General News Thread

[Lionator]

 Ooo

[RowlattsFox]

1 hour ago, CosbehFox said:

A lot of construction companies go from approx 20-30 apprentices in their first year down to 5-10 in the second year. 

Interesting if that stat changes if you don't include 16-18 year old? 

Apprenticeships are a good option for anyone coming out of college as an alternative to university, there just isn't enough of them. 

Problem is when people come out of school thinking they'll get an apprenticeship, as they often think it's an easier option and also often don't have the English and maths requirements. 

I do come across lots of kids dropping out of apprenticeships, particularly in construction, often citing the companies have let them go due to lack of work or they've quit because they get messed around, not doing any actual training, basically just being treated as a labourer. 

Of course though, a lot of his lack of graft and work ethic in young people too. 

 

[Tommy G]

The two gobshites from Nuneaton have been arrested on public order offences- the ones being racist whilst swigging a pint in front of their kids - brilliant 

[Dr The Singh]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The two gobshites from Nuneaton have been arrested on public order offences- the ones being racist whilst swigging a pint in front of their kids - brilliant 

@Unabomber, is that you?  You still on holiday there?

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Lionator said:

 Ooo

Don't worry, I'm sure his friend Felon#47 will offer him another favour or two for being his man in the UK while he's there. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Standards are standards regardless of the amounts in question. If we start to maintain standards based on whether people are deemed working class, or the amounts involved are more than somebody else's in past government then where does that leave us? Even a dyed-in-the-wool red can see her position is untenable - please take your blinkers off. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Except there isn’t two-tier outrage though is there. 
 

Public were and are outraged at both 

£40,000 vs £20m and £3.7m.

 

 

The coverage has been overwhelmingly disproportionate and unlike the other two, Rayner's coverage has been inherently vitriolic and personal. 

 

I wonder why. 

[Tommy G]

8 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

£40,000 vs £20m and £3.7m.

 

 

The coverage has been overwhelmingly disproportionate and unlike the other two, Rayner's coverage has been inherently vitriolic and personal. 

 

I wonder why. 

This is deflection from the real problem isn’t it? No one asked about media coverage - the fact is she should be resigning and if KS had a backbone he would sack her. 
 

What’s your source data for the graph? Please tell me you haven’t spent all afternoon cobbling it together…to substantiate your argument that the other examples you could think of, where substantially more money was involved, is the right basis to set standards and that she shouldn’t be fired for tax evasion because it’s only £40,000 which is higher than a working class salary that she squawks about every times she’s in front of a camera. 
 

The double standards 

Edited 3 September 2025 by Tommy G

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

£40,000 vs £20m and £3.7m.

 

 

The coverage has been overwhelmingly disproportionate and unlike the other two, Rayner's coverage has been inherently vitriolic and personal. 

 

I wonder why. 

Racism?

[Sly]

9 hours ago, Bilo said:

But most studies show we’re growing more slowly than we would have inside the EU.

 

Immigration was the key reason many voted Leave, yet net migration today is actually higher than in 2016. EU migration has fallen, but non-EU migration has surged – partly because the NHS, care sector, and other industries depend on it. The government’s “hands are tied” more than people expected.

 

So, has Brexit been a failure? Economically, it’s held us back. Politically, it hasn’t solved immigration. The idea of “taking back control” has collided with global realities.

To be honest, it’s been a mess.

 

No one really got what they wanted or voted for, whatever side you were on.

 

The campaign was built on lies and propaganda and that hasn’t changed since. 

[Sly]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Not only are they anti anything, they're anti any solution to that thing as well.

 

Especially if they caused the ****ing problem in the first place. 

 

*****. 

As far as I can work out, they’re just anti immigration but I’m not sure what the solution is! 

[st albans fox]

Putin says he’ll meet Zelenskyy but only in Moscow 

that will leave trump in a tricky  position 

 

[Clogger_]

25 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

£40,000 vs £20m and £3.7m.

 

 

The coverage has been overwhelmingly disproportionate and unlike the other two, Rayner's coverage has been inherently vitriolic and personal. 

 

I wonder why. 

Thank you, this is instructive - unless you are determined to bat for your side in the face of the facts.

 

Seems simple to me. Pay up, as plenty have done before.

[Wymsey]

What's this new party under Corbyn?

[urban.spaceman]

Just now, Wymsey said:

What's this new party under Corbyn?

Jezbollah?

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

This is deflection from the real problem isn’t it? No one asked about media coverage - the fact is she should be resigning and if KS had a backbone he would sack her. 
 

What’s your source data for the graph? Please tell me you haven’t spent all afternoon cobbling it together…to substantiate your argument that the other examples you could think of, where substantially more money was involved, is the right basis to set standards and that she shouldn’t be fired for tax evasion because it’s only £40,000 which is higher than a working class salary that she squawks about every times she’s in front of a camera. 
 

The double standards 

Guess it depends if a person thinks the involvement of more money makes them think it's a bigger problem that deserves a greater level of attention. 

 

I think that's reasonably self-evident, but each to their own.

 

NB. Still curious about linking more conservative viewpoints with self-interest and towards the future, if anyone wants to voice an opinion rather than tactfully avoiding the topic.

[Tommy G]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Guess it depends if a person thinks the involvement of more money makes them think it's a bigger problem that deserves a greater level of attention. 

 

I think that's reasonably self-evident, but each to their own.

 

NB. Still curious about linking more conservative viewpoints with self-interest and towards the future, if anyone wants to voice an opinion rather than tactfully avoiding the topic.

Come on you’re an intelligent guy - this isn’t about the attention it deserves - this is black and white, caught tax evading. 
 

“we’ll clean up politics” was the strapline bleated out last summer - this isn’t cleaning up politics.

 

The fact is she must resign or be sacked, if you are on the other side of the fence you are agreeing that as long as the offence is in the tens of thousands this is ok, as long as it’s not millions - in the highest public office in the land! How you can hang your hat on that opinion is beyond me.

 

@Greg2607 made some good points earlier on this. I couldn’t give a toss what rag runs a story on who and how much media coverage it gets, that’s pure deflection. 

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Come on you’re an intelligent guy - this isn’t about the attention it deserves - this is black and white, caught tax evading. 
 

“we’ll clean up politics” was the strapline bleated out last summer - this isn’t cleaning up politics.

 

The fact is she must resign or be sacked, if you are on the other side of the fence you are agreeing that as long as the offence is in the tens of thousands this is ok, as long as it’s not millions - in the highest public office in the land! How you can hang your hat on that opinion is beyond me.

 

@Greg2607 made some good points earlier on this. I couldn’t give a toss what rag runs a story on who and how much media coverage it gets, that’s pure deflection. 

I wonder why she decided to put the remainder of the stake in her house into a trust.

 

I'm no expert but don't people often use trusts as a way of avoiding inheritance tax?

 

A couple of quotes:

 

“Don’t preach to us if you’re not paying your taxes and not doing the right thing.”

 

“If people are going to be wealthy, it’s about sharing that wealth and understanding where that wealth comes from.”

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Come on you’re an intelligent guy - this isn’t about the attention it deserves - this is black and white, caught tax evading. 
 

“we’ll clean up politics” was the strapline bleated out last summer - this isn’t cleaning up politics.

 

The fact is she must resign or be sacked, if you are on the other side of the fence you are agreeing that as long as the offence is in the tens of thousands this is ok, as long as it’s not millions - in the highest public office in the land! How you can hang your hat on that opinion is beyond me.

 

@Greg2607 made some good points earlier on this. I couldn’t give a toss what rag runs a story on who and how much media coverage it gets, that’s pure deflection. 

Fair enough, if someone thinks it's zero tolerance then it's zero tolerance. That's an entirely legit viewpoint to take. 

 

Just to be clear though, I don't have a horse in this particular race, and I'm going to appeal to much bigger problems as my area of focus. If she goes, she goes, if she stays, she stays. 

Edited 3 September 2025 by leicsmac

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, if someone thinks it's zero tolerance then it's zero tolerance. That's an entirely legit viewpoint to take. 

 

Just to be clear though, I don't have a horse in this particular race, and I'm going to appeal to much bigger problems as my area of focus. If she goes, she goes, if she stays, she stays. 

Well it should be zero tolerance - that’s what the party said when coming into government, that’s not really a debate. 
 

 

[urban.spaceman]

16 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

This is deflection from the real problem isn’t it? No one asked about media coverage - the fact is she should be resigning and if KS had a backbone he would sack her. 
 

What’s your source data for the graph? Please tell me you haven’t spent all afternoon cobbling it together…to substantiate your argument that the other examples you could think of, where substantially more money was involved, is the right basis to set standards and that she shouldn’t be fired for tax evasion because it’s only £40,000 which is higher than a working class salary that she squawks about every times she’s in front of a camera. 
 

The double standards 

I asked several LLMs to do it for me of course - they collated coverage from multiple sources (and reach of said media providers) and came back with pretty clear data of wildly disproportionate coverage for the alleged offences and amount of tax money avoided. The coverage over the last year from the same sources has been relentlessly partisan, unbalanced, dishonest and increasingly vitriolic. 

 

Compared to the litany of scandals in the last 14 years - some of which are absolutely prosecutable - this doesn't even come close. The inordinate coverage and confected outrage is clearly politically motivated and class based by people who enacted, enabled and endorsed far, far worse actual crimes by members of the previous government. 

 

For people that whinge about non existent "two tier justice", they sure indulge in blatant two tier reporting and two tier outrage. 

 

As you said, take your blinkers off. 

[Greg2607]

22 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Come on you’re an intelligent guy - this isn’t about the attention it deserves - this is black and white, caught tax evading. 
 

“we’ll clean up politics” was the strapline bleated out last summer - this isn’t cleaning up politics.

 

The fact is she must resign or be sacked, if you are on the other side of the fence you are agreeing that as long as the offence is in the tens of thousands this is ok, as long as it’s not millions - in the highest public office in the land! How you can hang your hat on that opinion is beyond me.

 

@Greg2607 made some good points earlier on this. I couldn’t give a toss what rag runs a story on who and how much media coverage it gets, that’s pure deflection. 

You agree with me far too often mate. I'd start to question yourself if I were you! 🤣

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Well it should be zero tolerance - that’s what the party said when coming into government, that’s not really a debate. 
 

 

There's a lot of things that really shouldn't be a debate, tbh. Unfortunately, in this era, it appears that even established fact is up for the talking shop. Not a good thing in a lot of circumstances of course. 

[urban.spaceman]

Woman divorces husband and sells stake in family home.

Woman has flat temporarily leased to her as condition of current employment.

Woman buys new flat, the only property which she now owns.

After receiving advice from tax experts she pays what she believes is the correct stamp duty.

Said advice later turns out to be incorrect and she should have paid more.

She agrees to pay the correct amount and refers herself to the ethics advisers.

 

Someone call Ted Hastings. 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, urban.spaceman said:

I asked several LLMs to do it for me of course - they collated coverage from multiple sources (and reach of said media providers) and came back with pretty clear data of wildly disproportionate coverage for the alleged offences and amount of tax money avoided. The coverage over the last year from the same sources has been relentlessly partisan, unbalanced, dishonest and increasingly vitriolic. 

 

Compared to the litany of scandals in the last 14 years - some of which are absolutely prosecutable - this doesn't even come close. The inordinate coverage and confected outrage is clearly politically motivated and class based by people who enacted, enabled and endorsed far, far worse actual crimes by members of the previous government. 

 

For people that whinge about non existent "two tier justice", they sure indulge in blatant two tier reporting and two tier outrage. 

 

As you said, take your blinkers off. 

It's their reporting on matters of science policy that could and in all likelihood will lead to the most damage IMO. 

[Guest Bilo]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

To be honest, it’s been a mess.

 

No one really got what they wanted or voted for, whatever side you were on.

 

The campaign was built on lies and propaganda and that hasn’t changed since. 

The only way they could have done Brexit to be reflective of the result is a soft Brexit, leaving us with a relationship similar to that between Norway and the EU. There was very clearly enough support for EU membership to maintain close ties with it after the referendum and, frankly, it made the most economic sense.