mokwit

If you are trying to link this to Truss and the BoE stepping in, that is not major factor to what is happening today. markets are FORWARD LOOKING, any market professional; will tell you that. You think it is static just as Labour think the economy is static. With regard to your other "point" about BoE selling. Yes the BoE may step into the market to buy or sell, but it cannot sell Gilts held to maturity by institutions. It can't sell bonds it doesn't own because it already sold them, unless it bought them back from the market. Nothing to sink in, stop trying to pretend you have superior knowledge when you don't know what you are talking about.

Somebody posted a picture of her at PMQT before she escaped to put one over the Chinese negotiators (joke). looking very haggard with a thousand yard stare.

You have not addressed this' From P38 The conviction ratio ranged from 62% for Black defendants to 83% for White defendants. This is likely to be related to the offences for which people from different ethnic backgrounds were prosecuted: image offences, which were more likely to be the reason for White defendants to be prosecuted, were more likely than most other child sexual abuse offences to result in a conviction We are talking about sexual assaults/grooming not all sexual offences including image offenses. Was Huw Edwards convicted of sexual assault/ grooming? from P35, and I think I can spot an error that makes me wonder about the whole reports accuracy. Total child sexual abuse image prosecutions 3,305 2,983 90% Sexual grooming 638 647 101% You either you/they aren't capable of interpreting data or are being deliberately dishonest with an agenda on the assumption you can mislead. Who funds csacentre? Looks to me that they sell courses: https://www.csacentre.org.uk/courses/

I think the opposite applies as it seems we have made no progress in this matter.

This is absolute numbers not per capita. You have cherry picked a paragraph that you think suits your agenda. For some reason you didn't cut and paste this from the article: "Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations." I have previously tried to get across to you the importance of looking at this based on per capita not absolute numbers but you refuse to acknowledge this either because it is against your agenda, or because you are too limited to grasp this concept (it is a university education level thing). The reason I say per capita is because I was formally taught to interpret data as a Science undergraduate and in a finance qualification. So: you are hardly qualified/to be trusted to make a judgement on whether an article is balanced. The BBC is regarded by many/mostas having a pro immigration stance and to downplay grooming crimes. I repeat things like this have to be looked on a per capita basis i.e percent of rapes vs percent of population. Quoting the number of rapes in absolute terms will almost certainly show the highest ethnic group will commit the highest number of low incidence crimes through sheer weight of numbers in the population. Quoting on an absolute basis is a statistically unsound political strategy used to distort the data for the purpose of deflecting criticism of the number of per capita rapes committed by certain immigrant groups. Lumping all 'Asians' together would distort the per capita number form a particular group of interest (Pakistani and Bangladeshi) as it would also include for example Chinese who might (almost certainly) have a much lower per capita offence rate. This is likely done deliberately to avoid showing the data in it's true light. Similarly black, doesn't distinguish between long established Afro Caribbean from a similar culture and more recent immigrants from third world African countries where a rape culture is prevalent in some.

Things like this have to be looked on a per capita basis i.e percent of rapes vs percent of population. Quoting the number of rapes in absolute terms will almost certainly show the (just still) highest ethnic group will commit the highest number of low incidence crimes through sheer weight of numbers in the population. Quoting on an absolute basis is a statistically unsound political strategy used to distort the data for the purpose of deflecting criticism of the number of per capita rapes committed by certain immigrant groups.

I would have thought the helicopter was "bought as seen", caveat emptor seems to apply in UK law. Why didn't they check for the purported non implementation in the spec when buying? If the company had said it was implemented but wasn't, that would be an altogether different case, but it is not the case.

The question is what does China get in return?. China only acts in it's own interest. (Disclosure: I thought of this all by myself so don't have a link to post). I'm sure the Chinese negotiators were no match for someone of Rachel Reeves calibre [sarcasm]. I found a link from a "credible" source that details some of the other concerns 🤣 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-economy-crisis-china-b2677818.html

He's probably looking for a link to post for this.

Perhaps this is exactly what the market is scared of and why the risk premium to in invest in Gilts has increased. Who knows best, People who run billions of dollars or Rachel Reeves? I don't have a link, as the above is my own thoughts. You do understand how that works? Perhaps not.

Something about this character doesn't add up, as many are noticing.

You may never have actually formally declared it, but It is quite obvious from you arrogance and sneering disdain for the opinions of others that don't match your own, that like all Lefties you think you are intellectually superior with no evidence to support this. Let's face it, you are incapable of arguing a point and just post links.

You were previously telling us how positive Labours economic policy was and how it would be good for the country, and how those who said it would cause economic disaster were wrong, so I assumed you understood it, but now it seems you were parroting Labour party sources. Considering the flack Reeves is getting on this thread I thought you might welcome the opportunity to go through Labours economic policy line by line and show how it couldn't possibly be causing the calamity in the markets we are seeing, Instead of doing that you posted a link to a reporter quoting fund managers giving their view on the causes. So you were positive on Labours policy even though you didn't understand it, and others who were telling you it would cause the calamity we are seeing now were wrong according to you, but rather than defend your position yourself, you posted a link to a source that seems to mention anything but Reeves incompetence as the possible real cause, or even a factor, preferring to focus on concurrent global factors as the cause, rather than disastrous policies. FT ceased to be a credible source a long time ago BTW. It became highly politicised to the point where it is referred to as The Financial Guardian, and this went into overdrive with the exit of Pearson as a shareholder. I should know, I read it since the '80's. Same with Reuters. I had Reuters news on my desk for decades.

I think she meant his money via his son Alex,

Andrew Jackson sleeps soundly in his grave now.

You posted a link to an article you don't understand, thinking because it was the FT it was "credible". You won't make money in the markets following what the FT says. The people they quote are people who come to the phone. it is very rare that someone who is regarded as really having a clue goes public. FFS you have no idea about financial markets. Nobody who who actually deals in the market pays attention to what journalists say, and as I said there are multiple takes in the market. I have given mine, what's yours? It's not what market participants are saying that is important, it is what they are DOING. That said, it's not to say I have never had my eyes opened by what a journalist or someone he quotes has said and changed my view as a result. But the idea that there is a credible source that explains the markets is just naivety. What is your take? Which of the views expressed in the article do you think is the explanation? they could ALL be wrong.

As someone who worked as a FX dealer in London and as an equity strategist, I don't really need your link to an article. I used to be flown all over the world to advise people like those quoted in the article. I would say that while there are multiple takes at the time, with people focusing on what is important to them/what they look at, actually at the end of the day there is probably actually one right explanation which emerges after the event out of the 'fog of war' to explain the bulk of the buying and selling which caused a move in the market after the fact. I have been in the middle of this multiple times. So often it can be black and white at the end of the day. Right now what I would say is going on is that there is an increase in perceived country risk due to lack of confidence in the Government, and in particular Reeves, that is is leading to an increased country risk premium and that higher risk premium is driving the interest rate and the exchange rate in opposite directions. You could point to a strengthening dollar being the factor, rather than GBP weakness, increasing interest rates globally, or inflation being in the mix like the various people people in the article, and some may be transacting on those. Multiple investor types transact for multiple reasons. Effectively the UK IMO is perceived as being an old style "emerging market" with very high risk due to excess debt and inability to meet the obligations - think of Thailand in 1997. The growth that the debt level interest and repayments schedule had assumed, suddenly wasn't there. having no been an emerging market for a long time we have not put place the safeguards that "new style" emerging markets have done since learning their lesson last time. In short Labour are leading us into a Thailand 1997 situation and the market recognises this. I have kept it simple, but it probably has gone over your head as all you can o is post links. I take it you do understand what you posted, or did you just post it because it was the FT?

Maybe he wouldn't have cut the fire dept budget by $17m and put a DEI hire in charge of it. There's more.

Wouldn't want you to miss out on the discussion, bearing in mind how you have been crowing about Labours great economic policy.

Ah Chomper, good you are here, any comment on Labour's management of the economy? I'm surprised we haven't seen you clamouring for attention on this thread and insulting everybody left right and centre for criticising Labours economic policy. We are here to discuss Labours economic policy. kindly stay on topic like you are always demanding others do. Using his @Chomper Higgot was like summoning a demon.

They don't seem to have been as critical of the Government since the election, even though they are doing a terrible job.

Turns out running the Exchequer wasn't like shouting the loudest at Student Union meetings.

I must say, I'm surprised @Chomper Higgot isn't active on this thread. He is conspicuous by his absence, I would have though he would be on here crowing about what great things Labour are doing for the economy, and how well they are managing it. He was certainly crowing about their great achievements before.

Exactly as I stated, it's all tactics to control and shut down, rather than fairly argue. I think we should be calling out these tactics every time, to the point where it becomes impossible to use them, but note, they are entitled to air their political views in accordance with free speech. This is a DISCUSSION board, not a propaganda forum.

The tactic of screaming racism when asked to defend position can be a deliberate tactic t shut down debate, or more often than not it is used by useful idiots who don't have the intellect to argue a case. He demanded proof of something I posted: I am still waiting for his critique of the conclusions drawn about the so called "report" rather than an "analysis" based on comments he deems racist. He states that as it is not "peer reviewed" it doesn't count. Rather than critiques the methodology himself he switches the debate to racism. This is a tactic to control the debate. Racism is whatever the Left says it is, so if you engage you are now dealing on their terms. I engaged to clear this block and now am coming back to the original point. He states: "So your accusations are baseless and unfounded." When I present the analysis I get: 'Sorry but some unknown twitter account with a very disturbing timeline filled with dog whistle racism is hardly a peer reviewed critique of the report.' This is his "get out" from countering the points raised by the critique of the reports methodology. Again a tactic to shut down debate, or he doesn't understand what peer reviewed actually is (really what it is not) and what research it is applied to. If it is not peer reviewed then presumably it is noty credible is what he is saying, but does not point out how it is apparently not credible. The key point with Lefties, is that they are not trying to fairly win a debate with better arguments, they are trying to shut down or control the debate or move it to their terms with low tactics. To quote an Italian Communist of the '60's whose name I can't be bothered to look up: "It is not necessary to have better arguments, one merely has to control the media" I really hope someone like this is not teaching kids here (note: solely based on inability to argue and critically evaluate, no inappropriate behavior insinuation is being made)