Yeah **** ’em.

Who? The education professionals or the parents who want the holidays?

Thanks Graham

A) the fines only punish people who would save less than £60 on their holiday

So “increase the fines to make them work” I suppose would be the response to that

B) there are pretty clear reasons why people take kids out: some people can’t get time off during the school holidays

Surely these people have made a choice to take that job/career path and should accept the consequences of their choices though? Expecting others to work around this seems a bit… …selfish (for want of a better non inflammatory word)

and some people don’t want to get shafted by 300% price increases.

Again, isn’t this something that people should take into account when choosing where/when to go on holiday though? Or even when they factor in having/accepting responsibility for having kids, same as the additional food, clothes, utilities that having to support 1+ additional lives requires.

I’m a bit confused by what the argument is now, the parents taking their kids out of school to go on a cheaper holiday are saving what? Hundreds, potentially thousands of pounds and are complaining about a £60 fine? Is it the money that annoys them? Or is the principle? (was tempted to do a cr*p pun then, but thought better of it!). A couple on here seem to have no problem with being able to afford it after all.

If the latter then surely they can appreciate that the rules are there not to target them, but to control the “lowest common denominator” and make life easier for those who are in what is already a pretty unenviable trade? Do I just have more empathy for the teachers? Or too little empathy for the value of cheap holidays for my kids?

Hey you’re the one announcing that compromising is “what being an adult with responsibilities is all about.”

And you’d disagree? I don’t think what I wrote was particularly loaded, unlike your response. I’d like to think that the compromises I make aren’t detrimental to the life I provide for my kids. From this I assume that you do…

At the end of the day no one is going to reward you for sticking doggedly to the rules to your own detriment.

I don’t believe it is to my own or my kids detriment. If everyone followed the example of taking their kids out when they fancied a break I think it would lead to detriment, maybe not to the kids individually (each individual case depending of course), but to the (already faltering) education system.

No, not really. It was a hypothetical question for the purposes of debate.

Phew! Hopefully that particular avenue has been covered then!

What if you didn’t choose to have a kid? Should term time holidays be allowed if your pregnancy was unplanned?

Really Mols? I think if you didn’t choose to have a kid, but accepted it anyway, then you have to accept the responsibility that entails.

If you didn’t choose, and didn’t accept it, then it falls under the care of the social services surely?

Good for you Peyote. Not giving your kids the holidays that you would like to because you feel duty bound to a system designed to extract the maximum amount of cash out of you is clearly the responsible grown-up thing to do.

Good for you Graham S, making numerous assumptions about my life and choices based on your own prejudices and desires!

You choose to have children, therefore you know they will go to school and thus limit school holidays come along and you’ll have to pay more. What happened to the days of only going on holiday where you can afford to go? And sadly if it’s out of your budget you have to go elsewhere?

I’m a parent and agree completely with this. Being a parent was a choice, my job was a choice, my lifestyle is a choice. All of these things require compromises. It’s what being an adult with responsibilities is all about.

Surrey voted remain.

As did London, but they’re both still in the South East!

I’m not a big fan of cars, find them a bit boring as there isn’t much variation in the actual mechanics of how an ICE works. There’s only really so much you can do with bodywork too, in that it needs doors, somewhere for the engine and drivetrain to go etc. There are some nice cars out there, but 99.9% seem a bit samey.

Having said that, I fully appreciate most people feel the same way about bicycles, but I love them!

So, good on you OP, hope the Porker brings you joy!

I’ve had a sudden premonition of what’s going to be next on the agenda for the South East based Tory Right Lunatic Fringe once this whole Brexit thing is out of the way ….

I really, really need to move out of Surrey.

Surely it depends on the union in question? the ways they seem to operate and the work they do seems to vary quite a bit.

Having said that, I’m a member although not really active. Only so that I don’t feel too guilty when the reps do manage to negotiate a good deal with management.

Christians make a distinction between the Greek and Hebrew texts Peyote.

Interesting, the ones I’ve met don’t. Maybe it’s the more academic ones.

Either way, the point is that all religions offer differing interpretations of their texts, singling one out to be worse than others seems wrong.

So why do so many Muslims whove studied this more than you disagree?

The same reason most moderate Christians don’t stone homosexuals? There’s probably dodgy rules like these in every major religion, but most folk of faith don’t take them too literally.

Interestingly, the people who do try and take them literally are the ones who tend to be very anti (insert particular religion here).

How about banning all privately owned motor vehicles? Business vehicle use could still continue, but everyone would need to figure out how to get to work and utilise their leisure time without their cars.

There’d need to be a pretty stringent enforcement of the rule, and exceptions so that the Equalities Act wasn’t breached and probably similar.

You did ask for radical approaches after all!

The main reason they started was to meet EU targets for % of waste recycled by mass. Hence, collecting grass clippings, which are heavy, was a simple way to game the system and get their recycling numbers up without actually dealing with the real problem…

Yep, short term thinking affects local government as much as national government.

That isn’t how the world naturally works, its how some people want it to work.

I think in many parts of the natural world that is exactly how it works, certainly in the case of social animals anyway. Survival of the fittest sounds good, but is demonstrably not necessarily the case at a micro level at least.

But then if we don’t value society, why should we pay to support it?

Oh… Sorry, wrong pi!

My local bakers have got a special offer on pies: 3.1 for 2.

Sorry IGMC.

I think it’s right to embrace all pastry products, after all a lidded stew/casserole is just a proper pie in waiting. Educate, rather than exclude!

Blimey! Sauron’s let himself go a bit….

:)

Took me a while!

When will this oppression end?

Come the revolution there’ll be shortcrust, puff, filo, choux and flaky for all!

Brothers and sisters do not give up hope!

Love the fact that pies get a whole week, whereas pancakes and other poor imitations at sustenance only get a day!

I think the key bit in your post to remember is the “totally false” bit.

Emotive language can be powerful. Measured, slightly patronising language can be powerful too dontchaknow!

Why are you asking people to argue for something that is not being proposed, Peyote?

Sorry, I didn’t realise I was.

The only issue is, do you make a unilateral declaration or a multi-lateral one. The heart says the former, the head the latter. She tried a sensible approach to avoid this before. This was rejected. So on that basis, I would marginally favour using her head not her heart.

Well, reducing it down to such a simple argument is quite an easy way of looking at it. The problem is, I don’t see much of a positive from going for your “head” route as it only seems to offer intangible/immeasurable (imaginary possibly) benefits to future negotiations. Whereas the “heart” route would offer more certainty in terms of economy (for those under threat and associated businesses) as well as a more morally palatable option.

I would also suggest that using inflammatory language like bargaining chips/chucking people out/storm troopers or posting links to stories that are unrelated to the issue under question may not be in the best interest of those exposed.

It’s a reasonable suggestion. However emotive language is useful in describing how those under threat feel. If the media, politicians and those who feel vicitimised choose to use this language why should we be surprised considering what has gone on over the past few years?

BTW Is “negotiating tools” or “pawns” acceptable?

Still we all like a bit of froth

Oh yes, big fan of cappuccinos me!

Mol and peyote – you continue to ignore the fact that she chose to exercise her power and responsibility to avoid making this an issue. It was not the UK who rejected the idea in Jan in favour of making bargaining chips.

Yet she chooses not to rectify that error now? She has the power to ease many peoples concerns but doesn’t. Seems disingenuous to me and I’m a UK citizen. To those who’s lives are being used as negotiating tools it must seem far worse I would think.

It would be idiotic and a dereliction of her duty to UK citizens abroad (who absolutely should be her priority) to make a unilateral declaration

Her priority should be to all UK citizens agreed. Allowing non-citizens to stay would benefit the UK economically and morally. It would ease many peoples very real fears about their future. What difference it would make to future negotiations is debatable, but I’m not convinced it would be significant. I would be happy to hear your arguments as to why chucking (or at least threatening to) these folks out would be beneficial during the negotiations though?

Peyote – I think May owns the moral high ground on this issue. EU are the villans.

Why? She has the power to make things better, she chooses not to exercise it. That makes her a “villain” in my book.

Making a unilateral statement that EU citizens can stay without a similar agreement from the EU for UK citizens would have been very naïve.

Another way of saying that peoples lives are a useful negotiating tool then?

Well it’s not the UK which has a Buhka ban or is passing legislation preventing EU citizens from claiming unemployment benefits whilst at the same time pretending to stand at the centre of the EU. It’s not the UK government which agreed cosy triple-Irish tax breaks amounting to a 1% corporate tax rate. I have more but I think you get the gist …

Isn’t that just whataboutery? I’m sure there are dozens of examples from both sides. Doesn’t make this decision any less morally dubious.

It is the EU which is playing politics with people’s lives.

Nope it’s both of them, the only one which has the power to grant anything in the Britain is TM, she could choose to do so. She doesn’t on the basis that it could be a useful negotiating tool (IMO). Pretty heartless morally, and questionably not economically sensible either.

Southampton striker Charlie Austin mowed down a suicyclist in October. Was in the papers just over two weeks ago.

Interestingly he also admitted to driving without due care and attention.

Cameras in my neck of the woods might be coming down because they are “not making enough money”.

Is that true?

That sometimes people drive when they are a bit tired, not everyone can drive at peak form all the time.

Which is why there are signs on many motorways warning “tiredness can kill”. If it hadn’t been normalised then these wouldn’t be necessary.

Of course I’m being facetious, I know you weren’t on a motorway, and I think the risks involved at your location where very different, but as a wider comment on the standard of behaviour expected from the average driver it says a lot.

Interesting about the conditional intent:

Prosecutors argued that the men had accepted their actions were potentially lethal, showing “conditional intent”.

Never heard of that before. Could be applied to many different scenarios I guess.

…and at odds with her trying to tie the whole issue up before negotiations began. Still hard to get frothy about that isn’t it?

Well, not really. She can tie everything up without having to have everyone agreeing the same.

I agree Bob, why? Especially as we seem to be benefitting economically from these people too! Isn’t it a case of “cutting off your nose to spite your face”? I just don’t see the logic, other than TM et al wanting to rattle their sabres at Europe before negotiations start, seems a pretty spineless reason though.

are those getting caught just more stupid/antisocial than in other areas?

Could be signage, could be demographic, could be road geometry or highway layout (someone earlier mentioned about decluttering the streets – excess signage). Could even be something as simple as the local council never having targeted motorists before in that area, but an accident meant it rose up the political profile and “something had to be done”.

Every site is different.

Edited to add – Ultimately though, as long as it is legally correct then the burden of responsibility should be on the motorist to be aware of what they are doing and where they are doing it.

The real world where bad driving is so normalised

Unfortunately much poor driving is normalised. Everything from red light jumping to using a hand held phone. Not much is socially unacceptable when it comes to driving as the majority do it and “there but for the grace of god go I” is the message most take away when they are pulled up on it.

I don’t get this ‘they are just making money’ argument. You know they don’t give it to the councillors to pocket it, don’t you? It gets spent on us.

Someone once described speeding fines as a “stupid tax”, that is it is very easy to avoid getting them, it’s just stupid behaviour (not necessarily stupid people) that is caught.

Bus lane cameras seem to fall into this bracket too, and because the money ends up back in the local govt coffers it can be spent on improvements that everyone can appreciate, ergo a tax!

There are many junctions where you can’t see a long way. So you wait for it to be clear, then you go. Just as you go, a car appears. If that car is doing 50 then you have time to accelerate and there’s no issue. If it’s doing 90, they have to slam on and there’s a risky situation.

This is true, most junctions/accesses etc. are designed according to “Stopping Sight Distance”, a calculation based on the speed of a typical vehicle, combined with reaction time and braking force. Go faster than this and the risks increase.

My uncle introduced me to the concept of ‘coil porn’… a highly complicated way of making fancy coils to heat the vape liquid.

It’s worse than that, you can get titanium, steel and other exotic materials too. Just like bikes!

Haven’t had the guts to try a carbon one yet though…

So many excuses for speeding, it is like the old days with Safespeed!

Even down to the assumptions made about those who disagree with their idealogy!