So, the government, aka Bojo, tells haulage firms to train/recruit British staff to drive HGVs. In other news, Carrie Johnson says 'Let them eat cake'
I was quite interested to read some articles yesterday regarding the proposed "Harper's Law" which outlines the proposal for stiffer sentences where "blue light" emergency workers have been killed. This follows in the wake of the killing of PC Harper and the perceived "soft" jail terms for those found to have been guilty of manslaughter but not murder. On line petitions on sites such as Change. org have been pushing for these kinds of amendments for months and there has been a massive public response in favour of the proposals. I must admit that this case made me feel extremely angry and hostile towards the three culprits even though I am usually more balanced in my views towards the police. The fact that the incident happened several miles up the road from my office also made the incident hit home. Like the vast majority of people, I was incensed by this crime. You can therefore totally apprciate the call for the stiffening of sentences and the appeal of changing the legislation in light of this crime. It is wholly understandable. I had not realised that there has also been some quite vociferous arguing against these proposals within the legal profession and there does seem to be a very strong case for this being particularly bad law which does need to be challenged. I am not sure that the implications have actually been properly debated. Whilst the public outcry regarding the fate of PC Harper has been totally understandable and that the three culprits are only worthy of the greatest contempt, I cannot see the proposed legislation that has been mooted ever being approved not least because it implies that some lives are worth more than others. In addition, the implications are extremely unworkable and the consequences, say, of an incident where a chip pan fire in a house leads to the death of a fireman clearly shows that Harper's Law has not been at all well thought out. The means for legal redress following the death of emergency worker including the police are already in the statute book. Whilst I totally concur with the sentiments of Harper's Law, the legal implications seem totally unworkable and this is not good law. Not sure whether this is fully appreciated given the weight of public opinion in favour of this legislation. The considered, legal view does not seem to be getting much traction. A similar poll against this legislation has only mustered 70 signatures. I wondered if anyone else had been following this.
Love this. “You are living in the golden age of stupidity “ https://apple.news/A1W0bLO8eTZSqcFz2hVdg9Q
The exceedingly conservative Supreme Court in the US has sidestepped the whole "having to overrule decades of precedent in order to get their desired outcome" by simply refusing to hear a case that guts abortion rights in Texas. Within a couple weeks, another 20+ states will almost certainly follow suit, and abortion will be effectively illegal in half the country.
Welcome to Gilead ….. And yet those are the same states who are using the “my body, my right” argument to avoid getting vaccinated
Always good to see Brexit supporting business owners reap the “benefits” of what they were pushing for. I keep reading that the government should give EU drivers the status to work over here, which I am against on principle, but it won’t change the problem we have in bringing lorries and supplies over from the EU. As I understand it, most EU hauliers pay their drivers by the kilometre not by the hour, therefore a return trip that would generally take 4 days (prior to the holdups at the borders) but now takes 6 days (because of holdups) will not earn the drivers anymore money for the two extra days. It would actually cost them money because they won’t be earning anything for the two days they sit idle. The simple and most straightforward answer is to rejoin the Single Market.
But, but... We've regained our sovereignty, so now we're in charge of our own destiny, aren't we? We must be better off, because we were promised. We've got 28 new hospitals, and....ooh, lots of other things.....
You do realise that means accepting the responsibilities that come with the benefits? Otherwise it would be a have your cake and eat it attitude, now that wouldn't do at all would it?
I am very proud to say that today I was involved in the opening of a new hospital. This important and ground breaking event is shortly to be announced in the media and I am absolutely astonished. I never realised before that buying a packet of paracetamol tablets could be interpreted in this way inflated into such a newsworthy occurrence.
Currently prescriptions in England are free when you reach the age of 60. How many on here will be affected by the plans to push the qualifying age back to the state pension age? The beliefs, in some areas, are that the savings made by raising the age will be lost as a result of those who can’t afford to pay the charge will under medicate and end up being hospitalised. There are already reports that people younger than 60, with existing health conditions, are not informing their GPs of new symptoms in case they are issued with prescriptions they can’t afford. Prescriptions in Wales and Scotland are free to all, so this is just an English problem. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/polit...bON5s--lj-uUarEA5acxSSLwzfqgb3Rxp3yeWaH9eQMNA
There has never been any evidence that shows that prescription charges have ever saved any money. The crazy thing is that people like myself with long term conditions who cost the NHS hundreds of pounds a month have always had free prescriptions anyway. In 2008, even before Gordon Brown exempted cancer patients, some 88% of all prescriptions were free, and many people including myself think that the administrative costs of charging people completely offset the income. This is born out by the fact that you can buy a prescription “season ticket” if you need regular medication.
