Any pride women felt about Rachel Reeves being the first female Chancellor has been flushed down the U-bend of spend, spend, spend
Yet here she is, this mistress of mediocrity, wrecking the economy without a care in the world. Armed with only her boxy separates, freshly ironed fringe and a faint grasp of economics, Rachel from Accounts marches ever onwards in her mission to improve life for the 'ordinary working people' in this country. Whomsoever they might be. It is certainly not me. Is it you?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
a few seconds ago
- The Sun
Kellogg's brings new cereal to the UK that shoppers say is just like discontinued favourite
KELLOGG's has brought a new cereal to the UK that shoppers have said is just like a discontinued favourite. Shoppers have spotted packs of Kellogg's Smacks on shelves at Morrisons for £2.50. 1 The sweetened puff wheat cereal is already popular in the US but it's now made it across the pond. It's described as a classic crunchy breakfast cereal with a honey-sweet taste. But shoppers have also pointed out that it looks very similar to a popular discontinued cereal. A picture of the new cereal was shared on the Facebook group Snack Reviews and hundreds of people were commenting on it. Lots of commenters said how similar the new product looked to Sugar Puffs, which were discontinued in 2014. "Basically sugar puffs then lol," one person said. Another wrote: "Definitely sugar puffs!!" A third added: "They'll always be sugar puffs to me. They're puffed wheat and sugar." Sugar Puffs, which were made by Quaker Oats, were rebranded as Honey Monster Puffs with a new reformulated recipe. The new recipe had less sugar and more honey than the original Sugar Puffs. Rice Krispies brings back 'most requested' flavor for first time in 20 years – but fans will notice a big switch It came as the Government aimed to crack down on sugar content in foods marketed at children. Sugar Puffs had been around for 60 years before they were rebranded. Discontinued items that have made a comeback Brands have started a trend of bringing back popular discontinued items recently. One that got shoppers buzzing was the comeback of White Malteasers, which had been off shelves for 11 years. Customers can now buy a 30g pack for £1.05, 74g pack for £2.50 or a larger 126g sharing bag for £2.95. Meanwhile snack fans have spotted another chocolatey treat on supermarket shelves that's similar to a discontinued Cadbury product. The new Cadbury Dairy Milk Balls are said to resemble Cadbury Tasters, which first launched in 1996. Plus, the nostalgic alcopop Bacardi Breezer has also made a return to stores after being axed in 2015. The fruity alcopops were once a rite of passage for teenagers having their first alcoholic drinks or going clubbing for the first time. Why are products axed or recipes changed? ANALYSIS by chief consumer reporter James Flanders. Food and drinks makers have been known to tweak their recipes or axe items altogether. They often say that this is down to the changing tastes of customers. There are several reasons why this could be done. For example, government regulation, like the "sugar tax," forces firms to change their recipes. Some manufacturers might choose to tweak ingredients to cut costs. They may opt for a cheaper alternative, especially when costs are rising to keep prices stable. For example, Tango Cherry disappeared from shelves in 2018. It has recently returned after six years away but as a sugar-free version. Fanta removed sweetener from its sugar-free alternative earlier this year. Suntory tweaked the flavour of its flagship Lucozade Original and Orange energy drinks. While the amount of sugar in every bottle remains unchanged, the supplier swapped out the sweetener aspartame for sucralose.
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Judge who let knife-wielding migrant stay in UK was on asylum seeker charity board
A judge who allowed a migrant convicted for drug dealing and sexual assault to stay in the UK is a former executive of a pro-asylum charity, it has been revealed. Judge Fiona Beach ruled that Christian Quadjovie was not a threat to the British public at a hearing last year. French-born Quadjovie has spent a total of 963 days behind bars in UK prisons since arriving in Britain at the age of 10. Quadjovie, who was set to be deported, was granted a reprieve by Judge Beach, an ex-director at Asylum Aid who represented migrants for free on behalf of the Bail for Immigration Detainees charity. The decision has since been overturned after government lawyers claimed her judgment was 'made against the weight of evidence'. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said Judge Beach's apparent conflict of interest 'undermines confidence' in the courts. 'Judges must be independent' He added: 'This is the latest example of an immigration judge with open borders views. 'The similarity between her decisions and the political views she has broadcast totally undermines confidence in the system. Judges must be independent.' Records show Judge Beach was a director of Asylum Aid between September 2004 and February 2007. She is understood to have stepped back from the group in December 2006 when appointed as a part-time judge. Quadjovie's case was first brought before her in April 2024. He was first convicted as a boy of 12 for sexually assaulting a girl under 13. In 2016, he was given a nine-month referral order for carrying a knife in public. Later that year, he was convicted of drug offences. He was detained for 30 months and caught with more drugs after his release. The Home Office tried to deport him, but he argued that he would not be able to reintegrate in France. Judge Beach's stated in the tribunal decision: 'The appellant had some support in the UK in the form of family support, potential access to education and public funds and access to housing assistance, yet found himself involved with gangs and drug dealing. 'The concern would be whether the appellant would slip back into the same way of earning money which he did in the UK, i.e. drug dealing. 'There is a real risk that this would occur again as a young man in France with few ties, no accommodation, no qualifications other than a GCSE in French and no employment experience on which to rely.' 'Not a serious threat to public security' The decision concluded: 'Taking account of all the evidence, I find that the evidence does not show that the appellant is a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or public security.' However, in October, Home Office lawyers said Ms Beach's judgment was made 'against the weight of evidence' and has since been overturned. A spokesman for the judiciary said: 'In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented, and apply the law as it stands.' In a letter, seen by the Sun on Sunday, Mr Jenrick made a formal request to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to probe whether Judge Beach had declared her previous roles. In an interview with The Telegraph last week, Mr Jenrick said it was time to sack what he called 'activist' judges. He said: 'If judges want to enter the political sphere themselves, then they should stop being judges and go into politics. 'We have to have a situation where judges who act politically and bring their own personal politics into their job as a judge are held to account and frankly, can be removed.'
Telegraph
a few seconds ago
- Telegraph
Gender-critical campaigners sue SNP ministers for defying trans ruling
Gender-critical campaigners are suing SNP ministers for defying the Supreme Court ruling over the definition of a woman. For Women Scotland said it had 'little choice but to initiate further legal action' after the Scottish Government failed to issue updated policies on access to female-only safe spaces. Formal proceedings have started in the effort to quash guidance for schools that states pupils should be able to use the lavatories and changing facilities they 'feel most comfortable with'. It also allows biological boys to compete against girls in school sports if they say they identify as female, The Sunday Times reported. In addition, the campaign group's legal action is targeting rules in Scottish prisons, which allow biologically male prisoners to be housed in women's jails in certain circumstances. A trans woman can be imprisoned in a female jail if they have not hurt or threatened women or girls and there is no basis to suppose they pose an unacceptable risk. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session in Edinburgh seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. The Supreme Court ruled trans women are not women for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, with the definition based on biological sex. Some public bodies, including the Scottish Parliament and Police Scotland, have issued updated guidance banning trans people from using single-sex toilets and changing rooms. John Swinney, the First Minister, said the rest of the public sector should await guidance on implementing the ruling from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before acting. But interim guidance has been issued by the equalities watchdog stating that access to single-sex facilities in workplaces and public services should be based on biological sex. The EHRC has also told the Scottish Government it did not need to delay, noting that the law was already set out in the Supreme Court's 'very readable' ruling and this was 'effective immediately'. For Women Scotland warned Joe Griffin, the SNP administration's most senior civil servant, in June that it reserved 'the right to take further action if the Scottish Government continues to fail to uphold the law'. In a new statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' The National Library of Scotland (NLS) has also been warned it faces legal action after removing a gender-critical book from a major exhibition commemorating its centenary. Human rights charity Sex Matters has written to the NLS warning that it could face thousands of claims for excluding The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht from its Dear Library display. Maya Forstater, the charity's chief executive, argued represented unlawful discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010, which protects gender-critical beliefs. It emerged last week that the book, a collection of essays by feminists including JK Rowling, who had fought against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID laws, had been selected for the exhibition. But Amina Shah, Scotland's national librarian and the NLS chief executive, decided to remove the book from the exhibition after coming under pressure from the library's LGBT+ staff network, who called it 'hate speech'. The NLS said the book would still be available to read in the library. A spokesman said: 'We will examine the contents of the letter and will respond in due course.'
