Perish the thought that we may allow those pesky Africans to export food to the UK without tariffs. If we allow that they might not need our charity, then how would we feel superior to them?
|
|||||
|
The BBC reports,
Snip
Remember this from 2017? The Mayor’s previous two attempts to ban Uber from London were unpopular with Londoners in general, and particularly unpopular with groups that normally vote Labour. Uber is a godsend for people living in non-posh places where black cabs do not venture, and for people who cannot afford the fares they charge. Uber drivers are very often from ethnic minorities and/or relatively recent immigrants. (All over the developed world taxi drivers tend to be immigrants for very good reasons – unless restrictive practices keep them out.) Mr Khan knew all that, of course, but he could not afford to refuse the cab drivers’ union. Now a nice judge has got him off the hook. September 28th, 2020 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
 This is an excerpt from Hansard Australia recording a debate that took place in the Parliament of Australia on the 3rd September 2020:
Many democracies have a system whereby parliamentary committees or their equivalent demand the attendance of citizens so that questions can be put to them by the MPs. These sessions almost invariably display elected lawmakers at their most arrogant. I cheered when Dominic Cummings refused to appear before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the UK Parliament. But I have found one thing I hate more than elected politicians summoning members of the public for (theoretically) compulsory questioning: unelected bureaucrats summoning elected politicians for actually compulsory “conciliation”. “Compulsory Conciliation” was the title of the post in the pro Scottish Independence blog “Wings Over Scotland” where I saw this illustration of how fast once-cherished notions of free speech can fall. It would have surprised me in 2014 to know that in 2020 I would be grateful to Stuart Campbell for the good work he is doing to protect civil liberties in Scotland. But that is the sort of thing that happens when a Bill allows as much scope for abuse as does the Hate Crime Bill (Scotland). People from all quarters of politics have seen the danger and come together to oppose it. And do not think for a moment that what happens in Scotland or Australia can be ignored elsewhere. By the way, I was not particularly interested in Senator Claire Chandler’s exact views about the transgender issue, only in the fact that an “equalities” official can summon a Senator of the Parliament of Australia for questioning over her “problematic” opinions. September 27th, 2020 | 60 comments - (Comments are closed)
If you find yourself moved to attend a public protest in the UK, but are not a member of a group that your local Plod choose to kneel in support of, might I suggest you protect yourself, because it is likely violent thugs may decide your protest is unwanted. A good way to do this is by attending future protests with a good (but generic) motorbike helmet (which also means you are wearing a ‘face covering’, for Covid-19, you understand) and stout boots to protect your feet. Full biker leathers (also generic and unadorned) are optional but also have much to commend them, and these can be armoured and reinforced in all sorts of way. September 26th, 2020 | 17 comments - (Comments are closed)
At CapX, James Bloodworth writes,
An article from last year written by Maria D. Garcia and Hugo Acha and published in the the Miami Herald tells an individual’s story:
September 26th, 2020 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
Throw whatever resources are required at protecting people actually at high risk (obese, diabetic, over 70, various known co-factors) rather than strangling civil society when vast majority have only a tiny risk of dying. Lock-down will end up killing far more (not to mention impoverishing vast numbers) – Perry de Havilland, in answer to the question “what would you have done?” September 23rd, 2020 | 79 comments - (Comments are closed)
Rachel Johnson is Boris Johnson’s sister, but has very different political views than the Prime Minister’s. She was a candidate for the short-lived centrist pro-EU Change UK party in the 2019 European Parliament election. At one time it was thought that this party, bringing together moderates from different sides of the political aisle to oppose Brexit, would sweep the nation. September 21st, 2020 | 28 comments - (Comments are closed)
“TikTok and WeChat: US to ban app downloads in 48 hours”, reports the BBC. All things considered, I do still want Trump to win the US election, but this sounds like a stupid measure. Banning things is almost always intrinsically stupid, as is running your politics by the threat of bans. It will also lose him votes from people who happen to like TikTok. I suspect that like Sadiq Khan’s ban on Uber operating in London (the appeal against which will be heard on 28th September), Trump’s move is basically a shakedown. Note the delay before implementation in both cases. Either ban could be reversed at a moment’s notice for the right price. So far as I know Londoners can still use Uber now, and that will continue until the appeals process is exhausted, which could mean ten days or ten years. As for Tiktok in the US,
September 18th, 2020 | 16 comments - (Comments are closed)
Who is it that benefits from clearing? The clearing houses like it, obviously, because they makes that basis point or two. But the people who really benefit – as with the bread – are the people who get their clearing done. Which is why they’re willing to pay to have it done of course. And, in the modern financial world, if you’re not getting your clearing done then you go bust. So, the EU Commission has just graciously announced that the European banking system doesn’t have to go bust. Which is nice of them, of course it is, but it would be better to report it correctly, no? – Tim Worstall pointing out that ‘European Union announces that EU Banks don’t all have to go bust because Brexit’. September 17th, 2020 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
BBC football pundit Gary Lineker just brought the end of the BBC licence fee measurably closer. In this tweet he quoted the BBC Press Office saying he had signed a new five year deal with them and said,
In the last few months the BBC has turned a corner, the one leading to a blind alley in a bad part of town. The strategy of appointing a former Conservative politician as Director-General might have worked ten years ago but comes too late now. The almighty row about the last night of the Proms finally convinced many of those older viewers and listeners who were once its core audience that the state broadcaster does not like them very much. The Beeb’s protestations that its proposal to omit the words of Land of Hope and Glory and Rule, Britannia was because of Covid-19 rather than BLM were not believed. Partly this disbelief was because – until it became clear how big the row was going to be – the BBC itself had given its usual sympathetic coverage to those saying patriotic anthems should be dropped from the Proms because “How are we going to break down the institutional system, if we hang on to these [songs]?”. Partly it was because this was the last straw, not the first. There had been many straws like this:
A lot of white women were moved to comment on that Times article. They expressed complete willingness to “basically leave” the BBC, as soon as the law allowed them to do so. Middle-aged, middle-class Times readers would once have been the most eloquent defenders of the BBC and what a previous Director-General delicately called its “unique method of funding”, a euphemism for force. Who else among former loyalists has the British Broadcasting Corporation annoyed recently? The old. Personally I thought Tony Blair’s decision in 2000 to issue free TV licences to those over the age of 75 was sentimental nonsense, but as with all subsidies, cancelling them makes people angry. Who’s left? Surely that would be fans of Match of the Day, the longest-running football television programme in the world? Maybe, maybe not. Match of the Day‘s lead presenter is the aforementioned Gary Lineker who is so famous that I know who he is. Until his recent £400,000 pay cut, agreed to help out his employer in hard times and, er, increase gender balance among BBC salaries, Gary Lineker was earning £1.75 million per annum. To have presented Match of the Day for as long as he has at the salary he commands (“commands” as in someone at the command economy of the BBC commands that he shall have that amount), Mr Lineker must be doing something right. But he is not doing Twitter right if he thinks reminding people that he is now down to a measly £1.35 million will go down well with the average football fan, especially since he had agreed as a condition of the deal that he he would tweet more carefully. Someone called Michael Rafferty replied,
jim ferguson says,
LSW1 says,
September 15th, 2020 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
But it would be even better not to have to still see articles like this in the Times: Ian Birrell writes,
He goes on to describe how the police in some areas are effectively giving up on enforcing the prohibition of other drugs as well. It will not be a surprise to you that I think the outcome is good, but I feel more than a twinge of disquiet about the law effectively being changed by the will of the police. Selective enforcement can as easily be a tool of the oppressor as of the liberator. To see what I mean, amuse yourselves by making a quick list of those who are and are not subject to the Covid-19 restrictions in your area. Related posts: September 10th, 2020 | 31 comments - (Comments are closed)
ITV News reports,
September 8th, 2020 | 68 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||