James105

A party source says "documentary evidence".... The only documentary evidence was leaked stating that there was no work scheduled after the meal. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793159/Keir-Starmers-Beergate-story-blown-apart-leaked-Labour-memo.html Anyways, some people will believe whatever their lefty overlords tell them to believe so there is little point arguing with a metaphorical brick wall. If you take your blinkers off you will come to the conclusion that: 1. Everyone broke the rules at some point including Starmer, Sturgeon, you, me and everyone else. 2. Lockdowns were stupid and pointless. Stupid and pointless laws are broken all the time. I want Boris to be investigated for the harm he did to the country by imposing lockdowns and Starmer to be raked over the coals for not opposing them. I could care less about the fact that MPs tell lies as unless I am somewhat mistaken, they always have done and always will do, from both sides. I'm presuming here that people are just pretending to be outraged about an MP that lies as though this is the first time its ever happened.

Please enlighten me how Keir Starmer having a beer and curry with his colleagues was deemed to be within the rules and Boris having cake with is colleagues in his workplace was breaking the rules.

"attended the venue". The venue in this case of course being 10 Downing street which was his home/workplace and as a key worker he was obliged to be at along with everyone else there. He was "mingling" with the same people he worked with so I'm struggling to see how this is any different to Keir Starmer having a beer and curry with his colleagues. If that far more egregious breach was not deemed to break the rules then it's not surprising that Boris saw his own eating of cake in his workplace with his colleagues also within the rules. It's not like he went to Stringfellow's and mingled with strangers and had a lap dance.

Just to be clear. He is being held to account for lying about eating cake on his birthday, and not for lying to parliament about weapons of mass destruction that led to 100s of thousands of deaths? I'm all for MPs being held to account for lying, but this is ridiculous.

I thought he was punished. Didn't he get a fine for his cake eating crime? Obviously because of who he is this would be something the left would happily bring back the death penalty for so a meagre fine will never be enough for people like him. I can't stand the guy. I thought his handling of Covid was weak and he was bullied into locking the country down when he should have been stronger. He knew that the rules and lockdowns were stupid, costly and pointless (hence his infractions) but he wasn't strong enough to not impose them anyway due to pressure from the fearful. I would like to see him face consequences (as I would for most other world leaders) for the crime of pointlessly taking away peoples freedoms and plunging their economies into debt that will probably take generations to pay back. There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who admit to breaking at least one rule during covid lockdowns or those who did but lie about it and want to persecute those who got caught.

The first role of a flight attendant is the safety and security of passengers, especially in an emergency. I'd have them doing regular fitness tests as well if I owned an airline to ensure they are fit enough to do that aspect of the job. Their other role is passenger comfort and if they cannot push a trolley down the aisle without their body touching/bumping into seated passengers on the way then they are failing at that part of the job too. The good news for the airlines staff is that should they find themselves getting towards that 10% then there is a very easy solution to prevent them being suspended. Eat a bit less and move a bit more.

Yes, that relates to CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION as it clearly states. Of course Tesla would not want their proprietary tech made public to be stolen. Maybe you should look at their employee handbook: https://www.ceconline.com/PDF/Tesla-Anti-Handbook-Handbook.pdf What I suspect is happening here is that greedy claimants and greedy lawyers have learnt from a previous case that in California you can get a substantial settlement for "claiming" racial abuse. A previous case involved someone who did a low level job for just 9 months and was initially awarded $137 million in punitive damages (reduced to $15m in a retrial and then further reduced to $3.2 million). On that basis alone I find this claim difficult to believe but am prepared to change my mind if just one of the claimants is able to back up their claim with video or audio evidence of the "rampant" racism taking place.

You keep posting links that mention nothing about whether people can keep their phones in their pockets at work at Tesla and your baseless assumptions are not evidence. It would be highly unusual for someone who is not a schoolchild to not have access to their phones in work so unless you have evidence to the contrary my point stands that for this alleged racism to be going on for so long and was so prevalent it is very strange how no-one managed to capture a single audio or video recording of this.

This article is about Tesla. It's not about Amazon employees, nor is it about Fedex employees. If you want to claim Tesla does not allow their employees to use their phones at work how about you provide a link to an article that claims this about Tesla.

Weird how it is alleged to have been going on for so long and was so prevalent yet no-one seems to have thought to capture any of these racial slurs on the video/audio recording device that everyone carries around in their pockets nowadays.

You seemed to be making a point that having an EV gives you time to get food, shopping etc whilst you are waiting for your car to charge as though it is some kind of advantage. It didn't make a lot of sense to me hence my comment as petrol car owners can also stop to do the same thing. The only difference is if they wanted to get to their destination quicker (the purpose they got into the car in the first place) then they don't have to do this. An EV might be convenient for those little journeys around town, but then so is a bicycle which doesn't need charging at all. An EV seems to serve a very specific use case for very specific people. Attempting to encourage wide spread adoption is a fools errand whilst the technology is in its infancy and cannot compete with petrol cars just now. Even the quietness of EVs has drawbacks as without any noise in a country that barely has any pavements (sidewalks) makes it a bit more dangerous for those (non polluting) pedestrians if they cannot hear you coming.

I am referring to those that work in 7-11s etc, not the customers of these places. No-one is required to wear a mask as a customer, and have not been for quite some time.

I'm pretty sure that people who drive petrol cars can do the same thing, but if they are in a hurry they can skip the "munch" and all the other stuff you occupied yourself with whilst you waited to fill your car 50% and get to where they want to go significantly faster.

I'm a very empathetic person, which is why it makes me sad to see so many people being forced (yes forced) to wear them in 7/11s etc. I don't care if someone wants to make themselves anonymous/invisible by wearing them, but a lot of people are still being forced to wear them. It's dehumanising for these folks to be forced to wear a mask. Still, on the bright side it gets us used to not seeing human faces when we go to these places as when they are replaced by automation/robots it will be less noticeable.

Time to reset the clock again. It's now been zero days since Biden had a "senior" moment. Does it ever get above 2?

"my fear is regardless of the outcome the fact that the suspect is a refugee will be used by the far right" I don't want to see kids getting stabbed in a park. Guess that makes me far right then.

Well yes, if you had bothered to read the article the thread was about you would realise it is about the UK. I've no idea why you keep prattling on about China.

"Will it ever end" Not for those who work in 7/11 or Starbucks etc it seems who do not have a choice but to wear a mask at work. Quite sad really. Haven't seen a smile from anyone who works in those in those places for the best part of 3 years now.

You sound very angry about someone simply sharing their views on Twitter that you happen to disagree with. Have you given any consideration to the fact that you might be the one with anger issues rather than the people who watch his content?

You are confusing UBI with a different scheme which is Minimum Income Guarantee. The trial mentioned in the OP would continue to pay out UBI even if someone found a job willing to pay them £1 million per year. One of the selling points of UBI is that since it is not means tested there is minimal administration costs as everyone qualifies as soon as they turn 18. https://www.ippr.org/blog/what-is-a-minimum-income-guarantee#:~:text=Defining a Minimum Income Guarantee,to meet their income floor.

It wasn't a simplistic assumption though. It's actual data and numbers. Besides, it has already been trialled elsewhere and - quelle surprise - people were happier when being given free money. I can confidently predict that the 30 people involved in this study will be happy about receiving free money unconditionally, but other than that it won't really answer the fundamentally essential question of how will it be paid for? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/finlands-basic-income-trial-found-people-were-happier-but-werent-more-likely-to-get-jobs/ "The final results were published on Wednesday for a landmark two-year basic-income study conducted in Finland: Participants were happier when given free money, but they were not any more likely to land a job."

There is no spare money to raise though as the UK is already spending more than it receives in taxes. From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary#:~:text=These taxes made up around,commonly known as the deficit. In 2021/2022: Total tax income: £918 billion Total spending: £1,040 billion UBI will require probably at least an extra £1,000 billion of spending (minus £300 billion if existing welfare/pensions is scrapped). Where will the extra money come from?

Do you really believe in the concept of UBI though or do you believe it should be means tested so those like myself who do not actually need it do not receive it? Bear in mind that UBI specifically is a program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. Also, is £1,600 enough? A small flat in London will quickly wipe that out and presumably UBI would have to replace the existing welfare state. So no free housing, no state pension, no child support etc. Would disabled folks who currently receive more than able bodied folks find themselves getting the exact same even though their ability to gain income from work is extremely restricted to supplement this? Would they see this as unfair?

I'm one of the people, and answered what I would do with it as I can state this with some authority as I know me quite well. If you are asking me about other people I'm not really sure how you would expect me to answer such a thing, but if they need it as much as I do then it will accumulate in the bank or investments. Hope that helps.

Like I said, the people who say they want UBI do not really want UBI. If it is income capped it is not universal, it's what the UK currently has - a welfare system for those who need it.