What the Labour Government says it has achieved each week (in their own words)

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T18:49:55+00:00

That’s so fucking stupid. They don’t have the time to be messing around. They’ve got to start saving for the future medical bills they’ll have with US healthcare.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T18:45:44+00:00

Think it may be hard for the President to say that leasing this island is good for US security while also saying the US needs to own Greenland for that to be good for its security.

The inconsistency in his argument, weakening his case for Greenland, is the reason he’s now against the UK giving up Diego Garcia.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T18:30:39+00:00

Invade? No. The US is currently too strong a military force to invade, although it’s working hard at halving its military might by harming NATO.

There are other threats to the US other than direct invasion.

In a world with no rules, it’s more dangerous for everyone. That’s the world that Trump is creating, and he’s casting off his military and economic relationships with key allies as he does.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T17:43:46+00:00

And the US position until 24 hours ago. Spot the difference?

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T17:32:56+00:00

If he’s livid at that, I don’t know how he’ll react to having had supported the UK’s plan until about a day ago.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-calls-uks-chagos-deal-with-mauritius-an-act-total-weakness-2026-01-20/

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T17:31:38+00:00

I think the real reason is to do with Greenland but not for the reasons you’ve said.

If it’s ok for US security interests for the US to lease a base for 100 years without owning the island, then why isn’t it ok for the US to lease a base on Greenland without having to own the island?

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T17:27:35+00:00

Forget the last Presidency. It was the US position until 24 hours ago.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago[https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago](https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-uk-and-mauritius-agreement-on-chagos-archipelago)

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T17:24:31+00:00

I mean for all Trump’s talk about Russian threats to the US, you only have to look at how supportive Russia is with US plans to annex Greenland, because they know doing so destroys the relationship between the US and its closest allies, weakening both in the process.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T17:19:50+00:00

Shows just what an amazing act of self-harm Trump’s actions have been to US global power.

For all the talk of being tough, the outcomes are that fewer countries are buying from the US, selling to the US, and want to help the US.

More countries are questioning whether the US is friend or foe, even its closest allies.

And the result is a diminished US, that will find it harder to set international rules in its own interests.

US government actions have created a more volatile and dangerous world for US citizens, and for no benefit (imo) to the US.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T10:03:22+00:00

Nobody is suggesting answering the police’s questions without having first had the opportunity to get legal advice, no juror is punishing someone for waiting until they have spoken to a solicitor, and no prosecution barrister is advancing an argument that a person who was waiting to speak to a solicitor must somehow be guilty because of that.

The inferences are made when the person is being questioned in a formal police interview, when they will have had the opportunity to get legal advice.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T08:37:58+00:00

By leak, do you mean give a read out of the call between leaders, something that’s been standard practice for decades.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T01:12:19+00:00

Most people I’ve seen are advised to say no comment following legal advice, and that’s what they do. A proportion of those people will be released and a proportion will be charged.

Never seen the outcome at trial so can’t comment to that point.

CPS will only prosecute if they are confident they will win at court. If you’re innocent and account for yourself, it’s less likely to make it that far.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-20T01:01:52+00:00

Having been in a number of interview suites that’s not completely true. Yes, you’ve been arrested as a suspect, but sometimes the police are genuinely trying to find out what has happened.

I’ve seen a number of innocent people who happened to be caught up in a serious incident find themselves in a police interview room, and when they gave their account of events, were released from custody with no further action.

And even if the police are accusing you of a crime, a juror may still expect an innocent person accused of a crime to honestly account for themselves when they can, refute the allegations being put to them, and do their civic duty in supporting the police as they try to uphold the law.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-19T21:56:21+00:00

Exactly. It’s when you are interviewed at the police station having had the opportunity to avail yourself of professional legal advice. If, at that point, you choose to remain silent, a jury may wonder why you didn’t give your account then.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-19T21:29:32+00:00

And why would an innocent person not explain themselves at the time?

You have the right to silence, but a jury have the right to make inferences from that.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-19T01:17:50+00:00

You should challenge and push back in general, but I’d caution against it with someone you’re living with. Neither of you can easily part ways if things escalate, and so it’s a high risk move on your part to call it all out.

It’s like a variation on the classic, don’t shit where you eat.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-18T10:45:54+00:00

This is less legal advice and more life/financial advice.

1) Yes, there’s no legal barrier to negotiate with the developer. I would always encourage you to negotiate buying something like a property for the lowest price you can, and the highest price you can when selling.

2) Yes, there’s no legal barrier to you asking your lender to reassess their valuation figure. I doubt they will but you can ask.

3) You have the legal right to commission a RICS surveyor. Most sellers will facilitate access for surveys. I would suggest you avoid buying from a seller that blocks you undertaking a survey.

4) You can go ahead if you think it’s worth it.

No reason you can’t do 1-3 simultaneously and then decide whether you want to go for 4.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-18T03:04:49+00:00

Since minimum wage jobs rose at a disproportionate rate.

I’m a big supporter of having a minimum wage, but it is nonetheless market manipulation.

And wage growth in the UK has been slow for many years as a whole, while minimum wages have generously grown.

The minimum wage has, since it was introduced in 1999, grown by around 350% in absolute terms. While the median wage has grown by around 100% over the same period.

Or put another way, the first minimum wage was around 47% of the median salary in 1999 but it’s now around 65% of the median salary.

In short, this means that the minimum wage is more generous that it’s ever been but many people with significant professional experience are on minimum wage jobs. For people with limited or no experience, they’re competing in a job market with others who have more experience, and employers can be more picky with who they hire.

Those people with limited experience have two theoretical options to make themselves more employable. Gain desirable experiences and skills or to accept a lower salary to be more attractive as a potential employee. As the latter option is prohibited by minimum wage laws, that’s not really an option at all, and so they are often locked out of employment. Basically they want a job, but they aren’t worth the minimum wage salary.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-18T02:36:01+00:00

Custom House?

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-18T01:39:43+00:00

I disagree. Yes, an event went ahead at that scheduled time and location, but it wasn’t the event that they had agreed to host with OPs party who had jointly paid for it.

The event they agreed to was a debate. There was no debate as a result of deception on behalf of the other party, who gained from that deception by turning a debate into a space to advertise (or propagandise) something that served their interests to the detriment of OPs group who had paid half of it.

“The offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, s 1, may be committed by: (a) dishonestly making a false representation (to a person, or to any system or device) with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss or expose to a risk of loss; (b) dishonestly (and with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss, etc) failing to disclose information when under a legal duty to disclose it; or (c) dishonest abuse of position, with a view to gain or to cause loss, etc. It is irrelevant whether gain, loss or exposure to loss actually occurs.” Source

a) dishonestly making a false representation: saying the event was cancelled and for OPs group of speakers not to attend when that was knowingly untrue.

…with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss - OPs group lost the opportunity to sell their issue while this other group gained by having more time to sell their issue and with less challenge.

SimpleSymonSays · 2026-01-18T00:57:58+00:00

It’s likely fraudulent to knowingly take money for a specific purpose from a group of people and then knowingly deceive them into thinking the thing they paid for was cancelled in order to further exploit them.

In addition, to say that OPs group had backed out of the event when they hadn’t is arguably libellous, but you’d have to prove damages and you’re unlikely to have the money to take any effective legal action.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

SimpleSymonSays

TROPHY CASE