Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Which is better than a pound shop non-share ownership scheme.
Which is better than a pound shop non-share ownership scheme.Its a pound shop share ownership scheme
Women having the problem of a man saying they now identify as a woman and therefore being able to access women's toilets and women's changing rooms etc. And women losing their identity as women.
It's a very hot topic and I believe the Tories are the only party that have come out in favour of women on this issue.
Yes, but then the counter argument is made that those people who identify as women don't feel safe in the male toilets.People have the right to be safe at all times - this should supersede everything else in the first instance.
This is what I was saying about the Jubilee and the conversation about the future of the monarchy.Oh Charley boy.
I agree that it's a difficult concept to work with if they're not engaged with actual budgeting decisions.Personal finance, including insurance, is in the National Curriculum:
KS3:
View attachment 24978
KS4:
View attachment 24979
The problem is, it’s in Citizenship, which is the red headed stepchild of subjects, often taught by form tutors or RE teachers, and is a general receptacle for the curriculum to put all those things people say “they should teach this in school”.
The other issue, speaking from experience of helping out at a Barclays run finance day with Y8s, was it’s quite hard to teach financial concepts to people who don’t really handle money.
there's a balance to be found I'm sure. lets not forget that some businesses, my employer for example, will be making a significant savings as they look to downsize their business premises.It's swings and roundabouts isn't it. WFH pay a bit more in electric etc, those travelling to work pay a fortune in fuel/travel costs. Plus travelling to work takes time.
So if WFH get a contribution to their electric bills, those going to a workplace should be paid the travel costs and time spent doing so.
I can hardly complain about someone giving a long answer! I prefer it to a one-sentence dismissal.There is a limited area of land on which to build and if you have more parking there is less floor space available to build apartments as there are height restrictions. It therefore becomes uneconomic to build if you can’t utilise the area for flats rather than unnecessary parking. This is not a great area so valuations will be limited by the local market. He builds to provide rentals but if he physically can’t build a small development for a certain price to then achieve a certain valuation, he won’t be able to securing funding. The alternative is someone builds something smaller to fit planning requirements and charge more for the apartments …which will either push the local market prices up (not helping !) or they remain unsold and developer might go bust ?!! Or the land remains unbuilt on in the hope that material prices reduce and/or planning softens…again not helping housing stock issue
If someone wants a flat with two parking spaces then these wouldn’t for them but as I say, there are a large number of people that will have one or no cars who would want to live there so there is no need for 20+ spaces. This is on waste land which has now been unused for years.
If you tried to please everyone for every building, nothing would ever get built. Basic economics but price is obviously driven predominantly by supply and demand. We’ve run at high rates of net migration for years, people are living longer (so remain in properties for longer) and we’ve not had enough new housing stock built. Hence house prices have continued to rise. The nimby in some green belt areas and inconsistency of planning around the country is not helping… and it’s the younger generations who are paying and/or not able to get on the house ladder
Edit - sorry for war and peace answer
Lots of schools are removing boys/girls toilets and going to blocks of cubicles. This is to eradicate bullying not really anything elseYes, but then the counter argument is made that those people who identify as women don't feel safe in the male toilets.
Basically, the correct answer is "it's an absolute fucking mess and there is no right answer because someone will feel vulnerable.
JK Rowling has been taking a lot of shit for basically taking the viewpoint Otis describes.
I have to admit I've never quite understood the toilets thing, as as far as I know the women's are all cubicles, so they would have privacy while going.
In the end it's going to have to be no gender specific toilets/changing rooms and just individual cubicles for everyone.
Yeah as a society nuance seems to have become undervaluedThat is true, but then, on the flip side of the coin, some female MP's are getting death threats for speaking out about their concerns for the protection of women .
"Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield has been both criticised and heralded for her views on trans rights.
Ms Duffield came under fire for her opposition to "male-bodied biological men" being allowed to self-identify as female in order to access women-only spaces such as prisons and domestic violence refuges.
She opted not to attend the Labour Party conference in September after receiving threats and being branded transphobic, which she denies."
Seems that for many, even speaking of concerns results in them being labelled as transphobic.
don't remember Patel mentioning that in any of her speeches.
Why will it ?
If you think that the public championing the Rwanda deportation programme are going to be up for a bit of swapsies then fair enoughWhy will it ?
She doesn't tend to talk about the £120 million start up fee we are giving to Rwanda too often either.don't remember Patel mentioning that in any of her speeches.
He’s not wrong but flippin eck! Take some responsibility for once you cretinDidn’t he say about eleventy billion times at PMQ’s in the week that the Tories were creating a high wage economy?
Boris Johnson tells workers to accept pay cuts or UK faces 1970s–style ‘stagflation’
Prime minister blames Ukraine war for U-turn on promise to create a high-wage economywww.independent.co.uk
No one's really responded IanIf you think that the public championing the Rwanda deportation programme are going to be up for a bit of swapsies then fair enough
No one's really responded Ian
Nice to see it’s a gammon free zone.No one's really responded Ian
You tried your best. Never mind.Nice to see it’s a gammon free zone.
Are you concerned that if he’s found guilty he’ll be displaying all the qualities that you evidently like in a PM?Oh dear
Sir Keir Starmer being investigated over possible breaches of MPs’ rules
It is understood that the investigation relates to the late declaration of interests rather than failure to declare those interestswww.standard.co.uk
It is understood that the investigation relates to the late declaration of interests rather than failure to declare those interests.
Peado paradise then!Yes, but then the counter argument is made that those people who identify as women don't feel safe in the male toilets.
Basically, the correct answer is "it's an absolute fucking mess and there is no right answer because someone will feel vulnerable.
JK Rowling has been taking a lot of shit for basically taking the viewpoint Otis describes.
I have to admit I've never quite understood the toilets thing, as as far as I know the women's are all cubicles, so they would have privacy while going.
In the end it's going to have to be no gender specific toilets/changing rooms and just individual cubicles for everyone.
The point is the government new full well that there would be legal challenges, and totally accepted that. So they initiate the deportations, thus triggering all the legal challenges, and then they can fight them in the courts, defeat them or change the law to suit themselves, and then continue the flights unopposed.What a complete shambles, on Friday 130 people were told they'd be on board the first flight, its already down to 11 and is expected to drop further. At this rate there will be more coming back the other way than we're sending out there!
Rwanda asylum plan: Number of people on first flight close to single figures
Campaigners are trying to stop the first removals on Tuesday, with 11 people due to fly currently.www.bbc.co.uk
The point is the government new full well that there would be legal challenges, and totally accepted that. So they initiate the deportations, thus triggering all the legal challenges, and then they can fight them in the courts, defeat them or change the law to suit themselves, and then continue the flights unopposed.
It's just a game of politics and it's playing out exactly to plan.
You know it's desperate stuff when their defence is that they misunderstood what they fucking wrote themselves
It’s been judged now legal so hardly desperate and legally legitimate
If he is found guilty will you be concerned ?Are you concerned that if he’s found guilty he’ll be displaying all the qualities that you evidently like in a PM?
If he is found guilty will you be concerned ?
It's right up your street I bet
Johnson has already been found 'guilty' of the same thing. There is no punishment for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?