Coming in strong there with the controversial opinion of "The police and justice system's ineptitude at catching and punishing paedophiles is bad and I don't care who knows it!"
Puja
The failure was wider than just the police. As the inquiry has already demonstrated. And the concern at upsetting a minority group was one of the reasons why that failure occurred. Again, as per the finding of that original inquiry.
As per my previous post, the anger surrounding this would not be there as much to be exploited if the police and other agencies had done their job without fear or favour.
a) I’m fairly certain you’ve missed Sandy’s point.
b) Predominantly Labour run councils.
I did. Or rather, I chose to "ignore it" in order to get back to the original point about the stupidity of Kemi Bad-at-this ranting about this issue when she was in charge for part of it...
On b), I think pretty much all councils are crap in the UK, no matter who runs them, and local politics needs a root and branch reform. But then again, so does parliament...
I’d agree with you that the conservatives ranting about the need for a new inquiry after they set up the last one is pathetic.
The police often don’t record ethnicity properly, so you’re quite right to be cautious. It is absolutely racist to describe all men of Pakistani heritage as being rapists. It’s also wrong to focus on only those grooming gangs where the majority were from ethnic minorities.
It is also wrong to ignore a problem, which is sadly what happened in many towns and cities. If local authorities had addressed the problem properly instead of trying t9 ignore it, the issue would carry the weight it does today. Regardless of the attackers ethnicity, the state completely failed to protect hundred if not thousands of young girls from abuse, despite plenty of reports. That’s not acceptable.
Coming in strong there with the controversial opinion of "The police and justice system's ineptitude at catching and punishing paedophiles is bad and I don't care who knows it!"
Puja
The failure was wider than just the police. As the inquiry has already demonstrated. And the concern at upsetting a minority group was one of the reasons why that failure occurred. Again, as per the finding of that original inquiry.
As per my previous post, the anger surrounding this would not be there as much to be exploited if the police and other agencies had done their job without fear or favour.
Again, I don't think, "The police/powers that be should've done better and should've worked without fear or favour," is a controversial opinion that will find too many detractors.
The issue under discussion was the fact that this famous set of utter failures of policing due to skin colour has been repackaged for propaganda as "Asian grooming gangs" to imply that the majority of child abuse rings are within one ethnicity, simply because this famously mishandled set were, and that therefore this is a problem of culture/race, rather than a problem of awful monsters who appear to go across most statistical groups.
The skin colour was relevant to the police's failure and important to make sure that it can't happen again, but that is a separate issue to it being used as propaganda by those in need of outrage.
And it does need to stay separate because conflating them is the heart of the propaganda - Yaxley-Lennon et al deliberately framing things so that it sounds like speaking against the racism is speaking for child abuse and vice-versa
Coming in strong there with the controversial opinion of "The police and justice system's ineptitude at catching and punishing paedophiles is bad and I don't care who knows it!"
Puja
The failure was wider than just the police. As the inquiry has already demonstrated. And the concern at upsetting a minority group was one of the reasons why that failure occurred. Again, as per the finding of that original inquiry.
As per my previous post, the anger surrounding this would not be there as much to be exploited if the police and other agencies had done their job without fear or favour.
failures of policing
police's failure
Puja
Policing and social services and senior council officers and councillors.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:41 am
The failure was wider than just the police. As the inquiry has already demonstrated. And the concern at upsetting a minority group was one of the reasons why that failure occurred. Again, as per the finding of that original inquiry.
As per my previous post, the anger surrounding this would not be there as much to be exploited if the police and other agencies had done their job without fear or favour.
failures of policing
police's failure
Puja
Policing and social services and senior council officers and councillors.
Yes, apologies - very correct that the fuck-up went far beyond the police. Was using it as shorthand for "the justice and protection system in general" but it wasn't a clear or accurate shorthand and doesn't cover the political bit either. Good correction.
(Playground) Politics, innit.
Labour are about to bring in planning laws they voted against in opposition. Starmer is suddenly in favour of another runway at Heathrow after previously being against it.
The list is endless for any party that is or has been in power.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:59 pm
by Which Tyler
Fair point, well made.
Ridiculous from all of them
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:32 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
I've only just become aware of something positive about the budget! Something I actually agree with. So credit where credit is due, Reeves did something good.
The "right to buy" for tenants of council properties has been seriously reduced. Previously, the maximum discount available was £136k in London and £102k outside. Now, the amounts vary across the country but are mostly less than £30k, and a tiny £16k in London. So, while I'd rather see this scheme ended completely (and hope this is the first step on that road), this is a welcome thing, and something (as far as I could see) not raised by the press.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:41 pm
by Mellsblue
I read about it in the press and Rayner got most of the credit.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2025 11:24 pm
by Mikey Brown
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:32 pm
I've only just become aware of something positive about the budget! Something I actually agree with. So credit where credit is due, Reeves did something good.
The "right to buy" for tenants of council properties has been seriously reduced. Previously, the maximum discount available was £136k in London and £102k outside. Now, the amounts vary across the country but are mostly less than £30k, and a tiny £16k in London. So, while I'd rather see this scheme ended completely (and hope this is the first step on that road), this is a welcome thing, and something (as far as I could see) not raised by the press.
What’s the logic here? Not arguing, I just haven’t ever considered it.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
by Stom
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 8:41 am
by Mikey Brown
Cheers. Will give that a look.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:36 am
by Son of Mathonwy
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 8:32 pm
I've only just become aware of something positive about the budget! Something I actually agree with. So credit where credit is due, Reeves did something good.
The "right to buy" for tenants of council properties has been seriously reduced. Previously, the maximum discount available was £136k in London and £102k outside. Now, the amounts vary across the country but are mostly less than £30k, and a tiny £16k in London. So, while I'd rather see this scheme ended completely (and hope this is the first step on that road), this is a welcome thing, and something (as far as I could see) not raised by the press.
What’s the logic here? Not arguing, I just haven’t ever considered it.
Stom beat me to it! Basically it stopped councils from building houses because it would be financial madness to do it (because of the losses the huge discounts would cause). It also transferred huge assets of the state to individuals who were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time - enriching them and their descendants but leaving out poorer people who came along later. Obviously the government needs to make a big investment in housebuilding, and it can't rely on the private sector to do so (because they will just drip feed properties to the market to prevent prices from falling), but getting rid of the right to buy is an essential step towards solving the housing crisis.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 10:30 am
by Mellsblue
There’s nothing to stop local authorities building homes if they wish to. Off the top of my head, Bradford, York, Norwich/Norfolk, N. Yorkshire all do it.
I set up a working group to look into doing it as a joint venture between the town and district council where I live but a change in Cllrs after elections lead to it being canned. Ironically, it was a loss of Conservative Cllrs and an increase in Labour Cllrs that lead to its demise. There was even seed funding from the Conservative government in the pot should it have gone forward. Building to rent is more complicated than building to sell but it is possible.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2025 10:50 am
by Mellsblue
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
Stom wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 6:09 am
I’ll post a video as to why it’s important. A very good watch:
Simply, the right to buy makes building new council homes a loss maker for many councils, so they just have not been doing it since thatcher.
Hence the boom in house prices since then.
Removing right to buy would be a wonderful thing for the UK, though this is a good start.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.
The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.
Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.
Will watch this when I have time this evening but did a little digging on the presenter prior to that. He’s not exactly politically neutral (not that anyone is).
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.
The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.
Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.
Thank you for the insight.
Yeah, that all passes the sniff test and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.
I still think it was a worthwhile watch, but as with any media, you should take it with a pinch of salt and not as gospel.
He's not, and there's obviously a case of me finding voices that also fit mine.
But outside of the current/recent state of affairs, it's true that there was a massive shortage of high-standard new builds between the mid 80s and the 2010s.
It comes down, in my opinion, to the question of whether government should be involved, or if the market will set standards. Because the market does not set standards for essential goods and services, it drops standards. For non-essentials like phones, TVs, high-end clothing, etc., it does: quality has gone up. For housing...new builds have gained a rep of being utter garbage.
This does seem like a step in the right direction, to me, though it's very late for many who I know, and it'll only really have an impact on house prices once boomers have already sold/died.
As part of my MSc, I undertook a study of social housing, post war through to end of the 1970s, and the quality of some of that housing ain’t great, albeit there were obvious mitigating factors in the 40s, 50s and, to a lesser extent, the 60s. Having worked in the public sector for 10 years I can tell you that there’s as much effort to keep costs down in that sector as in the private sector, albeit for very different reasons.
The government is very involved in setting standards, eg Building Regulations, and, possibly surprisingly, I don’t think they are stringent enough in this area. There are some acceptable reasons for this and some unacceptable reasons, imo. An area in which government actively impinges on quality, albeit indirectly, is the planning system. It’s so labyrinthine that it makes it a massive commitment, in time and money, and for self builders and smaller builders is therefore a huge barrier.
Ultimately, as with all markets, you need as many players as possible and as much supply as possible to drive up quality via competition, along with sensible and proportionate govt regs, and a lot of laws around the U.K. housing market actively hamper that.
Thank you for the insight.
Yeah, that all passes the sniff test and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.
I still think it was a worthwhile watch, but as with any media, you should take it with a pinch of salt and not as gospel.
Yep, I will def watch.
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
by Mellsblue
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:54 am
by Puja
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
Puja
All minor stuff compared to the fact that Banquo may be able to catch the train to Bedford at some point in the next decade or two.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:42 am
Pop quiz:
Is the following quote attributable to Rachel Reeves or Liz Truss?
“The demand is there but there are far too many supply-side constraints...”
There are always quips about opportunistic Labour politicians being indistinguishable from Tories, but this lot appear to be taking the piss. They've looked at the last 14 years of economic failure and stagnation through austerity and pandering to supply side economics and appear to be thinking, "Maybe it'll work if **we** do it cause we're the good guys!"
It's made worse when you think about Starmer's leadership bid was around keeping the popular leftist policies from the 2017 and 2019 manifestos and presenting them with a not-Corbyn persona. In related news, I understand John McDonnell is due to have his suspension, that he got for voting against keeping the 2 child benefit cap, extended into a possible expulsion from the Labour party because he won't [checks notes] promise not to vote for left wing policies in the future. Incredible.
and I completely agree that the UK has a big problem with regulations: way too lax in some places, way too strict in others.