Everyone benefits better public services, but most of all higher earners.

But regardless, the basic rate should be affordable for those on the lower limits and it currently isn't, let alone raising it. It's not either left wing or right wing to raise the basic rate, it depends on living conditions.

It mainly just looks like a funny screenshot?

Absolutely weird that it's repeatedly called a sweet cider. The Guinness is more annoying these days - copying the kids.

Date of birth is an ethnicity. This is why, for example, the American Census asks for date of birth.

And helps to post the link

activity.librarydata.uk

Have had some amazing ones recently. Including at internal review.

This one was just to library visit counts which they absolutely held, but refused to send over until they'd put some high level summaries in their annual report.

Never quite seen such an article full of straw men. The one on the 'two camps' is possibly the most ludicrous. Why bother writing such a thing?

Grown ups, eat your greens, big choices. Is it a speech or a deep dive blog?

It seems to be fine. It's understandably very small impact to look at individual digital usage, but that's like the argument against household recycling. The benefits are eclipsed by bigger problems, but personal awareness is not a bad thing.

Did people know this? Is this the next round of cuts? From losing libraries we slowly lose functions. Renewals, PCs? Removing reservations isolates each individual library.

Worth knowing @librariesconnected.bsky.social @cilip.bsky.social @dcmsgovuk.bsky.social

Thanks! And yep, doing so. Fingers crossed they don't double down as far as it needing to go to the ICO.

The tale of 2 giraffes is very familiar. Currently requesting basic data from library services. One replied quickly, said it cost them £14 (presumably an hour).

Another refused saying cos I asked for it in a data format they'd need to retype it all into Excel and it'd take more than the 18 hours.

Glad to see the challenge on the poor public interest test here.

Have seen too many recently where the public interest test is going through the motions. It should be a strict test where there is significant weight in the reasons for not providing information if that is the route taken.

Then beyond that, even if very broadly adopting the term racism, it's possible to discuss how lived experiences can differ (not be better or worse) depending on the type.

All of this could be easily established by talking reasonably to people.

Yes it's discussion, and when conducted in good faith it's mainly semantic. Even a quick Google search will show authorities that differ on defining racism - not sure it matters whether someone calls it racism or prejudice.

In the case of antisemitism, that's a term which in itself can be used.

No, 'senile dementia' is not a thing, and is incidentally far more clunky terminology.

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than being ageist, she seems perfectly able to still discuss racism.