Tweak
@Tweak@feddit.uk
- Comment on Dismay as council removes Pride flag in Derbyshire after Christians complain 1 day ago:
Sounds like the Alcoholic’s Anonymous loophole will work, you just need to decide your higher power is a doorknob or whatever.
- Comment on South Western first rail firm renationalised by Labour 3 weeks ago:
Rail contracts and train companies aren’t the problem. The problem is rail stock leasing, which has obsene prices and pushings the public-facing train companies to both be expensive but also run a paper thin margin. Nationalising the train companies won’t do anything about rail stock leasing, the government needs to focus on the root problem, not buy out the under-performing public facing business at a high price.
- Comment on South Western first rail firm renationalised by Labour 3 weeks ago:
The thing is there are multiple companies/sectors involved here, and this isn’t addressing the worst of them (yet, if ever).
First you have the railway lines themselves. These are run by Network Rail, which is already a part of the Department for Transport. This part covers a significant expense, but it’s needed and run fairly lean.
Then you have the train companies. These are the ones running the trains, they are typically private businesses. They lease rail stock (trains and carriages) and sell tickets, while paying Network Rail for the use of the lines. These are the customer facing businesses, and South Western Rail is one of them and the one nationalised in this story. In spite of having high ticket prices and revenue, they have low profits due to high costs.
Lastly you have the rail stock companies. These are the real villains, frankly, much moreso than train companies. They set leasing prices for trains, and in turn cause the train companies to run at paper thin margins. They aren’t customer facing, so the public eye isn’t upon them and they get away with a lot. They have established long term contracts, so simply nationalising a train company won’t end this deal.
However, nationalising train companies does mean that the government (either the DfT or the new Great British Railways) will be negotiating with rail stock companies. In theory, the government are a bigger entity, so have a better negotiating position, and also they should be more motivated to bring the costs down. Private rail companies make more money overall with paper thin margins on high prices, not only because a small percentage of a bigger number can be bigger, but because having a small margin puts them in a better negotiating position with local government (“You have to give us a good deal, we can’t afford to operate otherwise, and you need us”).
So nationalising train companies might lead to lower prices in future, through fairer leasing rates on rail stock. However this won’t start to happen until these contracts are renewed.
Really, a much heavier hand is needed from the government, one that focuses specifically on the rail stock leasing sector.
- Comment on The Telegraph has deleted the seemingly made-up article 3 weeks ago:
Not that odd, if anything I thought it was strange that someone would give their name and their family’s image to a paper, particularly on a subject as contentious as this.
“Al Moy” may also be a pseudonym. I wonder if “Al Moy” even exists.
Also, while the Torygraph have pulled the article on their site, it’s still up on yahoo: …yahoo.com/…/earn-345k-soaring-private-school-090…
- Comment on The Telegraph has deleted the seemingly made-up article 3 weeks ago:
“It seems as though families like us are paying more and more, and being squeezed on everything from our salaries to our outgoings. I know each party has its flaws, but I think the Conservatives are at least a bit more transparent,” he says.
More like the Conservatives didn’t target those with lots of money, those who can make reasonable adjustments, instead focusing on those who already have very little.
- Comment on How I discovered my partner was an undercover police officer sent to spy on me 3 weeks ago:
They were required to apologise also, although sincerity cannot be ensured.
- Comment on How I discovered my partner was an undercover police officer sent to spy on me 3 weeks ago:
He should have been charged. The fact that none of the legal avenues have involved him is obscene.
- Comment on Lucy Letby should be released immediately 2 months ago:
The issue here is people are trying to apply scientific reasoning in a legal setting. The two are not the same. There is a legal process for bringing in scientific reasoning - you can’t just hash it out in court like you would in an academic paper.
I say the case needed a statistician. Incredibly, the prosecution deliberately decided to avoid using one to assess questions like “How unusual is this shift pattern for a random nurse?” or “How likely was it that said nurse was personally drawn to caring for the sickest infants? How were shifts assigned?”
Yes, it might have been better for Lucy if there was a statistician. However, it’s not the prosecution’s job to prove her innocence, it’s her’s and her solicitor’s. If there needed to be a statistical analysis and sworn statement from an expert, it would be on the defendant to arrange that.
- Comment on Lucy Letby should be released immediately 2 months ago:
By definition, she was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
- Comment on Michael Gove gets lifetime seat in UK’s House of Lords 2 months ago:
No mention of how he was always a massive Russophile, and how Dominic Cummings started out on the UK politics scene as his advisor after living in Russia.
This cunt was a key part in getting the UK out of Europe at the behest of Russia.
- Comment on I was a British tourist trying to leave America. Then I was detained, shackled and sent to an immigration detention centre 2 months ago:
There is some reason to arrest her. She had already been in the country for 3 weeks doing who knows what, so now that they suspect she was doing something wrong it’s worthwhile to investigate.
There’s even some justification for making the detention a miserable process, so as to deter others. It’s very shitty, and I don’t agree with it, but there is at least a rationality about it.
The real kicker is the length of the detention. This isn’t in the interests of America, this is only in the interests of the private prisons padding their bill to the American taxpayer. The whole process is shitty, but this last part proves that they are only serving their own interests.
- Comment on I was a British tourist trying to leave America. Then I was detained, shackled and sent to an immigration detention centre 2 months ago:
Yes that’s my point. There’s a bit more of a process from the Canadian land border than at an airport. At an airport, you’d just be turned around and paying for a flight. At the land border - particularly the border between two countries that don’t want you - it’s going to take a bit longer because the logistics are more complicated. Also, there might be some kind of investigation, as she has already been staying in the country for several weeks at this point.
However we should be talking about like 3-4 days at most (if that), not 3 weeks.
- Comment on I was a British tourist trying to leave America. Then I was detained, shackled and sent to an immigration detention centre 2 months ago:
While I agree the time in detention was excessive, this wasn’t at an airport, it was at the Canadian land border. So it’s understandable that she wouldn’t immediately get on a plane back home - she’d likely have to be taken to a central facility and then transferred to an airport. But yeah, that shouldn’t take 3 weeks.
- Comment on I was a British tourist trying to leave America. Then I was detained, shackled and sent to an immigration detention centre 2 months ago:
She narced on herself to Canada, then America overheard.
- Comment on I was a British tourist trying to leave America. Then I was detained, shackled and sent to an immigration detention centre 2 months ago:
Exactly. Canada refused her entry first, then when America learned why they detained her.
She should have been deported and put on the next flight at her expense, not detained for nearly 3 weeks, but she definitely fucked up and took the piss with her visa.
- Comment on Is the UK shut down during easter? 6 months ago:
Yeah you get reduced hours with a number of things, particularly buses. Shops have more incentive to stay open, though.
Classic examples being Good Friday running like a regular Saturday, Saturday running like a regular Sunday but Easter Sunday is as normal because everything is already sparse enough.
- Comment on Russia ready to wage cyber war on UK, minister to say 6 months ago:
Yeah, this article is saying they’re ready to do something they’re already doing.
The one thing I would say on top of your comment, however, is that North Korea have generally been less interested in attacking other state actors and more interested in monetary crimes, like when they stole millions in crypto. China and Russia generally don’t devolve into that kind of “petty” crime; not sure about Iran though.
- Comment on Unidentified drones spotted over three US airbases in Britain, USAF confirms 6 months ago:
Lol was thinking it might not have been a good idea to move back to East Anglia, but hey ho…
- Comment on KFC drops pledge to stop using ‘Frankenchickens’ in the UK 6 months ago:
I would lean towards there being chickens available, but KFC doesn’t want to pay for them. They want one supplier to provide all of it, rather than a bunch of smaller suppliers.
But you’re absolutely right, this is the kind of question the author of this article should have asked.
- Comment on Special relationship at risk if UK bans arms sales to Israel, says Trump adviser 9 months ago:
Special relationship at risk if UK bans arms sales to Israel, if Trump wins the election.
- Comment on UK clothing sales to EU plummet as Brexit red tape deters exporters 1 year ago:
Also, in my view the EU is quite undemocratic. The separate Council, Commission and Parliament are an affront. Especially the fact that the Parliament, which represents the electorate, does not have the power to introduce legislation.
You do realise that the entire structure of the EU was primarily dreamt up by British legal experts? It’s quite literally one of the best, most robust and most competent systems of governance in the world.
Yes, Parliament can’t introduce legislation by themselves, but that’s because we don’t want populists like Farage, Boris or Trump to do that. They’re charismatic, but not actually competent. That’s why talented legal experts in the European Commission (who are each appointed by elected governments of member states, the UK had 6 iirc), people who actually know how law works, write the laws. The elected MEP’s vote on the laws.
However even here we’re missing the fact that the European Parliament (EP) do have a say in the legislation. The EC writes an “Impact Assessment” with rough draft of the law they’re thinking of writing (which anyone can comment on), then this is presented before Parliament who propose and discuss amendments. So it’s completely disingenuous to imply that the elected EP is somehow beholden to the “unelected” (but chosen for competency by elected member governments) EC bureaucrats.
And all that skips around what starts the EC’s initial proposal. Aside from occassionally writing laws off their own backs, the EC responds to requests from:
- The European Council (heads of state or government of each EU country)
- The Council of the European Union (government ministers from each EU country)
- The European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens)
- Citizens themselves, following a successful European Citizens’ Initiative
That’s right, not only can Parliament demand new legislation (they just have to get the big boy lawyers to write it for them), but individual citizens can directly!
Parliament has the final say in whether or not legislation is implemented. That’s completely democratic. What you call “an affront” is actually competent people writing effective legislation. Rather than bullshit like the Rwanda deal which states the UK will accept vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange for the small boat migrants to Rwanda (all paid for by the UK taxpayer), or the general ineptitude of no legislation at all and a Hard Brexit causing issues like sewage being dumped in our rivers since water companies now face restrictions on importing treatment chemicals from the EU.
- Comment on UK clothing sales to EU plummet as Brexit red tape deters exporters 1 year ago:
William Rees-Mogg wrote 3 books in the 90s, I forget the 3rd one but the other two were called “(The Best Time To Buy Is When There Is) Blood In The Streets” and “The Sovereign Individual”. The latter describes a Sovereign as someone who earns more than $200k per year (90s money, so more like £500k today) and uses their wealth and influence to live above the laws of any nation. This is the kind of “sovereignty” his son Jacob Rees-Mogg campaigned for, he’s literally laughing at all his supporters while he’s doing it.
- Comment on Transport secretary considers ban on floating bus stops in UK cycle lanes 1 year ago:
Yeah, I mean apparently this is being driven by charities for the blind, but you can even see in the main image for the article that there is a defined crossing over the cycle lane with different texture pavement tiles. The blind are far from being ignored here.
- Comment on The “Require videogame publishers to keep games they have sold in a working state” petition just got a response. 1 year ago:
The petition isn’t over with this response, it’ll run for 6 months and if it breaks 100,000 signatures it is required to be debated in Parliament.
- Comment on ‘Huge disappointment’ as UK delays bottle deposit plan and excludes glass 1 year ago:
Recycling is bullshit, we should be re-using glass with a deposit system. Like much of Europe.
- Comment on Two UK water companies lack complete maps of sewage networks 1 year ago:
You don’t apply for a permit, you go to LinesearchbeforeUdig - lsbud.co.uk. This is a free service anyone can use, and you’ll get emails from various asset owners with maps of what they have in the area you select. Some might try to charge for this, these ones are assholes.
As far as the law is concerned, it’s up to you to make sure you do it right and the costs for doing it wrong will all fall on your shoulders.
The only permit you need AFAIK is planning permission - which won’t be granted until you convince them you’ve done a sufficient line search. Aside from that, you need permission from the land owner, of course.
- Comment on Leasehold charges to be capped at £250 rather than cut to zero: Report – Mortgage Strategy 1 year ago:
Exactly. The whole “privatise the profits, socialise the losses” needs to end.
- Comment on Rwanda bill set to become law after protracted stand-off with Lords 1 year ago:
You should remind those people that the Rwanda deal is two way, the UK is taking vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange.
- Comment on Infected blood scandal: Children were used as 'guinea pigs' in clinical trials 1 year ago:
The majority of children involved are already dead now.
- Comment on RAF fighter jets deployed to shoot down Iran drones, MoD says 1 year ago:
Are you saying Israel has ambition to invade and conquer the entire region?