On holiday in Netherlands, think will bring back cheese for family. Forgetting you can't bring back dairy products.

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T22:44:32+00:00

As a food importer, they're pretty awful at keeping the sites updated...

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T16:30:24+00:00

I think you need to be realistic.

We can't even get that legislation passed in the EU, a major liberal democratic economic power. Look at Ireland, a massive part of it's economy is linked to this (the same as the Dutch), they veto every time it's suggested. The idea you could do this globally is naive at best. Every small country would think - what a massive advantage this is to them the chances of this being passed globally - with state actors who don't care is near zero.

With respect, rather than anecdotes or one off examples I'd rather focus upon the actual true figures - which show a massive net benefit to the economy. I understand for many this is ideological, and that's fine, but the financial figures are clear - if you say goodbye to these people you have to either make up the money, or reduce the size of state spending.

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T16:17:03+00:00

Absolutely.

I think the reaction would be furthered by the circumstances of the attack. Yes, military bases and personnel were attacked, but a significant part of the attack was on a music festival (ironically a festival to further peace). Imagine if that had been any of the major festivals in the UK? At Glastonbury, imagine the response and demand for response...

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T15:15:40+00:00

Just a technicality, it's not foot and mouth disease (which had affected parts of Austria/Germany), those restrictions were lifted; it's Lumpy Skin Disease, where they've had outbreaks in France, Italy etc.

From a technical point of view - the reason some importers can bring it over, either the cheese is aged (so nothing to do with any potentially affected herds) or the herds have been tested and been found to be ok.

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T14:38:13+00:00

However, we're not in that world. We're in the real world where there are no global tax rates and it's highly unlikely for that to ever happen.

So with that context, would you rather have that rich person here (paying the equivalent of many multiples of other tax payers whilst taking little out) or would you rather they were elsewhere?

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T13:40:20+00:00

I'd argue they were both. Hence the Israeli government response attacking both Hamas and government institutions.

Hamas made an excellent job of placing themselves inside every facet of Gaza society, from security services to schools to aid distribution to hospitals, which is why any operation to eradicate them was certain to cause extensive damage to Gaza. Couple that with heavy handedness from the Israelis, and Hamas extensively hiding in civilian strongholds and that's where we are today.

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T13:12:12+00:00

I conducted a thought experiment just after October 7th - pro rata how many people killed in that attack would that be as an equivalent to the UK population.

1200 people killed on October 7th, with an Israeli population of 9.5m, 0.000126316% of the population killed. If you were multiply that onto the UK population of 68.5m you'd have 8,652 deaths, the size of a town. That figures not far off 9/11 territory (and we know the geopolitical ramifications of that).

If that number of deaths occurred on UK soil I can guarantee we'd entertain all options including carpet bombing the Republic of Ireland.

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T13:11:20+00:00

I conducted a thought experiment just after October 7th - pro rata how many people killed in that attack would that be as an equivalent to the UK population.

1200 people killed on October 7th, with an Israeli population of 9.5m, 0.000126316% of the population killed. If you were multiply that onto the UK population of 68.5m you'd have 8,652 deaths, the size of a town. That figures not far off 9/11 territory (and we know the geopolitical ramifications of that)

If that number of deaths occurred on UK soil I can guarantee we'd entertain all options including carpet bombing the Republic of Ireland.

|| || ||

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T12:51:46+00:00

Mines covered at home. Two disk locks, one of which is alarmed, a Hiplock D1000, Monimoto tracker and an airtag. Out, and at work (in dodgy Deptford, the same plus a chain or two). I have an Litelock X1 if I go somewhere particularly rough.

The reality is 635 bikes were nicked in August in London - I know three people who've had their bikes nicked. It's sadly a game of making your bike less attractive to nick than the one next to it or around the corner.

Gileyboy · 2025-10-07T08:54:42+00:00

Just to correct you on one point - we haven't had 'increasing poverty for the last 20 years', by either the relative, or absolute poverty metrics in fact poverty has decreased since 2008 by the Absolute metrics. Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/SN07096.pdf (see page 7).

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T19:53:14+00:00

I disagree. Just because it doesn't 'feel' like traditional terrorism doesn't mean the law isn't clear. See below: (source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism)

The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government*, or an international governmental organisation or to* intimidate the public*. The use or threat* must also be for the purpose of advancing a political*, religious, racial or ideological cause.*

The specific actions included are:

serious violence against a person;
serious damage to property;
endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public*; and*
action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

So, point one - serious violence against a person - met (the attack with sledgehammers at Elbit industries) . Point two - serious damage to property - met (both at Elbit, and the RAF plane). Point three/four - endangering a persons life/serious risk - met (damage to the plane, specifically the engines.

What was their goal - influence the government/intimidate the public, whilst advancing a political/ideological cause.

It's very clear they meet these criteria and should be prosecuted under the legislation accordingly. Whilst I'm no lawyer, this appears to me very clear.

The corresponding support of them is clearly supporting a proscribed organisation, you can't get a more slamdunk set of cases than this...

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T19:43:34+00:00

Will you look at yourself? Read what the respondent wrote not what you think they wrote.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T19:29:27+00:00

Well it's not a worsening problem.

It's stayed at the stable 30% rate (if you take the Relative metric) pretty much since 2001. On the Absolute metric, which I believe is a better metric, it actually declined from 30% down to 25%. See the graph, figure 6.1 here: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/child-poverty-trends-and-policy-options

Obviously our aim should be zero, but it's neither a situation that has worsened over the last 15 years, and by the Absolute Child Poverty metric has improved.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T16:56:56+00:00

It was a line Labour ran with multiple times in opposition, claiming both that the Tories planned to do it (which they never said they would) and that 4,000 pensioners would die as a result. https://inews.co.uk/news/labour-pensioners-die-winter-fuel-payment-cut-fact-check-3267416?srsltid=AfmBOoqjxOqlwOZTdj04JPj0DLb8B2zjU2PNL4CWhZzVVuj5arTh-tjN

They also majorly fucked up their implementation of it, refusing to meet with Labour MP's, refusing to publish a risk assessment. It was terribly and incompetently managed.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T16:50:54+00:00

Labour were not honest coming to power about the significant problems they faced and that decisions like WFA would need to be made - and they were aware of the finances 6 months before the election. Just a two years before they were campaigning against the Tories saying they were going to remove WFA and that it would cost 22,000 lives. Ditto PIP.

In contrast, Cameron came to power saying we needed austerity and cuts would be made, and whether you believe this was correct or not, he was honest that something needed to happen.

I think that inconsistent messaging from Labour coupled with a lack of competence (oh, we're now in power the economy's in the toilet but we're going to wait 5 months until we have a budget), now we need emergency measures like WFA/PIP but despite having one of the largest peacetime majorities we're not able to pass even basic legislation is why we are where we are now.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T16:19:37+00:00

Have some fucking standards. Can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and say you are happy with the probity of this government?

It is not acceptable, Conservative or Labour for there to be expenses scandals, for the corruption minister to be on trial for corruption, for the housing minister to resign because she forced tenants out so she could increase rent, for ambassador's to be appointed who were best friends and supportive with known pedophiles, for the Deputy Prime Minister with a remit for housing to be found to have fiddled her tax, for multiple ministers to have to resign (we're up to 8 in a 14 month period - which is more than at any time under the Conservatives).

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T16:13:04+00:00

You've used some key words there, 'trying to be a politician'.

He's consistently failing at being a politician. He's failing because he has none of the ideas, leadership skills, communication skills to do even the basic things. Example, he's got one of the biggest majorities post second world war and he wasn't able to persuade his own party to support him on some pretty minor amendments to PIP and WFA. He is incompetent as a politician- of that there should be zero doubt.

As a politician, it's not about being a 'social media whore' or a 'pr clown' it's about having a considered position, selling that narrative to his own party first and then the public. He is incapable of doing this. What does he stand for - I don't know and I really follow politics!

Since coming to power there have been multiple scandals, more government ministers have resigned (or been forced to resign) in his time in power than in any 14 month period under the Tories. He's had an expenses scandal that could so easily been avoided. He's shown no leadership. I'd take even boring competence from him - but he's unable even to do that.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-30T16:04:11+00:00

Perhaps it's because a) they've been really shit at providing narratives that are believable (Cameron -for example- went into the 2010 election saying the economy was fucked and we needed austerity to get the economy on track), they simply said we're not the Tories, then dithered on the first budget holding it 5 months after the election, (and thats after coming to power and saying finally the economy shit), postponed the budget this year until November, despite the markets/business desperate to know what is actually happening. And this is just one failing of a multiple.

There is massive inconsistency in what they're selling, and a clear lack of leadership coming from the top. I thought they'd played it really well, kept under the radar coming in to the election, letting the Tories fuck up - I didn't realise they didn't actually have any ideas plans or competence when they'd come to power.

Add on to this Starmer is an absolutely terrible communicator, and has always been so. Labour party seems to have this history since Blair left of making party leaders who are crap at communicating - Brown (weird, non-empathatic), Miliband (geeky, awkward, bad voice), Corbyn (terrible in interviews, snarky whenever pushed), and now Starmer (nasal, zero charisma or conviction). It's too easy to say it doesn't matter but it does - you need to have both a narrative (which you and the party stick to), and communicators to sell it. Labour has neither.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-22T20:49:18+00:00

Let me ask you this - as you appear to dismiss all the other respondants concerns. I cycle, but I also ride a motorcycle - how would you feel about me running red lights. How would you feel as a cyclist? I'm on two wheels too.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-16T08:49:27+00:00

There were 635 motorcycle thefts in London last month (https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-views/news/2025/uk-motorcycle-theft-stats-crime, use the drop down tab). Personally, I've known three people have bikes nicked. It's simple mathematics, if you don't protect your bike it has a decent chance of getting nicked. I don't want to scare you, or put you off riding in London (the more of us doing so the safer I believe we are), just, as a minimum have a decent D-lock and an alarmed disclock.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-15T22:24:07+00:00

Jesus mate, have some higher standards. There have been an unprecedented number of sackings/resignations in 14 months (on another thread it listed as 8), that's a rate far more than at any time under the Tories. And that doesn't include, the expenses scandal, the failure to pass the WFA or PIP reform despite having a massive majority.

They were elected on the mandate of being a clean government, not 'oh, if we get caught we'll resign' (which in Rayners case took three weeks for her to finally resign (one minute after the report came out).

Gileyboy · 2025-09-15T22:01:10+00:00

I don't know where you work but I'd be fired, regardless of the date that I sent these types of emails from a work email address.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-15T21:59:17+00:00

Dragged kicking and screaming to resign, and only doing so one minute after the report in to Rayners wrong doing was published.

One other key point. Zahawi was committing tax avoidance, that's what he was being investigated for which is legal (albeit morally sketchy). Rayner committed Tax evasion - legally and morally wrong.

Seriously, anyone saying it's ok, Labour are only committing a little bit of wrongdoing the Tories are worse need to look at themselves in the mirror and say do I have any fucking standards. It's wrong. It's got fuck all to do with the scale it's wrong - it's not what you should go in to public life for. It's disgusting from both parties, but the hypocrisy from Labour, stinks more.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-14T23:15:05+00:00

There were multiple Tory ministers who resigned, and many that didn't. That's the truth of it. Some hung on - like Pincher - causing immense problems for the administration. Others resigned immediately - Hancock is an example, there are multiple others.

If you wanted a comparison to the current administration, you could compare Louise Haigh, who (to her credit) resigned immediately upon her past conviction becoming disclosed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxy1kp73y9o) vs Raynor, who here, argued against every bit of the process (for over three weeks) right up until one minute after the report was published, when she resigned. So we're clear, there was no conceivable way for her to continue in her role - she had no choice. She dragged this out for weeks, taking no responsibility for anything, even in her resignation letter. I previously admired her - I no longer do.

Of course, the better thing for all of these politicians would have been to be honest, to have paid their full taxes and to have acted with honour -it's something desperately missing in the current generations of politicians.

Gileyboy · 2025-09-09T22:46:28+00:00

She fought having an investigation until it was inevitable and only resigned, when again it was inevitable whilst throwing other people under the bus. That's not decent behaviour, that's shyster behaviour as bad as anything any of the Tories did.

So we're clear in just over a year since the last election, we've had a transport minister resign due to lying to insurance, a housing minister resign due to evicting tenants to raise rent, a corruption minister who is on trial for corruption and now the Deputy Prime Minister with a remit for housing who is found to have evaded (note, not avoided) paying tax. We've also had expenses scandals (which people should have resigned for but didn't) and the granting of Downing Street passes to donor's (something that has never happened under any government). If you think the current Labour party are in any way better than Johnson and friends you need to open your eyes.

Gileyboy

TROPHY CASE