Sephiroth

3 o clock in the morning posts about a congestion charge - unlikely to bode well

The good thing about the racism remarks from so so long ago is that as leader of the reform party, Nigel can take action against his racist councillors and prove to everyone he isn’t racist in 2025 because no one would want to vote for a racist PM at next election right? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/03/reform-council-leader-ian-cooper-accused-racism-alleged-remarks-sadiq-khan?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"

Well, this is it isn’t it? this does see to be an ongoing problem since oooh I’m gonna say 2016. For some reason governments playing to a populist right wing media without foundations in reality, all in the hope of a supportive headline that will never come

This might help, sue https://thesecretbarrister.com/2025/12/02/abolishing-trial-by-jury-why-is-the-government-overlooking-the-obvious/

You pay tax to fix problems you underfund stuff my faking tax cuts and the breakdown of the system is what you get there are no cheap or easy fixes. It will take money and time - and people lack patience

I know we are off topic here but the Stallone 95 movie is awful the Dredd movie from 2012 is fantastic

Is that a McManus Dredd drawing? He was great but on topic - it’s an overreach which takes too much and gives too little

Not looking great so far I don’t rate Lammy that much, I think people on here have touched on the many many problems years of underfunding the justice system have made us reach this point - but these proposals would be problematic even if they were effective in tackling the problem. Which - based on anyone I know involved in the legal system - they won’t https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/dec/02/david-lammy-courts-law-starmer-labour-reeves-budget-obr-uk-politics-live-news-updates?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I’m not denying taxes were raised im saying they weren’t raised just to give it all away on “benefits” and I backed that up by saying if they did the markets would have reacted very differently

That isn’t what the budget did if it did the markets would have reacted very differently but if you believe that’s what the budget did then nothing I or anyone else can say here will persuade you otherwise.

No the leaks came after the apocalyptic of some on here - the whole leak/non leak and obr problem aren’t great - but ultimately a wash and not that relevant. journalists should be analysing what the budget did and didn’t do but as per everything since 2016 is just personal psychodrama and college-boy sniggering

the speed at which critics of labour have switched last week from "the economy is toast because of Reeves!" to "the economy is doing well and it's Reeve's fault!" I don't think it was a great budget and it was tinkering and won't deliver many of the things the country needs - but it wasn't the disaster some people on here have been predicting for months either and they hysterical reaction from the likes of Dan Hodges and cronies is embarrassing

"they are usually built very cheaply" - as I understand it, the consensus is that homes are not being built at all, so not sure how they fit your description. Have NO idea what you are on about with your climate change rules - but I suspect you just think the whole thing is a hoax anyway "no-one who has any choice would want to live in them" - again they aren't being built so not sure how this applies. So if a new street of housing was built somewhere in SE22 - you think people earring 50k, currently unable to get their own home would not want to look at any new houses because of the reasons you describe? I doubt it. And today's cheap housing becomes tomorrows desirable, unaffordable homes - it's snobbery to say houses built before (say) 2000 were great and everything after is cheap and woke "they are built without any thought as to how the new residents will be offered basic services such as GP surgeries, transport links and schools etc," crikey - 15 minute cities are desirable so! Joking aside, I have seen towns expand and not enough thought is given to infrastructure etc - but that's as much to do with the horse trading done with locals to get the things built in first place. (someone will say "they can't have a shop there because it will take business away from someone else. And no pub because, I dunno drugs. Something" also - if you are going to build more surgeries and services (and we should) then you are going to have to tell all the people currently being told to ;eave the country to, erm, not leave because we need their expertise "but we can train brits to do those jobs" - how has that worked out for any country? Need immigration as well folks But one thing we can't do is continue to not provide homes for all the people growing up and as they leaves schools and unis. And if we are not going to provide homes, and the value of your 1M house becomes 2M because of scarcity of housing, maybe don't complain too much if we need to claw some of that unearned income back because "actually, I'm the real victim in all of this"

I think “high rises” and “crime” might be your words not mine “liking the character of an area” is something I imagine mos people feel. But it is subjective. What year was your home built? Should it not have been? To preserve the character of the area at that time? I don’t think building is the only solution. Investment landlords and multiple property owners could also be tackled but simply saying “no. Because character of area” isn’t going to help anyone growing up in the area get a place to live