We’re still suffering the impact of 1.0 so not keen on that one.
4 Likes
You mean the UK rail service and water companies didn’t improve under privatization? For starters.
1 Like
Yes for starters.
Add in the decimation of social housing caused by right to buy where people benefiting in the 80s did so at the expense of the young of today.
Add in the wide spread selling of collectively owned assets for a pittance, admittedly includes rail and water above.
Add in that the utter destruction of trade unions that took away the voice of the working class meant that now they turn to the far right.
So many of the problems of today here started with Thatcher.
3 Likes
My London daughter and SIL both work for organizations centred on “at-risk” children in the UK. They see the legacy of Thatcher’s policies daily in their work. Subsequent UK governments have done little to reverse it though.
This “Labour” government faced with all the problems caused by Thatcher’s policies had a perfect opportunity to chart a new path, but they have completed wasted it.
3 Likes
Agreed. I am so disappointed in them because I don’t believe that chance will ever come again.
The UK is simply too far along the demographic doom loop.
And the last one standing also decides to leave.
TW is definitely going under now.
Interesting that the Guardian writer seems to think that the bond holders would have to both invest money and write down the bonds. If the finances are THAT bad they could more easily write off the bonds and walk away.
Not sure why anyone would want to take over the mess: Physical plant in need of massive upgrades and deferred maintenance, huge debt load, record fines for various civil violations. Is there some reason several C-suite level people aren’t in jail over this? Or at least headed to the poor house?
Too big to fail?
The executives that did most of the damage (2008 - 2014) are long gone (Australian Vampire Squid a.k.a Macquaire), and they really didn’t break any laws (the regulator and the Govt of the time basically rubber stamped it).
The debt holders should absolutely take a haircut here as they lent money to an entity that they knew was in serious financial trouble (credit risk).
This entire ridiculous song and dance while the company basically goes insolvent is because TW is the largest water/sewage company in the UK, and the Govt cannot really afford to nationalise it (tens of billions of ££ would be necessary, which they simply don’t have).
The water companies should not have been privatized in the first place. Maggie Thatcher would not agree with me but some things can be provided better through the public rather than the private realm.
2 Likes
Disagree. If you’re middle of the road, Canada and a lot of other Nordic type countries, far better than in the US.
Awesome social services, and ample opportunity for your kids to exceed your standard of living. And a lot less frictions n/social problems. Less chance of violence in ones daily life.
Maybe higher end, maybe. That’s arguable.
1 Like
This was a horrific miscarriage of Justice.
He was failed at multiple judicial and executive levels.
One thing that has always been terrible in the UK was the lack of competence you tend to see in the public sector when it comes to these issues (primarily because there is too much cronyism at the higher levels. You get some truly incompetent people appointed)
1 Like
He would have been released after 6 1/2 years if he lied and said he was guilty. That’s a system designed for failure.
Agree. Its downright Kafkaesque.
Why did the jury convict him at 10 to 2? Were there 10 idiots on the jury? Did they lie to the jury? Or omit crucial facts?
Apparently prosecutors like selecting below average IQ jurors. I tried to look dumb when I was hoping to be selected for a jury but it didn’t work. Next time I’ll leave my mouth hanging open maybe with a bit of drool.
it really seems like if there is DNA evidence, and the DNA doesn’t match the guy, it would either have to be the criminal or a boyfriend of the victim, and you could easily eliminate the latter possibility with some testing.
I don’t know how you could convict the wrong person if there’s good DNA evidence.
I have sat on jury trials in the UK so can comment
The downside of a jury trial is that it is effectively 12 random people chosen from a sub-set of the electoral roll.
So its completely possible to have 12 poorly educated jurors sitting in judgment of you (this is a weakness of the process as you need some specialised knowledge for basic scientific matters. This was 20+ years ago so not all that many people had some scientific grounding).
Now, thats obviously bad and they clearly made a big mistake.
But thats where the appeal should have come in (the much better educated and experienced people that review these cases)
Thats where the fail really occured. The people in charge of the review were basically incompetent (this happens in the UK due to cronyism sometimes) and this guy spent over a decade more in jail after they kept denying his appeal.
314 to 291
The same tired arguments being recycled from the no side.
Thankfully, it passed.