The world is. It’s people who aren’t.
1 Like
I would be very cautious about that claim, just look at the spikes in Google Searches of basic election/referenda-related information after the event.
What is obvious to one can sometimes be completely unobvious to another person, particularly if the latter has had very little reason to have had contact with that. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s nothing inherently wrong with ignorance, we’re all ignorant of something after all.
It’s priding oneself in ignorance that is a problem, in making grandiose claims without basic verification of facts (the latter of which we are all guilty of at least from time to time, well, at least i know I am). It’s the attitude towards ignorance that I think is a differentiating factor.
5 Likes
You do know colour TVs exist now too, right? You don’t have to see the world in black and white anymore…
Not sure I agree with that, I’ll honestly have to ponder it.
1 Like
That’s a fair shout.
1 Like
I would love to know what people’s opinions on this are, especially with regards to land banks:
3 Likes
Two problems. First is that everyone is a NIMBY. The question is where to draw the line between genuine concerns and simple self interest.
In terms of the land banks, I’m surprised that they didn’t put something in the budget to address it, as it is a clear problem.
I would suggest that council tax should be applied to the land 12 months after planning permission has been granted, regardless of whether the houses have been built or not.
6 Likes
On the subject of housing, here’s a far better article from the same paper:
Absolutely spot-on.
2 Likes
It is literally not. If you’re given a 5 year sentence, you’re a serious criminal.
The same people who want 4 officers to attend somebody’s house for posting questionable things on X.
Except the article you linked only has this to say with the keyword “serious” in it. This would have been obvious to you had you read the post where I included a screenshot literally from GOV.UK.
No one is getting a sentence for a serious crime cut short. They are getting a sentence for a lesser crime cut short, and are being released only if they have already completed their sentence for a serious crime.
And more to the point, “social media posters” are not getting locked up.
3 Likes
I call a sentence of 5 years or more serious. Do you not?
I think that puts a lot of faith in sentencing. Looking at the sentences handed down to the climate protestors, I would probably say I don’t consider something a serious crime just because of its sentence.
I prefer to look at the particular acts and crimes committed rather than use such mental shortcuts, thank you.
1 Like
That’s a no then. Some people just can’t answer a very simple question.
or you simply don’t understand what you are reading. ‘Serious crime’ has a precise legal definition in the UK. It is really very simple, if it is on the list in the legislation, it is Serious Crime. If it isn’t, it isn’t. Oddly enough, what you think it should be governs remarkably few laws, as compared to as they written and passed into law.
6 Likes
I tried looking that up, but I didn’t see any formal definition. I must have missed something, thanks!
1 Like
Part 1 Section 1 of the Serious Crime Act is a positive list. From there, the Act triggers all sorts of powers of enforcement, including the controversial orders.
4 Likes
Yes, I just found this too. Thanks for the direction!
2 Likes
I didn’t know that, thanks.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what you call it. It’s what’s in the legislation that counts.
3 Likes