* Posts by LucreLout

2844 posts • joined 30 Jun 2014

As anti-brutality protests fill streets of American cities, netizens cram police app with K-Pop, airwaves with NWA

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

So you say anyone who commits a crime should be given a life sentence, subject to the determination that they no longer pose a threat to society?

Where do you think I suggested that? Sorry, but either you can't read or you can't reason.

What I said, and I'll repeat the words for you, was "armed home invasion should result in a life sentence at least until assessed to no longer pose a threat".

Now, you might not agree with that, which is fine, but what you don't get to do is conjure up some fevered delusion and ascribe it to me. I care not if you got caught shoplifting a copy of playgirl in your youth - its not exactly dangerous, is it?

Break into my house when my family are home, and provided you stay downstairs, we'll all be just fine - you can have the telly, you can take the car, my insurer will replace them or I'll work some more and do it myself. However, if you try to come upstairs where my family sleep I will not be assuming you mean to bring us milk n cookies, I will assume you are there to kill me and do unspeakable things to my wife and children, and I will act accordingly and without warning. It is unlikely in the extreme that both of us would survive. That is what armed home invasion begets.

So yes, rather than you getting released while you pose an ongoing threat, having taken weapons into someones home to harm and rob them, then coming to my home, where best case one of us ends up in the ground and the other one in jail, hell yes I think you should stay in jail at the first offence such that there doesn't need to be a second. If and when you aren't a danger to others then by all means you should be freed to rebuild your life, but not before then. What purpose do you imagine that might serve?

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

Third this isn't the first, second or even third case of _this cop_ having killed someone or being disciplined for police brutality

Like everyone else on the planet, except some shameful lawyer or other, I'm not defending the cop, not for one second. He is where he needs to be, in jail.

But this, this that you have written, is just lazy and illogical. You could have just as correctly and easily written:

Third this isn't the first, second or even third case of _this cop_ having killed someone or being disciplined for police brutality or barebacked Taylor Swift while JLo fondled his balls on the White house lawn

You've conflated a lot of things with the single most serious event to pretend they enjoy the same status, which they clearly do not.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

The 3 others that didn't intervene _should_ be facing "accessory after the fact" charges.

I can't see how.

Floyd had been resisting arrest by refusing to be placed in the police car for a full 5 minutes before the murdering neck-kneeler even arrived on scene. Given that 2 of the 3 others had been unable to restrain him prior to backup arriving, it is not reasonable to then expect one of them to stop their restraint to remove anothers, because then you're right back into the inability to restrain him part.

The guy kneeling on Floyd's neck is rightly facing a very serious charge, but I can't see how the other officers are to blame. They would be if there was no resistance, sure, but given the extensive and likely exhausting and frightening resistance, I don't see that they can be blamed. I'm not a weak guy, but even with him in handcuffs, 2 of me would be utterly exhausted and probably terrified after several minutes of trying to make him comply with instructions he'd decided he wasn't going to comply with.

To be clear, Floyd absolutely should have been restrained when he began resisting, but he absolutely should not have had someone kneeling on his neck up to the point of losing consciousness and what must have been several minutes beyond. That is inexcusable and could only predictably lead to death.

[For evidence of resistance and its length, see any timeline in any reputable news outlet - they're all pretty clear on it]

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

There is a long standing very small group called Antifa. They regard themselves as the spiritual grandchildren of the Battle of Cable Street.

You'll find the loons over at Unite All Fascists claim they too are the spiritual grand children of the same event. The reality is to a person they're all just bored middle class children looking for a fight.

If the American group is like the British group then they won't even be at any of these protests unless the KKK or neo-Nazis are there - and then Antifa will turn up too.

Well yes, it is rather hard to have one side of the coin without the other.

Racism is wrong, as is fascism. It's just a shame the purported "anti-fascist" groups are more fascist than the racist groups such as the KKK. The irony is that to a person they don't see it. They just don't want to.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

The man was already handcuffed. He didn't need restraining.

I'm pretty sure even with his hands cuffed he could have kicked my ass. Handcuffs are not a magic solution that automatically require no further restraint.

That doesn't justify 8 minutes kneeling on his neck. The cop that did it is rightly banged up facing a murder charge. 8 minutes is a length of time I just can't wrap my head around - even a world class free-diver would black out before then.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: I'm not afraid of the police. At all.

A lot of white people aren't. Your system is racist but you're ok with it because you're not black.

Using your argument then, I should be afraid of black police officers, yes?

I'm not afraid of the police of any race, gender, age, orientation, or religion, because I have a policy of absolute compliance when dealing with them. Then, if I still feel wronged when I get home, I go see a solicitor, file a complaint, and take their job. What I don't do is give them a reason or excuse to take my life.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: I'm not afraid of the police. At all.

You are welcome to your own opinions. You are not however welcome to your own facts.

They aren't using their own facts (which may or may not be wrong regardless) but you are misinterpreting their statement.

What was said was:

How do you feel about the FACT that more cops have been killed by criminals than cops have killed innocents?

And what you have provided evidence for is:

How do you feel about the FACT that more cops have been killed by criminals than cops have killed criminals AND innocents?

They're not the same thing.

I've not looked at the data so have formed no opinion either way, other than the basis of your argument is false because you're disproving something the other party didn't say. In that sense, I think the right term is a strawman.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

There are good reasons to protest Floyd's death. I think the policeman did something wrong and needs to be held to account, but probably not strangling Floyd with his knee. My understanding (caveat - from a web site) is that the medical report said there was no physical trauma to the neck which would have resulted in strangulation. Whatever "kneeling on Floyd's neck" entailed, it was not lethal physical trauma.

The purpose of kneeling on his neck is two-fold. Firstly it restrains his head such that he cannot headbutt an officer. Remember, Floyd, you, me, they don't know us so they have to assume we might headbutt them, and Floyd was a rather strong looking man.

The second purpose is to cut off oxygen such that it weakens the person you're restraining and makes them more compliant.

8 minutes. 8 minutes should not be required for either case - the oxygen will delplete in a lot shorter time allowing for the removal of the knee, even if its only raised a few inches.

8 minutes.

As for Floyd's "good name" I think we need to be truthful about that too. He had a history of theft, criminal trespass, drug possession, and aggravated robbery with a gun. It has no bearing on what happened to him, but

As for Floyd's "good name" I think we need to be truthful about that too. He had a history of theft, criminal trespass, drug possession, and aggravated robbery with a gun. It has no bearing on what happened to him. Fullstop. FTFY.

By all accounts I've read he was trying to turn his life around. It boils down to this, if we think a home invasion, armed or otherwise, should not result in a life sentence, then it should not result in a death sentence.

While I personally do believe an armed home invasion should result in a life sentence, that is not the law. Once released he should have been presumed to be no more dangerous than anyone else, or he should not have been released.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

I did see some interventions during the rioting though. One idiot was shooting fireworks at police, but then other crowd members lumped him a little for being an idiot. Other strange thing for me was protestors 'taking a knee'. I realise where that came from, but seemed a little insensitive given how Floyd died.

For me the defining image of the riots will always be one that a young colleague of mine showed me on some millennial site or other. It was a lone police officer stranded in a corner away from his colleagues, and a group of heavily built black men encircling him to protect him from the mob. Facing out as a literal human shield. Images like that have a deeper longer lasting impact than any words.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "Yes, Anon activists are back."

One thing that struck me strongly, ignoring the police murderers and their under-prosecution, is the lack of intervention. Someone filmed it, and people complained, but nobody intervened. As an activist I was trained to throw my body on top of and around a victim, as a literal human shield. I know that sounds weak in the UK where most police don't carry guns, but that tactic was learned in Israel/Palestine. The idea is it gives the aggressor pause for thought.

At best you'd get robustly arrested for obstructing the police / whatever the American equivalent is. Quite possibly you'd get shot - either by the police or the person they were detaining - see, that's the thing, police tactics are as they are because they don't know who is armed and who will kill, so they can only safely assume everyone might. That DOES NOT justify kneeling on someones neck for 8 minutes - a scenario I cannot image would likely lead to anything other than death.

See, that's the thing missing from all of this. Exceptionally few police officers want to kill someone. Almost all are just normal family people doing their job the best way they know how. I know more police officers here in the UK than most other folk, and none of them think kneeling on a mans neck for 8 minutes is a good idea. They all think the officer who has been arrested and charged should have been and they all hope he is found guilty.

Absolutely none of them would thank you for your untrained attempts to interfere with an arrest. At best you're prolonging their restraint of the original suspect, and at worst you're going to end up harming the suspect.

The very best thing you can do when you see the police making an arrest is mind your own bloody business, stay well back, and if you think they're doing wrong, then quietly record it from a distance and submit it their complaints body when you get home.

Remember when Republicans said Dems hacked voting systems to rig Georgia's election? There were no hacks

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Just one nose-picking minute

outright illegal and unconstitutional conduct

I did not have sex with that constitution..... Bill Clinton, Democrat.

Sorry, politicians are all as bad as each other and all see their supporters as nought more than useful idiots.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Coup, one small glimmer of hope

That's quite an interesting conspiracy theory with a lot of moving parts. is that why you're posting anonymously?

I'm not the OP, but if you want an entertainingly good conspiracy theory, then I give you this:

COVID is killing a lot of people, particularly BAME people.

BAME people are mostly democrats.

BAME people can be relied upon to react to a death in police custody with marches, rioting, and general gathering together in crowds.

COVID spreads in crowds.

Dead people don't vote.

Joining the dots gets you to a single human sacrifice to trigger the literal decimation of democrat voters in key states.

Now, please forgive any racism above - try to see the post through the eyes of a loon conjuring up the policy. I don't go in for conspiracy theories, but if I did, well, that would just about seem possible to me.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: A dry run for trumps loss in 2020

Better to randomly select 650 souls from the electoral register and give them the job for 5 years.

Take for a moment the hypothesis that large parts of the country believe that every politician of every colour rosette is a self serving scheming bastard. Lets just assume they're right for now and that the last honest person to enter the HoP was Guy Fawkes.

Now imagine for a moment how mind numbingly thick the average person is, then take a second to appreciate that half of them are by definition less smart or capable than that. 325 of the folk you just selected are those people. Joey Essex for Chancellor can not end well. What happens when we get a real copper bottomed racist for home / foreign sec? What will our options look like if we have someone of Wayne Rooney's intelligence level for PM? Anyone with an IQ over 70 will be eligible for selection....

What would be better would be a return to the pre-labour government politics when politicians were jailed for breaking the law (Archer, Aitkin etc) rather than the Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, and Johnson era's when they're routinely not.

The rot of no accountability do as you like set in from the top down, and from the top down it must be purged.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: A dry run for trumps loss in 2020

You'd have seen the Lib Dems in third place, potentially with the Greens or Brexit Party in fourth ahead of the SNP depending on how it's sliced.

Possibly the only worse outcome than rule from Scotland would be the rainbow coalition of chaos. It'd literally be rule by the losers, which isn't democracy no matter what mental gymnastics you bring to bear.

NOTA can just as readily be added to FPTP as it can to any other system, and since changing the electoral system from FPTP has already been rejected by the electorate at referendum then we must respect & abide by that choice.

I know the left have trouble with the idea of abiding by referendum results, but they're going to need to make peace with it or stop having bloody referenda.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: A dry run for trumps loss in 2020

The way to fix it would be to use some form of proportional voting and to add an additional voting option - "None of the above".

You're conflating separate issues.

PR is a nightmare - all it can possibly achieve is giving the 3rd place party all of the electoral power because they become king maker. That's how it works in my wifes native Sweden, and neighboring Denmark.

In the UK that translates into direct rule from Scotland via Sturgeons SNP. No thanks.

There's no reason none of the above cannot be added to FPTP, which has worked well for centuries, and ensures we don't end up with a paralyzed parliament with a 3rd string electoral tail wagging the parliamentary dog.

Lefties tend to favour PR because they think they'll enjoy lefty coalitions indefinitely, which would very likely not have happened at the last election - it'd just have probably led to Nigel Farrage being in charge rather than Boris. I think we can all agree that isn't in the countries interest.

80-characters-per-line limits should be terminal, says Linux kernel chief Linus Torvalds

LucreLout Silver badge

I'm definitely on-board with Linus on this one.

Me too - and its not that often it happens. I generally dislike the mans methods and ways of working.

However, looking at the way development is conducted in a modern UI, with code snippets, intellisense (your feature naming may differ), and restrictions simply make method naming less meaningful.

Upgrade or live with the wrapping seems fair enough - its backward compatible, optional, and provides value in the upgrade path. That is generally how forward leaps are supposed to work.

Gone in 9 seconds: Virgin Orbit's maiden rocket flight went perfectly until it didn't

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Oh. Again?

Sticking 500kg on a train to Cornwall vs the risks associated with launching near London; the train will win. Airport fees will likely be considerably cheaper too, and easier to schedule.

I'm not so sure - launch delayed due to bad weather yes, it happens, but launch delayed due to bad attitude of Cash's Cronies, well, that's not really going to do it, is it?

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Oh. Again?

People don’t like even the remotest chance of that kind of thing being dropped on top of them!

People won't always have a say. I mean, if you chose to move next to an airport then you reasonably chose to have larger louder loads arriving and leaving with ever greater frequency, because, well, that's what airports have always done, and the airport was there first.

If we're going to make progress as a nation then the NIMBYs will have to STFU - they're holding back progress far too often and for the most trivial of reasons.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Oh. Again?

They can also take off from potentially any airport, and the plane can carry the rocket a considerable distance before actually launching, so you can launch into any conceivable orbit rather than being limited to which orbits are reachable from SpaceX's launch sites.

Depending on the whims of the safety elves of whichever nation you take off from, you could probably sell tickets on the plane, if there's still room for seats. Get paid for the launch, the flight, and the peanuts.

I know at least 6 people who'd pay several hundred bucks to be part of a satellite launch, even if their part if "sit still and watch out the window".

Home working is here to stay, says Lenovo boss, and will grow the total addressable PC market by up to 30%

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Market +30% = wages -30%

I think it also depends on the nature of the work and the employee.

Agreed completely. Some of my people have mental health challenges and don't do well on their own.

Some people are living with their parents until up to their mid 30's due to house prices having exploded out of control way beyond the ability of most people to pay for them and that makes it difficult for them.

And yet I've demonstrated many times on this site that even a minimum wage couple can afford a starter property within commutable distance of any postcode in the UK (by that I mean my commute so 30 to 40 miles). Property has rarely been cheap and is unlikely to be so again, but its certainly not unaffordable - the main problem is unrealistic expectations and wanting a similar or better home than your parents last home for your starter home.

if your living in a one bedroom flat with your partner or house sharing between 4 people? It doesn't work well due to a lack of dedicated working space.

Indeed not, but that is where other options come into play - convert an old van into a home office (I've looked at this myself), or a motorhome, or rent or buy something further out of town - everything in life is a trade off. If I was still waiting for Nicole Kidman to take my virginity, I'd still be a virgin - nothing's perfect.

I mean, theoretically everybody doing an office job should be able to work from home. But theoretically there is no difference between theory and practice. And yet in practice there is.

I agree, however this is where drugs in sport come into play. Once one employer does it, the rest have to as well, just to keep up. There's going to be all kinds of workplace variations over the next decade while this plays out, which will be very interesting to watch.

Heck, some of our staff walk into the office in 5 minutes. As soon as you shift a few variables around it changes everything.

They walk into where the office is now, sure, but will that change? If not, happy days, enjoy your 5 minute commute you absolute winner! For most people its a bit longer than that, even if its shorter than my schlep.

I don't massively have a single point other than that some people are being a bit to unrealistic and utopian. Not everybody is having a positive experience for reasons that go way beyond middle management empire building. It's tempting to blame an easy target, but it's intellectually lazy and gives wrong answers.

I agree, which is why I'm expecting some changes - I think for most people returning to the office 5/5 is unlikely. 4/5 makes little sense for London the way train tickets are priced, making 3/5 in office probably around the new norm, with 2/5 from home. Some firms might move to 4/4 from home with an extra day off, some will go 5/5 WFH, and others will differ. Most in the UK will struggle to get people back 5/5 from the office.

Certainly it'll be interesting to see how things play out. Though predicting what will happen for sure is a fools errand.

What we will see, of this I am sure, is a the rise of the global startup - I mean, why does everyone need to be from the same country if they never go to the same office? It's going to be very interesting indeed.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "it’s going to last forever" LMAO

The lazy bastards on my team are bringing WFH into disrepute though... never has so little been done by so many :rollseyes:

I've not actually looked at what my teams have done today, but I trust that it will be a lot of productive valuable work. All I've done all day is clear obstacles from their immediate future so they can keep going quickly.


I've just checked on the back of this post. Given I have half my teams on leave this week due to the summer weather and bank holiday, the productivity of those working has been astounding. Genuinely impressive even by their normally good standards. So thanks for your post - while I disagree with it, it has led to my needing to recognise the work done today for all that has been accomplished.

Don't hire people you can't trust. Motivating people is easy - after all, you are a person, what motivates you? Give them all the control you can over their work and all the recognition for getting it done.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: All this talk....

And it operates the casino. Casinos profit because someone else loses.

Your zero sum view is just plain wrong. Most finance isn't zero sum. Risk is priced, granted not always correctly, but it is priced.

How do you think machinery for heavy industry gets financed? How do you think bonds that underpin all public sector spending everywhere get issued? How is it you think that companies raise finance (bonds and equities) or make payments on the same?

It is a real profit for City workers and it is a real profit for everyone else. Without the City and places like it, your whole way of life, no matter your employer, is utterly impossible.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: All this talk....

Offices PRODUCE nothing

My office produces my companies entire profitability and entire reason to exist.

The Victorian view that the only real work is manufacturing, farming, or mining was dated then and utterly obsolete now.

Wealth is created on the workshop floor, and diluted at the office desk.

YAWN..... In many cases the office is the workshop. Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: I have to say I'm with Lenovo on this

Food trucks may be hit, but not as hard as you may think... ..... And they could simply tour residential areas instead.

I expect they would, which might also flip the whole takeaway option as once they establish some residential routes the obvious expansion opportunity is the other non-lunch meal times. I can see a lot of restaurant chains expanding in this areas because its fairly simple to do.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: I have to say I'm with Lenovo on this

As people won't want to commute by public transport, the other side of home working is people wanting to live nearer work.

Why live nearer if you don't go in? Work for a London employer but live somewhere nice instead, like Newcastle or Cornwall.

Turning over a lot of unwanted offices in city centres into flats could alleviate the housing shortage and pressure on house prices, which are likely to take a hit anyway.

There won't be one down south if home working takes off. The unused buildings would be replaced with car parking anyway because the roads will have better capacity due to fewer people travelling into the city, and the train companies can't respond to modernization of work flexibly because they're unionised.

The future of transport is automated and once self driving cars work they will very quickly be replaced by self driving motorhomes where you can do the same journey in much greater comfort - home office, bedroom, lounge, kitchen, and bog all rolled into one automated vehicle - even Rolls Royce can't compete with that. It'll need more road capacity though, so some of that is likely to come from knocking down undesirable office space.

Small city center flats might be in trouble because people will need more space to fit in possibly two home offices, and you can bet everyone buying anything is going to want some outdoor space.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Market +30% = wages -30%

At home, a lot of people are hunched over a dining table with a single laptop screen, using a dining room chair over wireless, with a mobile phone app for a phone system, with the kids screaming in the background and no other support equipment. In this environment, if you only lose 50% productivity then your probably doing well.

Sort of.

Dining table - check

Wireless - check

Single screen - check

However, I'm at the dining room table because the screen I bought is almost as big as two of them at work. The wireless is more than fast enough given the heavy compute mostly happens in the cloud and the laptop is very high end anyhoo. The chair is new and comfy for up to 14 hours.

My productivity hasn't dropped due to the children, but my productivity per hour has. I just work longer hours, but then the first 3 of those are just my normal daily commute.

I suspect that the true situation is that if your fairly well off then working from home has probably been enjoyable. Otherwise, I doubt it.

My entire setup cost less than a months train fare. I'm enjoying it because I get way more time with the kids than usual (wife still has to work out of the home), there's no filthy overpriced train to endure, and I can work until I don't want to then stop and be in the lounge in... oh, 10 seconds or less.

For every company that decides to scrap it's office, i'm fairly sure that there will be at least another company that decides that home working is highly undesirable. And both firms will likely be correct.

This bit I agree with, but then it depends on what real equipment an employee needs to have. I love working in the office, but I love working from home. I think per my prior post that most employers will end up with a hybrid - some days from home, some days from the office.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Market +30% = wages -30%

I personally cant see WFH being much different to what it was previously, maybe an increase in people being able to work one or two days a week from home, but I do not believe for a second it will get to the point that businesses will start closing or renting out office space.

I would expect many companies will allow 2 days from home per week, which is going to be no fun at all for the TOCs... There's naff all chance train drivers are going to carry on taking home as much as a doctor once the dust settles. The pay scales overlap around 60k, though that's basic pay for both with train drivers having lots of overtime options and much fewer working hours than the doc.

The changes will bring all kinds of challenges for commercial landlords and other businesses in office districts. Up to 40% less footfall for the stores, for the restaurants and bars etc. The options then become some mix of higher prices, lower wages, lower rents, or more automation of work.

If places move to always WFH, then the job can just as easily be done from Cheap-istan in many cases, and so a great many desk based roles will vanish quite quickly. That will cause a great reduction in tax take which will also have to yield a massive reduction in public sector spending (wages and pensions in essence).

If people could work from home all of the time, and it proved to be just as effective, then most middle management would no longer be necessary.

That's one interpretation. The other is that senior managers won't want the stress and hassle of dealing with Cheap-istan / wherever the roles migrate too, so there may well be more middle management to compensate.

I'm quite senior now, but not senior enough that I think I'm senior, so could be considered talking my book. That said, I'm waaaay happy for my folks to WFH - I'm not killing my teams just because we don't have a use for the office without them.

most middle manglement will not allow their direct charges to work fully from home and will clearly declare to their superiors that those who do work from home dont produce as good a results

My teams have all ramped up productivity now they don't commute. My main worry is burnout over the medium term - trying to mandate breaks and time off etc but without being a dick about it. I have zero doubts that my reports are working hard from home - they work with me because they choose to not because they have too - if your staff stay because they can't leave then you have failed as their manager.

You E-diot! Formula E driver booted off Audi team after getting video game ace to take his place in online race

LucreLout Silver badge

Just lose gracefully

.... seriously, when did it become a bad thing to just lose? In an entire field of competition there can be only one winner, so by definition everyone else lost. You were good enough to make the field, its just that there's someone better than you today, and if you won there's going to be someone better than you tomorrow. And?

There's no participation medals in the real world, so just grow a pair (whichever gender appropriate pair that is) and try harder, get better, or just console yourself with making millions doing something you're not very good at....

US lawmakers get a second shot at forcing FBI agents to obtain a warrant before they leaf through web histories

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Only for terrorists

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you think that the All American (i.e white, prejudiced, Trump supporters) FBI leadership would ever engage in such tactics.

Your assumption that only white people are racist is ludicrous, wrong, and racist in itself. Time to grow up. Tick tock.

UK MPs to off-payroll workers: Delay IR35 reforms until 2023? You wish

LucreLout Silver badge

If you are getting contractors in to do exactly the same job as an FTE, with exactly the same working practices and conditions, then those contractors should be employees. That doesn't mean we all are, though, and it sounds more like dodgy recruitment practices on your part than the contractors.

The recruiting practices aren't mine, as such, they are those of the last 6 FTSE 100 firms I've worked for, where I've had to follow their recruitment policies for my teams.

If you need stationery for work purposes as an FTE, your employer should be providing it.

I should be in better shape, healthcare in the UK should be better, and my employer should do some stuff it doesn't. The reality is you can just get it delivered mail order - there's no requirement to employ the spouse, which is why its always their spouse and not someone elses. Gives the game away, doesn't it.

"Reducing the tax bill may be the primary driver but it can't be proven."

Just because something cannot be proven didn't make it legal, see above. Even so, I think the majority could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

And yet they haven't been which is why HMRC are bringing in these changes. You can't support a left wing size state and then baulk at paying almost as much tax as the FTE you sit next to. Its illogical in the extreme and gives away that famous lefty cognitive dissonance - you want higher taxes for other people, not for you, but its ok for you to vote for me to pay higher taxes, right?

It's not about a massive tax subsidy

Yes it is.

it's about being able to run as a business

Nobody is proposing stopping you, but what you will be doing next year, is running it wihtout the massive tax subsidy. The simple reality is 99% of IT contractors do not run a business, they operate a tax shelter.

There are very few businesses which would survive if they had to have PAYE tax paid as if salary to the owner on all sales, without a thought to the expenses required to make those sales.

It is because most of those expenses are fictitious, or marginal in terms of legitimacy (why does a contractor get to buy lunch pre-tax and a FTE post-tax? They both gotta eat). Too much abuse, such as the ludicrous salary you pay yourself wholly for tax avoidance reasons, and the comparatively massive dividends hasn't come about by chance, its come about because thats the most tax efficient way to do it. It isn't a business then, its a tax shelter. Sorry if that upsets you, but I suspect deep down inside you already know thats what it is.

LucreLout Silver badge

So, it's illegal but they are unlikely to be caught...

No its legal, its just legal tax avoidance.

If I claim my wife is working for my company when she isn't, that's fraud. Likelihood of getting caught doesn't change that.

Paying your wife to do a job for the company that is a job she'd never get at a real company is legal but is still legal tax avoidance.

Because a contractor is not doing the same job or operating the same way. I realise this one will be contentious as, to an FTE, it seems they are doing the same job.

Nope, they literally are the same job - I'm not just the FTE remember, I'm the guy doing the hiring.

That would never fly in court. Saying "I am on Facebook chatting with my friends for work purposes" clearly fraudulent and would be laughed out of court. It is a balls-out lie.

Is it? Are none of your friends work contacts?

If she is out only to pick up that stationary which is only for company use, and is paid only for that time and at a commensurate rate, it's legitimate to do so.

And yet not so when an FTEs spouse does the same.

Yes, it is. You, and any contractor doing this, is specifically lying in order to reduce their tax bill. It is fraud. Whether they are likely to get caught doesn't change that.

Reducing the tax bill may be the primary driver but it can't be proven. It could just as easy be the reasons they give instead.

What most contractors I have met are doing is running a business, which the new regulations are effectively banning

What most contractors are doing is wholesale tax avoidance and most contractors know very well that it is. The running a business meme is directly akin tot he legitimate businessman thing the mob used to do.

If you can't run your business without the massive tax subsidy it has enjoyed up to this part then it is a business that society will not miss. You can't cry foul when Amazon do this and then do it yourself. Well you can, and you do, but that's where the credibility gap comes in, isn't it?

LucreLout Silver badge

Were I an FTE, I would be bringing in around £50k. With the standard 5% contribution to a pension and salary sacrifice for a company electric car, I'd take home around £30k and pay just over £11k in taxes. I would also be provided with a high spec company laptop (as well as training and other employee benefits, which most of the places I contract for provide their employees).

And another almost 5k in NI, but that new electric car ain't gonna exist in the real world, not on 50k gross anyway.

Let's add a few odds and ends and make it £15k in expenses, leaving £65k.

Ok, so you've moved the first 15k of your life costs onto the company. As an FTE I too need a phone, laptop, and car for the reasons you give, but mine aren't deductible. They come out of already taxed income, so yours are 42% cheaper at that gross rate. That's over £6k in tax saved right there.

From this, I take £9k ish salary

And thus we come to the crux of the problem. This right here is why contractors won't get to make the decision as to their tax situation and why large employers are dumping them enmasse. You're paying less income tax than you've already avoided just on your gadgetry.

I would be happy to pay an extra few grand in tax, if implemented in a fair manner which applied to all business owners instead of just contractors.

Yeah, see, its not a few grand though is it - it's tens of thousands of pounds each and every year. It is literally multiples of the money you're actually paying. On your figures, given a desk next to an FTE as most contractors enjoy, you're basically stiffing the NHS of a nurse all on your own.

However, I am not happy with the government coming along and basically making my company illegal to operate. I don't want to be a FTE, not because of tax but because of the working practices, but it is not viable to work as I do without operating as a company.

If your business model isn't viable paying a "fair" and for that read equivalent level of tax, then it isn't viable. Sorry.

LucreLout Silver badge

However, it is different for a contractor, as the client site is not the main, permanent place of work for the contractor.

Yes it is. None of my contractors are paid to work at their home office, they're paid to work at the company office, same as the FTEs. Amazingly, only one is recognised as deductible. There's absolutely no difference. Same goes for expensing lunch and all the rest of it.

Now, if you were doing a day here, a day there at different employers you might have a point, but where you're at the same desk for 2 years you clearly don't. You do know this, of course, you just don't like it.

If the first and last week, all week, he is actually doing training which involves him needing to be at that location then that's legit.

The course could almost always be done from Grimsby as easy as Hawaii. The FTE can make no such claim against tax, and amazingly, most employers don't want to let you choose your own training course in Hawaii and then claim it back against taxes. Its a holiday. You know it. So do I.

This assumes, of course, that he's actually doing some training. If it's all just a sham, that's fraud.

It can both be training and a sham. Lets take a nice easy MCP type cert. Could be done on the train to and from work, but nope, it gets done from sunnydale because its sunny and the tax man is paying half anyway. Again, there's no possibility that you don't already know this.

Client entertaining is not deductible for corporation tax purposes. So, even if you could convince a tax inspector that it was legit and not a benefit in kind (very difficult if only you and your family are employed), you'd still have to pay out of post-tax profits.

Yes, but that'd be the companies post tax profits, which means at 19% deductions its massively cheaper than 42%, 50%, or the top slice 67% deducted before being bought. You already know that too though, right?

The tax man could go back 20 years and demand income tax (and any other relevant taxes) on this, as it reeks of deliberate evasion. It doesn't matter if he "rolls" the company (which, in itself, smacks of dodgy practices).

What do you suppose attracts the greatest number of audits, given the limited HMRC resources, trading companies, or closed companies? Yeah, so the reality is that those old Boss suits are safe as houses, and his real risk is negligible.... even if the rules don't allow it, which is far from clear given the company logo being embroidered on the sleeves.

It's perfectly legit to structure a company as you wish, but only truly legitimate expenses should be claimed. There's a middle ground, not defrauding the tax man but structuring your company to pay the correct taxes. FTEs could refuse all pension, ISA, childcare etc tax breaks, if they wanted...

Everything you've listed is also open to contractors, just with the double dipping of moving half their life onto the corporate ticket, and then minimising their taxes aggressively using perfectly legal avoidance measures. Any you wonder why HMRC want to clamp down?

When it comes to expenses, ask yourself: Would an employer allow this?

See, you're back to the sophistry again. The employer is really the client for most contractors. You know it, I know it, HMRC knows it, and so do the public at large. The odd job man or plumber may well have a decent argument, but the IT contractor almost never does. Sorry.

You've done an admirable job of simply avoiding understanding everything you've wished to avoid understanding in order to preserve your way of thining. Unfortunately, its neither me nor you whose understanding is going to be relevant, it's HMRC and Joe Public, and as you well know, their view now much more closely aligns with mine than yours, and that's why you're getting worried.

LucreLout Silver badge

However, if it would be legal and get through an investigation then it is open to abuse by all company owners/directors, not just contractors. If that's the case, changing rules for contractors only may reduce the scale but would leave other business owners able to abuse the the system. This is not making the system fairer, it's making it less fair.

Your problem here is that most FTE butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers aren't paying volumes of the taxes that their self employed counterparts are for sitting at the same desk... IT FTEs are, and IT contractors stand out like a sore thumb in the self employed stakes.

Fair isn't a useful term to define anything - your definition of fair and mine and everyone reading this will be different, and life is rarely fair anyway.

On top of that, it penalises those of us who are not abusing the system.

Low speed limits penalise those of us who really are good drivers and safe at far higher speeds. That, unfortunately, is just how life is.

A fairer way would be to change the rules to stop the abuse. Specifically prohibit the abuses mentioned. The fact that they don't makes it seem like they are keeping the loopholes open for their mates, while closing them for the little guys who don't have the resources to fight them. One rule for them, another for us.

Taking home 6 figures does not a little guy make. Sorry.

They've tried to close the loopholes, these changes are just the latest step in that. Contractors keep finding new ways to avoid them, so this change brings in what amounts to a general anti avoidance principle. By putting the risk on the large employers, they stop having so many freelancers and recruit FTEs who pay taxes instead.

My northern ex-finance mate used to work with someone who had contracted for the same company for 18 years. He'd been there longer than the longest serving FTE by some distance. Those that genuinely move by choice every 6 months or so may get caught up because of people like that, but the alternative is massive eye watering spending cuts - higher rate PAYE has topped out and the only way to get more revenue from it is to recognise those avoiding it via structuring, AKA contractors.

They pay similar levels of tax to an employee who pulls a salary similar to what they take from their company. I discuss these matters with most contractors I come across, and find it hard to believe that I would not have come across any who behave as you describe if it is as prevalent as you say.

The same can be said of the kind of contractor you meet. I'll feel fairly secure stating I've employed a lot more contractors than you have over the past 25 years, and I've worked with hundreds maybe even 1000 of them. I've never met a one that was paying as much tax as the FTE next to them, and that on a 50% uplift in gross.

LucreLout Silver badge

You can't both drive to the client site and get the train there at the same time, so this is most definitely fraud.

No, but you can drive to and from the train station and claim parking, while FTEs have to pay both out of already taxed income - contractors are getting 50% off the price here, rising to 67% if you compare a narrow FTE salary banding.

Assuming the certs are taken physically in the location he is visiting, he may be able to get away with the flights there and back, and accommodation for a couple of nights each, but not for a full 3 week holiday for a full family

The flights are baked in certainty for the contractor as are the first and last week hotels - all at tax free rates, saving between 50-67% over what it'd cost the FTE. The middle week can be justified if its cheaper than returning flights, so provided he's not staying 5 star then this should be easy to justify.

The family going, well, you can either take the board meeting approach, or you can find courses for them too (can be cheap - its not like the wife and kid are actually adding value to the business). Worst case scenario, you need flights for the family, but the mrs will be staying in your room so now you've only junior to house, if you didn't get a suite.

Nope. The company could pay for it, but it would be taxable as a benefit in kind. It is not a legitimate or legal business expense.

That depends on what you do with it and with whom you do business. Bit like the old corporate box at a stadium - put it in my name and guarantee me use of it, then its a BIK and taxable but if the company could send anyone along and its in the company name, then its an expense for client entertaining.

- "I've a former colleague with a lovely range of boss suits with his corporate logo embroidered very discreetly on the cuffs, which is a corporate uniform"

Doubt that would pass an inspection, but you are right, this one is a grey area.

The guy I know doing it also isn't wholly sure he'd get away with it if audited, but as he rolls the company every 3 years anyway (capital gains disbursement rather than income you see) he's unlikley to have to repay much in the way of taxes on it, but has had about 20 years worth of Boss suits on the tax payer.

Where you run the charitable trust, you'd have to be very careful. I doubt many contractors run charitable trusts, though.

I only know of 3, however in 2 of those cases their wife runs that organisation rather than the main LTD co, which further separates concerns. Quite how much of the money donated ever actually sees a good cause is debatable, but then since Oxfan etc only actually spend about 1 peen in the pound on what it was raised for and the other 99 running the org itself, the charity sector isn't without precedent here.

Contractors not interested in avoiding taxes can simply pay 100% of their income out as PAYE and claim no deductions. They'll have literally nothing to fear from the changing regulations and tax rates. I've never met a single one of those though, and I dare say neither have you. Gives the game away a tad mind.....

LucreLout Silver badge

Ok, anyone doing all that is plainly gaming the system and is acting illegally

Yes, and no. Yes they are gaming the system, but no it isn't illegal. They probably won't ever be audited on it, and were they to be so, provided they never write down "I'm employing the Doris because it'll reduce my tax liability" then they'll sail on through. What the spouse does and what the contractor claims they do are often (almost always) miles apart.

If someone is claiming mileage for miles they didn't travel for work purposes, they are breaking the law.

But since they only have to provide minimal receipts and no other evidence they won't be caught. Besides, some do legitimately do the mileage, its just that as an FTE they can't claim it back, despite doing the same journey for the same reason to the same place.

If someone is purchasing it equipment which is not solely for work purposes (with incidental personal use), they are breaking the law.

But since a contractor defines what their role it anything they do online is "work purposes".

If someone is paying their wife, when their wife is not doing and work, or paying an amount which is more than the market rate for what they are doing, they are breaking the law.

That's the wheeze though isn't it. The things they do are being done, but many would be done anyway - my Mrs for instance often picks up stationary while out, its just that I don't get to pay her to do so out of my pre-tax earnings.

If someone is billing their company for utility bills which are not for business use, they are breaking the law.

Again, because the contractor decides what is business use, then its all business use. I could legitimately define anything as research - even reading El Reg becomes a "business activity" for keeping up with wider industry information.

A large proportion of what you point out there is tax fraud.

And yet none of it is.

If people are committing fraud, investigate them and charge them for it, don't penalise those of us who are operating within the law!

You're using the law as a shield here when specifically they are changing the law because what contractors are doing amounts to abuse of it.

I engage in industrial levels of legal sophistry every day as part of my work. Truly you would be horrified. That you prefer not to see that contractors are so engaged and amount to the work equivalent of Amazon or Starbucks is illuminating. Like I said, nobody does cognitive dissonance like the left....

LucreLout Silver badge

No, you're completely over the line into tax evasion. Most of them involve lying about the purpose of the expense, and that equates to fraud.

Nope, none of them involve lying about the purpose of the expense, only making sure that when an expense is incurred it provides maximum enjoyment in addition to the business purpose.

If you're going to pretend that no contract does any of the things I've suggested in this thread, when in 25 years every single contractor I've met has done at least one of them at the time I knew them, most of them have been engaged in several of the tax reductions at the same time, then continuing the debate is pointless because you've successfully deceived yourself, but only yourself you understand.

LucreLout Silver badge

Lets take a moment to look at the low hanging fruit of creativity which we haven't applied so far.

Holidays become offsites (One of my contractors is still trying to crack Australia despite annual trips going back a decade). That he happens to hail from there is pure coincidence, as is the fact that his family farm is there.

Holidays become training courses - One of my guys takes 3 weeks off every year and goes abroad with the family - he just does one cert a week at each end of the holiday. All employees you see.

The first 2 years at an employer mean on top of the mileage claims you can expense your train ticket - one of my mates does this and he comes down to London from the east mids every day. Hell, my ticket costs 350 notes a month and I get nothing for that because HMRC think I might want to go back into London on a night for leisure!!

We've not looked at structuring yet, where your onshore company buys services or equipment through an offshore provider, located conveniently in a tax friendly jurisdiction.

Club access - golf, social etc are easily obtainable through your company before taxes become due.

We're not even getting close to a grey area here - its all legal and firmly so.

If we want to go grey we start looking at director loans, corporate financing across a web of companies owned by relatives, etc

I've a former colleague with a lovely range of boss suits with his corporate logo embroidered very discreetly on the cuffs, which is a corporate uniform, along with the hermes and churches.

Charity donations, when either you benefit from attending the functions, or where you might even run the charitable trust yourself.

Then we can look at where you keep you corporate IP (Holland is apparently efficient for tax reasons and might work for You Too).

We haven't looked at business development grants, we haven't looked at R&D deductions, or corporate investments or a whole host of things.

Up to this point I personally know someone engaging in each of the above, so making out like contractors don't do this is simply not going to wash.

Then we can go dark, balls out evasion from there or even straight up fraud, which is not something I'd engage in professionally or personally, but lets not pretend it isn't happening and that the losses to the tax man aren't real. I'll not detail how this is most easily done for reasons which should be obvious.

LucreLout Silver badge

Also, even if what you say on this is correct

It is and doesn't even scratch the surface. The effective tax rate most of my contractors pay is 23% and that's on a solid six figure sum. For a PAYE on the same comp, even maxing out pension contributions etc you're looking at paying at least 45% - very close to double the taxes.

it's still not true that the employee "paying several magnitudes the tax the contractor pays"

And yet it is.

PAYE on £50k turns over £4,860.00 in NI and £12,358.20 in income taxes. Now, I don't deal with payroll taxes because they're not helpful when you're dealing with £xxxx Bn internationally, its all magicked away with bonds, equities, loans, etc and some globe spanning chicanery. I'll be happy to see what payroll errors I've made as this is literally my first attempt at the calcs.

Contractor on £50k:

2 x mileage is 0.45 * 20000 = £9k tax free leaving £41k to disburse

2 x lunch = £7 * 5 * 48 = £1645 of costs moved onto the company so tax free, leaving £38,355 left.

2 x high spec laptop / tablet / phone rotating each year = £7k of cost moved onto the company leaving £31,355 open to tax.

2 x phone bill £60 * 12 = £720 moved onto the company and £30,635 left.

Utility bills, broadband etc will see that down to about £30k (I'll ignore home office deductions etc).

You'll note, however, that I haven't paid a single penny in taxes so far and I've already knocked £20k off any potential bill before doing anything creative or before employing the kids.

Employers NI will become due on each employee at about 13.8% but only on earnings over £8424 per employee. A further 12% employee contribution will be required. Personal allowance is £12500 per employee before 20% tax kicks in.

2 x PAYE of £8424 = £16848 out with no NI and no IT to pay, leaving £13152 on which tax might be due.

Corporate taxes are due at 19% on anything we don't hide or pay out, but that is lower than IT and we have 2x tax free dividends yet to use so.....

2x 2000 = £4k with no tax due to employee, and just £760 paid in taxes and only £8392 left potentially taxable.

I'm running out of time to complete this calc, so lets keep it simple and dividend the lot.

CT = £1594.48

Divs = 6797 / 2 employees so £3398.76 each which fits inside their TFE allowance so no further tax is due.

What we've got to date is the following:

CT: £2354

IT: 0


Cash: 27645

Food and utilities are part paid, tech is paid, plus you get to make on resale of 3 year old kit.

I've not employed the kid, and I still have wriggle room if you want to drop the tech rate and pay a little more tax in order to have more cash.

£17218 / £2354 = 7.314 times the taxes. Now, you can munge the numbers around to your hearts content, but you will ALWAYS find that the PAYE taxes due are MULTIPLES of the contractor rate unless you pay the maximum taxes possible. Nobody actually does that. But then you already know this. Pay a little more and get an NI stamp, if you wish, but do note that some contractors implement the above structures and then go on to claim in work welfare benefits, so there's that to consider too.

You just don't want to agree because "tax avoider" isn't how you want see yourself. That is how most of society sees you though, no different from Amazon, and that is why you're going to get taxed at a prevailing rate akin to an FTE.

Source of rates and deductions (because I'm not at work and don't have access to my usual data/software, plus we don't work on the employee level).


LucreLout Silver badge

Tax free mileage: I used to claim this, but then so can any employee when travelling to anywhere that is not their main place of work.

Contractors don't need receipts so most just claim the full allowance (x2 because of the spouse).

However, again AFAIK an employee can declare this on a SATR if he's travelling somewhere other than his main place of work.

Yes, but you count your place of work as your home even when its actually the desk next to mine. I don't get to do that.

Work equipment: Yes, too right that's tax deductible. It is for someone's employer too, and AFAIK also for an employee on a SATR. As long as it IS work equipment, if not you're breaking the law.

Nope, because it can be used for purposes other than work, according tot he tax man, even if it isn't. No contractor I know uses their home PC for work, because they don't work for BYOD companies, nor do they need their mobile phone to be on the company.... all of them do so though, including the wifes kit.

Wife on the books: If the wife is actually doing a job for the company then why shouldn't she be paid the going rate for this? If she isn't, you're breaking the law.

Popping to the shops for stationary is about as much work as most contractor spouses do. The difference is that nets a base rate salary, dividends, expenses for her lunch, mileage, and her gadget bill too.

Son on the books: Again, if he's actually doing a job and being paid something commensurate with that job, this is (and should be) acceptable.

Yes, but all he's doing is tweeting occasionally and managing the facebook page. Neither are tasks that actually need doing, and even were they required, they can be done in his own time the same way I'd have to were I to have such media profiles.

Everything you talk of is either legitimate (both legally and morally correct) or illegal.

Its all legally correct but its certainly not morally correcy unless we allow PAYE to average out the Mrs tax code, the kids, and put half their life on the tax man too.

The illegal stuff is not a "tax advantage of being a contractor", it's tax evasion

Nothing I have described is specifically illegal unless its only done to reduce tax. Otherwise its peachy for a contractor, but none of it works for a PAYE.

You're making the Amazon argument all by yourself, yet next time it crops up you'll be there banging the drum for them to pay more too.

You and I both know you're talking your book. You & I both know this doesn't even begin to bottom out all the tax advantages of being a contractor, which is why none of you pay yourself enough to get close to my tax bill despite often bringing home another 50% on top. I've been working with and paying for contractors for decades, so you might be doing a good job of convincing yourself (that lefty cognitive dissonance again), but you sure aren't convincing me. Far more importantly you aren't convincing HMRC and you're nowhere close to convincing the general public.

LucreLout Silver badge

How is this even close to "paying several magnitudes the tax the contractor pays"?!?!

Because you've missed an awful lot of things off the calculation and you know you have.

Where the tax free mileage claims? Wheres the incidentals for lunch? The work equipment? The PluralSight sub etc etc etc. That's before the wife is on the books doubling down on the tax free earnings allowance, the mileage and other expenses. One of my guys even has his son on there as a social media consultant. That's before we even think about getting creative anywhere, such as board meetings in warmer climes.

You can call it whatever you want, but what the rest of us call it is tax avoidance, and the public call it not paying your fair share. You know there's massive tax advantages in a LTD company and so do I - I do this for a very lucrative living at a very high end bank. Now, I have no moral, ethical, or other problems with tax avoidance - I do it myself - but FFS man up and accept what you're doing instead of trying to play some holier than thou shell game.

Alibaba Cloud revenue grows 62% – but it's still just a sixth the size of AWS

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: "why buyers beyond the middle kingdom would consider its offerings"

And I do not see China as winning this 'cloud war' just for one reason: trust-worthiness.

It'll be a hard war to lose when they can simply have their politicians pass a "You must use a Chinese provider" regulation and pretty much guarantee survival in the face of whoever wins out between MSFT, AMZN, or GOOG.

Safest bet for any investor is to buy some shares in all of them - then it doesn't matter who wins; its not like the cloud market is going to get smaller as everyone rushes back to on-prem DC's.

Far-right leader walks free from court after conviction for refusing to hand his phone passcode over to police

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Would never have happened in my day

Labour are not and have never been a racist party.

Sorry, WHAT?!

Clearly you aren't Jewish, because even thier own Jewish MPs openly decry the party as racist. It's being actively investigated by the equalities commission (that it created) charged with institutional racism. Not being a little bit racist, you understand, being institutionally racist. the only other political party in the history of the UK to be so investigated is the BNP. Labour, and the BNP.

The entire thing is a stitch up documented in a 851 page document produced by the labour party.

Wait, what?! Your claim is essentially that the labour party stitched itself up over racism because one labour faction doesn't like another labour faction, and in fact they're positively lovely to Jews?

The way they talk about themselves in that whitewash of a leaked report is beyond the pale, never mind how they talk about outsiders. If you seriously believe labour aren't racist then I have a bridge you will surely want to buy.

FFS, your whole defence, such that it is, amounts to "I'm not racist - I have some friends who are black".

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Would never have happened in my day

grounds for dismissal must be due to individual action, not due to association with one or another group.

It should be, but that wasn't how it worked for the police members of the BNP. The same standard should, if the equalities commission determine labour is institutionally racist, go on to apply to them, and for the same reasons.

"But that's my party" shouldn't really be your primary concern. It shouldn't really be a concern at all. They (labour) were my party once too.... Things change. They lost their way. What has been done cannot be undone.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Would never have happened in my day

On one side we have a tiny and almost inconsequential Right-wing bogie-man who is a member of the public, on the other we have massive confirmed dereliction of duty driven not by character failings but by Left-wing political ideology, in the police force itself. Why are we focussed on trivialities?



Ok, look, this bit:

we have massive confirmed dereliction of duty driven not by character failings but by Left-wing political ideology, in the police force itself

Is absolutely spot on in terms of the problem and its underlying reason for existing.

But the rest of the whole paragraph is the same vintage whataboutery that lefties love to indulge in. Its wrong when they do it and just as wrong when you do it.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Would never have happened in my day

Moreover, Tommy isn't interested in the race of the offenders.

Personally I find that totally unbelievable....

The issue is not who is breaking the law

I'm far from convinced by this part....

the fact that those who are supposed to be enforcing the law are not doing so because of the race and/or religion of the offenders

This, however, seems fairly indisputable now.

There were five or six police officers waiting to take Tommy away from the court. That seems excessive - one would have been enough

Quite likely the others were there for his protection. Wouldn't look good if a terrorist offed him on the six o'clock news, while in police custody.

There were people making policy decisions based on race. It just wasn't Tommy.

That anyone makes decisions on race in this day and age is totally unacceptable. How can you write the first sentence, then follow it up with the second??? Its precisely this kind of mental gymnastics that has landed labour under investigation for institutional racism.

LucreLout Silver badge

Re: Would never have happened in my day

Although I agree with the sentiment that just being a member of a political party should not be grounds for dismissal; being a racist is (and should be) grounds for dismissal.

And yet as Cedric points out, people are not sacked for being members of the Labour party. A party which is openly hostile to Jews, under investigation and almost certain to be found guilty of being institutionally racist.

Just let that sink in for a moment. The labour party. Investigated by their own equalities watchdog. Going to be found guilty of institutional racism (at this point the EC find them guilty or they forever destroy their own credibility).

Literally the labour party will belong next to the BNP in the spectrum of political acceptability, next to the BNP in terms of racism (its already only the second party ever to be investigated for institutional racism). It seems to me impossible to be a labour voter, party member, or union member of an affiliate and not be seen to be a racist. The entire party is going to have to go, which in terms of being an effective opposition is probably for the best, because they'll never be able to reconcile their "thick northerners" and metro elites anyway. Besides, "For the money, not for the Jew" was a terrible electoral slogan.

Your suggested course of action above WILL mean that all members of labour affiliated unions, all members of the labour party, will have to be sacked because they're all racists once the equalities commission report comes back. There's no special unicorns here, so if its good enough for BNP members (and I very much think that it is) then it's going to be good enough for labour members too.

We can't be against racism except when its "the right king of racism". Labour need to own this and they need to be shunned by all until they do. Racism is wrong. No ifs no buts.

Mealy mouthed apologies won't cut it - why is Corbyn still an MP & party member? Why have there been no mass expulsion of the Corbynite racists? That's before we get to the labour & PIE noncing shenanigans which have never been properly investigated or rooted out. Rotten to the core, the lot of them.

UK.gov splashes out on 40,000 new devices amid COVID-19-fuelled homeworking boom

LucreLout Silver badge

Enterprise McAfee Total Virus Defence.

Does that run on XP? Joking... wish I was....

IBM cuts deep into workforce – even its Watson and AI teams – as it 'pivots' to cloud

LucreLout Silver badge

Best of luck

Good luck to all the soon to be ex IBM staff. It's not a great environment out there just now, but this will pass and things will get better. Higher quality employers will find a need for you shortly. In the mean time, at least its summer(ish) so outdoors will be a bit more pleasant.

Beer, because everything is better with beer. Except driving.

Microsoft announces official Windows package manager. 'Not a package manager' users snap back

LucreLout Silver badge

Yet more proof that MS invent nothing, perhaps it is time to start doing unto MS what they did to their competition?

They have no competition. I mean, sure, there's Amazon in the cloud, and Google for search, but outside of AWS and Google search there's no competition for MS anymore. Oracle is dying and almost dead, Sun are dead, IBM are.... whatever the hell IBM are now. Who really is there?

Linux & iOS will never be real competition for the desktop. Open Office has been around for decades and is no competition for Office. Java is toast and hasn't been competition for .NET for at least 15 years now. All the various flavours of IntelliJ/Rider etc are no real competition for Visual Studio.

Whatever your views on their corporate behaviour, they've won. There's nobody left standing to do a damn thing to them. The entire ABM war is lost.... there's just a few troops out in the jungle not realised the war ended a long time ago.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020