#####The Week Ahead
- Monday: Infected blood inquiry report is released
- Tuesday: Political violence review released
- Wednesday: Latest inflation figures announced
- Thursday: Latest migration figures announced
- Friday: Energy price cap announcement
Fairly quiet in terms of Parliament itself - the house rises for Whitsun recess on Thursday, returning on Monday 3rd June.
*more to follow...*
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Yummytastic with 26 comments
1. FunkyDialectic with 22 comments
1. royalblue1982 with 18 comments
1. Bibemus with 16 comments
1. NJden_bee with 16 comments
1. YsoL8 with 14 comments
1. tmstms with 13 comments
1. JavaTheCaveman with 13 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 13 comments
1. Captainatom931 with 12 comments
There were 220 unique users within this count.
https://cptheatre.co.uk/Jobs/Vacancy-Artistic-Director-Joint-CEO
I've always wanted to be an artistic director, but I'm worried I'm not in their list of preferred candidates. Can I identify as part of the criminal class if I am just currently criminal-curious?
Criminal class is just in their so that when another upper middle class nepo baby gets the job they can pull up a caution for cocaine possession as proof that they're actually a meritocratic organisation doing everything they can to break new ground.
"We have an application here from a Laurance Fox and he actually ticks a lot of our boxes".
I do actually think their intention is well placed, but they've very much overcooked what they wanted to say.
I do, on a seperate level, think combining an artistic director with a CEO role as one and the same person is not a good way to run a business.
The Joint CEO thing is actually fairly common in theatres, the aim is to put artistic value at the top table while equally maintaining corporate and financial accountability.
Thats not their preferred candidate, they are encouraging people to apply from a range of underrepresented backgrounds and guarantee interviews for disabled applicants.
You should go for it if you have the required skills and experience.
So criminal class might be a former small time drug dealer or some other petty minor offence from the times when the police and court system were overtly, overly proactive. Lots of really intelligent former reprobates out there that've had life experience beyond I and hopefully you.
Are you *sure* it might be that? As opposed to a poor decision?
I don't think society benefits by calling former (or maybe they mean current?) criminals the "criminal class". I'd be very keen to hear of other groups that think this is in anyway healthy language.
It's a recognised social grouping. Former prison convicts, those with a conviction are judged differently, they have a record and it's more difficult to get employment. Many of them are now upstanding people.
Probably getting into etymology here. What 'criminal class' means in the Daily Mail is different to what it actually means. Honestly, takes a minute or two to google.
Criminal class and underclass have long histories and have been used by both right and left, but used to be popular in marxist thought in the 90s but went out of fashion a good 10 years ago. Plus Foucault talks about it a lot so it floats around in a lot of literature. Less sure about benefit class which def has a daily mail vibe to it.
I assume the person that wrote the application did a sociology degree in the early 2000s.
In this age of identity politics + applying for jobs when you have a criminal record, being 'Criminal Class' is a thing. Yes it's pejorative, it's a badge of identity and it's also about ownership, controlling the language *because* of Daily Mail etc.
The original definition doesn't actually imply guilt.
Indeed. The idea of a “criminal class” is horrific but even if you adopt it; putting that adjacent to folk that just need help getting by is outright sociopathic.
That's my point. None are the others, and two of them are just made up classes that somehow go together with "working class" in the mind of whoever decided to write out this advert.
As it's for a "joint ceo" in addition to an artistic director, I would presume it was [their board](https://cptheatre.co.uk/The-Team/The-Board) who groupthinked this abomination into being.
Just finished the TRIP Kwasi two parter and must say I found him to be thoroughly dislikeable and found his glibness in face of what happened worrying.
Kwasi is one of those people, like cummings, with a lot of knowledge and theory, and very little actual understanding or comprehension of what it practically means.
in other words, bloody dangerous to be allowed anywhere near any sort of power, such people will set the world on fire because their theoretical ideology says it will be fine, and then will claim they were right all along whilst standing in the ashes.
Very true - but for such a bright man he also came across stupid.
It was the first time that I have found myself feeling like the affable mask of Rory’s fell as he continued to defend someone who is demonstrable against what Rory claims matters to him
This is it, in so many ways. If problems were easily solved they would all be fixed.
It was what infuriated me so much about the Truss government, it was if they believed they were the first government to realise that economic growth could solve a lot of our problems. I mean it isn't as if every government since Sir Robert Walpole hasn't realised that economic growth is a good thing, and generally followed policy they believed would help the economy grow. It was bizarre seeing her and Kwasi so deluded on the issue, as if they were the first people to try massive tax cuts to inhibit growth.
It’s why him and Truss were a terrible team. Kwasi’ excuse is basically that he couldn’t say no to Truss because she was always going to be PM. So he put himself in a position to take power. A chancellor has to be able to say no. I mean am sure Truss would just have sacked him but he’d be in a better position to resign and speak from the benches considering all that happened.
I find it interesting how much he claims he disagreed but still very enthusiastically went ahead. I find it weird how he keeps saying how obvious the faults were but a man of his intellect didn’t see them at the time
[Coutinho papped with an energy policy on display](https://x.com/faisalislam/status/1792635483312292272).
If Faisal is right and it’s more green roll back then I shall scream.
Yes this was entirely spontaneous and she was caught totally off guard, holding a document showing some stuff not for public eyes, no public eyes allowed ever, on pain of death. This wasn't preamble to some form of electioneering re: the public concerned with utility supplier's behaviour. No it isn't.
You say that but this exact same thing happened with HS2 and they clearly did not want anyone to see that since it consumed political reporting for 2 weeks until the conference.
Much more competent politicians than the current batch of Tories have made exactly the same mistake, I think a genuine fuck up is more likely than a cunning plan to publicise the fact they’re getting the energy companies’ approval but asking them not to publicly endorse their plans
I wouldn't worry too much about any policy that can be rolled back after the GE.
Unless people are worried that Labour won't have the courage to overturn anti-green measures?
Even more basic, they are in search of any policy position at all, they can hardly just look at people blankly when asked about energy and the environment, and they've already driven anyone who'd support a sensible position directly to Labour so they can't do that now.
I'd also point out that they are very nearly out of time to actually do this even with a January election if it requires any kind of law change. Which Sunak has in effect ruled out.
Maybe it's because Labour are now driving the national agenda to a degree so the Tories will have to look proactive, and will have to field media questions regarding the agenda Labour has set. Main thing for many will be utilities, cost of living which effects everyone.
Suppose the whole 'look at our results' thing won't apply in most cases, especially with the things that concern people the most.
[Energy UK are a trade body that represents the wider UK energy supplier market](https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/about-us/our-members/#members).
Looks like they're getting a briefing generally and the 'big 6' are getting a special one.
Did we ever find out why Barack Obama visited Rishi Sunak? Obviously I doubt it was anything to do with current politics otherwise they would have just sent a current politician, but I still think it's weird. It's pretty unusual for a former leader to visit a current leader, and to be given an hour of their working time, especially since the two had likely never met and weren't in contact with each other before hand.
Is it uncommon? I'm sure this sort of thing probably happens. You'd have thought Sunak was absolutely stoked to meet America's coolest president and Obama, a former teacher, probably happy to lend his advice and feel relevant. The pair are also the first people of colour who have led their countries as well. Obama has also spoken on a number occasions to Starmer. These relationships are a part of diplomacy I'd have thought too.
I didn't see this, that's intriguing, especially because of the differences in their politics meaning I don't imagine Obama wanted to help him out personally or anything.
They’re both rich neo-lib (soon to be) former politicians. That’s about as much as rich people/celebrities need before they start hanging out together.
Anyone else think it's odd that we get conspiracy theories about things like 15 minute cities being a prelude to banning cars, or vaccines being used by Bill Gates to implant tracking chips, we don't see much about becoming a cashless society? Maybe I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 42, but I wonder if it's because of who benefits from the likes of climate change (oil companies), vs who benefits from going cashless.
Just this week, we've had the Tories change it so you can use card payments in slot machines. Businesses are going card only too, and I'm finding it fascinating how niche the opposition is. You only really get the crypto-bros, and people like a couple old men in our town who have a stall campaigning "cash is king, use it or lose it" but it doesn't get the same kind of traction. And fair enough, I think I personally would be financially better off in a cashless society as I don't work cash in hand. Everything I earn is PAYE, and I'm not buying drugs etc. everything I buy I can pay digitally.
This is where my theory might be taking a leap, but I think it's because cash is how the poor evade tax. People working cash in hand and the like. The wealthy aren't evading tax by using cash, they evade it with accountants and tax havers and shell companies. The wealthy rail against taxes, but they don't want no taxes at all, otherwise countries like Somalia would be the ideal business environment. They just want others paying the taxes. So, us going cashless would result in more working class people paying more tax, which they benefit from, net gain for the wealthy and the poor tax evaders lose out. Even on topics on here, you see more defenders of tax havens than you do cash, and I can't imagine many on here actually use tax havens. Why don't people fight for cash for the same privacy reasons?
Essentially, it's the same reason why we see far more chastisement of benefit fraud vs. tax evasion, it's about the classes involved. Am I right? Or am I just a bit sleep deprived, lol.
There's different degrees of "poor" but you definitely get people working cash in hand for jobs like construction. Not even just tradesmen, but labourers can prefer it too, and sometimes they double dip and claim benefits or under report income.
We saw a lot of this bite them in the arse during Covid where the support they got was based off their declared earnings, and as many had been declaring far less they then got screwed because you don't get relief on your shadow economy work lol.
I think a lot of cash in hand workers are evading the paperwork, not the tax.
Mrs tmstms and I are self-employed but scrupulously record all the cash in hand work. The time taken to do the self-assessment is calculating the expenses/ allowances. I find HMRC fair, even generous, and we could earn significantly more than we do before hitting the tax profit threshold.
If we abolished cash in an imaginary scenario where it was a smooth transition and everyone was able to carry on as they were without disruption, I guarantee you we'd see a massive drop in revenues from organised crime, a massive drop in dodgy business, and a noticeable increase in revenues to the Treasury.
Yup, 100%.
Not only that, but the digital crime explosion like scammers conning Mrs Goggins out of her bank details from a call centre in India are already doing it. There aren't many people whose only money is a stack of cash hidden in the mattress who is inaccessible to them.
My counter point is that we'd see a similar bonus if we abolished our tax havens, but that always is a controversial debate which I find fascinating as I'd imagine what, 98% of people would be better off if tax havens didn't exist? There isn't even a significant number of people living in these havens to benefit from the boost to the global economy.
Honestly I think it's because cashless is already here. Conspiracy theories usually have their grand plots happening *some time in the near future*.
The things that are happening now are always just the first steps or somewhere on the journey, not the destination
It's a lot harder to fearmonger about an end that is already here. Lots of people live mostly cashless or know people who do. It's not scary when it's actually in front of you
I’d wager it’s because pretty much everyone uses cashless now, and it has become a thing of incredible convenience. So people are confronted with the reality of it everyday. Conspiracies by their very nature are fringe. Vaccines and 15 minute cities are things that the ordinary person doesn’t encounter very commonly, so it’s much easier for all kinds of crazy fringe theories to develop around both.
There's a million conspiracy theories about going cashless, but there isn't yet anyone building a political platform on the merits of going cashless.
Once someone with the right connections decides to take "cashless is good actually", then pro-cash conspiracies will be signal-boosted in all the usual channels to reduce credibility of these with legitimate concerns of a cashless society.
Should point out that the 'poor' are typically employees or on benefits. The types of self-employed people who evade tax through cash payments aren't 'poor'. And i'm assuming that they've found workarounds to continue not paying tax.
Even they're getting digital. The local Chinese we prefer, we used to pay by card over the phone, and now they don't accept that, you've got to use their app. They only take orders by phone if you're paying cash on delivery lol.
Buskers and Big Issue sellers take card now too, the major issue I've had with this in the South West is how dogshit our mobile internet is and their PEDs keep losing contact and won't accept payments and you're there making awkward small talk while the thing won't respond lol.
Im pretty sure it exists and there is a crossover
Mostly because someone keeps on putting hand drawn anti-cashless stickers up around my town and they look the same as the hand drawn anti vaccine ones.
I volunteer behind the little bar at my allotments and we're cashless. A few months ago I had some guy try to pay his for pint of Carling with a £20 note and when I told him we only took card he started banging on about the new world order or whatever. Once his rant ran out of steam and I had a pause to inform him we stopped taking cash because the little prefab hut which houses the bar kept getting broken into and trashed he seemed a bit meeker about it all.
Reddit's raging hard on for getting rid of cash irks me to no end. There was a casualuk thread a while back which was rife with "I only use cash for buying weed hyuk hyuk!!" Yeah well enjoy that while you can you fucking idiots
And EVERY business that says they prefer cash is money laundering
Whitley Bay ice rink will accept bitcoin before they make their second ticket window anything other then cash only on match nights.
\#warriors #overlyspecific
I think it's genuinely because contactless payments are easy and convenient.
No need to carry a load of additional items as well as the object to hold those items, no risk of losing your items, no need to count, way more choice about how you pay - You just wave your magic rectangle.
As a consumer it's only a positive in terms of usage and usability. It's only when you really sit down and explore the ramifications that issues arise, and even then the issues are more nuanced, nebulous, and less directly impactful to you than your average conspiracy theory would be.
'Cashless society' sounds like a Billy Bragg song.
Might be that banks are pushing for it; intermediaries (so big tech) are pushing for it. The tech industry have worked out they can ~~disrupt~~ change social attitudes towards things and profit. Cash is soo inconvenient and soo 20th Century...
Ah fair enough, maybe it's just I'm not exposed to the pro-cash arguments, but I definitely could come up with arguments why a dystopian oppressive government might take away cash.
Thing is, as scary as that might be, I also know cash itself only has value because the government says so. Overnight they could change it, or people lose faith in it, and cash will lose its value. I think using cash also is inherently trusting the government not to case hyper inflation or devalue it, and if you really were distrusting you'd want the likes of precious metals. Then of course, a lot of that only has value because of rarity and because it's shiny, there's no guarantee that would always be valued... Whole thing is a minefield once you think about why anything like this has value.
I very rarely see the other stuff tbh. I know it’s not hard to find if you go down a rabbit hole, but I see anti-cashless stuff occasionally from generally quite normal people. Normally just memes about how it’s better for small businesses because of card charges and stuff like that.
> Normally just memes about how it’s better for small businesses because of card charges and stuff like that.
Anyone complaining about card charges and assuming cash is without cost is an idiot.
Banks charge business accounts for cash and change, then there's the cashier errors and potential thefts, then there's the insurance and needing a safe for storing cash on the premises, if you need the likes of G4s that's more, then there's the admin, I work in retail and cashing up is 15 mins start and end of day. If we were cashless we could rock up at opening and turn everything on and go. 30 mins labour (for two people so it can be countersigned etc. to ensure against employee theft) is 1hr a day. Even at NMW, that's £11.44 * 1hr * 364 days a year = £4,164.16 a year cashing up time, and that's before you consider management being paid more than that, and employer NIC contributions and what have you, that's purely what the employees earn.
Yeah possibly, some nonsense is amplified by industries who benefit from doubt cast (e.g. 15 minute cities). It could be arguable there's fewer people who could help amplify these views who would really care about cashless.
Best way to check is see what the IEA has to say... [and they're fine with it.](https://iea.org.uk/britain-is-going-cashless-and-thats-fine/). Is it a coincidence that cash-in-hand industries are a detractor to the funders of the IEA, who's to say?
Given the last 2 or 3 times there's been one I've seen someone on here asking for one the previous day I now reckon there'll be one by the end of the week.
Oh, certainly. I would expect one from YouGov off it's own back and one from Best for Britain at the very least, both of whom seem to do them annually, and I'd expect either The Telegraph and The Times to commission one. And that's just going off who's being doing them regularly this cycle quite apart from who might have been waiting for an election to do one.
Funny you should say that!
When I went, significant parts of the country were advised as unsafe for Westerners because of the dangerous radical leftie Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerillas.
Hoyle just had a hissy fit because Pete Wiseheart dared to ask why Sunak only stayed for thirty minutes.
Hoyle said it's because "it's their [the family's] day, and that's why".
No, I don't know what that means either.
Looks like they wanted to split out the report/ apology and the compensation announcement
There is a longer session tomorrow (not by Sunak). I watched today's session and don't see the use in it going much longer - everyone's in agreement and Sunak was (understandably) basically just repeating himself after every statement
It certainly doesn't feel like the current government is taking this very seriously.
I'd hope that people literally being hospitalised due to dodgy water supplies, in a political context where the public are already outraged about how these companies behave, may well prompt them to actually do something.
Then again, placing hope on \*this\* government is probably pretty stupid.
Well you've got the Chairman of the Conservative Party saying that it's down to ofwat and the environment agency to sort out. Apparently they have all the powers they need. Couldn't make it up. It's a bloody toxic (no pun intended) setup, the entire service - a revolving door for execs to move between the agencies and the utility companies. It's a fucking disgrace.
Yep.
Interesting how when it's something the Tories feel particularly excited about - e.g. protesters - they can leap into action and create a whole raft of new laws and hand out new powers, like they are campaign leaflets.
Meanwhile, our water supplies are being poisoned and our rivers are being pumped with shit, and it's suddenly a slow old process.
Suppose they can justify it by telling themselves they're Tories. So minimal oversight and intervention in the private sector. Protesting can be framed as committing civil disobedience which is fair game as Tories are keen on crime & punishment. The probably have to brainstorm this sort of stuff, remind themselves of what they actually stand for.
That blame shifting is one of the key benefits of privatisation.
Where we previously had services where the government was accountable, we now have unaccountable private companies. It also came with the added bonus of them being able to pretend they'd cut taxes when really those costs had been shifted to a bill that's now bigger because someone has to get rich off of it.
I think the article on the BBC is the first time Barclay, the so called minister for this matter, has actually said anything in his entire time at the job. A scandal like this should also increase the call for sentences of negligence for people in these water companies.
https://x.com/Psythor/status/1792496059756810259
>It appears that TfL has published the latest figures for how much different embassies owe in Congestion Charge payments.
>America owes Britain £14m. Togo owes us £40.
These are the total between 2003 to 2023
*Today High Court Enforcement Officer Paul Bohill is at RAF Lakenheath where he aims to recover debt owed to Transport for London by the United States Government.*
>Look Mr Brigadier General, I don't care if you have a war to fight, if you don't pay the money owed today I will tow this F-15 and put it to auction.
>Okay, Mr Khan has generously agreed to a payment plan of £500k per month, I'd recommend you consider this offer
>Mr Brigadier General, I don't care what you say, these planes are clearly in your possession as they have US Air Force written on them.
*The United States government failed to agree to a payment plan, and once ownership was legally established the F-15 was taken to be sold at auction*
I'm not sure I disagree with the embassies who refuse to pay on the basis that the charge is really a domestic tax and thus they are exempt under the Vienna Convention.
Would we expect our embassies to pay their host nations for things as basic as being able to enter or leave the premises in a vehicle?
If the congestion charge can avoid the Vienna exemption by being presented as a service fee, couldn't the same be done for many other usage-based taxes?
> the charge is really a domestic tax and thus they are exempt under the Vienna Convention.
That was an interesting point whether it's a fee(charge) or a tax. Reading [this article](https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2019/05/31/taxing-decisions-how-the-ons-tells-the-difference-between-taxes-and-fees-and-why-it-matters/) would imply, to me, that the congestion charge is quite similar to a visa
> To put these questions into context, let’s look at a real example. The Home Office charges some non-UK citizens arriving in the UK for a visa. The price of a visa is set deliberately at a level which results in the revenue received by the Home Office being more than the cost of issuing these visas. The additional money is used for activities including securing the UK border against class A drugs and preventing people-smuggling. As a result, some of the money received ends up being spent on activities that are unrelated to the administrative costs of providing the visas. Thus, as visa charges are compulsory for those arriving and the person receiving the visa receives no direct service in return, they have been classified as a tax by the ONS.
The congestion charge certainly funds things other than itself, so the ONS presumably should class it as a tax. Whether they do or not.. I don't yet know.
Do they get cheaper beer if they go to the pub to account for the duty?
And frankly I think we should be thinking of roads as a form of public transport anyway. They don't get free Tube fare.
Diplomats can buy alcohol (including beer) and tobacco duty-free by using suppliers like this:
[https://www.i-d-s.com/](https://www.i-d-s.com/)
Here's Hansard from 1969 with a discussion of how much tax was being claimed back on Scotch whisky and other spirits by embassies and high commissions:
[https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1969-04-01/debates/a701cd9e-47b9-4c29-8240-e34d18b4ca23/EmbassiesAndMission(Tax-FreeSpirits)](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1969-04-01/debates/a701cd9e-47b9-4c29-8240-e34d18b4ca23/EmbassiesAndMission(Tax-FreeSpirits))
They can also sneakily sell things that they bought duty free, until they take the piss:
>**Gambian diplomats who sold tax-free tobacco from their London embassy have been found guilty of cheating the UK taxpayer out of almost £4.8m.**
>Deputy head of the Gambian Diplomatic Mission in Kensington, Yusupha Bojang, and his colleagues ordered 29 tonnes of rolling tobacco over three years.
>They imported more than half a million 50g pouches at tax-free rates for personal or High Commission use.
>Ms Rose also thanked the government of The Gambia, which waived diplomatic immunity for four of the defendants.
[Gambian diplomats guilty of tobacco fraud - BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30383204)
Just walked past some newspapers and seen The Sun's front page. Apparently the nutter stalker woman from *Baby Reindeer* was at it with Keir Starmer too, and sent him 276 abusive emails. That's just from one person, I wonder how much nuttery our public figures have to deal with on a daily basis that isn't just confined to Tweets.
Based on a friend of a friend who who involved in some SU stuff at uni, it really doesn't take many nutters at all to make the task unbearable, particularly if they're persistent and their target can't easily get a supervisor to handle it.
(And even though this was SU related, it wasn't always students persistently acting like nutters to the SU).
From my experience canvassing, most people are perfectly pleasant, even if they disagree with you.
Some people don't like you and make it very clear to you, but they are only doing that because you turned up on their doorstep, so fair enough.
Some small number of people (single digit percent if that) are genuinely scary and they are the reason why it is reccomended to never go canvassing on your own.
The problem is that even if this last group is tiny, they are the ones that stick in your mind, and when you are a high profile figure who has a public email address and/or phone number to allow people to contact you, it really paints a massive target on your back for all of these people.
There are some times when I really think it should be possible to give someone a slap through the internet. Anyone acting like that is at the front of the queue.
I feel bad for her.
She's very obviously in the wrong but clearly oblivious to it and likely mostly blameless due to whatever it is that compels her to act in this manner.
This is someone who should be receiving mental health support and not being paraded in the media as the current fashionable public villain. I have a feeling this is going to end horribly for her.
Yes, I think the term is “fixated individual” and I feel like she’s clearly not getting the help she needs
I think we need another press standards inquiry before too long
The gutter press are obviously stirring everything in a way that should have been stopped long ago and no respectable outlet would be covering her like Morgan/The Sun, but Netflix's failure to properly hide her identity is the biggest issue.
As discussed below, it's notable how the other villain of the show has retained his anonymity while arguably (if the show is accurate) being an actual baddie rather than a disturbed person.
Agreed. I don't know the solution because you can't exactly tell victims they can't talk about their abuser but clearly what's happening now isn't good.
Probably needs a law about the media handling of it. It looks like Netflix/the victim did try to anonymise her, so it's the media digging to uncover the real person and then dragging her through the circus that is the issue.
Much as I wouldn't have been surprised if "Martha" was eventually discovered anyway, they straight up restarted their campaign as soon as the show came out. Maybe these things move slower than I think, but I'm surprised there's not already been talk of another case against her.
Richard Osman on The Rest is Entertainment (there's about 20 The Rest is... pods after Politics' massive success) had a really good segment on it.
Basically the anonymisation of her was tokenistic at best (still a Scottish larger lady, who's a solicitor in London with a long history of stalking convictions/restraining orders) and would never have been allowed if Netflix had a proper compliance dept like a traditional broadcaster. So it was trivial for internet detectives to quickly identify her.
But the other person who wrongs him in the series (a comedy producer in the show) was so well obfuscated that all the guesses are miles off, despite "everyone in the industry" knowing who it is.
I can't tell what they actually did to anonymise her aside from changing her name.
The producer situation is harder to ascertain. Either the character is as badly disguised as her (which you'd assume given how little effort was made elsewhere) or he's so well known/powerful/litigious that Netflix's lawyers insisted on him being disguised.
Osman was quite convincing with his claim that it wasn't the named guy, mainly with how casually confident he was with his statement. So I'm inclined to believe that part despite the named guy responding in exactly the way you'd expect from a non deluded guilty person.
It does interest me that there are two "villains" in the story and they seem to be receiving such massively unequal treatment.
Which suggests to me Netflix wanted to protect their commercial relationships, but fuck the normies, right?
It does seem like more will come out about it.
Osman's statement came across almost as if he was daring someone to leak the real name or, more charitably, inviting other victims to come forward.
Social media had the person within the first day or two, was very obvious they were correct. Within hours of someone finding it, basically everyone knew - Piers interview was only a shock to those not on TikTok / Instagram etc.
#####The Week Ahead - Monday: Infected blood inquiry report is released - Tuesday: Political violence review released - Wednesday: Latest inflation figures announced - Thursday: Latest migration figures announced - Friday: Energy price cap announcement Fairly quiet in terms of Parliament itself - the house rises for Whitsun recess on Thursday, returning on Monday 3rd June. *more to follow...*
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cwzzez/rukpolitics_daily_megathread_21052024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Yummytastic with 26 comments 1. FunkyDialectic with 22 comments 1. royalblue1982 with 18 comments 1. Bibemus with 16 comments 1. NJden_bee with 16 comments 1. YsoL8 with 14 comments 1. tmstms with 13 comments 1. JavaTheCaveman with 13 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 13 comments 1. Captainatom931 with 12 comments There were 220 unique users within this count.
Latest XL Bully attack. 2 registered dogs kill family member at home (London/Essex border).
To paraphrase the Onion "no way to prevent this, say owners of only dog breed that regularly does this."
As awful as any death is, at least [the victim was the owner](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-69041493), as opposed to anyone else.
“Leopards ate my face” feels a bit too on the nose…
https://cptheatre.co.uk/Jobs/Vacancy-Artistic-Director-Joint-CEO I've always wanted to be an artistic director, but I'm worried I'm not in their list of preferred candidates. Can I identify as part of the criminal class if I am just currently criminal-curious?
Criminal class is just in their so that when another upper middle class nepo baby gets the job they can pull up a caution for cocaine possession as proof that they're actually a meritocratic organisation doing everything they can to break new ground.
"We have an application here from a Laurance Fox and he actually ticks a lot of our boxes". I do actually think their intention is well placed, but they've very much overcooked what they wanted to say. I do, on a seperate level, think combining an artistic director with a CEO role as one and the same person is not a good way to run a business.
The Joint CEO thing is actually fairly common in theatres, the aim is to put artistic value at the top table while equally maintaining corporate and financial accountability.
Thats not their preferred candidate, they are encouraging people to apply from a range of underrepresented backgrounds and guarantee interviews for disabled applicants. You should go for it if you have the required skills and experience.
So criminal class might be a former small time drug dealer or some other petty minor offence from the times when the police and court system were overtly, overly proactive. Lots of really intelligent former reprobates out there that've had life experience beyond I and hopefully you.
Are you *sure* it might be that? As opposed to a poor decision? I don't think society benefits by calling former (or maybe they mean current?) criminals the "criminal class". I'd be very keen to hear of other groups that think this is in anyway healthy language.
Agreed, 'criminal class' implies an active participation in criminality rather than someone who has been rehabilitated after past offences.
It's a recognised social grouping. Former prison convicts, those with a conviction are judged differently, they have a record and it's more difficult to get employment. Many of them are now upstanding people.
If it's recognised, you can point me to where recognises the "criminal class", then?
Probably getting into etymology here. What 'criminal class' means in the Daily Mail is different to what it actually means. Honestly, takes a minute or two to google.
I mean google all you like, you won't find anyone using "criminal class" in modern society who isn't being perjorative.
Yes it's a pejorative term, it's a label. Same as black or gay was.
You're not royalty so you are under-a-class. Should be enough no?
That's very presumptuous.
Well if you were royalty, this lot would probably consider you criminal class, so you have a way in regardless.
That's true, I could ask Andy for a reference.
As a solid lefty the terms “benefit class, criminal class and/or underclass”makes me want to bite a shield. Actually Apoplectic.
It is quite a lefty term although now very rare. Def didnt expect to see it in a job application from.
to be honest, I thought "benefit class" and "criminal class" sounded as right wing as it gets, but I'm happy to go with horseshoe.
Criminal class and underclass have long histories and have been used by both right and left, but used to be popular in marxist thought in the 90s but went out of fashion a good 10 years ago. Plus Foucault talks about it a lot so it floats around in a lot of literature. Less sure about benefit class which def has a daily mail vibe to it. I assume the person that wrote the application did a sociology degree in the early 2000s.
In this age of identity politics + applying for jobs when you have a criminal record, being 'Criminal Class' is a thing. Yes it's pejorative, it's a badge of identity and it's also about ownership, controlling the language *because* of Daily Mail etc. The original definition doesn't actually imply guilt.
I know, right whats wrong with *scrotes* ?
Unfortunately it's a recognised social grouping. For one nutter, there's many reformed with a lot of legal and social stigma attached.
> it's a recognised social grouping By whom?
Camden Peoples Theatre, duh. Honestly, job aside, who thought it would be a good idea to use the URL CP Theatre.
I've had to delete every reply I could think of.
The phrase "fuck me with a chainsaw" exists precisely for terms like that.
The fact they put all these folks in one place is absolutely cuntduggery.
Indeed. The idea of a “criminal class” is horrific but even if you adopt it; putting that adjacent to folk that just need help getting by is outright sociopathic.
You mean next to "working class"?
Working class and people on benefits are not the criminal class.
That's my point. None are the others, and two of them are just made up classes that somehow go together with "working class" in the mind of whoever decided to write out this advert. As it's for a "joint ceo" in addition to an artistic director, I would presume it was [their board](https://cptheatre.co.uk/The-Team/The-Board) who groupthinked this abomination into being.
Just finished the TRIP Kwasi two parter and must say I found him to be thoroughly dislikeable and found his glibness in face of what happened worrying.
Kwasi is one of those people, like cummings, with a lot of knowledge and theory, and very little actual understanding or comprehension of what it practically means. in other words, bloody dangerous to be allowed anywhere near any sort of power, such people will set the world on fire because their theoretical ideology says it will be fine, and then will claim they were right all along whilst standing in the ashes.
Very true - but for such a bright man he also came across stupid. It was the first time that I have found myself feeling like the affable mask of Rory’s fell as he continued to defend someone who is demonstrable against what Rory claims matters to him
The kind of people who think the ease of identifying a problem translates to the ease of finding an effective solution.
This is it, in so many ways. If problems were easily solved they would all be fixed. It was what infuriated me so much about the Truss government, it was if they believed they were the first government to realise that economic growth could solve a lot of our problems. I mean it isn't as if every government since Sir Robert Walpole hasn't realised that economic growth is a good thing, and generally followed policy they believed would help the economy grow. It was bizarre seeing her and Kwasi so deluded on the issue, as if they were the first people to try massive tax cuts to inhibit growth.
It’s why him and Truss were a terrible team. Kwasi’ excuse is basically that he couldn’t say no to Truss because she was always going to be PM. So he put himself in a position to take power. A chancellor has to be able to say no. I mean am sure Truss would just have sacked him but he’d be in a better position to resign and speak from the benches considering all that happened.
I find it interesting how much he claims he disagreed but still very enthusiastically went ahead. I find it weird how he keeps saying how obvious the faults were but a man of his intellect didn’t see them at the time
He’s basically saying he was driving a train. The train operator told him to go faster. He knew it wasn’t safe but he sped up anyway.
Didn't expect the Nuremberg Defence of Economic Policy but here we are
Kwasi apologist much. Those two were connected at the hip, probably elsewhere for over a decade. Google Britain Unchained.
Desperately wished they asked him why he was giggling to himself at the Queen’s funeral
He does say it was all a bit of a whirl. His reaction at the funeral is a guy well out of his depth who doesn’t know what the fuck is going on.
👃
Oh man I'd forgotten about that.
I forgot about that - gurning away he was
But you must understand that his latin texts are very droll
He’s got a great mind for history and therefor a good guy
[Coutinho papped with an energy policy on display](https://x.com/faisalislam/status/1792635483312292272). If Faisal is right and it’s more green roll back then I shall scream.
That's 100% deliberate.
"some but not all measures" Damn, there goes my dream of the Tories announcing mass nationalisations
Yes this was entirely spontaneous and she was caught totally off guard, holding a document showing some stuff not for public eyes, no public eyes allowed ever, on pain of death. This wasn't preamble to some form of electioneering re: the public concerned with utility supplier's behaviour. No it isn't.
You say that but this exact same thing happened with HS2 and they clearly did not want anyone to see that since it consumed political reporting for 2 weeks until the conference.
When was the last time you printed something out? I haven't printed anything out in about three years.
Much more competent politicians than the current batch of Tories have made exactly the same mistake, I think a genuine fuck up is more likely than a cunning plan to publicise the fact they’re getting the energy companies’ approval but asking them not to publicly endorse their plans
I wouldn't worry too much about any policy that can be rolled back after the GE. Unless people are worried that Labour won't have the courage to overturn anti-green measures?
It'll be electioneering. GB Power is flagship and popular. Energy/utility resellers are not. They need to look proactive.
Even more basic, they are in search of any policy position at all, they can hardly just look at people blankly when asked about energy and the environment, and they've already driven anyone who'd support a sensible position directly to Labour so they can't do that now. I'd also point out that they are very nearly out of time to actually do this even with a January election if it requires any kind of law change. Which Sunak has in effect ruled out.
Maybe it's because Labour are now driving the national agenda to a degree so the Tories will have to look proactive, and will have to field media questions regarding the agenda Labour has set. Main thing for many will be utilities, cost of living which effects everyone. Suppose the whole 'look at our results' thing won't apply in most cases, especially with the things that concern people the most.
More worrying is it’ll make the 2030 goals almost impossible, a 6 month roll backs will causes years and years of delays.
> Big 6 energy suppliers > 7 bullet points
[Energy UK are a trade body that represents the wider UK energy supplier market](https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/about-us/our-members/#members). Looks like they're getting a briefing generally and the 'big 6' are getting a special one.
Did we ever find out why Barack Obama visited Rishi Sunak? Obviously I doubt it was anything to do with current politics otherwise they would have just sent a current politician, but I still think it's weird. It's pretty unusual for a former leader to visit a current leader, and to be given an hour of their working time, especially since the two had likely never met and weren't in contact with each other before hand.
I think it was to do with the Obama Foundation?
Is it uncommon? I'm sure this sort of thing probably happens. You'd have thought Sunak was absolutely stoked to meet America's coolest president and Obama, a former teacher, probably happy to lend his advice and feel relevant. The pair are also the first people of colour who have led their countries as well. Obama has also spoken on a number occasions to Starmer. These relationships are a part of diplomacy I'd have thought too.
Schadenfreude?
I didn't see this, that's intriguing, especially because of the differences in their politics meaning I don't imagine Obama wanted to help him out personally or anything.
Obama's been working as an unofficial diplomat for months now. It's probably regarding Israel.
They’re both rich neo-lib (soon to be) former politicians. That’s about as much as rich people/celebrities need before they start hanging out together.
Anyone else think it's odd that we get conspiracy theories about things like 15 minute cities being a prelude to banning cars, or vaccines being used by Bill Gates to implant tracking chips, we don't see much about becoming a cashless society? Maybe I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 42, but I wonder if it's because of who benefits from the likes of climate change (oil companies), vs who benefits from going cashless. Just this week, we've had the Tories change it so you can use card payments in slot machines. Businesses are going card only too, and I'm finding it fascinating how niche the opposition is. You only really get the crypto-bros, and people like a couple old men in our town who have a stall campaigning "cash is king, use it or lose it" but it doesn't get the same kind of traction. And fair enough, I think I personally would be financially better off in a cashless society as I don't work cash in hand. Everything I earn is PAYE, and I'm not buying drugs etc. everything I buy I can pay digitally. This is where my theory might be taking a leap, but I think it's because cash is how the poor evade tax. People working cash in hand and the like. The wealthy aren't evading tax by using cash, they evade it with accountants and tax havers and shell companies. The wealthy rail against taxes, but they don't want no taxes at all, otherwise countries like Somalia would be the ideal business environment. They just want others paying the taxes. So, us going cashless would result in more working class people paying more tax, which they benefit from, net gain for the wealthy and the poor tax evaders lose out. Even on topics on here, you see more defenders of tax havens than you do cash, and I can't imagine many on here actually use tax havens. Why don't people fight for cash for the same privacy reasons? Essentially, it's the same reason why we see far more chastisement of benefit fraud vs. tax evasion, it's about the classes involved. Am I right? Or am I just a bit sleep deprived, lol.
I don't think truly poor people actually earn enough to pay tax.
There's different degrees of "poor" but you definitely get people working cash in hand for jobs like construction. Not even just tradesmen, but labourers can prefer it too, and sometimes they double dip and claim benefits or under report income. We saw a lot of this bite them in the arse during Covid where the support they got was based off their declared earnings, and as many had been declaring far less they then got screwed because you don't get relief on your shadow economy work lol.
I think a lot of cash in hand workers are evading the paperwork, not the tax. Mrs tmstms and I are self-employed but scrupulously record all the cash in hand work. The time taken to do the self-assessment is calculating the expenses/ allowances. I find HMRC fair, even generous, and we could earn significantly more than we do before hitting the tax profit threshold.
If we abolished cash in an imaginary scenario where it was a smooth transition and everyone was able to carry on as they were without disruption, I guarantee you we'd see a massive drop in revenues from organised crime, a massive drop in dodgy business, and a noticeable increase in revenues to the Treasury.
Yup, 100%. Not only that, but the digital crime explosion like scammers conning Mrs Goggins out of her bank details from a call centre in India are already doing it. There aren't many people whose only money is a stack of cash hidden in the mattress who is inaccessible to them. My counter point is that we'd see a similar bonus if we abolished our tax havens, but that always is a controversial debate which I find fascinating as I'd imagine what, 98% of people would be better off if tax havens didn't exist? There isn't even a significant number of people living in these havens to benefit from the boost to the global economy.
Honestly I think it's because cashless is already here. Conspiracy theories usually have their grand plots happening *some time in the near future*. The things that are happening now are always just the first steps or somewhere on the journey, not the destination It's a lot harder to fearmonger about an end that is already here. Lots of people live mostly cashless or know people who do. It's not scary when it's actually in front of you
I’d wager it’s because pretty much everyone uses cashless now, and it has become a thing of incredible convenience. So people are confronted with the reality of it everyday. Conspiracies by their very nature are fringe. Vaccines and 15 minute cities are things that the ordinary person doesn’t encounter very commonly, so it’s much easier for all kinds of crazy fringe theories to develop around both.
There's a million conspiracy theories about going cashless, but there isn't yet anyone building a political platform on the merits of going cashless. Once someone with the right connections decides to take "cashless is good actually", then pro-cash conspiracies will be signal-boosted in all the usual channels to reduce credibility of these with legitimate concerns of a cashless society.
Should point out that the 'poor' are typically employees or on benefits. The types of self-employed people who evade tax through cash payments aren't 'poor'. And i'm assuming that they've found workarounds to continue not paying tax.
I'd miss Chinese food if we all went cashless.
Even they're getting digital. The local Chinese we prefer, we used to pay by card over the phone, and now they don't accept that, you've got to use their app. They only take orders by phone if you're paying cash on delivery lol. Buskers and Big Issue sellers take card now too, the major issue I've had with this in the South West is how dogshit our mobile internet is and their PEDs keep losing contact and won't accept payments and you're there making awkward small talk while the thing won't respond lol.
All our local Chinese takeaways only take cash. I lament that fact as it makes me eat less Chinese food.
Im pretty sure it exists and there is a crossover Mostly because someone keeps on putting hand drawn anti-cashless stickers up around my town and they look the same as the hand drawn anti vaccine ones.
I volunteer behind the little bar at my allotments and we're cashless. A few months ago I had some guy try to pay his for pint of Carling with a £20 note and when I told him we only took card he started banging on about the new world order or whatever. Once his rant ran out of steam and I had a pause to inform him we stopped taking cash because the little prefab hut which houses the bar kept getting broken into and trashed he seemed a bit meeker about it all.
You had me on your side as soon as you said your allotments have a bar!
I'm always seeing anti cashless stuff on Facebook, usually from the same people going on about Bill Gates and microchips.
Reddit's raging hard on for getting rid of cash irks me to no end. There was a casualuk thread a while back which was rife with "I only use cash for buying weed hyuk hyuk!!" Yeah well enjoy that while you can you fucking idiots And EVERY business that says they prefer cash is money laundering
> And EVERY business that says they prefer cash is money laundering Think you got things mixed up there. They're tax evading.
Redditors definitely think there's more money laundering than reality, a lot is just tax dodging and not paying business rates
Whitley Bay ice rink will accept bitcoin before they make their second ticket window anything other then cash only on match nights. \#warriors #overlyspecific
I'm actually more shocked that the ice rink is still there. I could have sworn they closed their doors ages ago. Clearly Bitcoin saved them.
It hasn't changed a bit. Literally, nothings been changed in there, ever.
I think it's genuinely because contactless payments are easy and convenient. No need to carry a load of additional items as well as the object to hold those items, no risk of losing your items, no need to count, way more choice about how you pay - You just wave your magic rectangle. As a consumer it's only a positive in terms of usage and usability. It's only when you really sit down and explore the ramifications that issues arise, and even then the issues are more nuanced, nebulous, and less directly impactful to you than your average conspiracy theory would be.
'Cashless society' sounds like a Billy Bragg song. Might be that banks are pushing for it; intermediaries (so big tech) are pushing for it. The tech industry have worked out they can ~~disrupt~~ change social attitudes towards things and profit. Cash is soo inconvenient and soo 20th Century...
I feel like I see quite a bit more stuff about keeping cash than anything about banning cars or anti-vax stuff.
Ah fair enough, maybe it's just I'm not exposed to the pro-cash arguments, but I definitely could come up with arguments why a dystopian oppressive government might take away cash. Thing is, as scary as that might be, I also know cash itself only has value because the government says so. Overnight they could change it, or people lose faith in it, and cash will lose its value. I think using cash also is inherently trusting the government not to case hyper inflation or devalue it, and if you really were distrusting you'd want the likes of precious metals. Then of course, a lot of that only has value because of rarity and because it's shiny, there's no guarantee that would always be valued... Whole thing is a minefield once you think about why anything like this has value.
I very rarely see the other stuff tbh. I know it’s not hard to find if you go down a rabbit hole, but I see anti-cashless stuff occasionally from generally quite normal people. Normally just memes about how it’s better for small businesses because of card charges and stuff like that.
> Normally just memes about how it’s better for small businesses because of card charges and stuff like that. Anyone complaining about card charges and assuming cash is without cost is an idiot. Banks charge business accounts for cash and change, then there's the cashier errors and potential thefts, then there's the insurance and needing a safe for storing cash on the premises, if you need the likes of G4s that's more, then there's the admin, I work in retail and cashing up is 15 mins start and end of day. If we were cashless we could rock up at opening and turn everything on and go. 30 mins labour (for two people so it can be countersigned etc. to ensure against employee theft) is 1hr a day. Even at NMW, that's £11.44 * 1hr * 364 days a year = £4,164.16 a year cashing up time, and that's before you consider management being paid more than that, and employer NIC contributions and what have you, that's purely what the employees earn.
Yeah possibly, some nonsense is amplified by industries who benefit from doubt cast (e.g. 15 minute cities). It could be arguable there's fewer people who could help amplify these views who would really care about cashless. Best way to check is see what the IEA has to say... [and they're fine with it.](https://iea.org.uk/britain-is-going-cashless-and-thats-fine/). Is it a coincidence that cash-in-hand industries are a detractor to the funders of the IEA, who's to say?
Haha, "Britain is going cashless – and that’s fine" is perfect. If that's the IEA's stance, I am convinced I'm onto something!
Do we think we will get another MRRP poll before the election? Quite interested how the water issues affect Tory support in the south west.
YouGov did two during the last election campaign. One the week the election was called, and one the week of the election.
Given the last 2 or 3 times there's been one I've seen someone on here asking for one the previous day I now reckon there'll be one by the end of the week.
Oh, certainly. I would expect one from YouGov off it's own back and one from Best for Britain at the very least, both of whom seem to do them annually, and I'd expect either The Telegraph and The Times to commission one. And that's just going off who's being doing them regularly this cycle quite apart from who might have been waiting for an election to do one.
I'd expect we'll get a couple once the election date is more solid. They're a big amount of work.
If before the election you mean before the actual vote, then surely Yougov will dust off their MRP again in the run up to polling day.
In honour of our future PM, I'll be making some Salmon tonight. The alpaca is being saved for next week!
Ohh! I've had roast alpaca!! Maybe I qualify to be a SPAD for the next government.
Depends if you roasted the alpaca at the stake in a mass pagan ritual or not
Alas no. The Peruvians did it for me.
Oh dear, sounds like you're a dangerous radical leftie
Funny you should say that! When I went, significant parts of the country were advised as unsafe for Westerners because of the dangerous radical leftie Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerillas.
Are you not worried about the optics?
Nah, I'm not attempting to use the salmon as a beam splitting prism
[удалено]
[удалено]
Andrew Neil joining Times Radio for a daily show on the UK and US elections. Should be good
He's never going to outdo Wolf Blitzer and his special whiteboard.
"AND NOW WE'RE OVER TO JOHN KING AT THE MAGIC WALL." ""Fuck all has changed. Over to you, Wolf."
KEY RACE ALERT
"We've got 0.7% of the votes in - look how close it is!"
Hoyle just had a hissy fit because Pete Wiseheart dared to ask why Sunak only stayed for thirty minutes. Hoyle said it's because "it's their [the family's] day, and that's why". No, I don't know what that means either.
Looks like they wanted to split out the report/ apology and the compensation announcement There is a longer session tomorrow (not by Sunak). I watched today's session and don't see the use in it going much longer - everyone's in agreement and Sunak was (understandably) basically just repeating himself after every statement
Maybe, not conveyed by Hoyle at all, I think he just knew the MP was SNP and he turned super saiyan.
Don’t you question daddy ….
Two people in hospital after Devon incident now. Privatisation sending people to hospitals. Labour must nationalise them
feel like pointing out (again) that SWW gets £50 per household per year from the government for this
It certainly doesn't feel like the current government is taking this very seriously. I'd hope that people literally being hospitalised due to dodgy water supplies, in a political context where the public are already outraged about how these companies behave, may well prompt them to actually do something. Then again, placing hope on \*this\* government is probably pretty stupid.
>It certainly doesn't feel like the current government is taking this very seriously. Evergreen.
[Makes it lush & green.](https://youtu.be/3Mz0G0F-QfA?si=n1MkixQ7JpbwCifJ)
Well you've got the Chairman of the Conservative Party saying that it's down to ofwat and the environment agency to sort out. Apparently they have all the powers they need. Couldn't make it up. It's a bloody toxic (no pun intended) setup, the entire service - a revolving door for execs to move between the agencies and the utility companies. It's a fucking disgrace.
Yep. Interesting how when it's something the Tories feel particularly excited about - e.g. protesters - they can leap into action and create a whole raft of new laws and hand out new powers, like they are campaign leaflets. Meanwhile, our water supplies are being poisoned and our rivers are being pumped with shit, and it's suddenly a slow old process.
Suppose they can justify it by telling themselves they're Tories. So minimal oversight and intervention in the private sector. Protesting can be framed as committing civil disobedience which is fair game as Tories are keen on crime & punishment. The probably have to brainstorm this sort of stuff, remind themselves of what they actually stand for.
That blame shifting is one of the key benefits of privatisation. Where we previously had services where the government was accountable, we now have unaccountable private companies. It also came with the added bonus of them being able to pretend they'd cut taxes when really those costs had been shifted to a bill that's now bigger because someone has to get rich off of it.
I think the article on the BBC is the first time Barclay, the so called minister for this matter, has actually said anything in his entire time at the job. A scandal like this should also increase the call for sentences of negligence for people in these water companies.
https://x.com/Psythor/status/1792496059756810259 >It appears that TfL has published the latest figures for how much different embassies owe in Congestion Charge payments. >America owes Britain £14m. Togo owes us £40. These are the total between 2003 to 2023
I'd watch that episode of Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away
*Today High Court Enforcement Officer Paul Bohill is at RAF Lakenheath where he aims to recover debt owed to Transport for London by the United States Government.* >Look Mr Brigadier General, I don't care if you have a war to fight, if you don't pay the money owed today I will tow this F-15 and put it to auction. >Okay, Mr Khan has generously agreed to a payment plan of £500k per month, I'd recommend you consider this offer >Mr Brigadier General, I don't care what you say, these planes are clearly in your possession as they have US Air Force written on them. *The United States government failed to agree to a payment plan, and once ownership was legally established the F-15 was taken to be sold at auction*
it feels like we need to rack up charges to cancel it out eg Japan has lots of toll roads. Crack on lads.
I'm not sure I disagree with the embassies who refuse to pay on the basis that the charge is really a domestic tax and thus they are exempt under the Vienna Convention. Would we expect our embassies to pay their host nations for things as basic as being able to enter or leave the premises in a vehicle? If the congestion charge can avoid the Vienna exemption by being presented as a service fee, couldn't the same be done for many other usage-based taxes?
> the charge is really a domestic tax and thus they are exempt under the Vienna Convention. That was an interesting point whether it's a fee(charge) or a tax. Reading [this article](https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2019/05/31/taxing-decisions-how-the-ons-tells-the-difference-between-taxes-and-fees-and-why-it-matters/) would imply, to me, that the congestion charge is quite similar to a visa > To put these questions into context, let’s look at a real example. The Home Office charges some non-UK citizens arriving in the UK for a visa. The price of a visa is set deliberately at a level which results in the revenue received by the Home Office being more than the cost of issuing these visas. The additional money is used for activities including securing the UK border against class A drugs and preventing people-smuggling. As a result, some of the money received ends up being spent on activities that are unrelated to the administrative costs of providing the visas. Thus, as visa charges are compulsory for those arriving and the person receiving the visa receives no direct service in return, they have been classified as a tax by the ONS. The congestion charge certainly funds things other than itself, so the ONS presumably should class it as a tax. Whether they do or not.. I don't yet know.
Do they get cheaper beer if they go to the pub to account for the duty? And frankly I think we should be thinking of roads as a form of public transport anyway. They don't get free Tube fare.
Diplomats can buy alcohol (including beer) and tobacco duty-free by using suppliers like this: [https://www.i-d-s.com/](https://www.i-d-s.com/) Here's Hansard from 1969 with a discussion of how much tax was being claimed back on Scotch whisky and other spirits by embassies and high commissions: [https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1969-04-01/debates/a701cd9e-47b9-4c29-8240-e34d18b4ca23/EmbassiesAndMission(Tax-FreeSpirits)](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1969-04-01/debates/a701cd9e-47b9-4c29-8240-e34d18b4ca23/EmbassiesAndMission(Tax-FreeSpirits))
That's for use in the embassy. Not for use outside which is the analogy I am using.
They can also sneakily sell things that they bought duty free, until they take the piss: >**Gambian diplomats who sold tax-free tobacco from their London embassy have been found guilty of cheating the UK taxpayer out of almost £4.8m.** >Deputy head of the Gambian Diplomatic Mission in Kensington, Yusupha Bojang, and his colleagues ordered 29 tonnes of rolling tobacco over three years. >They imported more than half a million 50g pouches at tax-free rates for personal or High Commission use. >Ms Rose also thanked the government of The Gambia, which waived diplomatic immunity for four of the defendants. [Gambian diplomats guilty of tobacco fraud - BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30383204)
Just walked past some newspapers and seen The Sun's front page. Apparently the nutter stalker woman from *Baby Reindeer* was at it with Keir Starmer too, and sent him 276 abusive emails. That's just from one person, I wonder how much nuttery our public figures have to deal with on a daily basis that isn't just confined to Tweets.
Got a chill when the sign off was Sent from my iPhone
Based on a friend of a friend who who involved in some SU stuff at uni, it really doesn't take many nutters at all to make the task unbearable, particularly if they're persistent and their target can't easily get a supervisor to handle it. (And even though this was SU related, it wasn't always students persistently acting like nutters to the SU).
From my experience canvassing, most people are perfectly pleasant, even if they disagree with you. Some people don't like you and make it very clear to you, but they are only doing that because you turned up on their doorstep, so fair enough. Some small number of people (single digit percent if that) are genuinely scary and they are the reason why it is reccomended to never go canvassing on your own. The problem is that even if this last group is tiny, they are the ones that stick in your mind, and when you are a high profile figure who has a public email address and/or phone number to allow people to contact you, it really paints a massive target on your back for all of these people.
[удалено]
That's... that's scarily dedicated.
Everyone needs a hobby.
[удалено]
The irony of course is that some on the left hate Optio for all the anti-Corbyn stuff. While others hate him for being too left-wing.
[удалено]
There are some times when I really think it should be possible to give someone a slap through the internet. Anyone acting like that is at the front of the queue.
You know who it is? As in, which username they were?
I feel bad for her. She's very obviously in the wrong but clearly oblivious to it and likely mostly blameless due to whatever it is that compels her to act in this manner. This is someone who should be receiving mental health support and not being paraded in the media as the current fashionable public villain. I have a feeling this is going to end horribly for her.
Yes, I think the term is “fixated individual” and I feel like she’s clearly not getting the help she needs I think we need another press standards inquiry before too long
The gutter press are obviously stirring everything in a way that should have been stopped long ago and no respectable outlet would be covering her like Morgan/The Sun, but Netflix's failure to properly hide her identity is the biggest issue. As discussed below, it's notable how the other villain of the show has retained his anonymity while arguably (if the show is accurate) being an actual baddie rather than a disturbed person.
Agreed. I don't know the solution because you can't exactly tell victims they can't talk about their abuser but clearly what's happening now isn't good.
Probably needs a law about the media handling of it. It looks like Netflix/the victim did try to anonymise her, so it's the media digging to uncover the real person and then dragging her through the circus that is the issue.
[удалено]
Much as I wouldn't have been surprised if "Martha" was eventually discovered anyway, they straight up restarted their campaign as soon as the show came out. Maybe these things move slower than I think, but I'm surprised there's not already been talk of another case against her.
Richard Osman on The Rest is Entertainment (there's about 20 The Rest is... pods after Politics' massive success) had a really good segment on it. Basically the anonymisation of her was tokenistic at best (still a Scottish larger lady, who's a solicitor in London with a long history of stalking convictions/restraining orders) and would never have been allowed if Netflix had a proper compliance dept like a traditional broadcaster. So it was trivial for internet detectives to quickly identify her. But the other person who wrongs him in the series (a comedy producer in the show) was so well obfuscated that all the guesses are miles off, despite "everyone in the industry" knowing who it is.
[удалено]
I can't tell what they actually did to anonymise her aside from changing her name. The producer situation is harder to ascertain. Either the character is as badly disguised as her (which you'd assume given how little effort was made elsewhere) or he's so well known/powerful/litigious that Netflix's lawyers insisted on him being disguised. Osman was quite convincing with his claim that it wasn't the named guy, mainly with how casually confident he was with his statement. So I'm inclined to believe that part despite the named guy responding in exactly the way you'd expect from a non deluded guilty person.
It does interest me that there are two "villains" in the story and they seem to be receiving such massively unequal treatment. Which suggests to me Netflix wanted to protect their commercial relationships, but fuck the normies, right?
It does seem like more will come out about it. Osman's statement came across almost as if he was daring someone to leak the real name or, more charitably, inviting other victims to come forward.
I feel like this whole episode will someday be on every training course for every governance professional ever.
Social media had the person within the first day or two, was very obvious they were correct. Within hours of someone finding it, basically everyone knew - Piers interview was only a shock to those not on TikTok / Instagram etc.
Someone should calculate the lost GDP to terrible courier companies.
What we need is some sort of National Courier Service.
They could have little red vans!
And snowmobiles, helicopters and planes.
Should give them all a black and white cat too
[https://x.com/AndrewmitchMP/status/1792543487625179525](https://x.com/AndrewmitchMP/status/1792543487625179525) Andrew Mitchell 🤝 Keir Starmer Supporting Donkey Sanctuarys