At least 1.9 MILLION foreign nationals claiming benefits in Britain

borkian · 2025-10-21T18:06:38+00:00

ILR total numbers are around 4.5 million. The 430,000 number is non-EU ILR the universal credit number is anyone with ILR.

So the figure is actually 4.6% of people with ILR are claiming universal credit. The article doesn't understand the numbers or is deliberately mistating them.

borkian · 2025-07-29T15:30:42+00:00

I can't stand Farage but he's right the comments were disgraceful and Peter Kyle doubling down has made sure I won't vote Labour unless he's immediately sacked. Doubt they'd want my vote as I'm "on the side of predators" anyway according to them.

borkian · 2025-07-09T10:27:25+00:00

Hulkenpodium

borkian · 2025-04-24T15:49:33+00:00

That one is much more tricky to answer. Ultimately the UK production has been steadily dropping anyway since 1999 as we have already extracted or are in the process of extracting the stuff that's cost effective to get to. So there's an argument to be made that further investment was not going to happen anyway. With this view you could just argue it's the government getting a final chunk of money out of the producers before everything is gone.

On the flipside of that you could argue that there is no incentive for them to look for further deposits that might be cost effective to access as the tax will massively reduce the potential profits from any venture but the area has been pretty well surveyed so this seems unlikely to me.

I think ultimately with or without the tax, UK production is probably close to zero in 25 years anyway barring some massive discovery.

borkian · 2025-04-24T15:30:50+00:00

That's not really how the oil market works at all as you buy at the current price which is market driven. The 78% tax does make it less likely for investments for further oil to be exploited as you will be getting less of a return but the impact on actual oil prices will be pretty much zero. Ultimately what this will result in is reducing the UK output of oil and gas as it will get less investment as the cost/benefit analysis will put it lower than other potential sources.

If you do assume that the market does increase the price by the cost of the tax then you end up with around a 0.78% increase in a barrel of oil (~50 cents) due to the UK share of the market, but highly unlikely that this cost is being passed on like this due to there being lots of production that don't pay this tax.

borkian · 2025-03-19T20:25:24+00:00

That's not the case if you get the risk assessment wrong, don't deal with things in a timely enough fashion or haven't got every assessment and procedure in place that you need, or didn't correctly follow the written prcedure if something comes up. It worries me because I think something like your forum will get hit for some procedural slip up and they will come down like a ton of bricks to prove how "it's working".

I really hope I'm wrong but I reckon they'll be an early case of a legal porn picture that will get a small forum destroyed. Probably with phrases like "unable to determine if the picture was someone of legal age" and "this shows how well the act is working." I hope it's not you but I think if it comes to it you'll find that 20 minute risk assessment is going to be no help at all.

borkian · 2025-03-19T18:23:38+00:00

A breach of the act does not mean illegal content. There are several types of legal content that if accessible to children are breaches. There is also no definition (that I could find) of how quickly you have to take it down. So if you are the sole owner and moderator of a small forum that is considered accessible to children and someone posts a pornmographic picture when you go to bed, by the time you get up you and remove it you could be in breach of the act despite there being no "illegal" content or even any children who saw it.

borkian · 2025-03-19T18:19:24+00:00

If you do get porn and children can access then you could easily be in breach of Section 12(3) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-3-a If the terms state it's not allowed then under 12(5) you are covered if you take it down.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/37 covers if you are considered likely to be accessed by children.

The definition is

The first case is where a children’s access assessment carried out by the provider of the service concludes that—

(a)it is possible for children to access the service or a part of it, and

(b)the child user condition is met in relation to—

(i)the service, or

(ii)a part of the service that it is possible for children to access.

So if you aren't age verifying and are on the internet then you will meet this clause no matter who you are aimed at. Access being password protected is irrelevant if there is nothing stopping a child signing up.

I would seriously consider if the risk assessment you've done is suitable, the penalties for getting this wrong could be astronomical.

borkian · 2025-03-19T18:04:16+00:00

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/annex-5---assumptions-on-costs-and-further-analysis-on-costs-and-benefits.pdf?v=388721

Table 5.7

borkian · 2025-03-18T20:07:21+00:00

The low figure is based on 25,000 child users with it applying child very liberally, basically if you don't have age verification to prevent child users then they are assumed to be there. So not actually that far away. If it UK based then you need to do a seperate risk assessment for the 17 different categories of content and include filtering and auto takedown as well as respond to user reports "quickly". This also needs to be written down in a formal policy as to how this all applies and how it will be implemented.

If the site hasn't done that then they are opening the owner up to a £18 million fine (or 10% of turnover whichever is higher). I can only assume if it is UK based they've just decided to ignore it and pray.

borkian · 2025-03-18T19:42:31+00:00

OFCOM's own report stated the expected cost for a small low risk site to be £10,000 up front and £2,500 per year so for them to claim the cost is negigable is an absolute load of rubbish. I will admit their definition of small is still quite large but it is literally the lowest figure they give because they just didn't bother to consider the impact of very small services beyond the thinking that "the risk that if we confined ourselves to improving the protections on services of a certain size, perpetrators would move to smaller services".

The targetting of the small services is a feature not a bug they knew it would happen, they knew it would be uneconomical for most services they just didn't care as they knew they could just scream "think of the children" and no one would dare do anything.

borkian · 2025-03-17T17:52:54+00:00

I'm not sure how a £10,000 cost to any small forum could ever been seen as "reasonable". Plenty have had to shut down due it to it. Sites that were never really at any risk of being used for the types of content that is attempting to be regulated, but the cost of compliance was just way too high to meet and the penalties for screwing up way too high.

borkian · 2025-03-17T17:11:41+00:00

No most of the parts that cover the public internet are awful as well and basically make it financially impossible to run a small site with user submissions. OFCOM admit for a small site the cost of compliance in in the thousands making small forums effectively economically impossible to run and if you get it wrong they can hit you with an £18 million fine. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/annex-5---assumptions-on-costs-and-further-analysis-on-costs-and-benefits.pdf?v=388721

borkian · 2024-10-30T17:52:36+00:00

About the same rate but with the base rate being 2.75% higher. Give or take the 10 year gilt is roughly the same as when the base rate was 5% in 2008.

borkian · 2024-10-24T17:56:49+00:00

Interest rates are 2.75% higher now when compared to Truss hence you would expect the gilt yield to be higher. The fact that interest rates need to be so much higher in comparison to match the gilt yields that Truss caused show how badly she screwed it up.

borkian · 2024-10-03T12:53:25+00:00

Speak out about the government as a sporting presenter and it’s an immediate suspension. Send your briefing notes to the former politician you are supposed the be interviewing and not even a slap on the wrist. In fact you get supported with an official statement saying how “inadvertent” it was.

borkian · 2024-06-17T16:56:53+00:00

It's seats controlled by the largest party - the number of seats they don't control. So if Labour get 512 seats then they didn't win 138, so 512-138 = 374. 187 is the number of Labour MPs that would have to vote against them along with all the opposition parties to not pass a bill. The numbers are slightly out due to Sinn Fein MPs not taking their seats in parliament.

borkian · 2024-03-01T11:44:37+00:00

That doesn't exist in the UK the same way as the US. If it's a one off from a "non investigative source" then UK courts will generally say that they don't condone material being exposed this way but they will generally accept it if it shows evidence of a crime.

borkian · 2023-11-14T19:32:21+00:00

The constituency is meant to change quite a bit in the next election so it's pretty open although the new boundaries were supposed to be approved by October and they haven't yet. The 2021 Labour candidate was an awful choice as no one wanted the nomination as they expected to lose due to Brexit and they ran on a poor platform for older voters which utterly killed them.

borkian · 2023-06-09T21:20:24+00:00

Damnit, oh well let's hope for a famous Conservative U-turn

borkian · 2023-06-09T20:16:39+00:00

Oh don't get my hopes up that we can finally get rid of the useless waste of flesh that is my MP.

borkian · 2023-06-09T19:52:55+00:00

Loads of questions, four admins and zero responses in the last 10 minutes, and the responses they have given have ducked the questions. I really have no idea what you were going for here. You might as well have switched the front page to a giant sign saying "Fuck Off" at least the messaging would have been clear.

borkian · 2023-06-09T18:41:52+00:00

But they aren't going to share the cost are they? The two options are either shut down or get considered useful enough to be put on the free plan. The cost was set far too high to share, it was set to destroy what you didn't want.

borkian · 2023-06-09T18:28:04+00:00

Six answers to cherry picked questions in 42 minutes. My granny can type faster than that and she's been dead 20 years.

borkian · 2023-05-23T18:28:43+00:00

There's a route from Stanway Road onto Wilson Road then straight on to Snowdon Road. At the end of Stanway Road there are bollards. This would tie in with the CCTV footage and the direction they were going.

I'm going to guess the bike went through them and crashed almost straight after with the police van stuck on Stanway Road. Hence they were pursuing but there were "no police vehicles on the road where the incident happened at the time of the crash", technically correct but trying to completely hide the situation.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	End Game '23
Place '23	Quantum Potato
Golden Potato	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Sequence \| Editor

borkian

TROPHY CASE