slippery slope. I'd rather Katie Hopkins was heard, and challenged than provided with the media fuel of being "banned" from speaking.
Actually I'd rather she was ejected into a huge pile of burning garbage, but you can't have everything.
Mr Johnson is about to get himself in to a big mess, because he is doing what all Tory MPs do and listening to the right wing press rather than the experts.
These are the issues with what he wants as I see them:
Much no platforming is down to student unions not universities. Totally separate, and for university management to interfere in student lead organisations would be totally wrong.
Another large batch of claims is down to internal politics. Researchers blaming it for their research being refused, when there are many other reasons, but this is being used by them to push their research and their profiles
This could run counter to universities obligations under the 2015 Counter Terrorism and Security Act. What happens if someone wants to speak in favour of a Middle East caliphate? Or a far right group wants to speak?
Much of this is driven by right wing anger. Sometimes safe spaces are needed. Some times it is used to shut down opposing views, but sometimes people need space to talk. Do you allow someone from Diageo to speak at an AA meeting?
This is a blunt hammer used to do something that, frankly, is driven by the right wing press, from a point of ignorance, and ignoring the fact that universities may get some public funding but are private institutions. The one I work for only gets about 1/5th if it’s funding in student fees, and only about 1/3rd from the government when you included other grants.
This is all down to universities being largely anti-brexit and the right wing fear that their side of the story is being banned rather than just ignored? That if they can force students to listen to pro brexit propoganda they'll get behind it?
I wonder if it's related to that guy who was asking about brexit related material and lectures?
They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.
I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?
My understanding is that they can debate them, they don't have to just sit and listen to them spout bollocks.
There's an issue in many fringe groups, however, where disagreement with them and debate against them is seen as attempts to silence them.
If they can't hold their own in a debate, then maybe they should have a think about whether they actually believe, and can defend the gak they come out with. If they can't, that's their problem, not mine.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
Yep, Fake News is the antidote to all those things you don't like to hear.
That and Alt-Facts.
It's fething bollocks. Anyone who says those things should be shot in the face, no trial, no debate, straight execution.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
Yep, Fake News is the antidote to all those things you don't like to hear.
That and Alt-Facts.
It's fething bollocks. Anyone who says those things should be shot in the face, no trial, no debate, straight execution.
I think a more humane approach is needed, whereby they are strapped down and forced to watch as it is explained in minute detail, starting from the absolute basics of whatever discipline their false belief lies in, why they are wrong and there are no alternative interpretations.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
Absolutely.
It's a sensible position to hold if you can use reason to come to your conclusions and are capable of changing your mind when provided with evidence that shows your original position to be false. However, we live in a world that voted Trump into office, where the ideology of ISIS has some Caucasian Europeans rushing off to Syria, and a pathetic amount of humanity thinks there's a "controversy" with regards to global warming. Reason and evidence might as well take a running swan dive.
A lot of the people that are being denied a platform at these universities are demagogues. They hold fanatical positions devoid of reason and evidence.
That this is being argued as a case of "free speech" is utter rot. Nobody is preventing you from sharting that filth from your mouth, but nobody need be responsible for giving you a platform to spray everybody with.
They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.
I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?
When somebody starts taking about "free speech" (on campuses or anywhere else) it often just means their speech (and speech similar to theirs) and not yours, stuff like this. And it often works because the people who can effect change (or have the power to do something) are usually the ones who are not affected by this type of "free speech" absolutism (which stops being absolute the moment anybody says something they don't like). That the status quo might have negative effects on the free speech of minorities doesn't even register as long as their own "free speech" is secured. And dissident from anyone is seen as infringing on their free speech (instead of it being free speech from others that's criticising their bs) just because those people are used to not hearing or being affected by opposition until that moment. Ask them if that also applies to ISIS propaganda or comprehensive high school sex education (including LGBT issues) and you'll probably find their limits to free speech very quickly.
Also I want to address the "the students" bit. That doesn't apply too much here in Germany but in the US, and to a degree in the UK, students pay huge semester fees so they are also the customers in this relationship. That's also a reason why those campus protests are so controversial over there. They want students to be customers and pay but they don't want to have to deal with customer support when students are pissed of at something (like inviting some useless "contrarian" to give a talk).
Kilkrazy wrote:I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
It's not like counted for much in the 30s and things haven't changed much. We are in period of economic stagnation for the poor and middle-class with the 2008 recession to fuel that type of misguided populism. If you don't give a feth then you'll be able to manipulate your way into power. Read Eco's Ur-Fascism (there's a list a bit past the halfway mark), the same emotionally manipulative tactics are being used, nothing has changed. The difference is now you can target your audience a bit better and are (to a degree) protected if you work careful enough and wrap yourself in enough talk of patriotism (instead of nationalism) and use new words to describe the same, or similar, policies. You (or people like you) even get nice write ups in the New York Time. One would hope the NYT could learn from its own past but apparently that's too much to ask for (link with quotes if the NYT link ones doesn't work).
In short: The truth doesn't matter if your opponents just ignores it and goes for the emotional appeal while, of course, applying the "rational" label to their side. You are fighting a defensive battle (debunking their "misinformation") and spending more time on that they they do on crafting those statements and you'll just lose in the end. They also call your counter-argument with citations "fake news" so their followers don't even trust your facts and everybody else (the people you want to dissuade from siding with that rhetoric) is just sitting confused in the middle of it all.
They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.
Errrr....no? For the most part, guest speakers at University are communicated with, invited, ferried from the station, introduced, given drinks afterwards, and waved off by the academic staff. Most students never bother to turn up. Heck, most postgrads don't. It's only when it's somebody the NUS dislikes or somesuch that a speaker is suddenly prominent enough to be barred.
To put it bluntly, why should the desire of a bunch of students to not listen to somebody dictate what speakers I'm allowed to invite for a talk/lecture? That's them getting to decide not who they would like to listen or give a platform to, but me as well. How would you like it if when you wanted to watch a documentary on the telly, your neighbours took a vote on whether or not they should come over and turn it off?
In the same manner of 'your right to swing your fist ends at my face', their right to decide who they want to listen to ends when it begins to restrict who I can listen to/interact with. If they don't like the person (for whatever reason), they are free to either not attend, or if they absolutely have to protest, stand outside peacefully with a placard. A small batch of students not liking somebody or not feeling comfortable with them doesn't give them the right to decide who the department invites in to listen to a talk from.
The basics of this article are that the German Foreign Minister thinks a special trade deal for the UK could be a way to get countries like Turkey and Ukraine closer to the EU without letting them in (due to human rights abuses, etc.)
This seems a positive sign.
I did say several months back that the logical foreign policy approach to Brexit was something of a combined arms one; where we should pull together all the people in a similar position to us and set up some kind of general negotiating position for access to the common market without the political unification. Thus making it less about 'Brexit Britain' and more about, Hey, there's a group of us who want something, let's sit down and work it out'.
Unfortunately, Bumbler Boris has yet to stop salivating over the PM's seat long enough to do his job.
It definitely seems best to allow contraversial guests to attend and be protested / ignored, since it prevents any claims of foul play.
I think students do have a right to be pissed off if their money is being spent bringing and entertaining nasty individuals - they'll spend most of their university career being told there isn't enough money.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
That has never worked in reality. Allowing people a platform gives legitimacy to their views. The BBC has had issues with this around Brexit and global warming recently. In their attempts to be impartial they have ended up giving extreme and minority beliefs that are demonstrably false legitimacy. Those with extreme views use rules like this to give themselves legitimacy. Complain that any attempt to argue with them is censorship. This is exactly what has happened with creationism in some US schools.
Sometimes it is legitimate to say someone’s views are not welcome. That’s why the UK government does refuse visas to some people. This is just the right wing press getting their pants in a twist because views they hold are becoming less and less acceptable.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
That has never worked in reality. Allowing people a platform gives legitimacy to their views. The BBC has had issues with this around Brexit and global warming recently. In their attempts to be impartial they have ended up giving extreme and minority beliefs that are demonstrably false legitimacy. Those with extreme views use rules like this to give themselves legitimacy. Complain that any attempt to argue with them is censorship. This is exactly what has happened with creationism in some US schools.
Sometimes it is legitimate to say someone’s views are not welcome. That’s why the UK government does refuse visas to some people. This is just the right wing press getting their pants in a twist because views they hold are becoming less and less acceptable.
This is very much a problem. Leaving behind Wrexit for a moment as in some ways it is more based on ideology, the BBCs approach on Climate Change has and continues to provide a misleading visual impression. By having a one vs one debate argument it gives the impression that the argument is equally weighted on both sides. In reality it should be about 1000 on one side and one on the other when considering the scientific evidence. Hence although the BBC are trying to give both sides a view it artificially raises the profile of the climate change deniers. This is compounded by the journalists not having the scientific knowledge to ask really probing questions of both parties. As such you get very science light questions which also gives the opportunity for 'deniers' to spout nonsense without the opportunity to show what they are saying is incorrect at the scientific level.
Unfortunately, Bumbler Boris has yet to stop salivating over the PM's seat long enough to do his job.
I think we may be waiting a long time....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The thing with proving trump wrong is that he's moved onto the next lie by time you're done fact checking. Facts are always slower than liars.
Agreed. There was an article I read (think it was new scientist) about a "person on the other side of the Atlantic that shall not be named" and the strategy they take. It is literally this, keep on spouting nonsense but change it so quickly that the people arguing against it literally do not have chance to fact check everything; hence that encourages quick responses where if they can be shown to be wrong you jump on them for false news etc. If they don't bite then by the time they come back with the evidence they've moved onto something completely different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: A lot of the people that are being denied a platform at these universities are demagogues. They hold fanatical positions devoid of reason and evidence.
That this is being argued as a case of "free speech" is utter rot. Nobody is preventing you from sharting that filth from your mouth, but nobody need be responsible for giving you a platform to spray everybody with.
It's ironic of course that the Tories espouse this "free speech" approach but at any of their own events (and to be fair applies to Labour too) such as during the election they specifically manage their own crowds to avoid any awkward questions and to have such debates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
The problem is that some studies have shown that as a populace we can become even more hardlined when showed evidence or arguments that proves us wrong. That as a species we will actively resist being shown to being wrong and that can further entrench their views making people more fanatical in that regard.
I think students do have a right to be pissed off if their money is being spent bringing and entertaining nasty individuals - they'll spend most of their university career being told there isn't enough money.
Students also get pissed off if you don't give them easy marks, dare to have a statue up of a historic figure, and threaten to suspend them for cheating. Or should I say, some students do. Part of running an institution is learning what are genuine widely held student concerns which should be catered for (open access to poorer/disadvantaged students, more sanitary halls, etc), and what's just pandering to a few large children screaming that people aren't doing what they say.
Not to mention that Universities usually have other cash flows (rents, grants, etc). Just because you pay your undergrad fee in no way means you should get to control who academic staff invite in for a talk, anymore than taking out a loan at Barclays lets you fire an employee at your local branch. Sure you're making use of a service they provide which gives them capital, but that doesn't mean you own/run the place.
Thousands of government papers detailing some of the most controversial episodes in 20th-century British history have vanished after civil servants removed them from the country’s National Archives and then reported them as lost.
Documents concerning the Falklands war, Northern Ireland’s Troubles and the infamous Zinoviev letter – in which MI6 officers plotted to bring about the downfall of the first Labour government - are all said to have been misplaced.
Other missing files concern the British colonial administration in Palestine, tests on polio vaccines and long-running territorial disputes between the UK and Argentina.
Almost 1,000 files, each thought to contain dozens of papers, are affected. In most instances the entire file is said to have been mislaid after being removed from public view at the archives and taken back to Whitehall.
An entire file on the Zinoviev letter scandal is said to have been lost after Home Office civil servants took it away. The Home Office declined to say why it was taken or when or how it was lost. Nor would its say whether any copies had been made.
In other instances, papers from within files have been carefully selected and taken away.
Foreign Office officials removed a small number of papers in 2015 from a file concerning the 1978 murder of Georgi Markov, a dissident Bulgarian journalist who died after being shot in the leg with a tiny pellet containing ricin while crossing Waterloo Bridge in central London.
The Foreign Office subsequently told the National Archives that the papers taken were nowhere to be found.
After being questioned by the Guardian, it said it had managed to locate most of the papers and return them to the archives. A couple, however, are still missing. The FO declined to say why it had taken the papers, or whether it had copies.
Other files the National Archives has listed as “misplaced while on loan to government department” include one concerning the activities of the Communist party of Great Britain at the height of the cold war; another detailing the way in which the British government took possession of Russian government funds held in British banks after the 1917 revolution; an assessment for government ministers on the security situation in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s; and three files about defence agreements between the UK and newly independent Malaya in the late 1950s, shortly before the two countries went to war with Indonesia.
The disappearances highlight the ease with which government departments can commandeer official papers long after they have been declassified and made available to historians and the public at the archives at Kew, south-west London.
A Freedom of Information Act request in 2014 showed that 9,308 files were returned to government departments in this way in 2011. The following year 7,122 files were loaned out, and 7,468 in 2013. The National Archives says Whitehall departments are strongly encouraged to promptly return them, but they are not under any obligation to do so.
“The National Archives regularly sends lists to government departments of files that they have out on loan,” a spokesperson said. “If we are notified that a file is missing, we do ask what actions have been done and what action is being taken to find the file.”
Some historians have been particularly distrustful of the Foreign Office since 2013, when the Guardian disclosed that the department had been unlawfully hoarding 1.2m historical files at a high-security compound near Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire.
The hoard came to light during high court proceedings brought by a group of elderly Kenyans who were detained and abused during the Mau Mau insurgency in 1950s Kenya, when the Foreign Office admitted it had withheld thousands of colonial-era files.
A few years earlier, the Ministry of Defence refused to consider a number of files for release under the Freedom of Information Act on the grounds that they may have been exposed to asbestos
The files concerned such matters as arms sales to Saudi Arabia, UK special forces operations against Indonesia and interrogation techniques. The MoD denied it was using the presence of asbestos in an old archive building as an excuse to suppress the documents.
The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman said to have been "roasted alive"; and papers detailing the lengths to which the UK went to forcibly remove islanders from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
However, among the documents are a handful which show that many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".
Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948; most of the sensitive documents kept by colonial authorities in Aden, where the army's Intelligence Corps operated a secret torture centre for several years in the 1960s; and every sensitive document kept by the authorities in British Guiana, a colony whose policies were heavily influenced by successive US governments and whose post-independence leader was toppled in a coup orchestrated by the CIA.
Eh. Half and half on that one. Some files probably have been 'lost', but at the same time, different people in different government departments borrow different files all the time, and it would be a bit impractical to service an FOI request asking why each one of several thousand different files out at one time were borrowed. Even when it came to the 'hidden' FO files, there are similar repositories all over the place you can't generally access (the Admiralty library at Portsmouth has large numbers of original documents locked away, for example).
That being said, as someone who's needed a file from the National Archives only to discover it's been loaned out with no return date, I'd rather they just paid for civil servants to go to Kew or made a copy for them. I consider it somewhat irresponsible to just send out documents the way they do.
I think students do have a right to be pissed off if their money is being spent bringing and entertaining nasty individuals - they'll spend most of their university career being told there isn't enough money.
Students also get pissed off if you don't give them easy marks, dare to have a statue up of a historic figure, and threaten to suspend them for cheating. Or should I say, some students do. Part of running an institution is learning what are genuine widely held student concerns which should be catered for (open access to poorer/disadvantaged students, more sanitary halls, etc), and what's just pandering to a few large children screaming that people aren't doing what they say.
Not to mention that Universities usually have other cash flows (rents, grants, etc). Just because you pay your undergrad fee in no way means you should get to control who academic staff invite in for a talk, anymore than taking out a loan at Barclays lets you fire an employee at your local branch. Sure you're making use of a service they provide which gives them capital, but that doesn't mean you own/run the place.
Britain First - Liars, racists and bigots. They need the oxygen of publicity. They do ISIS' work for them.
Katie Hopkins - Liar, racist and bigot. She needs the oxygen of publicity. She does ISIS' work for them.
These are the sorts that have earned No Platform. And all through their own vile efforts to drive divisions in the UK. They're so far removed from the truth, one simply cannot debate them - they'll just spout more lies to cover their tracks and discredit their (many, many) critics.
It's not the Uni Students we have to worry about. It's the Far Right being normalised, rationalised and acknowledged. Just gives credence to their hatred. Far Left too for that matter. And who falls for that tripe? The under educated. Those who for the past couple of decades have been roundly told 'it's not your fault you've 23 kids, no teeth and no job. It's all those immygrunts' and fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Yeah, but it isn't the local BNP ambassador getting students all worked up, is it? It's Hen Mazzig, or Germaine Greer or Maryam Namazie. The minute you put into place levers which allow people you don't like to be blacklisted, you put into place levers to prevent those who you wouldn't mind talking.
Morality, political opinion, and various other things are highly subjective. If someone is in favour of trying to control who academic staff or student societies, or indeed, anyone can invite in to talk to them, they've become nothing more than an opponent of free speech. Much like the old school communists, they're just trying to control what other people can see, hear, and experience for fear that they might dare to have the 'wrong' idea. It's a patronising and thoroughly incompatible attitude with the entire ethos of higher education or free speech.
I do seem to remember students kicking up a fuss over someone a few years back, so it got to the point where they refused to host them.
I think it was Warick?
But if you are that opposed I don't think you should refuse them because that just gains sympathy. Instead, actually debate their arguments in person and you'll get a somewhat better response.
The other thing is saying the ‘students chose’ but the choice is really made by handful of people in the local NUS who were voted there by almost no one. If students don’t like a speaker they are free to leave, that’s freedom. I sure as hell wouldn’t sit around to hear the likes of Katie Hopkins but I wouldn’t demand she be no-platformed.
I only touched briefly on student politics though running a uni society, we were all required to attend various meetings where they held votes to pass motions. The process wa agonising, a load of self important no bodies trying to get some attention passing irrelevant motions like ‘an agreement to support the reduction of litter on campus’. Most students have little interest in student politics, hardly anyone actually votes in their elections, they’re voted in on hundreds not thousands of votes, and the amount of BS and grandstanding once they have this glimpse of power is pathetic. Which is exactly where these efforts to bar people like Germaine Greer come from. Most students couldn’t name their local president, and the first they’d interact with them is when they decide to bar a person they were hoping to hear speak at the Uni. Democracy my ass.
It shows how far we've come. My Twitter has had some discussion on this recently and there have people people sneering at Germaine Greer or sarcastically refer to her as ‘feminist’ in inverted commas because apparently she doesn’t count as one in the eyes of some any more, because of her views on transsexuals. Barking mad. Literally everyone who isn’t 100% with them, is against them.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The other thing is saying the ‘students chose’ but the choice is really made by handful of people in the local NUS who were voted there by almost no one. If students don’t like a speaker they are free to leave, that’s freedom. I sure as hell wouldn’t sit around to hear the likes of Katie Hopkins but I wouldn’t demand she be no-platformed.
I only touched briefly on student politics though running a uni society, we were all required to attend various meetings where they held votes to pass motions. The process wa agonising, a load of self important no bodies trying to get some attention passing irrelevant motions like ‘an agreement to support the reduction of litter on campus’. Most students have little interest in student politics, hardly anyone actually votes in their elections, they’re voted in on hundreds not thousands of votes, and the amount of BS and grandstanding once they have this glimpse of power is pathetic. Which is exactly where these efforts to bar people like Germaine Greer come from. Most students couldn’t name their local president, and the first they’d interact with them is when they decide to bar a person they were hoping to hear speak at the Uni. Democracy my ass.
It shows how far we've come. My Twitter has had some discussion on this recently and there have people people sneering at Germaine Greer or sarcastically refer to her as ‘feminist’ in inverted commas because apparently she doesn’t count as one in the eyes of some any more, because of her views on transsexuals. Barking mad. Literally everyone who isn’t 100% with them, is against them.
That does remind me of a hilarious story from the last year of University.
The President of the Student Union wanted to ban BAE Systems from campus.
welshhoppo wrote: I do seem to remember students kicking up a fuss over someone a few years back, so it got to the point where they refused to host them.
I think it was Warick?
But if you are that opposed I don't think you should refuse them because that just gains sympathy. Instead, actually debate their arguments in person and you'll get a somewhat better response.
That was Maryam Namazie I think. She's (broadly) a seculist but views religions differently in that some are more 'enlightened' (in her view e.g. Christianity) versus Inquisitorial (in her view e.g. Islam) and pretty much disparages any chance that Islam can develop from where it currently is IIRC. Hence there is some opposition as there is a view that it is effectively bigotry/racism because a person is viewing people of different religions differently.
Some UCL students hurled abuse at Hen Mazzig when he came to do a speech, though generally unfairly as his history is to try and help both sides of the conflict. However he is associated with the military during a time when they have taken excessive actions against Palestine (justified or not is for another debate) but really that is the Israeli governments approach rather than an individual soldier (and I think everyone has to do military service?)
Germaine Greer gave a talk at Cardiff University but was subject to abuse/petition because of her views on transgenders, which summarily, her views are you are born either a woman and man and no amount of surgery can change that (obviously there is a lot more subtleties to all of these!).
That does remind me of a hilarious story from the last year of University.
The President of the Student Union wanted to ban BAE Systems from campus.
It did not go down well at all.
It's not that laughable, I know people that won't consider jobs or work with BAE (regardless of the money) because of their association with weapons and their use. It's in some ways a political stand, though I'm not sure a blanket ban is the way to go.
I think I would prefer that the student union can give a 10 minute talk at the beginning of any talk as to why they don't support the seminar. That provides the opportunity to put forward both arguments.
It's not that laughable, I know people that won't consider jobs or work with BAE (regardless of the money) because of their association with weapons and their use. It's in some ways a political stand, though I'm not sure a blanket ban is the way to go.
I think I would prefer that the student union can give a 10 minute talk at the beginning of any talk as to why they don't support the seminar. That provides the opportunity to put forward both arguments.
If Welshoppo went to Kent, then the SU tried to ban BAE from being at the careers fayre. Considering how big of an employer they are to graduates of the physical sciences, it was a completely ridiculous position. It is up to each of the individual graduates to determine who they want to work for and in what capacity. It was also a stance that completely ignores that there are many roles within BAE that are not designing weapons, such as their work in the space sector.
Many people have companies they wouldn’t work with. When I was unemployed and looking for lab work or technician jobs, I gave anything with animal testing a skip despite being desperate for work. I couldn’t do that, but it’s my choice, preventing organisations from recruiting opportunities is a bit patronising, it’s like people can’t be trusted to make up their own minds.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Many people have companies they wouldn’t work with. When I was unemployed and looking for lab work or technician jobs, I gave anything with animal testing a skip despite being desperate for work. I couldn’t do that, but it’s my choice, preventing organisations from recruiting opportunities is a bit patronising, it’s like people can’t be trusted to make up their own minds.
Exactly. To make things worse, the people pushing for the ban were often people who wouldn't be qualified to work for such a company anyway. They effectively impose their moral standard without needing to worry about their stance adversely affecting them in any way because they are boycotting an employer which they would never be employed by in the first place. The mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, engineers, chemists etc. lose out so those not studying the physical sciences or maths or computing can feel warm and fuzzy about making a stand which does nothing but harm the career prospects of some of their fellow students.
It's not that laughable, I know people that won't consider jobs or work with BAE (regardless of the money) because of their association with weapons and their use. It's in some ways a political stand, though I'm not sure a blanket ban is the way to go.
I think I would prefer that the student union can give a 10 minute talk at the beginning of any talk as to why they don't support the seminar. That provides the opportunity to put forward both arguments.
If Welshoppo went to Kent, then the SU tried to ban BAE from being at the careers fayre. Considering how big of an employer they are to graduates of the physical sciences, it was a completely ridiculous position. It is up to each of the individual graduates to determine who they want to work for and in what capacity. It was also a stance that completely ignores that there are many roles within BAE that are not designing weapons, such as their work in the space sector.
That's not really the point though. You can still go and work for BAE if you want to, send a CV etc. How many times have we here commented on the UKs position of selling arms to Saudi Arabia? It's not impossible for a political statement to be made by refusing them to advertise, especially if they then undertake a position to positively request other (non weapon based) manufacturers to come on site. If the students then oppose that then they should really vote for someone more rational next time. The point of a political body is that it makes a choice on behalf of the voting population.
But that's hard to do. You can get actual careers from jobs fayres. Also, this would have banned them from being on campus so do you think BAE would actively try and recruit from a campus that doesn't want them there?
If you oppose BAE, then it's your choice. But I'm sure a lot of Engineering students would love to work for them.
Kilkrazy wrote:The situation now is that most of the world has turned the corner on the financial crisis, and the UK hasn't.
We turned the corner on that about 3-4 years ago, while the Eurozone was busy making a right mess of Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
BaronIveagh wrote:You're negotiating when everyone knows your desperate for any kind of deal. I wouldn't expect anything good out of this.
The UK benefits from not having to protect as wide a variety of industries. The MFN system also effectively allows countries to freeboot off the back of everyone elses trade deals.
jouso wrote:All those scenarios were contingent on art50 being invoked immediately, which didn't happen despite that being what Cameron said he would do. Everyone keep in mind that Brexit hasn't even happened yet.
It's been invoked now. I don't see 500,000 people out of work.
tneva82 wrote:You still have banking passport. Both of those are going to be GONE. Especially banking. Banks have already started moving staff out of uk and once passports gone more follows. You have no chance to keep that passport. Too many workplaces and money for eu to not take them and many countries are already aiming to get them and effect to uk is irrelevant for eu. Eu wants those and uk has nothing to offer that's worth more than those.
Back in 2015 The European Securities and Markets Authority looked at the possibility of allowing non-EU fund managers access to the same passporting rights as EU members, providing of course they set up a subsidiary somewhere in the EU. Their conclusion was that there was no good reason not to do this and that it would help European markets overall. Chances are the passporting rights are coming to all non-EU fund managers (not just British ones) in the near future anyway. Brexit actually offers the EU a great chance to palm this off to the British government as a concession in negotiations when it's something they were looking at doing anyway. This is why British based banks are setting up subsidiaries in places like Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.
You need to understand firstly that banks are fantastically good at evading regulation. Politicians have spent the best part of 800 years trying to limit the excesses of banks and control their markets. So far they've achieved this successfully precisely 0 times. Secondly you need to understand the integrated nature of financial markets. A banker from Deutsche bank summed it up nicely by explaining that he thought Brexit would allow EU firms to take London's crumbs and make them into a pie. In other words, nobody on the continent (aside from some of the politicians) have any illusions that London is going to melt away and spread its wealth across the EU. You're talking about a city that employs almost 750,000 people in financial services alone, and that doesn't account for the other supporting elements distributed across the rest of the UK. EU bankers are savvy enough to understand that what they're looking at is the ability to skim off some of London's takings, but they neither expect nor indeed want to see a powerhouse like London suddenly collapse.
Whirlwind wrote:Nevertheless as you've now admitted the IMF were in fact correct with their predictions from 18 months ago.
Erm, no. They backed the adverse scenario and threw their weight behind it. They got it wrong.
On Freedom of speech - Trying to suppress freedom of speech seldom works the way people think it will. It is as dangerous to try and shut out certain voices as it is to air them out. By shutting someone like a Katie Hopkins out you're letting her play the victim and giving her the ammuntion to sit there and scream blue murder that she's being suppressed and the elites don't want to hear what she has to say etc. By putting her on a platform you force her to openly state her opinions and expose her arguments to critique. Now she can't hide behind anyone or claim she's a victim of political suppression by her opponents. Yes, it does mean you have to listen to her spout her , but on the plus side it exposes her for who she really is.
I don’t see 500,000 out of work, I see a lot more people caught in part time or zero hours contracts that get them off the unemployed stats but no where near being able to support themselves or have financial stability.
Why employ one person full time when you can fill the same hours with two or three that are at your beck and call, to work unsociable hours or fill in shifts at short notice, or simply be asked to not come in if it is a quiet week? Great for employers, great for the government, great for cutting back on benefits, terrible for those employed and their dependents.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don’t see 500,000 out of work, I see a lot more people caught in part time or zero hours contracts that get them off the unemployed stats but no where near being able to support themselves or have financial stability.
Why employ one person full time when you can fill the same hours with two or three that are at your beck and call, to work unsociable hours or fill in shifts at short notice, or simply be asked to not come in if it is a quiet week? Great for employers, great for the government, great for cutting back on benefits, terrible for those employed and their dependents.
Which is ideally why we need to reform employers national insurance contributions, starting by making it payable against companies total wage bill and not individual wages. And eventually dispense with it for the madness it is. As for zero hours, I don't think many people really understand what it entails. I technically used to be on a zero hours contract as a bouncer, but in practice I had regular work. Most of the people that complain in the press/politicians etc about zero hours work have never done any.
welshhoppo wrote: But that's hard to do. You can get actual careers from jobs fayres. Also, this would have banned them from being on campus so do you think BAE would actively try and recruit from a campus that doesn't want them there?
If you oppose BAE, then it's your choice. But I'm sure a lot of Engineering students would love to work for them.
But it's an individual choice, whereas the student body is elected by those students to make certain decisions. If they aren't happy with it then they should vote for another body. Yes it might impact on the engineering students, but then they should vote for someone that wouldn't implement it.
A comparison would be Trump's visit to the UK. There are many here that oppose Trump coming to the UK because in a manner it can be seen as a vindication of views that are deemed unpalatable. Folks cannot be both opposed to a Trump state visit and wanting the political establishment to oppose such a move (which in this case Labour would halt); but then be opposed to a student body stopping someone else's visit on another political issue (for example BAE and weapons). Otherwise we are in effect having 'our cake and eating it'. That's not to say there aren't other ways - the student body could for example insist that they put a large display (in a polite way) next to BAE's stand showing the damage their weapons do to the world. That then opens up the debate. In the same way we could insist that Trump has a live debate on climate change with a UK scientist to open up the debate.
Well I’ve known people in zero hours contracts that were frequently called up the day before or even in the morning to work the afternoon because someone was ill or whatever. Great if you’re sitting around with nothing to do, bit more pay. But if they said they couldn’t do it, surprise surprise they had fewer hours given on the next week’s rota. You want regular hours? You be prepared to bend over for them all the time.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don’t see 500,000 out of work, I see a lot more people caught in part time or zero hours contracts that get them off the unemployed stats but no where near being able to support themselves or have financial stability.
Why employ one person full time when you can fill the same hours with two or three that are at your beck and call, to work unsociable hours or fill in shifts at short notice, or simply be asked to not come in if it is a quiet week? Great for employers, great for the government, great for cutting back on benefits, terrible for those employed and their dependents.
I think a better way of representing work would be equivalent full time hours worked. I wonder how many not employed are also taking on again/off again jobs where there is a complete lack of consistency (lets say cleaning). I think that would be a better representation of employment level. We could then equate that against number of employable people giving a median estimate of the number of hours each person works per week with an actual distribution. My concern is that changes to the benefits is forcing people into jobs even if for only a few hours a week (but without adding things to the economy overall). That means they then come off the unemployment figures but the reality of the number of hours worked isn't really improving or might still be getting worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Well I’ve known people in zero hours contracts that were frequently called up the day before or even in the morning to work the afternoon because someone was ill or whatever. Great if you’re sitting around with nothing to do, bit more pay. But if they said they couldn’t do it, surprise surprise they had fewer hours given on the next week’s rota. You want regular hours? You be prepared to bend over for them all the time.
There's two types of zero hour contracts. There are those where they work because it meets the employed persons needs (e.g. a student) and there are those where the system is exploited by the employer to meet their needs with no concern. It seems particularly bad in the catering business. I know family friends who have a child that works as a 'chef' (as in for a pub restaurant). They get called up at any time and told they need to work for two hours, then after that stint they may wait 3 hours to be told they are needed for another 1.5 hours and so on. Just as in your case they provide no warning and if you say no then lo and behold they are put at the bottom of the call off list. When people argue that it worked for me, then they are correct, but that was at the point in their life when that schedule did work without real consideration of other people's circumstances. It was also in the past, employers in low skilled jobs more and more are seeing the 'benefit' of zero hours contracts as an exploit to minimise costs.
Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.
That might be true in your area, but it's certainly not universal.
The workplace is stuffed full of zero hours contracts. I personally know people who have no choice but to try and live on the zero hours contracts they have found themselves stuck on. It's a fething gak life for them, and if I had the means to, I would ban these gakky and exploitative contracts immediately.
Yeah sure, go out and get another job. When I was looking for work a few years ago the majority in the job centre needed a forklift or HGV licence and there was a handful of care home type things and other zero hours stuff. It was absolutely dire. I moved to London, but that isn’t an option for people who have any commitments.
And they can't be on zero hour contracts with different companies because they need to jump to all of them when needed. It's literally the worst of all world's.
I worked a few jobs as a student with weird hours but never on a zero hour contract. In theory, with the ability to decline shifts without being penalised, then zero hour could be great for people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bouncingboredom wrote: Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.
I wonder how many are zero hours but just don't say so, since it's not some thing many peopleseek out.
I've been on a zero hour contract before, as a Key Timer with Games Workshop.
Now there, it worked out nicely as it was a second job. And importantly, I still got my discount. Other advantage was that if I wanted a weekend off, I was absolutely able to turn down hours.
But what we're seeing now, as noted above, is an absolute abuse of the concept lies with the employer, and what might be a single job dished out by degrees to three or four employees.
As for 'hurr durr, find another jurb'? So much easier said than done.
Right now, I've been looking into the job's market, as my commute is killing my social life. Despite living in a wealthy town, ain't nobody round here can actually afford me. All the jobs are low paid, especially those that require any modicum of skill or experience. My former flatmates? They're the opposite end of the job spectrum, going from menial to menial. And pretty much all their employers have taken the absolute michael out of them.
Other than that, the majority of jobs round my way seem to be Zero Hour or Part Time. One could look further afield, but due to Public Transport being run by For Profit companies, any gains in wage are quickly devoured by travel costs - so for all but a few, it's just not worth it as there's no personal gain.
And all in the name of massaging the figures. Got a Zero Hour contract? Congratulations, you're no longer unemployed. What? You've not been given hours for three weeks? Well, you're still employed.
bouncingboredom wrote: Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.
It's not that rare, 5% of all employment contracts now have no minimum hours as per the ONS reports (that's about 1.4m). Of these about 900,000 are considered by the employees to be their main job.
That you don't see them is either an impact of the area you are in or the field you work in. It hence also indicates in certain areas zero hour contracts are much more prevalent.
bouncingboredom wrote: Anyone that doesn't like zero hours is more than free to find another job. If you look at advertised jobs on websites, zero hours are incredibly rare to find. It tends to be the sort of thing you go looking for as opposed to the sort of thing you have to do to make ends meet as it is often portrayed.
That’s not true. Many people are on zero hours who are doing it to make ends meet. Lots of Mothers have to have zero hours as employees won’t let people work part time any other way. Many people who get jobs through agencies are zero hours, and they are going there as last resort. I would guess that the majority of zero hours contracts are people who are desperate for work and do it to make ends meet. Even more so if you remove the Uber/diliveroo type of “work when you want” kind of stuff and only include the “you will work when we need you” jobs.
Uber works because it’s cheaper to hire a person that owns a car than it is to hire/buy a car and employ a driver. They’re after the car not you. Same with Deliveroo.
If you have no qualifications beyond your A levels and want a job immediately, you have two choices normally: The high street and the zero hours sector.
The high street is mostly 12-18 hour contracts (for flexibility on the part of the companies) where they work you hard and give little back for the most part. There are a few exceptions, such as John Lewis, who offer genuine career opportunities, pay rises, and care beyond what they have to by law; but virtually all of the rest are all like Next, who offer minimum wage and deliberately do things like schedule in 7 1/2 shifts so that they don't have to give an hour's lunch break.
Then you have the zero hours sector. Some few of them (like Royal Palaces) are the ones that the contract type was designed for because it's seasonal work and well suited to students. Of late however, many companies like Serco, G4S, virtually all care home companies, and so on, have come to use it as their standard employment/pay method. All these companies are highly exploitative, will hire anyone with a pulse regardless of fitness for position, and extract maximum profit with no thought for employees or the contracts they hold. The jobs are not necessarily zero hours; that's just the standard contract they dole out now. If you don't take it, you won't get hired, and given that they'll take mostly anyone in preference to changing the contract, they can always find someone else.
In other words, if you get onto the clone high street, you can enjoy minimal stability whilst being exploited. If you work there six years, you might be able to claw your way up to store manager (where most promotion opportunities end). If you end up in the zero hours sector though, you don't even have that. You're just a replaceable name on a list who functions like a cog and can/will be replaced if you so much as breathe the word 'Union'. The managers are all brought in externally so actual promotion is virtually non-existent (I was "promoted" to new responsibilities twice whilst working for G4S, though my pay packet stayed the same).
If I had no qualifications right now, I'd personally be trying to stick to John Lewis like a limpet. They give a food discount, have a corporate ladder you can work up, often employ/promote internally for things like HR, have a range of personal loans for employees, and offer an annual bonus.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Uber works because it’s cheaper to hire a person that owns a car than it is to hire/buy a car and employ a driver. They’re after the car not you. Same with Deliveroo.
I understand what they do and why they do it, and I dislike both of them and will not use them, but I see a distinction between those kind of gig economy jobs where you genuinely do have SOME choice and the likes of high street stores and catering companies. If you do Uber or diliveroo you can choose to say “I have three hours spare tomorrow so will do a short shift for a few quid” and no one will stop you or penalise you if at the last moment you decided not too. I don’t think the economics stack up and they damage other people’s work, but they are not inherently exploitative. This is different to a company that calls up at 8am and says “I need you in to do 9-11 and 4-8 today” and refuses to give you more shifts if you refuse and only gives you shifts every three weeks and won’t let you work for anyone else.
I'll just point this out: be glad you have the labor laws you do. I used to work a job with a mandatory 80 hour week, that only paid for 40, and then didn't give you a salary either, and got away with it, be glad of what you got because modern corporations will still gladly feth you as hard as the law allows.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'll just point this out: be glad you have the labor laws you do. I used to work a job with a mandatory 80 hour week, that only paid for 40, and then didn't give you a salary either, and got away with it, be glad of what you got because modern corporations will still gladly feth you as hard as the law allows.
Our workers Unions and predecessors fought hard for these labour laws, they weren't gifted to us by the Govt. The Tories are trying to erode them as much as possible though, and turn us into a mini US. However, some working class have forgotten, or have taken for granted, the prizes won for us in the past, and they keep voting for the the same people who are determined to strip away our protections in the belief that "trickle down" economics isn't some sort of fantasy con.
If I had no qualifications right now, I'd personally be trying to stick to John Lewis like a limpet. They give a food discount, have a corporate ladder you can work up, often employ/promote internally for things like HR, have a range of personal loans for employees, and offer an annual bonus.
The other alternative is local Councils. They might not pay the best but they are also usually willing to train those that show aptitude. The difficulty is finding one given the current cuts (but then that's similar to most places).
Apologies in advance for the length of this, busy day.
r_squared wrote:That might be true in your area, but it's certainly not universal. The workplace is stuffed full of zero hours contracts. I personally know people who have no choice but to try and live on the zero hours contracts they have found themselves stuck on. It's a fething gak life for them, and if I had the means to, I would ban these gakky and exploitative contracts immediately.
I live about a half hour drive from the statistically most deprived part of the entire county. There are still lots of jobs being advertised around here, almost none of them zero hours. Considering everyone thinks zero hours contracts are so prevelant, it's actually quite difficult to find them.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Yeah sure, go out and get another job. When I was looking for work a few years ago the majority in the job centre needed a forklift or HGV licence and there was a handful of care home type things and other zero hours stuff. It was absolutely dire. I moved to London, but that isn’t an option for people who have any commitments.
When I ended up out of work I hammered out a bunch of CVs, sent them out (hidden job market) and offered to work trial shifts for free to prove what I could. Someone took me up on the offer and I earned a job in almost no time at all. The reason people like me often scoff at some when they talk about how difficult it is to get a job is because I know a lot of people just don't try (though in fairness, it seems Job Centres wait months before they actually start doing any of the many small and useful things they could be doing to help people find work). I'm sure it's a lot tougher in some areas and for some people with limited skills sets or employment backgrounds, but I also think a lot of the people who cry wolf about how hard it is to find work could be doing more. Someone I used to go to school with is currently a "sofa surfer". However, before you feel too sorry for him, he's been offered work by at least three different people including his own brother and has refused all offers because he considered the work in question to be beneath him. Not everyone without a home or a job is in that place because of a lack of opportunities, some are there by choice, and they're doubly annoying on account of the fact that they tarnish the name of others who want to work etc.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:IAs for 'hurr durr, find another jurb'? So much easier said than done. Right now, I've been looking into the job's market, as my commute is killing my social life. Despite living in a wealthy town, ain't nobody round here can actually afford me.
See above.
Whirlwind wrote:It's not that rare, 5% of all employment contracts now have no minimum hours as per the ONS reports (that's about 1.4m).
5% is pretty rare. Especially when people are making it out like half the country is sinking under the grinding weight of the zero hour menace. For context, most bouncers are on zero hours deals. That's about 250,000 people in the UK, so we've almost hit one fifth of that total already in just one profession.
Steve steveson wrote:Lots of Mothers have to have zero hours as employees won’t let people work part time any other way. Many people who get jobs through agencies are zero hours, and they are going there as last resort. I would guess that the majority of zero hours contracts are people who are desperate for work and do it to make ends meet.
You've gotta be joking, the biggest problem with mothers is that most of them don't want enough hours. They seem to want to work 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, at the most inconvenient times possible. As for agencies, typically you give them the days you can work, the times you can work, what you can do and how far you can go. It's ideal for people with time on their hands but can't commit solidly to regular hours like students. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people that complain about zero hours have either a) never done them before and/or b) never considered why it would be highly advantageous for some people to have a zero hours deal.
Ketara wrote:If you have no qualifications beyond your A levels and want a job immediately, you have two choices normally: The high street and the zero hours sector.
On what planet? Just out of interest, opened a job search website, banged in some basic distance info and on the first page alone all the jobs were fixed hours and only a third of them were retail (exlcuding jobs that required specific skills like a qualification).
but virtually all of the rest are all like Next, who offer minimum wage and deliberately do things like schedule in 7 1/2 shifts so that they don't have to give an hour's lunch break.
That's on account of there being no legal requirement to give you an hours lunch, irrepsective of how many hours you work. The legal mandate is 20 mins (paid or unpaid, employers discretion) if you work more than six hours. So I'm not sure where you heard that from, but you've been suckered in by an urban myth I'm afraid.
Manners please.Taking an aggressive 'lol wat planet you on' stance in your first response to somebody is virtually guaranteed to engender a negative reaction and start a conversation spiralling downhill from the outset. You wouldn't speak to a stranger in that way out of the blue; please don't presume to do so to me here just because you're behind a computer screen.
Just out of interest, opened a job search website, banged in some basic distance info and on the first page alone all the jobs were fixed hours and only a third of them were retail (exlcuding jobs that required specific skills like a qualification).
You're conflating job listings with the number of jobs available. Easy mistake to make. The way most zero hours companies hire is to simply do a single listing once a week/fortnight/month (however regularly they need the turnover) then winnow the CV's as they come in. So whilst you might see ten ads for twenty different other positions, you'll see a fraction of the number of ads representing considerably more jobs. For example, when I worked at G4S as security, we used to put up about one ad a week over the summer, but we were trying to fill literally hundreds of posts. The turnover and burnout rate was ridiculous because the staff were treated so poorly.
This is in addition to the 'gig' economy of course, where you turn to places like Deliveroo because you're having difficulty finding an actual job and need money now. Then because you have rent to pay, you end up working plenty of hours for them and have little time/energy for job hunting or education, but are locked into your crappy new gig job. Then your CV starts looking dated, etcetc.
So I'm not sure where you heard that from, but you've been suckered in by an urban myth I'm afraid.
No, you're right there. My mistake.
When I ended up out of work I hammered out a bunch of CVs, sent them out (hidden job market) and offered to work trial shifts for free to prove what I could. Someone took me up on the offer and I earned a job in almost no time at all. The reason people like me often scoff at some when they talk about how difficult it is to get a job is because I know a lot of people just don't try
This is of course, assuming that everyone is:-
a) neurotypical, and
b) lives in a locale where it's an option, and
c) gets lucky.
And it is luck. I did much the same thing as you twice post-undergrad. It still took me a month and a half to secure my first job, which was a Christmas temp one at John Lewis, and the same again to secure my second one (at Travelodge). I got that one by sweet-talking the manager in person after seeing the job go up online. It wasn't the first place I tried that with though, I tried plenty before that, and virtually every shop (I'm talking about a couple of big shopping centres) either fobbed me off or told me they simply didn't have the autonomy to have me work there without formally hiring me. It isn't as simple as it once was in that regard. Being proactive can certainly help I think, but it's not something everyone can do, and it's not something that has any serious chance of success. You're just rolling a D20 each time and hoping your number comes up.
r_squared wrote:That might be true in your area, but it's certainly not universal. The workplace is stuffed full of zero hours contracts. I personally know people who have no choice but to try and live on the zero hours contracts they have found themselves stuck on. It's a fething gak life for them, and if I had the means to, I would ban these gakky and exploitative contracts immediately.
I live about a half hour drive from the statistically most deprived part of the entire county. There are still lots of jobs being advertised around here, almost none of them zero hours. Considering everyone thinks zero hours contracts are so prevelant, it's actually quite difficult to find them.
Funny how he noted "maybe in your area" and that "it's not universal" as in hard to find and you provide just your own place info. You basically strengthen HIS arqument.
It's ideal for people with time on their hands but can't commit solidly to regular hours like students. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people that complain about zero hours have either a) never done them before and/or b) never considered why it would be highly advantageous for some people to have a zero hours deal.
Funny. when I was student I had pretty much set schedule for day not much different than I now have at work. Maybe one or two hour more but basically as a student easiness of working was about same as easiness of taking second job now.
bouncingboredom wrote: I live about a half hour drive from the statistically most deprived part of the entire county. There are still lots of jobs being advertised around here, almost none of them zero hours. Considering everyone thinks zero hours contracts are so prevelant, it's actually quite difficult to find them.
I'm not sure whether this tells us anything. I both live within 30 minutes of the some of the most deprived and most affluent areas. In London there are areas where there may be 5-10mins walk between wealthy and deprived areas. As Ketara pointed out generic 'anyone can do' jobs are likely to be smaller in number because you can advertise once for multiple vacancies. Conversely more specialised jobs have to be advertised individually because they need a more precise skill set. As such individual jobs can look more prevalent.
When I ended up out of work I hammered out a bunch of CVs, sent them out (hidden job market) and offered to work trial shifts for free to prove what I could. Someone took me up on the offer and I earned a job in almost no time at all.
You do appear relatively well educated which many people are not. Your CVs will likely give a better impression and stand out more. The CVs of those less fortunate or doing 'menial' jobs likely look far less impressive. I don't think there is any doubt that individuals also have to take responsibility however I think I'd like to understand the jobs offered and the conditions (as I can imagine a sewer worker is not for everyone!).
5% is pretty rare. Especially when people are making it out like half the country is sinking under the grinding weight of the zero hour menace. For context, most bouncers are on zero hours deals. That's about 250,000 people in the UK, so we've almost hit one fifth of that total already in just one profession.
I think our view of rare is quite different. My view is that it has to be less than approx. 1:1000; I would never consider 1:20 rare. Not when I can glance around a crowded bus and one/two of these people are likely to be on zero hour contracts.
It never ceases to amaze me how many of the people that complain about zero hours have either a) never done them before and/or b) never considered why it would be highly advantageous for some people to have a zero hours deal.
It's already been pointed out a few pages back that there are different types of zero hour contracts. The problem is for those that are being exploited by the employers for their own benefits. As already noted about 3% of the workforce consider their main job to be zero hour contracts. That's not an insignificant number (and this likely doesn't include the type of jobs where you are effectively self employed but working to zero hour work).
but virtually all of the rest are all like Next, who offer minimum wage and deliberately do things like schedule in 7 1/2 shifts so that they don't have to give an hour's lunch break.
That's on account of there being no legal requirement to give you an hours lunch, irrepsective of how many hours you work. The legal mandate is 20 mins (paid or unpaid, employers discretion) if you work more than six hours. So I'm not sure where you heard that from, but you've been suckered in by an urban myth I'm afraid.
However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks. Hence I wonder whether the urban myth has arisen from where breaks are and are not required under legislation.
However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks.
That would have to be a very poor, or willful, miss reading of the rules to apply that to shop workers. I can’t see any situation where they would be exempt working over 6 hours.
Even meaningful jobs on the highstreet are pretty hard to come by these days, what with the trend toward shorter shifts in the morning and evening for replenishment with only a few people in during the day for CS and tidying up.
I used to work at Waitrose (left this year) and they were just starting to bring in shifts that were 3 3/4 hours long, so they didn't have to give people a break. At the same time they were moving toward a model where there were 4/5 people in the morning and evening and only 1/2 across the day.
Also got rid of sunday and bank holiday overtime for new starters which was a shame as now no one wants to work them as overtime (why do unsociable hours for no real return?).
MarkNorfolk wrote:I thought Waitrose was part of the John Lewis Group - I'd have thought they'd be more 'worker friendly'.
Way back when I first started they were pretty good for new starters, but with the squeeze on the retail market it's got to a point where a pay rise is considered good at 20p an hour extra. I started at 16 on 4.50 and when I left at 26 I was on £8.50, making me one of the more highly paid partners in the branch. The internal magazine would usually be full of comments about comparing the pay and bonus for shopfloor staff vs those in senior management (head office) and how the Chairman's renumeration package of c.£1m (fairly cheap as they go, but still outrageous when you consider it) could be justified when people on full time contracts were barely making £16 grand before tax.
Regarding the points about job hunting in the current climate - it's relatively easy if you have experience. If you don't, it's much, much harder. Many employers either want a relevant degree and several years experience for even fairly junior positions. Experience that is only possible to get by having the job in the first place or being able to afford an internship/placement.
Head office jobs at John Lewis/Waitrose are surprisingly well paid.
The main benefit of being shop floor staff is the discount. IDK if John Lewis shop staff are badly paid. Probably yes, as they work in more specialist areas that require more product knowledge.
Waitrose has led the way in getting rid of low level shop staff, with the laser gun gadget that lets customers do their own billing. Everyone else is copying it. It is a good example of investment in technology displacing human workers.
That said, who likes waiting in a checkout queue for someone to push all your items over a scanner?
I've heard that Waitrose retail staff, as opposed to the John Lewis ones (the department store) tend to be worked a bit harder and paid slightly less. Probably because Waitrose makes less money.
On a more general note, John Lewis as a whole is feeling the pressure a bit these days. Profits are down by half:-
Profits being down means less of a direct bonus for the staff in January. It doesn't help that unlike most large companies, they pay full tax, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage on branded products.
In its last financial year Amazon booked more than £5.3 billion of British online sales through its operation in Luxembourg. Meanwhile Amazon.co.uk, a British subsidiary, posted a modest profit of £34 million. And paid £11.9 million to the government in Corporation Tax.
By comparison, every sale made at John Lewis and Waitrose online and off was booked in Britain. The partnership made a profit of £350m and paid £51m in corporation tax - four times more than Amazon
Ketara wrote: I've heard that Waitrose retail staff, as opposed to the John Lewis ones (the department store) tend to be worked a bit harder and paid slightly less. Probably because Waitrose makes less money.
Once upon a time that was the case, for at least the last 5 years Waitrose consistently made more profit. John Lewis also tends to have more staff - if you've ever been to the tv/electricals section usually there's 4/5 people in suits milling around trying to look busy...
However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks.
That would have to be a very poor, or willful, miss reading of the rules to apply that to shop workers. I can’t see any situation where they would be exempt working over 6 hours.
I was thinking more of warehousing staff, drivers and so forth. If you are on contracted hours it does apply. They are exempt when there are no fixed hours - realistically if you come in 6 days a week 8 - 5 then you have fixed hours regardless of what your contract states.
However the point is there are exceptions and could particularly apply to those on 'zero hour' contracts. Of course the question is how long until retailers start moving to zero hour contracts too. Have a core set of permanent staff and then a 'bank' of on call, zero hour, staff if things get busy?
Ketara wrote: I've heard that Waitrose retail staff, as opposed to the John Lewis ones (the department store) tend to be worked a bit harder and paid slightly less. Probably because Waitrose makes less money.
On a more general note, John Lewis as a whole is feeling the pressure a bit these days. Profits are down by half:-
Profits being down means less of a direct bonus for the staff in January. It doesn't help that unlike most large companies, they pay full tax, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage on branded products.
In its last financial year Amazon booked more than £5.3 billion of British online sales through its operation in Luxembourg. Meanwhile Amazon.co.uk, a British subsidiary, posted a modest profit of £34 million. And paid £11.9 million to the government in Corporation Tax.
By comparison, every sale made at John Lewis and Waitrose online and off was booked in Britain. The partnership made a profit of £350m and paid £51m in corporation tax - four times more than Amazon
And this is why we need a Government not afraid or too invested in it to clamp down on tax dodging.
And yes, even if it means ripping up the current tax law and replacing it whole sale with a simplified version.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On employee benefits, those are a large part of why I’ve stuck with my current job and career path.
Amongst ancillary benefits, the pension is hard to beat. Without costing me a penny, 12% of my wage is paid into a pension. And they match me up to another 3%, which of course I’ve taken full advantage of.
And I get £50 a month flexible benefit to put toward whatever I choose from the options.
Suffice to say, each year a total of £5,616 is paid into my pension pot each year. And it costs me a piffling £28 a month, not allowing for tax breaks which are long winded and something I don’t fully understand.
Yes, I’m lucky. It’s the next best thing to a Final Salary scheme.
However there are exceptions to this, for example if you have no set hours then you are not entitled to these type of breaks.
That would have to be a very poor, or willful, miss reading of the rules to apply that to shop workers. I can’t see any situation where they would be exempt working over 6 hours.
I was thinking more of warehousing staff, drivers and so forth. If you are on contracted hours it does apply. They are exempt when there are no fixed hours - realistically if you come in 6 days a week 8 - 5 then you have fixed hours regardless of what your contract states.
However the point is there are exceptions and could particularly apply to those on 'zero hour' contracts. Of course the question is how long until retailers start moving to zero hour contracts too. Have a core set of permanent staff and then a 'bank' of on call, zero hour, staff if things get busy?
That’s my point, they are not. It could, I guess, apply to delivery drivers, depending on how they work (although they have separate H&S required breaks). The “no set hours” isn’t referring to the hours you are contracted to work, but the way you work. Someone who works more than 6 hours and is required to be there no matter what their contract. The “no set hours” refers to someone who is not required to be somewhere for a set time, but someone who has a task based role. For example if a persons job were to complete a server installation, however long or short and could go home when they are finished. If someone says when you have to arrive and leave then immediately it is classed as set hours for this role.
As the norm lately, apologies in advance for length and formatting etc;
Ketara wrote:You wouldn't speak to a stranger in that way out of the blue; please don't presume to do so to me here just because you're behind a computer screen.
Clearly you haven't seen me talk to strangers The door company I worked for did listings like "door supervisors wanted" etc, which was a bit open ended, but in practice they're not out to recruit hundreds of new staff. The amount of people they would take on would still be dwarfed by the number of individual ads put up.
No, you're right there. My mistake.
Fair play to you sire. It's quite a common mistake, mainly because market pressure forces most companies to offer some kind of extended break. Normally the critical factor in why companies offer short shifts is to keep employees wages below the threshold for employers NI contributions (kicks in at gross wage of £157.01 p/week and the starting rate is almost 14%). That gives you just enough room for someone doing 20 hours at the minimum wage, but 16 is often the max dictated down from on high because that gives you a bit of wiggle room for overtime without inadvertantly going into the NI threshold. This is why I think it would be better for Employers NI to be charged against the total sum of an employers wage bill, not the individual wage packets (at least till it can be dispensed with in the future).
And it is luck.
Here I have to vehemently disagree with you. Luck has nothing to do with it. Luck would be bumping into someone at a bus stop who you haven't seen for years who just happens to know a vacancy going that you can apply for. There's nothing lucky about taking time to fix up your CV, going out and getting a bunch of envelopes, putting on your best suit and hitting the bricks to go visit employers, speak to the managers, introduce yourself and make a good impression, hand out the CVs even if it's a "put me on the just in case pile", offering up your time for free to show what you can bring to the table etc.
tneva82 wrote:Funny how he noted "maybe in your area" and that "it's not universal" as in hard to find and you provide just your own place info. You basically strengthen HIS arqument.
Because there seems to be this prevailing trend that everytime I counter someones point people turn around and make excuses about how I must be rich or I live in some perfect part of the country where jobs and houses and everything else abounds in great quantities (you'll see an example of this later). So I made the point that I live fairly close to the most deprived part of our nation, and even there there's work to be found of many varities. If it makes you feel better then just for you I brought up a job search and typed in Doncaster as the location (because why not?) and got much the same result. You'll forgive me if I don't sit here all night trying every town in the country.
Funny. when I was student I had pretty much set schedule for day not much different than I now have at work. Maybe one or two hour more but basically as a student easiness of working was about same as easiness of taking second job now.
A sister of mine is a mature student. Her work load varies with time depending on which assignments she has and how much time she has to spend in the library (history student). So some weeks she has free time between lectures, sometimes very little. I've found the same to be true of most students; sometimes they can work a nice fixed schedule, then a paper comes due and everything goes a bit mental for them.
Whirlwind wrote:Conversely more specialised jobs have to be advertised individually because they need a more precise skill set. As such individual jobs can look more prevalent.
By their nature though something that is highly specialised will be few and far between. Unless you happen to live close to somewhere that does a lot of Marine Engineering then you're not going to see many marine engineering posts advertised. Virtually everywhere you go you'll find everything from shop work, to cleaner, warehouse packer, warehouse assistant, jobs offering training packages, admin work, all kinds of stuff.
You do appear relatively well educated which many people are not. Your CVs will likely give a better impression and stand out more. The CVs of those less fortunate or doing 'menial' jobs likely look far less impressive. I don't think there is any doubt that individuals also have to take responsibility however I think I'd like to understand the jobs offered and the conditions (as I can imagine a sewer worker is not for everyone!).
Appearances can be deceptive I actually bombed out of college in quite spectacular fashion - not once, but twice - through nobodies fault but my own. My GCSEs were decent, some As and Bs, but nothing to write home about (E in French, U for Psychology for example). Debating club paid off though. I've done a bunch of menial stuff, but I've also put a lot of time in to educate myself and learn what I can from people, applied myself pretty well and worked hard to get the little that I have. Hoping to start up a business with a mate at some point next year if we can get all our prep done and gather the funds we need.
I don't think we should just be shoving unemployed people into the first random job that comes along, ideally we want people to find work that they can stick with while they get back on their feet, I just get very frustrated with some of them because I've seen the sort of things they'll turn down and their reasons for doing so. We offer a program in conjuction with the job centre to give people the chance to volunteer for just a few hours a week, nothing crazy. Most come in, do 2-3 hours, talk about how great it is and nod obligingly when I tell them it will look good on their CV and might even translate into a job if they stick at it, then we never see them again.
Magister wrote:I used to work at Waitrose (left this year) and they were just starting to bring in shifts that were 3 3/4 hours long, so they didn't have to give people a break.
As was explained up thread, this is verifiably on account of the minimum working hours to qualify for a break being 6.
... and how the Chairman's renumeration package of c.£1m (fairly cheap as they go, but still outrageous when you consider it) could be justified when people on full time contracts were barely making £16 grand before tax.
I'll never understand why people think this is odd, that the person that is ultimately responsible for a multi-billion pound company, its direction, its performance, its total revenue and profit, should make a sizeable amount of money. If you could bring someone in who could increase your profit from say £100 million to £120 million per year, would someone like that not be worth several million £ to the business in their own right?
Ketara wrote:On a more general note, John Lewis as a whole is feeling the pressure a bit these days. Profits are down by half:-
Profits being down means less of a direct bonus for the staff in January. It doesn't help that unlike most large companies, they pay full tax, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage on branded products.
Are they still trying to deflect attention from that (quite recent) incident where they spent six years underpaying their staff and subsequently got hit by a multi-million pound charge?
In its last financial year Amazon booked more than £5.3 billion of British online sales through its operation in Luxembourg. Meanwhile Amazon.co.uk, a British subsidiary, posted a modest profit of £34 million. And paid £11.9 million to the government in Corporation Tax. By comparison, every sale made at John Lewis and Waitrose online and off was booked in Britain. The partnership made a profit of £350m and paid £51m in corporation tax - four times more than Amazon
Hammering Amazon with a big tax bill? Now you have found something I can get behind 100%!! It might brighten peoples day to know that Goldman Sachs has reported they'll have to take a $5 billion hit to their fourth quarter earnings due to the new US tax laws. I'm sure the worlds collective hearts bleed for them.
Britain's elite athletes have gathered in heaping amounts of gold at recent Olympics, but there has been a cost in terms of brutal coaching affecting individuals.
What is the purpose of a national sports strategy? To get lots of medals? To energise public involvement in sport, leading to fitness and life benefits? Can it be both?
When I was a wee nipper, the choice was football or rugby. If it wasn't one of those you were out of luck.
We should get kids involved with all sports at a young age. And then in a decade or two you get the medals.
That's not how the funding works though. It favours what is successful now rather than what could be successful in the future. Hence if we get lucky and have a few good sports people now in those areas they get more money; this might completely bypass other potential world class competitors for the future though.
bouncingboredom wrote: By their nature though something that is highly specialised will be few and far between. Unless you happen to live close to somewhere that does a lot of Marine Engineering then you're not going to see many marine engineering posts advertised. Virtually everywhere you go you'll find everything from shop work, to cleaner, warehouse packer, warehouse assistant, jobs offering training packages, admin work, all kinds of stuff.
I wasn't really considering that specialised. An accounting assistant for example would need good maths skills but a business is only likely to need to employ one at a time. Same as with a secretary. These have specific skill sets unique to the job. Conversely we a need a bunch of (say 20) drivers with zero hour contracts can be advertised as one job advert and then after passing a few basic checks can all be included on the roster.
Appearances can be deceptive I actually bombed out of college in quite spectacular fashion - not once, but twice - through nobodies fault but my own. My GCSEs were decent, some As and Bs, but nothing to write home about (E in French, U for Psychology for example). Debating club paid off though. I've done a bunch of menial stuff, but I've also put a lot of time in to educate myself and learn what I can from people, applied myself pretty well and worked hard to get the little that I have. Hoping to start up a business with a mate at some point next year if we can get all our prep done and gather the funds we need.
Educated is educated, doesn't matter how you manage to achieve that. You recognised a weakness and did something about it. The only problem that a lack of non-formal education can bring is analytical detachment. Educating yourself can lead to reinforcement of an individual's own bias (you learn what you want to learn etc).
To waste taxpayer time and money for national self aggrandisement on aimless activities that leave even the winners physically broken half the time.
Agreed. All that money spent, all them medals, but what did it really achieve aside from the occassional and rather brief feel good moment?
Whirlwind wrote:The only problem that a lack of non-formal education can bring is analytical detachment. Educating yourself can lead to reinforcement of an individual's own bias (you learn what you want to learn etc).
If it helps, I read a lot of the Guardian online even though I'm not a fan of them, purely to see what the "other side" thinks. Every now and again they even have a good idea.
Short version;
"Business growth picked up at its fastest pace since 2015 in the final months of 2017"
"Factories, services firms and retailers all reported improved growth in the three months to December"
"... leaves the UK in line for GDP growth of as much as 1.8pc over 2017 as a whole - barely changed from 1.9pc in 2016 - defying fears of a slowdown."
"All sectors expanded in the CBI study, with the proportion of businesses reporting ‘above normal’ levels of output outweighing those reporting sub-par levels by a margin of 19pc - the strongest figure since December 2015."
And just an interesting article from the BBC about a group of businesses around the Greater Manchester area that are trying to revitalise the old textile industry in the region.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42452950
Speaking as a southerner (east of englander?) I'm very disappointed that all the talk of developing a northern powerhouse has been just that, talk. Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds are all primed for exceptional growth if the government would just give them a helping hand to reinforce their success. Manchester is doing so well it might not even need the investment, but it would be nice if the government put a bit of money in, such as funding some of the Atlantic Gateway proposals which could be fantastic for that whole Mersey river region.
Here I have to vehemently disagree with you. Luck has nothing to do with it. Luck would be bumping into someone at a bus stop who you haven't seen for years who just happens to know a vacancy going that you can apply for. There's nothing lucky about taking time to fix up your CV, going out and getting a bunch of envelopes, putting on your best suit and hitting the bricks to go visit employers, speak to the managers, introduce yourself and make a good impression, hand out the CVs even if it's a "put me on the just in case pile", offering up your time for free to show what you can bring to the table etc.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your disagreement, having worked in placement agencies and as the hired barrier to entry for 2 firms:
It depends, on at least two days of the week, on whether the HR drone in question did well at GW the night previously.
It also depends on whether Julie in Design can be convinced to shut the hell up, so the stack of 200 CVs dumped in the IN tray on Monday lunchtime can be processed by Tuesday lunchtime's deadline.
You can do everything right and still lose - you can also do everything wrong and still win, by virtue of a terminator's armour save the night previous leading to the owner having enough morale to do unpaid overtime and get to your CV before the deadline is up, or enough attention being paid to realise you've been misfiled.
And that's before we go into CV parsing and automation, which is a whole 'nother kettle of beans.
bouncingboredom wrote: The door company I worked for did listings like "door supervisors wanted" etc, which was a bit open ended, but in practice they're not out to recruit hundreds of new staff. The amount of people they would take on would still be dwarfed by the number of individual ads put up.
Quite possibly. Or then again, perhaps not. I honestly wouldn't care to estimate or guess either way to be honest. Not enough data. The point was purely that you disagreed (or seemed to) that any real numbers of entry-level/no qualification jobs were switching to zero hours contracts, and cited the comparable lesser numbers of job postings for them compared to others as proof. So I was just noting that it wasn't really the most reliable way of establishing metrics for this sort of thing.
Certainly anecdotally at least, most people I know of have either ended up on the high street or in the zero hour sector when needing an unqualified job pronto regardless of time/age. It was more or less all I could find when I was in that position myself and trawling the job adverts every day, and my younger brother had the same experience not two years ago. The problem (for both of us) was that anything which was entry level, decent, reasonably paid, and required no qualification was vastly oversubscribed. I saw one jobsite which used to note the numbers of applications for a given job, and every office job had literally hundreds of applications. In that sort of scenario, there's always twenty people with experience who top the list for interview, and the people who really do have no experience never even clear the first hurdle.
You can get lucky of course, and spot something that nobody else did, or get in an application for a job that closes after they get 40 applicants or something.
Here I have to vehemently disagree with you. Luck has nothing to do with it. Luck would be bumping into someone at a bus stop who you haven't seen for years who just happens to know a vacancy going that you can apply for. There's nothing lucky about taking time to fix up your CV, going out and getting a bunch of envelopes, putting on your best suit and hitting the bricks to go visit employers, speak to the managers, introduce yourself and make a good impression, hand out the CVs even if it's a "put me on the just in case pile", offering up your time for free to show what you can bring to the table etc.
I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.
If you increase the number of coin flips you do, your odds get better of getting the result you want. But it's all just luck at the end of the day.
Appearances can be deceptive I actually bombed out of college in quite spectacular fashion - not once, but twice - through nobodies fault but my own. My GCSEs were decent, some As and Bs, but nothing to write home about (E in French, U for Psychology for example). Debating club paid off though. I've done a bunch of menial stuff, but I've also put a lot of time in to educate myself and learn what I can from people, applied myself pretty well and worked hard to get the little that I have. Hoping to start up a business with a mate at some point next year if we can get all our prep done and gather the funds we need.
I don't think we should just be shoving unemployed people into the first random job that comes along, ideally we want people to find work that they can stick with while they get back on their feet, I just get very frustrated with some of them because I've seen the sort of things they'll turn down and their reasons for doing so. We offer a program in conjuction with the job centre to give people the chance to volunteer for just a few hours a week, nothing crazy. Most come in, do 2-3 hours, talk about how great it is and nod obligingly when I tell them it will look good on their CV and might even translate into a job if they stick at it, then we never see them again.
No, I know that feeling. I used to sift the CV's at Travelodge, and it often felt like for every one that was worthwhile, there were six that hadn't been run through a basic spellcheck. Then the interviews came, and for every worthwhile applicant there was, there were three who seemed to just be in there because they needed to tick off the Job Centre minimum requirement and slobbed in wearing a tracksuit.
That being said, you'd still be left with three or four solid applicants at the end and rolling a D6. (1 and 6 are rerolls).
I think it's important not to do the self-made man thing though. I come from a poor working class background myself, but I try to remember that I still got a good upbringing and brain, and not everybody else is so lucky. It's very easy to look at your own accomplishments, link it to your hard work, and then say 'if others worked as hard as me, they could get somewhere too'. Harder to remember that you could have worked just as hard and gotten nowhere, or a lot easier and gotten further. Luck is always a factor.
Ketara wrote: ...I think it's important not to do the self-made man thing though. I come from a poor working class background myself, but I try to remember that I still got a good upbringing and brain, and not everybody else is so lucky. It's very easy to look at your own accomplishments, link it to your hard work, and then say 'if others worked as hard as me, they could get somewhere too'. Harder to remember that you could have worked just as hard and gotten nowhere, or a lot easier and gotten further. Luck is always a factor.
Absolutely spot on.
Hard work is important, but good luck really makes the difference. Every entrepreneur, every star, every success had their "big break", whether that was support from family connections, or from just being in the right place at the right time. Hard work only gets you so far. You can graft every day in a menial job, and still get absolutely no where, and to say that hard work is all that matters is to deny the real world.
Luck, and without that, connections, are what makes the difference, but conservatives like to ignore that so that they can morally justify their actions to themselves. If you can blame a poor work ethic, and cite a few examples on benefits street, you can justify cutting the life support mechanism for when people's luck fail, because, in the conservative mind, it's their own moral failings that have caused their downfall, and nothing else.
Absolutely spot on.
Hard work is important, but good luck really makes the difference. Every entrepreneur, every star, every success had their "big break", whether that was support from family connections, or from just being in the right place at the right time. Hard work only gets you so far. You can graft every day in a menial job, and still get absolutely no where, and to say that hard work is all that matters is to deny the real world.
Luck, and without that, connections, are what makes the difference, but conservatives like to ignore that so that they can morally justify their actions to themselves. If you can blame a poor work ethic, and cite a few examples on benefits street, you can justify cutting the life support mechanism for when people's luck fail, because, in the conservative mind, it's their own moral failings that have caused their downfall, and nothing else.
It's not luck, it's statistics! We can see the successful people but at the same time there are thousands that don't meet the same level for one reason or another. However from a population perspective it is inevitable that some will be very successful and some won't. However...who gets to be successful is dependent on the resources an individual has available. If you have to 'scrap' for every meal it likely means you do not have the time or money to invest heavily in an idea. Therefore those that have this then have an advantage from the start. That time and resource allows people to develop connections and influence that ensures they have a better chance of succeeding. I once read an article that stated for children one of the largest factor for their success was their parents. The professional parents generally don't let their children fall too far, they'll find them a job that allows them to develop. For specific break through or changes then being in the right place at the right time (e.g.discovering facebook, or a medicine cure) as inevitably they would be found by someone else given time. However for general management it largely goes with who you know (or who you parents know).
Agree with the comments on the Tories. Their view is that if you aren't successful you are just lazy; but rather it's their complete misunderstanding of statistical variations. You can see this when some MPs state things like 'ensuring every school is above average' (Gove).
It's the usual 'High Tory' thing of confusing their own good fortune for sheer hard graft.
As I've said many times before, I've got no issue or beef with privilege. Someone is bound to get lucky. But when said privilege is confused with superiority and being more deserving, that's when I get honked off.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's the usual 'High Tory' thing of confusing their own good fortune for sheer hard graft.
As I've said many times before, I've got no issue or beef with privilege. Someone is bound to get lucky. But when said privilege is confused with superiority and being more deserving, that's when I get honked off.
Well I think it is more they recognise they have somehow managed to lie their way to the top and now will do anything to stay there (which means supporting the wealthy and punishing the poor).
I see that Grayling tried to sneak out the changes to the East Coast Rail line effectively giving the current operators over a £1bn 'gift' by allowing them to exit the contract early. All over the same days when rail commuters are looking at a 3.6% increase to their fares.
Since 2009 our manufacturing output growth has been systematically higher then the EUs (apart from a few small periods). Since the Wrexit vote this has reveresed and our growth is diverging and becoming signficantly worse overall. That's despite a lower value in the £. Effectively we are increasingly lagging behind the EU in benefiting from renewed global growth.
Happy New Year to you all. Hope you had a good Christmas/New Year
Most people are probably aware that rising rail fares is dominating the news...again!
but I'm getting an element of schadenfreude here when I see Tory voters complaining about getting exactly what they voted for, in regard to rip-off rail fares and privitization.
My sympathies to fellow dakka members who are getting fleeced by these pirates.
but I'm getting an element of schadenfreude here when I see Tory voters complaining about getting exactly what they voted for, in regard to rip-off rail fares and privitization.
My sympathies to fellow dakka members who are getting fleeced by these pirates.
We don't know the voting intentions. I would agree that if you are voting Tory then you can't really complain about increased hikes on rail fairs, worsening NHS, education, public sector etc. On the other hand the majority of conservative supporters are in affluent, rural areas that don't likely use the trains as they mainly service the main towns. I wonder just how many are actual Tory voters or just the younger generation being fleeced because of where the work is. Rolling people blockades of Westminster tube station anyone?
Happy New Year to you all. Hope you had a good Christmas/New Year
Most people are probably aware that rising rail fares is dominating the news...again!
but I'm getting an element of schadenfreude here when I see Tory voters complaining about getting exactly what they voted for, in regard to rip-off rail fares and privitization.
My sympathies to fellow dakka members who are getting fleeced by these pirates.
Does remind one of some of the recently declassified memos about the Poll Tax.
It's the usual 'High Tory' thing of confusing their own good fortune for sheer hard graft.
Toby "friendship is dead"/captin Bellend Young here being a prime example of this.
but I'm getting an element of schadenfreude here when I see Tory voters complaining about getting exactly what they voted for, in regard to rip-off rail fares and privitization.
My sympathies to fellow dakka members who are getting fleeced by these pirates.
We don't know the voting intentions. I would agree that if you are voting Tory then you can't really complain about increased hikes on rail fairs, worsening NHS, education, public sector etc. On the other hand the majority of conservative supporters are in affluent, rural areas that don't likely use the trains as they mainly service the main towns. I wonder just how many are actual Tory voters or just the younger generation being fleeced because of where the work is. Rolling people blockades of Westminster tube station anyone?
This is purely anecdotal, but on the radio phone ins this morning, people were moaning about rail fares, and a lot of them were from the Home Counties, which as you know, lean heavily towards Tory, and have done so for many years.
True, voting Tory doesn't preclude you from moaning about trains, but like those people who were flooded down in England a few years back, and then voted Tory at the next election (despite Tory cuts to flood defences) I often wonder at their rational.
Yeah, my car's floating past my house, but better that than Corbyn's Venezuela or something like that.
Happy New Year to you all. Hope you had a good Christmas/New Year
Most people are probably aware that rising rail fares is dominating the news...again!
but I'm getting an element of schadenfreude here when I see Tory voters complaining about getting exactly what they voted for, in regard to rip-off rail fares and privitization.
My sympathies to fellow dakka members who are getting fleeced by these pirates.
Does remind one of some of the recently declassified memos about the Poll Tax.
It's the usual 'High Tory' thing of confusing their own good fortune for sheer hard graft.
Toby "friendship is dead"/captin Bellend Young here being a prime example of this.
I thought there was a standing order against mentioning Toby Young's name on this thread, much in the same way that you know who in the White House is banned from these forums?
But yeah, Young is another person who really ought to be exiled to British Antarctic territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't commute by train any more, but my daughter does and I have to pay for her season ticket.
My view on the price of tickets is firstly, that the purpose of the railways is to enable people to move about the country and do stuff, and secondly, that it's unfair to expect today's passengers to pay for the improvements that yesterday's passengers didn't pay for and tomorrow's passengers won't have to pay for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't commute by train any more, but my daughter does and I have to pay for her season ticket.
My view on the price of tickets is firstly, that the purpose of the railways is to enable people to move about the country and do stuff, and secondly, that it's unfair to expect today's passengers to pay for the improvements that yesterday's passengers didn't pay for and tomorrow's passengers won't have to pay for.
Doesn't Corbyn's rail plan depend on us being out of the EU and free from their rules on nationalisation and state subsidies or something?
They are increasing their tickets a mere 1,22%, so below inflation. I'm sure your monthly contribution helps to keep those communting in the Netherlands as low as possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't commute by train any more, but my daughter does and I have to pay for her season ticket.
My view on the price of tickets is firstly, that the purpose of the railways is to enable people to move about the country and do stuff, and secondly, that it's unfair to expect today's passengers to pay for the improvements that yesterday's passengers didn't pay for and tomorrow's passengers won't have to pay for.
Doesn't Corbyn's rail plan depend on us being out of the EU and free from their rules on nationalisation and state subsidies or something?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I can expand on that if you want.
We don't know the voting intentions. I would agree that if you are voting Tory then you can't really complain about increased hikes on rail fairs, worsening NHS, education, public sector etc. On the other hand the majority of conservative supporters are in affluent, rural areas that don't likely use the trains as they mainly service the main towns. I wonder just how many are actual Tory voters or just the younger generation being fleeced because of where the work is. Rolling people blockades of Westminster tube station anyone?
This is purely anecdotal, but on the radio phone ins this morning, people were moaning about rail fares, and a lot of them were from the Home Counties, which as you know, lean heavily towards Tory, and have done so for many years.
True, voting Tory doesn't preclude you from moaning about trains, but like those people who were flooded down in England a few years back, and then voted Tory at the next election (despite Tory cuts to flood defences) I often wonder at their rational.
But you still don't know that those voting did vote Tory. It is quite possible that those complaining are the ones that can little afford it and didn't vote Tory; those that can afford it easily and shrug their shoulders may be the ones that did. I do agree with the point, but we can't assume that the ones voting Tory are also the ones complaining (though I am sure there are those that do).
As for flooding, that issue hasn't been solved at all. The areas flooded because statistically every hundred years or so they do flood. The government forced the EA to dredge the rivers and since then it hasn't flooded again - and people being people believe that has stopped the flooding issues. The only flaw being is that the area simply hasn't seen the same level of rainfall as it did last time it did flood. Hence people link the action to a cause when it couldn't be further from the truth and is only a statistics thing that they haven't seen another flood. The reality is dredging makes things worse. It speeds up the water flow in the river meaning more water per second which increases the likelihood of flooding. I met someone during the time who lived near the Mississippi river where they did the same thing. It didn't end well. Of course people told the government this but they don't listen to experts.
I thought there was a standing order against mentioning Toby Young's name on this thread, much in the same way that you know who in the White House is banned from these forums?
But yeah, Young is another person who really ought to be exiled to British Antarctic territory.
I'm not sure we can get away with it now given he has been given the job of oversight of the universities.
Some of his more erh 'classier' comments
Inclusive. It’s one of those ghastly, politically correct words that have survived the demise of New Labour. Schools have got to be “inclusive” these days. That means wheelchair ramps, the complete works of Alice Walker in the school library (though no Mark Twain) and a Special Educational Needs Department that can cope with everything from Dyslexia to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. If Gove is serious about wanting to bring back O-levels the government will have to repeal the Equality Act because any exam that isn’t “accessible” to a functionally illiterate troglodyte with a mental age of six will be judged to be “elitist” and therefore forbidden by Harman’s Law. (See note at foot of this column.)
or (2015)
A lot of the resistance to this idea will come from a visceral dislike of anything that smacks of eugenics, for understandable historical reasons. But the main objection to eugenics, at least in the form it usually takes, is that it involves discriminating against disadvantaged groups, whether minorities or people with disabilities. What I’m proposing is a form of eugenics that would discriminate in favour of the disadvantaged. I’m not suggesting we improve the genetic stock of an entire race, just the least well off. This is a kind of eugenics that should appeal to liberals—progressive eugenics.
So someone that wants to remove what they believe are negative traits...now where have we heard that before.... (and that basically if you are born into a poor family you will have low intelligence).
Also wikipedia seems to be doing the rounds on some previous statements that he has mentioned on the female body you can view here (and really just reinforces the view that May doesn't really care about sexism in government):-
Funny, Mr Young mentions Munchausen Syndrome, given there's a surprising slice of the electorate who vote Tory despite not actually being wealthy or white!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't commute by train any more, but my daughter does and I have to pay for her season ticket.
My view on the price of tickets is firstly, that the purpose of the railways is to enable people to move about the country and do stuff, and secondly, that it's unfair to expect today's passengers to pay for the improvements that yesterday's passengers didn't pay for and tomorrow's passengers won't have to pay for.
Doesn't Corbyn's rail plan depend on us being out of the EU and free from their rules on nationalisation and state subsidies or something?
No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I can expand on that if you want.
I appreciate the offer, but I think it's way too early in the new year for EU rules and regulations.
I will say to everybody, regardless of where you stand on Brexit, 2018 will be a crucial and fascinating year for Brexit.
It would be foolish to predict anything other than death and taxes.
I appreciate the offer, but I think it's way too early in the new year for EU rules and regulations.
Too late! Nothing in the EU rules states you can't have state owned organisations. We already have that in the NHS to start with. I work for a public sector body that has just brought some operations in house after being privately run. The only thing the EU states is that if you are to advertise then it has to be a fair and equal process for all the external suppliers.
I will say to everybody, regardless of where you stand on Brexit, 2018 will be a crucial and fascinating year for Brexit.
It would be foolish to predict anything other than death and taxes.
Blimey and I thought I was pessimistic about Wrexit. I'm not predicting everyone will be taxed and die because of it. I think I'd prefer to take my chances with the Zombie Apocalypse (though strictly speaking we do have a government full of them so maybe it has already started!).
I appreciate the offer, but I think it's way too early in the new year for EU rules and regulations.
Too late! Nothing in the EU rules states you can't have state owned organisations. We already have that in the NHS to start with. I work for a public sector body that has just brought some operations in house after being privately run. The only thing the EU states is that if you are to advertise then it has to be a fair and equal process for all the external suppliers.
I will say to everybody, regardless of where you stand on Brexit, 2018 will be a crucial and fascinating year for Brexit.
It would be foolish to predict anything other than death and taxes.
Blimey and I thought I was pessimistic about Wrexit. I'm not predicting everyone will be taxed and die because of it. I think I'd prefer to take my chances with the Zombie Apocalypse (though strictly speaking we do have a government full of them so maybe it has already started!).
I was referring to the Benjamin Franklin quote that nothing is certain in life but death and taxes, rather than as a prediction for Brexit!
Some of Toby Young’s comments on twitter are astonishing, they’re being discussed quite a bit on twitter and screenshots being circulated as he’s hurriedly been deleting lots of stuff. Can May seriously press ahead with this appointment? Probably yes, if the BBC continue with their toothless silence.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Some of Toby Young’s comments on twitter are astonishing, they’re being discussed quite a bit on twitter and screenshots being circulated as he’s hurriedly been deleting lots of stuff. Can May seriously press ahead with this appointment? Probably yes, if the BBC continue with their toothless silence.
Yes there seems to be a purge going on to remove things that are offensive which is probably a directive from Tory HQ (the twitter remarks on Wikipedia linked earlier have all been 'removed'). However I'm not sure that the Tories really understand the internet as once it's out there you can't really remove them in the way they would like.
This article has a good few of his comments that have been preserved. Please provide anymore you find to preserve them for history!
Given the recent issues in parliament about the treatment of women you would think that May would have had some sense to not appoint someone that effectively brings into question her real desire to stamp out such issues.
But yes the BBC have been very quiet on this one. They had an article about it yesterday but it seems to have disappeared after being replaced with one more defending his actions (and not commenting at all on his twitter remarks).
A couple of other things I'd spotted over the holiday that haven't come up:
Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.
Apparently foreign diplomats owe about £11m in congestion charge fees / fines. It baffles me slightly as (a) they aren't obliged to pay taxes (which the CC is), and (b) they have total immunity even so couldn't be made to pay anyway. So I just don't understand why diplomatic cars (which usually have a special registration format) aren't just whitelisted so we don't waste money sending out fines and tracking it.
Herzlos wrote: Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.
The Express knows who to blame - front page today - "Health Tourism Scandal - Foreign mums in £16m NHS rip-off". Given the reputed wealth of Richard Desmond, £16m is pretty much a rounding error to him, never mind the NHS budget. It's almost as if he treats his readers with utter, utter contempt.
I listened to the BBC version of the report, which I think said it was £11 million not £16.
Without a baseline, though, figures like these are meaningless.
It's quite normal for x% of pregnant women to go into labout unexpectedly early, and therefore need medical help from someone other than their scheduled maternity service provider.
We have no idea of the £11M or £16M represents a scandal, or actually a lower than expectable rate of expenditure on medical services for vulnerable infants and mothers.
That isn't the point, though. The point is to focus resentment on foreigners, and deflect attention from the real problems the UK is facing.
Herzlos wrote: Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.
The Express knows who to blame - front page today - "Health Tourism Scandal - Foreign mums in £16m NHS rip-off". Given the reputed wealth of Richard Desmond, £16m is pretty much a rounding error to him, never mind the NHS budget. It's almost as if he treats his readers with utter, utter contempt.
The numbers are truly shocking, so in one year that's about 1 birth per hospital. Given the number of tourists each year I wouldn't be surprised if a fair proportion of them are just early arrivals (and the overall cost is trivial). I think a better title for the article would be:-
"Shock - Our Editors and Writers don't understand how giving birth works!"
As for the NHS there is both an underfunding issue but I think also that there are precautionary emergency measures being put in place. The flu this year appears to be quite a nasty strain (with deaths already reported in Ireland). The last thing you want is a brutal version to get into hospitals and have a large outbreak. Hence they are cancelling routine operations as it brings less people in and less people will be put in more vulnerable positions, less visitors; stopping people at the door unless they are really sick and so on.
That's not to say there aren't huge funding issues, but some of these actions would have likely been taken anyway up to the point where everyone had their own isolated rooms. We are due for a massive and costly flu outbreak, it's only a matter of time. It is unlikely that any health service could cope with a massive outbreak.
Of course we also have reports that we now need a third world charity to step in to take care of childrens teeth where they can't get treatment which is solely a continuing financing issue.
It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.
However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.
This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.
However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.
This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.
I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.
By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
Yeah 8% of exports go to these countries. Should make a huge impact...
Realistically though the UK will be signing up to something that it has never had any say in how it operates so I wouldn't expect too much benefit. This isn't an individually negotiated deal, it's the government trying to show desperately that it is doing 'something' because every other trade discussion approach is not going as planned. If you like Chilean wine though you might be happy.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.
However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.
This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.
I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.
By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
On worse terms than the EU have with them already.
By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
The EU already has a trade deal with Japan. Any trade deal with developing countries will support cheap imports rather than our own exports. There is also a distance issue to consider. It costs vastly more to send a manufactured car to Australia than it is just to build it in that location in the first place (which already has vast stockpiles of the raw goods needed) or send it to Europe. What effectively you are proposing is that we import the raw material from these countries, build something and then ship it back to them. Why wouldn't you just build it at location.
Yeah 8% of exports go to these countries. Should make a huge impact...
Realistically though the UK will be signing up to something that it has never had any say in how it operates so I wouldn't expect too much benefit. This isn't an individually negotiated deal, it's the government trying to show desperately that it is doing 'something' because every other trade discussion approach is not going as planned. If you like Chilean wine though you might be happy.
That we only do 8% of trade with the biggest population base on Planet Earth tells its own story.
If we do sign up for TPP, I doubt freedom of movement and a TPP version of the ECJ, will be demanded as the price of joining.
By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
The EU already has a trade deal with Japan. Any trade deal with developing countries will support cheap imports rather than our own exports. There is also a distance issue to consider. It costs vastly more to send a manufactured car to Australia than it is just to build it in that location in the first place (which already has vast stockpiles of the raw goods needed) or send it to Europe. What effectively you are proposing is that we import the raw material from these countries, build something and then ship it back to them. Why wouldn't you just build it at location.
I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.
However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.
This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.
I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.
By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
On worse terms than the EU have with them already.
Thumbs Down.
I'm not claiming to be giant or a major player in the miniature wargames market, but my small scale operation already sells a fair chunk of miniature wargames products to Asia, so this tilt to the Pacific is right up my street.
Herzlos wrote: Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.
The Express knows who to blame - front page today - "Health Tourism Scandal - Foreign mums in £16m NHS rip-off". Given the reputed wealth of Richard Desmond, £16m is pretty much a rounding error to him, never mind the NHS budget. It's almost as if he treats his readers with utter, utter contempt.
I'm surprised that anybody still looks at the front page of that newspaper, never mind buy the thing.
The story it tells is that it's a lot easier to sell stuff to Germany than to China.
1. The Chinese are much poorer and are less interested in the stuff we sell.
2. The Germans are a better cultural fit.
3. There are no trade barriers between us and the Germans at the moment.
And so on.
None of this is going to get better through leaving the EU.
That we only do 8% of trade with the biggest population base on Planet Earth tells its own story.
If we do sign up for TPP, I doubt freedom of movement and a TPP version of the ECJ, will be demanded as the price of joining.
Yes it tells us that distance and hence transport costs of manufactured goods is still by far the largest element impact growth of trade as well as relative spending power of the individual nations.
You get a lot more than just a trade deal by being in the EU that includes a lot of human rights, environmental and so on issues. You can have free trade with countries where the populace's rights are much worse, but then you can't complain about potential flooding from climate change when we export all our dirty industry abroad and the clap ourselves on the back for getting cleaner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
I still don't think you understand just how expensive it is to ship goods around the world. Until we invent transmats anyway.
I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.
Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?
I'm not claiming to be giant or a major player in the miniature wargames market, but my small scale operation already sells a fair chunk of miniature wargames products to Asia, so this tilt to the Pacific is right up my street.
And equivalently they will be able to sell their miniatures to us as well but without any trade barriers. That means they'll be able to use cheaper materials, cheaper labour to manufacture those same goods and sell them without restriction to the UK. Are you sure that will be a benefit?
Apparently foreign diplomats owe about £11m in congestion charge fees / fines. It baffles me slightly as (a) they aren't obliged to pay taxes (which the CC is), and (b) they have total immunity even so couldn't be made to pay anyway. So I just don't understand why diplomatic cars (which usually have a special registration format) aren't just whitelisted so we don't waste money sending out fines and tracking it.
TFL say it is not a tax, it is a road toll, which diplomats are obliged to pay. Some embassies disagree and say it is a tax and they are not obliged to pay. The question is, how do you define a tax? Is this any different to using the M6 toll or the payage in France, except that it is camera controlled rather than gate controlled? Embassies have also been known to refuse to pay parking fines and traffic volitions for the same reason, claiming it is a tax. In reality what they are saying is "You can't make us pay so we won't" and no one is willing to force the issue.
which is suppose is correct if you have to cancel thousands of operations just in case. Next year if they close all hospitals and doctors then they'll be even better prepared. Waiting times will be instant...from a perspective.
And back to Toby Young, Boris the Clown is now saying that what he has said is all in the name of caustic wit, so I suppose that just shows how he views the world as well.
and finally a former ex-treasury minister has pointed out that Gove and 'the Clown'' are clueless on world economics. I think the response to this is...we know...why are you telling us this now?
which is suppose is correct if you have to cancel thousands of operations just in case. Next year if they close all hospitals and doctors then they'll be even better prepared. Waiting times will be instant...from a perspective.
In the same way that I occasionally threaten to turn off my teams phones, because our job would be much easier without all those annoying customers...
which is suppose is correct if you have to cancel thousands of operations just in case. Next year if they close all hospitals and doctors then they'll be even better prepared. Waiting times will be instant...from a perspective.
In the same way that I occasionally threaten to turn off my teams phones, because our job would be much easier without all those annoying customers...
Ketara wrote:I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.
But finding that manager who has five minutes isn't anywhere near that difficult in my experience. Managers will seldom just fob somebody off outright, most will at least come to a desk etc. Even if say you walk into the reception of a hotel or an office and hand in a CV, you still have an opportunity to make an impression on the reception staff who will ultimately probably be asked "what were they like?". Being professional looking, acting, and having a nicely formatted CV makes a massive difference vs being in a tracksuit, chewing gum and looking at your phone, and having a scrap of handwritten paper as your CV. Ultimately all these individual efforts and touches stack up. To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.
I can’t talk for small businesses where the owner has a lot of leeway, but in medium and large businesses a CV handed in is going to go in the bin. If someone internal came to me and was interested in joining my department I would talk to them. If it was someone random I wouldn’t even talk to them, and neither would any of my colleagues. Unless you are looking for menial high turnover work or have very specialist skills and dealing with a small business you need to apply for a job.
Steve steveson wrote: I can’t talk for small businesses where the owner has a lot of leeway, but in medium and large businesses a CV handed in is going to go in the bin. If someone internal came to me and was interested in joining my department I would talk to them. If it was someone random I wouldn’t even talk to them, and neither would any of my colleagues. Unless you are looking for menial high turnover work or have very specialist skills and dealing with a small business you need to apply for a job.
The company I work for was a large company. Medium and large businesses sometimes put CVs in a draw of death, but especially given data protection laws they're unlikely to just be thrown in a nearby bin. No large company I have ever worked for has done this. If you get enough then they're a good source of applicants without having to go through the expense of posting a job advert.
Ketara wrote:I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.
But finding that manager who has five minutes isn't anywhere near that difficult in my experience. Managers will seldom just fob somebody off outright, most will at least come to a desk etc. Even if say you walk into the reception of a hotel or an office and hand in a CV, you still have an opportunity to make an impression on the reception staff who will ultimately probably be asked "what were they like?". Being professional looking, acting, and having a nicely formatted CV makes a massive difference vs being in a tracksuit, chewing gum and looking at your phone, and having a scrap of handwritten paper as your CV. Ultimately all these individual efforts and touches stack up. To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.
Ketara wrote:I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.
But finding that manager who has five minutes isn't anywhere near that difficult in my experience. Managers will seldom just fob somebody off outright, most will at least come to a desk etc. Even if say you walk into the reception of a hotel or an office and hand in a CV, you still have an opportunity to make an impression on the reception staff who will ultimately probably be asked "what were they like?". Being professional looking, acting, and having a nicely formatted CV makes a massive difference vs being in a tracksuit, chewing gum and looking at your phone, and having a scrap of handwritten paper as your CV. Ultimately all these individual efforts and touches stack up. To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.
It is likely different in various sectors. You wouldn't get anywhere with a local authority submitting a CV because of the strict method of employing people (everyone gets asked the same questions, with the same panel). There's no walking around the campus to get a feel if they like the person or not. It is formal process all the way and as long as it doesn't give an individual an advantage from a personal perspective.
On the other hand I could assume that a CV and a walk round a premises might work if you are looking for a bouncer at a night club. A programming company might accept a CV and then ask you to write some code and so on. We are probably all looking at things from our own anecdotal view and I'm not sure anyone is right or wrong on this.
I'd agree with that. Practically every single High Street chain these days routes their job applications through a central HR department, and managers have no discretion for any casual 'You wanna try a shift' approaches. Building sites though? I used to know a guy who did odd work on building sites all the time by lurking around them.
For your average wet behind the ears teen though, the high street is the first place you go to apply for unskilled labour. You don't see too many female psychology grads hanging around trying to get work as bouncers, y'know?
Because their is a decent body of evidence that being presentable, having a decent looking CV (in terms of its formatting and layout) and being pro active in job searching works a lot better than sitting on your backside and applying for the odd job online with a poorly designed CV. Being pro active in the job market works. Being professionally presented works. It works no matter where you go in the country and no matter who you apply it to. You take someones CV, tart it up a bit, put them in some more professional looking clothes and send them out to actively hunt for jobs in the local area and you will get better results than if they just apply for 1 or 2 jobs online per day. If it's all down to luck, then how is it that a pro-active approach always seems to work so much better? There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck.
Showing up with a CV isn't going to help if you're looking for a Marine Engineering job, though such specialised companies usually have a contact point for people who want to put a CV in by e-mail for example for future reference. But putting yourself out there is a much better option than sitting at home on Google and hoping something comes up. A big portion of jobs are inside what's called the hidden job market, where companies ask around among their staff before going to the expense of putting out job adverts. People who are knocking on doors, e-mailing or posting CVs and this kind of thing have a much greater chance of tapping into that market than the person waiting at home for a job advert that is never coming.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.
By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.
That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.
What would be the benefit of leaving the EU when the same EU already has agreements with some countries in Asia? Was the whole process somehow impossible while in the EU? Couldn't the UK keep selling to Germany (and the rest of the EU) and Asia while staying in the EU?
Or on a more basic level: Why would the UK need to leave the EU to trade with asian countries?
Kilkrazy wrote:1. The Chinese are much poorer and are less interested in the stuff we sell.
I'm not so sure about that. I read a few years ago that China's middle class is growing nicely (while ours is not exactly doing that). Their middle class might not have the same level of disposable income as European countries but if I remember correctly at the time of the article their middle class was already over 100 million people (more than the whole population of Germany; poor, middle class, and rich).
Because their is a decent body of evidence that being presentable, having a decent looking CV (in terms of its formatting and layout) and being pro active in job searching works a lot better than sitting on your backside and applying for the odd job online with a poorly designed CV. Being pro active in the job market works. Being professionally presented works. It works no matter where you go in the country and no matter who you apply it to. You take someones CV, tart it up a bit, put them in some more professional looking clothes and send them out to actively hunt for jobs in the local area and you will get better results than if they just apply for 1 or 2 jobs online per day. If it's all down to luck, then how is it that a pro-active approach always seems to work so much better? There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck.
Showing up with a CV isn't going to help if you're looking for a Marine Engineering job, though such specialised companies usually have a contact point for people who want to put a CV in by e-mail for example for future reference. But putting yourself out there is a much better option than sitting at home on Google and hoping something comes up. A big portion of jobs are inside what's called the hidden job market, where companies ask around among their staff before going to the expense of putting out job adverts. People who are knocking on doors, e-mailing or posting CVs and this kind of thing have a much greater chance of tapping into that market than the person waiting at home for a job advert that is never coming.
You're shifting your goalposts. You said that it was dubious to claim that effort was secondary to luck, and now you're explaining why it's dubious to claim that effort has no influence.
bouncingboredom wrote: There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck.
I think there's a failure of communication going on here, because that's not quite what I'm saying. Let me try again.
Luck is the everpresent counterpart to any kind of un-predetermined action you or I take. If I search for a job, my odds of becoming employed go up. If I buy a nice suit, the odds probably nudge slightly upwards again. If I take twice as many job interviews, the odds of one employer liking me go higher still.
But in any given instance of my job search, I can still fail. And because of how life works, I can do all of those things and still fail continuously. I reduce the odds of that happening by doing what you're saying, but I don't eliminate it. Luck is ever present.
To put it into gaming terms, I need a 6 on a D6 to get a job. If I do all the things you're saying, I can work it down to a 4+. But at the end of the day, each time I roll the dice, I still just have a 50% chance of missing what I need, and the last roll doesn't affect whether or not I win the next roll. So in the same way some jammy bastard might be able to roll 5 6's in quick succession (and needs a 6+ because he's a lazy git and does nothing you've said), I might still end up getting a 1, then a 3, then a 1 again, then a 2, then a 3 four times, and so on. Luck is always there. You can do your best to weight the odds when jobhunting, but it never leaves you.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:You're shifting your goalposts. You said that it was dubious to claim that effort was secondary to luck, and now you're explaining why it's dubious to claim that effort has no influence.
I'm genuinely baffled how you've come to this conclusion. "There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck."
Ketara wrote:Luck is always there. You can do your best to weight the odds when jobhunting, but it never leaves you.
It all depends on how we define "luck". Luck isn't really a thing. It's a phrase we use to describe a series of events, such as when we describe someone as being lucky or unlucky based on a series of outcomes. We can argue in a sense that unless something is 100% guaranteed then there is an element of good or bad luck involved, but really in the context of what we're talking about I would argue that people are using "luck" in this thread as a way of saying that finding a job is basically just a coin toss, or everybody rolling a D6 (regardless of what actions they take) and that anyone that rolls a six gets a job. In reality the "odds" if we want to call it that are much, much better for the person taking all the active measures they can. To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.
To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.
The coin flip is too black and white. It's more the cosmic D6 as in the example above. Person A in your example had the 4+ from their hard work and so got a job on a roll of 4, whereas someone who didn't put in the work and therefore still needed 6+ didn't.
The thing about the great cosmic D6 is that ultimately, you can roll a series of 1's, and some jammy bastard can roll a 6 straight off the bat. That's luck, that's happenstance, that's the right place at the right time. Our slob can get a a job straight away from an advert nobody else had picked up on, whilst our well presented candidate kept applying for jobs lined up for relatives on the quiet. Slobby Mclazy might be the only CV not ruined when the tea in the office gets knocked over, whilst Bouncing McBoredom keeps trying to hand in CV's at places where the manager has no ability to do anything with them.
That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).
AlmightyWalrus wrote:You're shifting your goalposts. You said that it was dubious to claim that effort was secondary to luck, and now you're explaining why it's dubious to claim that effort has no influence.
I'm genuinely baffled how you've come to this conclusion. "There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck."
This is your first quote:
bouncingboredom wrote: To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.
Note how that isn't the argument you're now presenting. Ergo, moving the goalposts.
Unfortunately this is not the first time. Bouncingboredom shifts the goalposts whenever he is being proven wrong and then will argue details and pick apart every sentence to prove he is right.
I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.
Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?
yup. If Japan shifts focus away from Europe obviously that includes UK and UK is likely "bit" less interesting trading partner than whole EU. Lot bigger markets on EU..
No-one is shifting focus away from Europe. it's the largest, richest market in the world and will remain so for a long time.
The thing about Europe is that it is a relatively low growth market for many industries, because it is already rich and developed.
This does not mean the Japanese will stop selling stuff to Europe in order to sell stuff to Brazil. The Japanese will simply produce more stuff to sell to everyone.
I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.
Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?
yup. If Japan shifts focus away from Europe obviously that includes UK and UK is likely "bit" less interesting trading partner than whole EU. Lot bigger markets on EU..
In any case trade is not a matter of Europe or developing markets. It's Europe AND developing markets.
That's why trade between Japan and the EU keeps growing, and it will keep growing under the new agreement. And even if it grows at a slower pace it will take decades (if ever) for trade with developing countries to catch up.
Speaking about trade purely in GDP and population terms is just looking at the surface. The best baguettes may well be made on a small bakery in a tiny village in the Garonne, but I will never get to know because bread doesn't really travel too well and by the time it gets here will be stale. India may be a large market, but it can't afford a lot of the things we make in Europe... and those they can for the most part are already there: BMWs and manufacturing equipment and jet engines and posh appliances are already there.
If you want to sell a larger portions of the Indian (or Chinese, it doesn't matter) populace you have to go there and make things the Indian way. Like Renault:
To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.
The coin flip is too black and white. It's more the cosmic D6 as in the example above. Person A in your example had the 4+ from their hard work and so got a job on a roll of 4, whereas someone who didn't put in the work and therefore still needed 6+ didn't.
The thing about the great cosmic D6 is that ultimately, you can roll a series of 1's, and some jammy bastard can roll a 6 straight off the bat. That's luck, that's happenstance, that's the right place at the right time. Our slob can get a a job straight away from an advert nobody else had picked up on, whilst our well presented candidate kept applying for jobs lined up for relatives on the quiet. Slobby Mclazy might be the only CV not ruined when the tea in the office gets knocked over, whilst Bouncing McBoredom keeps trying to hand in CV's at places where the manager has no ability to do anything with them.
That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).
There's also the luck of your particular strengths being in demand and societally valued.
Me? I can't do anything with my hands. I've not a creative bone in my body. So if the UK was a labour based economy, I'd be on the backfoot.
But what I am very good at it is facts and figures, bookish pursuits. As a service based economy, not only are there quite a lot of jobs out there, but some that actually pay a decent wage.
Further luck? I've got one of those well paying jobs, which has developed into a career, and will continue for the foreseeable. All with barely a clutch of 22 year old GCSEs under my belt.
Yes, the career progression since I got started is down to hard graft for the most part. But that this job even exists and I happen to be well suited? Absolute blind luck.
Kilkrazy wrote: No-one is shifting focus away from Europe. it's the largest, richest market in the world and will remain so for a long time.
The thing about Europe is that it is a relatively low growth market for many industries, because it is already rich and developed.
This does not mean the Japanese will stop selling stuff to Europe in order to sell stuff to Brazil. The Japanese will simply produce more stuff to sell to everyone.
As somebody said last page, the Chinese and the Indian middle classes are growing, and they have billions of pounds of disposable income to burn.
For sure, China is not as rich as Europe, but it's an upward projection. Hundreds of million of people have been lifted out of poverty these past decades, and that will only continue to improve.
As for Japan, as China starts flexing its economic muscle, and given their historic rivalry, who knows how this will impact on Japan?
I'm just saying we should be flexible on trade and try and steer it away from Europe to other markets.
To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.
The coin flip is too black and white. It's more the cosmic D6 as in the example above. Person A in your example had the 4+ from their hard work and so got a job on a roll of 4, whereas someone who didn't put in the work and therefore still needed 6+ didn't.
The thing about the great cosmic D6 is that ultimately, you can roll a series of 1's, and some jammy bastard can roll a 6 straight off the bat. That's luck, that's happenstance, that's the right place at the right time. Our slob can get a a job straight away from an advert nobody else had picked up on, whilst our well presented candidate kept applying for jobs lined up for relatives on the quiet. Slobby Mclazy might be the only CV not ruined when the tea in the office gets knocked over, whilst Bouncing McBoredom keeps trying to hand in CV's at places where the manager has no ability to do anything with them.
That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).
There's also the luck of your particular strengths being in demand and societally valued.
Me? I can't do anything with my hands. I've not a creative bone in my body. So if the UK was a labour based economy, I'd be on the backfoot.
But what I am very good at it is facts and figures, bookish pursuits. As a service based economy, not only are there quite a lot of jobs out there, but some that actually pay a decent wage.
Further luck? I've got one of those well paying jobs, which has developed into a career, and will continue for the foreseeable. All with barely a clutch of 22 year old GCSEs under my belt.
Yes, the career progression since I got started is down to hard graft for the most part. But that this job even exists and I happen to be well suited? Absolute blind luck.
Are you not a wargamer? You can file, glue, paint, spray and varnish miniatures.
I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.
Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?
yup. If Japan shifts focus away from Europe obviously that includes UK and UK is likely "bit" less interesting trading partner than whole EU. Lot bigger markets on EU..
Yeah, but Japan is not the only nation that makes cars. I'm led to believe that the USA makes cars as well.
Granted, I will concede that Japan driving on the left as well is a benefit for those of us who like our 1990s CRX imports
I'm just saying we should be flexible on trade and try and steer it away from Europe to other markets.
Again you don't steer away anything. You try to sell as much as you can, in Europe or elsewhere.
Trade is not a zero-sum game, if I sell 1.000 Jaguars to China it doesn't mean I have to sell 1.000 less in Europe, I can just make more of them and buy new machinery and hire new employees if needed.
I'm just saying we should be flexible on trade and try and steer it away from Europe to other markets.
Again you don't steer away anything. You try to sell as much as you can, in Europe or elsewhere.
Trade is not a zero-sum game, if I sell 1.000 Jaguars to China it doesn't mean I have to sell 1.000 less in Europe, I can just make more of them and buy new machinery and hire new employees if needed.
I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy
Europe, due to geography, will be on Britain's doorstep for hundreds of millions of years. You can't ignore that.
But as tech continues to 'shrink' the world at an ever increasing pace, and as the web gets better and better, new opportunities open up.
We, Britain, need to have our foot in as many markets as possible, and not overly rely on any one market.
Prudence and flexibility should be our watch words.
I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy
No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.
When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.
There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.
Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.
Do they each offer a far wider variety of goods and services than us?
Yes.
We've got less cash to spend on stuff, and less people able to buy stuff.
This is a bad, bad idea.
But it's OK. Because Pigs Ears, apparently. And farmland can become meadows.
China's population far far outstrips that of Switzerland, but if you wanted world class healthcare, education, or a place to retire, where would you choose?
Switzerland or China?
A large population is no guarantee of economic success.
I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy
No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.
When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.
There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.
Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.
With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.
I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy
No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.
When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.
There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.
Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.
With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.
So you do advocate weakening trade with the EU after all.
I'm not advocating an abandon European trade policy
No but you're all for weakening it due to some political beliefs. Any trade deal we get with the EU that's not us being part of the EU will be inferior, and you're all for that.
When we move outside of the bloc, the EU continues to focus on what's best for the EU and doesn't need to care about us. We lose influence, and bargaining power.
There's nothing about improving trade with the developing regions that is mutually exclusive with being in the EU. In fact the EU will likely get more favorable deals with all of these places.
Whilst the Indian and Chinese middle classes are growing, are they going to be more likely to want UK goods and services? They have their own industries and cultures and have plenty of things to spend their money on locally.
With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.
So you do advocate weakening trade with the EU after all.
I'm always happy to trade with Europe, I continent I've long admired, but not at any price.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm always happy to trade with Europe, I continent I've long admired, but not at any price.
Exactly; you're willing to weaken our trading position (and influence) over some perceived improvements to sovereignty.
Thus you are advocating weakening our trade with the EU. I don't get how you can deny that.
To elaborate on that: there is no cake and eat it. You want to leave the single market and customs union because you don't want to take any instruction from EU. That means weakened trade. There's no other option. Leaving the customs union will mean weakened trade.
A large population is no guarantee of economic success.
Exactly. Which is why it's stupid to harm EU trade to try and catch India/China trade, because their large populations don't translate to international buying power.
Ketara wrote: For your average wet behind the ears teen though, the high street is the first place you go to apply for unskilled labour. You don't see too many female psychology grads hanging around trying to get work as bouncers, y'know?
Oh I don't know about that, my brother's girlfriend is a psychology graduate and has a Brown Belt in Taekwondo.
Do they each offer a far wider variety of goods and services than us?
Yes.
We've got less cash to spend on stuff, and less people able to buy stuff.
This is a bad, bad idea.
But it's OK. Because Pigs Ears, apparently. And farmland can become meadows.
India and China’s economies don’t dwarf ours, and that’s one of the big problems. China is less than 3 times the size and India is smaller. They simply don’t have the money to buy much from us. A few eye catching wealthy can buy our luxury goods like expensive cars or high end services like architecture to build Olympic stadiums but overall they simply can’t afford to buy from us on any scale. Their middle class may be growing, but that is relative. The expectation is that the Chinese middle class will account for 76% of urban Chinese by 2020. This sounds good, until you take in to account that the definition of middle class in China is a household income of US$9000-US$35000. That is £6000-£25000. Assuming that the average household is two people (some will be one, some will have a child) this puts the average Chinese middle class person with an income of somewhere between £3000 and £12,500, or between poor and very poor in the UK or US.
The belief that China or India is going to suddenly become a market for the goods and services the UK wants to export is to woefully miss understand the economics.
Ketara wrote: For your average wet behind the ears teen though, the high street is the first place you go to apply for unskilled labour. You don't see too many female psychology grads hanging around trying to get work as bouncers, y'know?
Oh I don't know about that, my brother's girlfriend is a psychology graduate and has a Brown Belt in Taekwondo.
With regards to the EU, some of us value liberty and sovereignty over economic benefits any days of the week.
We trade with them now and have liberty and sovereignty. Where do you live in the UK because it seems like you are locked up in a sweatshop.
There's a fascinating review here of the divide in views in the membership of the main parties. It shows just how out of touch the vast amount of Tory members are with current realities
To save people reading the whole thing I've summarised the views in order of Tories: Labour : LD: SNP
Support for second EU referendum :- 14%: 78%: 91%: 87% (big potential problem for Corbyn here)
Continued membership of single market :- 25% : 87%: 96% : 95%
Continued membership of customs union:- 27% : 85% : 95% : 91%
Supporting the death penalty:- 54% : 9% : 8% : 23%
Young people don't have enough respect for traditional British values :- 77%: 20% : 18%: 23%
Has austerity gone too far:- 11%: 98%: 75%: 93%
Do ordinary people not get their fair share of the nations wealth:- 19% : ? : ? : ?
Support for gay marriage:- 40% : 80% : 80% : 80% (approximates)
Percentage of males in party:- 71% : 53% : 63% : 57%
Average age:- 57: 53 : 52 : 54
Percentage over 65 :- 44% : 29% : 30% : 32%
How much their views count in the party :- 28% : 61% : 75% : 73%
Ketara wrote:That's life. I'm not really entirely sure what you're disagreeing with if I'm honest. Nobody is saying that it's all down to luck (that would be dumb), just that luck is ultimately always a factor in how quickly you can get into employment. Sometimes it goes your way, and sometimes it doesn't. Kudos to someone if they managed to speed it up a bit by stacking the odds in their favour through a bit more hard work, but not everyone's hard work always pays off. Sometimes you put hours of effort into putting in the extra mile and working really hard, and still get nothing back in the end. That's just the way it goes. Learning to deal with and accept that without giving up in a strop is just part of growing up as a person (in my opinion, anyway).
I'm disagreeing with the idea that luck in this sense is the primary factor. If someone puts the work in and does the right things, it almost invariably pays off. Not always, and in some cases it just takes a bit longer, but putting the effort in will reap rewards in the vast majority of cases. Luck is a minor factor.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Note how that isn't the argument you're now presenting. Ergo, moving the goalposts.
Except that I've stuck to the line quite consistently that I think hard work is more important than any notion of luck, and that to ascribe the results of hard work as being secondary to luck is incorrect. You seem to have plucked this "moving the goalposts" thing completely out of thin air, for a reason I can't fathom, which is why I'm baffled.
Steve steveson wrote:Unfortunately this is not the first time. Bouncingboredom shifts the goalposts whenever he is being proven wrong and then will argue details and pick apart every sentence to prove he is right.
Except I haven't shifted the goalposts at all. If you don't like my arguments, or you disagree with them, that's completely fine. Opinions are our own. But don't try and pretend I'm doing something I'm not just because you disagree, or get on some notional high horse about who is proven wrong. From my persepctive of the argument I've shut down every false comment about economics that has been made fairly comprehensively, with facts, but I also acknowledge that everyone has their own opinions and so someone who is very pro-socialism for example is unlikely to accept an argument about the merits of the free market. Thus it comes down to perspectives and biases on who is "right" and who is "wrong".
Kilkrazy wrote:The thing about Europe is that it is a relatively low growth market for many industries, because it is already rich and developed.
And that's the critical element. The EU market has low growth prospects for the UK as we've tapped about as much of it as we can barring some sort of revolution. One of the advantages of Brexit is the opportunity to start better tapping into the rest of the world, which is gradually catching the EU up. It represents newer, fresher fields for investment and cooperative trade. The numbers have been sliding against the EU for some time now. We'll still trade with the EU, we're not hauling anchor and disappearing into the Atlantic. But Europe will like diminish in its overall importance as a market.
bouncingboredom wrote: Except that I've stuck to the line quite consistently that I think hard work is more important than any notion of luck, and that to ascribe the results of hard work as being secondary to luck is incorrect. You seem to have plucked this "moving the goalposts" thing completely out of thin air, for a reason I can't fathom, which is why I'm baffled.
Not really. Luck is a large contributing factor, most people work hard. You can even put it down to being luck as to which parents you were born to, which country you were born in and so on. If you are born to a poor family in Yemen (or even the UK) the chances of getting to the top of the field are slim. If you are born to a father who is the CEO of Rolls Royce your chances are much better simply because they can afford to give you the best education, get you the starting management job.
A simpler example would be two PhD students (lets say Astronomy and finding planets). They are each given an equal number of stars to analyse (say 1000) that they analyse in the same time frame (say 3.5 years). Each sample is randomly selected. PhD student A is unlucky and finds no planets, not because of lack of hard work but simply that statistical sample doesn't have any. On the other hand PhD student B finds a planet in a habitable zone that follow up shows has liquid water. PhD student B gets a Nature paper which then sets them up for a lucrative post doc with a highly rated professor. That then brings more papers, more renown and eventually a professorship and eventually the Astronomer Royal. Neither PhD student worked any harder than the other. One simply was lucky and managed to get that break to the top. The same goes for normal walks of life. Many people work just as hard as each other, the ones that are really successful are the ones that get a chance at the right time. To say people that aren't successful don't work hard is disingenuous.
And that's the critical element. The EU market has low growth prospects for the UK as we've tapped about as much of it as we can barring some sort of revolution. One of the advantages of Brexit is the opportunity to start better tapping into the rest of the world, which is gradually catching the EU up. It represents newer, fresher fields for investment and cooperative trade. The numbers have been sliding against the EU for some time now. We'll still trade with the EU, we're not hauling anchor and disappearing into the Atlantic. But Europe will like diminish in its overall importance as a market.
We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries. Most of these up and coming countries are rich because the west wanted to cheap goods that they could provide. As they become wealthier, that drives higher prices which means their growth will stall. They are successful because of exploitation of the workforce. The trade deficit will only change when our conditions become worse. On top of this the EU will also be courting the same business. Which is likely to be able to get a better deal. An aging 70million or the population with 0.5bn. It's like you see the UK in isolation and that we will be able to access all of this and no one else will.
bouncingboredom wrote: I'm disagreeing with the idea that luck in this sense is the primary factor. If someone puts the work in and does the right things, it almost invariably pays off. Not always, and in some cases it just takes a bit longer, but putting the effort in will reap rewards in the vast majority of cases. Luck is a minor factor.
See, I'd say the degree of 'luck' involved varies from case to case depending on each individual circumstance. Any kind of generalisation, as we established above, is unlikely to hold water in all, or even most circumstances. The only non-variable is that luck is always present to some degree (be it greater or lesser) in any non-prearranged scenario involving jobhunting.
I'm also not entirely certain I'd agree that hard work almost invariably pays off'. Perhaps if we weigh the payoff in terms of good character building, but otherwise I've known far too many people (and indeed, been the person myself on occasion) work hard and get zip to believe that.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Note how that isn't the argument you're now presenting. Ergo, moving the goalposts.
Except that I've stuck to the line quite consistently that I think hard work is more important than any notion of luck, and that to ascribe the results of hard work as being secondary to luck is incorrect. You seem to have plucked this "moving the goalposts" thing completely out of thin air, for a reason I can't fathom, which is why I'm baffled.
But you haven't. When I asked why you thought it was dubious to claim that hard work is secondary to luck you started explaining why making an effort matters. That wasn't what the argument was about in the first place, (no one was saying making an effort doesn't matter) which is why I'm in turn baffled.
I'll drop the discussion since it's getting off topic though.
Me and Ketara were talking about a very different issue. You basically just wasted 5-10 mins of your time.
We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries.
Except for the minor issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers of course.
Ketara wrote:See, I'd say the degree of 'luck' involved varies from case to case depending on each individual circumstance.
Fair enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: But you haven't. When I asked why you thought it was dubious to claim that hard work is secondary to luck you started explaining why making an effort matters. That wasn't what the argument was about in the first place, (no one was saying making an effort doesn't matter) which is why I'm in turn baffled. I'll drop the discussion since it's getting off topic though.
I thought I explained what making an effort does in practical terms and how it removes most of what people attribute to luck. I dunno, like you say we don't seem to be on same wavelength and it's a bit off topic.
We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries.
Except for the minor issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers of course.
The UK has one of the most comprehensive network of trade agreements in the world currently. Literally hundreds of bilaterals and several free trade agreements, with more to come.
The idea that it will be better off on his own is ludicrous. It will take years if not decades just to reach the level of market openness that it currently has from within the EU.
We can already do this. Nothing stops us selling or buying from other countries.
Except for the minor issue of tariff and non-tariff barriers of course.
Assuming our single market equivalence nonsense allows us to make our own trade deals; any country we find it worth making a deal with will also be of interest to the EU who will want to create a deal. Given that, do you think we'll be able to get a deal as good as a trading union 10 times our size? We might be able to get a deal a bit faster (presumably by conceding on everything), but in the long run will we be able to do anything better outside the EU than within?
) then they'd better have a contingency plan in place.
The porn on the computer was 
The police need to be slapped down hard for this.
Yeah this should be throwing up all sorts of red flags. Not only is Liam Fox the sort of person that should always be accompanied by a responsible adult, but the current US administration is run by an actual con man and his cronies.
(and that basically if you are born into a poor family you will have low intelligence).
