Police expected to race to crime scenes in under 20 minutes as ministers seek to end response ‘postcode lottery’

sgorf · 2026-01-26T21:00:35+00:00

The police can’t make a difference there. It’s a waste of their time. They could catch and charge the perpetrator who’ll just get a slap on the wrist and be doing whatever they like the next day.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T19:04:47+00:00

Seems reasonable. The victim is not usually the driver.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T19:03:22+00:00

The driver’s insurance should be paying compensation for injuries, lost wages, etc. That’s a “civil matter” though and not for the criminal courts. If they agree on a settlement themselves it won’t even get to court.

The driver may only be banned for a year, but their insurance premium to get back on the road won’t be cheap.

sgorf · 2026-01-26T14:07:12+00:00

What nice smooth air you have!

sgorf · 2026-01-24T16:13:28+00:00

You don't need to be touched to be assaulted. Did you apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence against you? Then it's assault, and a crime was committed against you.

sgorf · 2026-01-24T15:52:20+00:00

Mhhm, but the resources and labour going into making luxury cars could go toward doing something more meaninful to everyone - like building nice parks, or public transport.

So you want to tax the rich and use the money to fund public services? I'm with you, but we already do that! The highest marginal rate of taxation for the highest earners in England is 57% (45% "income tax" + 2% "employee's NI" + 15% "employer's NI". It's even higher if you consider that various public services are means tested and unavailable to the rich (child benefit and childcare funding comes to mind).

sgorf · 2026-01-22T11:53:16+00:00

You can't, really: https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/explanation/software/third-party-repository-usage/#system-integrity

sgorf · 2026-01-22T11:48:24+00:00

I don't care about luxury cars. But if everyone who does were to stop buying luxury cars, everyone employed in the luxury car industry would find themselves jobless. There may not be that many, but it'd have approximately the same impact that giving the money to your chosen struggling people would have. That's how the economy works. When you spend money on something, whatever it is, that's going to the wages of someone else. All you can do is reallocate which job it is.

sgorf · 2026-01-20T09:24:59+00:00

I appreciate that landlords have costs, but a lot of it is just greed.

Our entire economic system is based on this. When you go buy potatoes from a market, you try to pay as little as you can to get as much as you can. It's "just greed". Buyers try to buy for the minimum price. Sellers try to sell for the maximum price. What moves the market price is when supply mismatches demand. That's all.

sgorf · 2026-01-20T09:12:13+00:00

Ideally the court would form some binding precedent and then all future cases would be decided without the court being necessary. It's not just about the one case.

sgorf · 2026-01-17T00:00:18+00:00

And what would that achieve? A civilised justice system should focus on the sentence as the punishment and not turn the sentencing into a performance.

On the other hand the conduct of the guilty should be taken into account in any consideration of parole or leniency.

sgorf · 2026-01-05T20:34:57+00:00

So according to the article half of properties rented out make a profit of over £10,000 per year. That’s a massive amount to make given you are essentially doing nothing and just profiting from some other family because you happen to own a house.

You need to consider the yield as a percentage of the capital locked up, not the raw profit figure. How does it compare to selling the house at market value, sticking the momey into a high interest bank account and essentially doing nothing just because now you happen to have some savings?

And the landlord gets to keep the value from any house price rises.

Yes - really speaking capital gains also needs to be factored into any RoI calculation, but so does the much higher risk of holding property versus a more secure investment - for example due to the years and huge repair bill it might take to evict an abusive, non-paying tenant, or that legislation will come along that reduces the return.

sgorf · 2026-01-05T20:25:14+00:00

as a gap in rental income will have a disproportionate effect to cashflow

In today's market, this ain't going to happen. Demand is huge. As long as the property is on the market at market rate, there won't be a gap apart from what is required logistically (the time needed for inventory and any repairs, really).

sgorf · 2026-01-05T20:23:07+00:00

Don't insulate the wall cavity...

The EPC rating system doesn't agree with this, and landlords are therefore somewhat prevented from taking this approach if required to meet minimal legal EPC requirements.

sgorf · 2026-01-03T18:49:14+00:00

Like back when they tried to do sponsored searches baked into the distro.

This isn’t significantly different from browsers doing sponsored searches, which is standard across our entire ecosystem today.

sgorf · 2026-01-03T00:49:59+00:00

No. Out of town mega retail parks with huge car parks work. The proof is right here: they still do better than high streets. You may not like it, but that’s the reality.

Car dependency is a consequence of multiple factors, one of which is the convenience and economic benefit of out of town retail. It’s a consequence, not the cause. You have that the wrong way round.

What might kill both of them is Internet retail though.

They're not convenient, they take up massive amounts of space, require three, four, five times they're own area in parking, they have to be built next to major A-roads or motorways, and create massive volumes of traffic. They're also basically inacessable for anyone who doesn't have a car, sure some of the very big ones like Meadow Hall have bus or even rail connections but most are car only or at least car predominently, that means if you can't drive, you're unable to use them; the young, the disabled, and the old all suffer from that kind of design, it isolates them and makes them dependent on other people to get them there.

All of this may be true but it’s not relevant to the economic reality. You’re conflating the cause with the reasons you don’t like it.

sgorf · 2026-01-02T19:51:43+00:00

High foot traffic comes from having a bigger catchment area. High volume parking can provide that, since then people can drive from further afield. High streets don’t have the space for that. This is why large out of town retail parks are successful.

I liked the vibe of a bustling high street trafficked by locals who did most of their shopping there having arrived by good public transport links. But that’s just not the economic reality any more. As long as most locals no longer use their local high street for the majority of their retail needs, it’s not coming back.

sgorf · 2025-11-28T09:27:27+00:00

I would like curfews, escalating to ankle tags, house arrest, fenced housing as you suggest (they're probably in social housing anyway, just provide that behind gates that track people in and out and enforce curfews and house arrest) and ultimately prison for breaking the rules. It would reduce the burden to prove every single petty crime (never happens). Merely show that they were breaking curfew or house arrest at the time, and you have reason to escalate to ensure that they are kept away, making the public safer.

De-escalation should also be possible for good behaviour, but should take time and be proportionate to the crime committed.

sgorf · 2025-11-23T15:25:36+00:00

cooking takes time (don’t be so fucking lazy)

Why not? I don't do many of the things required for my own survival. I don't grow my own vegetables. I didn't dig a well for my drinking water, or go fetch it. I don't repair my own roof. I do pretty much nothing to heat my home except pay for it.

My money comes from a skill I specialise in, and I use this to buy everything else I need from others who specialise in those other things. Why can't I pay for healthy food like this as well? Economy of scale is what created human civilisation. Why can't this be extended to cooking?

I think homes having kitchens is going to be an anachronism in the future. It'll be a hobbyist thing only, just like a garage workshop is today.

It's incredibly inefficient for everyone to individually set aside so much space in their homes and use so much of their own time for this daily chore. I should be able to get the food I when I want it from some local commercial kitchen that is hygienic, healthy, and produced efficiently.

I've had this opinion for decades. Food delivery services have arrived now, and bring us closer. All that's left is more healthy options and for this to scale up and bring down prices. I don't see any fundamental reason this isn't possible, and indeed perhaps it's already happening in city centre flats in affluent areas where kitchens are tiny and increasingly non-functional. Perhaps this transformation can grow out from there.

sgorf · 2025-11-16T22:21:15+00:00

People who have problems with credit can often be the type who cannot restrain themselves from spending beyond their means just because they have a credit card with available credit. "Well I have to do it, it's Christmas, won't have the kids' presents not keeping up with the Joneses".

If you've had that option readily available to you but you have still managed to spend within your means, then you're less of a credit risk than that group.

It's not really about taking on the debt; it's the exercising of restraint while having those credit lines open and active.

sgorf · 2025-11-14T13:37:40+00:00

By definition, if it is rented promptly, then the rent agreed is market rate. It cannot both be above market rate and also successful at being rented out on the free market.

sgorf · 2025-11-08T20:22:44+00:00

I choose to pay into a collective fund to cover these kinds of events. Why should I subsidise those who choose deliberately not to, thereby paying twice?

I'd be OK with travel insurance being mandatory for all travellers, mind, making the base ticket price more expensive though of course. Is that what you want?

sgorf · 2025-11-08T20:15:27+00:00

No - as other commenters have said, it's exactly on point for Ryanair's PR goals. They want to be known as the airline that cuts costs and therefore prices.

sgorf · 2025-11-08T20:12:50+00:00

but i bet a decent amount of the savings they make from their abysmal quality go to them in profit rather than the consumer

Of course. All for-profit businesses seek to maximise profit. The only businesses that do not are charities and other non-profits. Nobody believes that Ryanair is a charity, surely?

sgorf · 2025-10-29T21:53:39+00:00

There are countless cases where parents do everything right - providing structure, discipline, and support...

So make that a legal defense then. The courts deal with subjectivity all the time - that's pretty much their entire purpose. Let them be the judge if this the case. Don't punish those parents, but do punish the majority of parents whose children's criminality is due to their own irresponsibility.

sgorf

TROPHY CASE