British Politics Thread.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm massively embarrassed that both he and IDS are actually fellow Scots.

I honestly didn't think we bred Tories north of the wall.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I'm massively embarrassed that both he and IDS are actually fellow Scots.

I honestly didn't think we bred Tories north of the wall.

This is my local MP : http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/05/maria-miller-expenses-commons-statement

And she's still our local MP after that, no surprise sadly since the bourgeoisie are are career criminals by default.

She even once had the balls to visit my workplace (which is for disabled people I might add) - no one was happy to see her.

[Psychosplodge]

Mine was involved in some sort of visa scandal for his lover.
But its more annoying that he was vocally against tuition fees right up until they bothered voting on them. In fact pretty much anything he was against tony blairs government doing he voted for in the end. That two facedness bothers me far more than the former.

[grimmas]

I'm massively embarrassed that both he and IDS are actually fellow Scots.

I honestly didn't think we bred Tories north of the wall.

Well Blair's a Scot and let's face it a Tory 😜

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

At least the Scotts have awesome people like Sylvester McCoy though, the best doctor.

[grimmas]

A fine and much underrated Doctor. I always felt like he could really talk his enemies to destruction. Also it was definitely political that the BBC cancelled it 😊

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

A fine and much underrated Doctor. I always felt like he could really talk his enemies to destruction. Also it was definitely political that the BBC cancelled it 😊

Yes, Michael Grade is a conservative party life-peer in the house of lords too even. He probably hated "The happiness patrol" lol

[Morgrim]

I will freely admit that I'm never going to be able to see the British as being the 'good guys' during the Troubles, because I was over there in the later part of it (as a wee taker, admittedly). Despite living with the local Head of the Police in a bullet proof house in case the IRA took a shot at him (which they wouldn't; he went drinking with the local IRA leaders every Saturday. They had a firm 'agree to disagree' policy and the local IRA felt that the military were the only valid targets, not the civilians they were trying to 'rescue' from British rule), it was the British military I was more scared of.

Mostly because they'd do things like drive up to the local ice cream store in an armoured vehicle, set up firearms, and chase everyone else out at gunpoint so they could eat their ice cream 'in safety'.

Or take a teddy bear away from a little girl and claim it may have a bomb in it, and only give it back when her granddad offered to bribe them. In hindsight I can add willing to take a bribe to the list too. (Note, I can't remember if they took his bribe.)


As has been stated, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And the British frequently acted in a way that led to people sympathising with the IRA, which is absolutely the worst thing you can do when dealing with an insurgency.

[Psychosplodge]

See I've never encountered this sort of petty bribery irl, it's always been thought of as something continental. But no wonder our views would differ, theres no way to frame that in a positive light.


which they wouldn't; he went drinking with the local IRA leaders every Saturday. They had a firm 'agree to disagree' policy

That seems really weird considering you'd expect the intelligence services to be vetting someone of his rank?

[Morgrim]

In many places near the border things were WEIRD. At least according to the family I have over there. And there was a divide between the 'old guard' IRA and the 'new' IRA; it was mostly the hot headed youngsters in the 'new' IRA that were doing things like bombing shopping centers, and on multiple occasions it was the older IRA they then boasted to that dobbed them in. And a lot of IRA respected the local coppers, because they were just doing their jobs and cared about the community (the areas I'm talking about where most village than city) and were irish too. It was the english that were the enemy.

There were discussions at one point that once Northern Ireland was free, that they should invite Scotland and Wales to join them and leave England to go swing.

Interestingly, when I went back to visit about a decade ago my relatives all warned me to make sure I spent any banknotes before I went back to England, because a lot of english businesses apparently wouldn't accept the pound notes with Northern Irish designs on them and would claim they weren't proper British currency. Everywhere else in the Isles knew a pound was a pound was a pound.

[Kirsten]

yeah you get that with Isle of Man currency too :p

[grimmas]

When was this Morgrim?

Were you North or South of the boarder?

[Denzark]

Some utter tosh being spoken here. I have actually served in 'Norn Iron' early this century. So I will correct some misconceptions.

Firstly - someone mentioned 'The Military Police' being brutal to civilians. The Military Police is a contraction of the Royal Military Police. Who I am not aware of having any part in any proven or even alleged atrocities. Source it if you can. Did the OP mean RUC or PSNI, or some one else - maybe the B specials or Black and Tans? If you don't know what they are you are probably incapable of debating NI History.

Secondly - one man's terrorist being a freedom fighter. The UK is a democratic country. Its government has a mandate to make policy. One of those policies sets an official definition of a terrorist. PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, INLA, UVF and UDA all meet that definition. Another policy is a law proscribing various terrorist groups and making membership unlawful. Some or all of these groups will be currently proscribed. Any members are terrorists by both policy and law of a democratic country. Not freedom fighters. You will note these groups are from both side of the line - I consider all active members not part of the peace process and on cease fire, equally contemptible scum. I must confess to being highly impressed with the relationship Martin McGuinness managed to have with Ian Paisley in the last few years - now that took courage on both sides.

Next - Corbyn. If you google 'Corbyn and PIRA' you will find loads on his involvement and support. He voted against the Anglo Irish agreement - the start of the peace process. As to his leadership skills, I posit the theory that the top 3 schools of leadership in this country are Sandhurst, Cranwell, and Dartmouth. By the definitions of a leader taught at those establishments, Corbyn is a poor one.

Finally, a final thought. If the last Government budget was economically poor, their economic policy must be poor. So by that metric the government saying us remaining in the EU is economically sensible, can't be trusted. Similarly, if being in the EU keeps us safer from terrorism, explain Paris and now Belgium? Basically, we are being massively lied to about the EU.

[Path Walker]

Some utter tosh being spoken here.
Next - Corbyn. As to his leadership skills, I posit the theory that the top 3 schools of leadership in this country are Sandhurst, Cranwell, and Dartmouth. By the definitions of a leader taught at those establishments, Corbyn is a poor one.

Well, to that I'd say...


Some utter tosh being spoken here.


You can't a) call something a theory with no actual basis and b) judge someone one your irrelevant "theory" and find them wanting and then think you're making a salient point.


Finally, a final thought. If the last Government budget was economically poor, their economic policy must be poor. So by that metric the government saying us remaining in the EU is economically sensible, can't be trusted. Similarly, if being in the EU keeps us safer from terrorism, explain Paris and now Belgium? Basically, we are being massively lied to about the EU.

A government's budgets and all independent assessments by economists are two very separate things. As to Terrorism, you do remember 07/07/2005? Leaving the EU doesn't mean we float off into the sea where Terrorists can't find us but shared intelligence from the EU community has prevented attacks both here and on the continent, intelligence we may well lose access to without being part of the EU.

Your whole post has a very poor grasp of both politics and very basic cause and effect. Maybe don't post when your soldier brain gets furious because someone dared criticise the military?

[Denzark]

Pathwalker, you are a gift that keeps giving. Just because I didn't explain the workings behind my theory on leadership doesn't mean there aren't any - therefore you can't jump to the conclusion that it is irrelevant. Try harder.

As to Intelligence and Terrorism - do you possess a government security clearance? Do you actually know colour the UK uses for top secret files? This is pertinent because you need to understand how intelligence sharing works. And I don't think you do. Most intelligence sharing agreements are bilateral (I can explain this definition if you like) because there are massively varying levels of trust between governments.

Suffice to say there is little detail I can go into here, but it is a matter open source that the key intelligence sharing partnership for the UK is the well trusted 5-eyes community (AUS CAN UK US NZ) (in the Daily Telegraph) - and I am not aware of an 'EU wide' intelligence sharing agreement. Even Interpol will not get anywhere near everything. The key security relationship in Europe is NATO - and we wouldn't leave that if we left the EU.

Finally, my 'soldier brain' is actually an 'Airman's brain' - although I have served in and with both the Army and RAF. But yes, it does get riled when lackwits conflate and equate the military's conduct in NI with the IRA.

[grimmas]

Seeing as though it's come up again

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Note who comes top of this very sad set of statistics.

And because it's still being alludedto. Scotland joined the Union at their request they weren't conquered and they voted to stay part of it. Northern Ireland voted to remain part of the Union as well.

[Haighus]

According to the graph near the bottom of the page, the Republicans killed more Republicans than any other single group, and the Loyalists killed more Loyalists than any of the other individual groups. I don't understand what the hell was going on. Sadly civilians lost out in general though.

[Mr Mystery]

What's going on is that you've got organised crime masquerading as a political cause, with both sides adamant they represent 'the people', despite The People just wishing everyone could knock it off and leave each other in peace, and if the republicans are that bent on leaving the UK, perhaps they could just move to Eire and call it a day?

[Psychosplodge]

Interestingly, when I went back to visit about a decade ago my relatives all warned me to make sure I spent any banknotes before I went back to England, because a lot of english businesses apparently wouldn't accept the pound notes with Northern Irish designs on them and would claim they weren't proper British currency. Everywhere else in the Isles knew a pound was a pound was a pound.

That's more because you see so little of it you don't know what it looks like so can't tell if its real. It's the same with scottish issue notes. In the five years I worked retail I think I saw maybe one Northern Irish note, and a handful of scottish fivers. (Our shops policy was the manager had to ok it, its all an arse covering exercise).

[Path Walker]

Pathwalker, you are a gift that keeps giving. Just because I didn't explain the workings behind my theory on leadership doesn't mean there aren't any - therefore you can't jump to the conclusion that it is irrelevant. Try harder.

So, once more, you fail to explain your theory that the broad term of leadership is anything more than military leadership? Do you ever wonder why so few actual positions of power are held by military leaders?

You've batted back my assumption (based on the balance that what you were saying is illogical and therefore the burden of proof is on you to explain why your hypothesis is sound) with the assurance that you've worked it all out and its sensible and then not actually explained why. And you wonder why I think you're talking out of your arse?

Can you name one UK leader in the last 50 years that fits your definition of Leadership then?



As to Intelligence and Terrorism - do you possess a government security clearance? Do you actually know colour the UK uses for top secret files? This is pertinent because you need to understand how intelligence sharing works. And I don't think you do. Most intelligence sharing agreements are bilateral (I can explain this definition if you like) because there are massively varying levels of trust between governments.

I can't say, but yes, I know enough to tell you that what you've written above is a joke because it doesn't bear any resemblance to UK Intelligence. Colour Codes? Not in the UK.

Regardless of that, are you trying to say that understanding colour codes and knowing the (self-explanatory) word bilateral is essential to leadership?




Suffice to say there is little detail I can go into here, but it is a matter open source that the key intelligence sharing partnership for the UK is the well trusted 5-eyes community (AUS CAN UK US NZ) (in the Daily Telegraph) - and I am not aware of an 'EU wide' intelligence sharing agreement. Even Interpol will not get anywhere near everything. The key security relationship in Europe is NATO - and we wouldn't leave that if we left the EU.


Again, bull****, you have no idea what you're talking about and that you've quoted the Telegraph speaks volumes about where you're getting your information from. But the EU has three institutions to facilitate intelligence sharing between member States: the Berne Group, Europol and the European Union Military Staff, all of these would be lost were we to leave the EU. I notice, while we're on the EU, that you abandoned your poorly thought out reasons what the EU might be a poor economic choice, without acknowledging that you might have been pretty daft to have conflated two totally separate ideas.



Finally, my 'soldier brain' is actually an 'Airman's brain' - although I have served in and with both the Army and RAF. But yes, it does get riled when lackwits conflate and equate the military's conduct in NI with the IRA.

I think calling it a brain was giving you far too much credit now that you've made a reply. You're a fantasist, obsessed with the military because it made you feel important. You're not a rarity. You're trying to say that the British military was entirely innocent and good during the troubles which is just utter nonsense that no one with any sense would agree with.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Surely as a military man, you'd want to accept the avoidance of war at all costs? At least, that's my view of the whole affair. The Taliban have already started taking back land (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/world/asia/a-5th-district-in-helmand-province-falls-to-the-taliban.html?_r=0) piece-by-piece, all the lives, time and resources we spent on that war were ultimately meaningless.

At least Corbyn won't throw another 400-odd lives into a war that no-one in the public really understood the need for nor the ultimate goal of other than an vague plan of, "delivering peace."

Plus you say you served in Northern Ireland at the start of this millennium and that means you know everything about what happened, despite the Troubles coming to a close before then and the peace process was already well-underway. The worst decades were the ones before you even served there.

[grimmas]

According to the graph near the bottom of the page, the Republicans killed more Republicans than any other single group, and the Loyalists killed more Loyalists than any of the other individual groups. I don't understand what the hell was going on. Sadly civilians lost out in general though.

That's not a mistake. All these various groups fought each for control of their various communities (Protestant and Catholic). They behaved line criminal gangs in that respect (a very organised one in the case of PIRA). They also controlled their own ranks through murder (the INLA killed more of their own membership than anyone else). The groups also used murder, disappearances, punishment beatings and kneecappings to exert control of the communities they were supposed to represent. The reality is a far cry from the romantic vision of Guinness swilling freedom fighters portrayed by expats and their descendants.

There is also doubt over who's freedom was being fought for, NI already had a devolved government and the referendums in 73 and 98 both showed the population wished to remain as part of he UK. That's before I get to the tragic irony over glaring similarities between the Good Friday Agreement and the much earlier Sunningdale and Anglo- Irish agreements which were enacted by the British Government. The whole thing had more to do sectarian violence than anything else.

Sorry Haighus that isn't directed at you. I'm just continuing the line of thought.

- - - Updated - - -


What's going on is that you've got organised crime masquerading as a political cause, with both sides adamant they represent 'the people', despite The People just wishing everyone could knock it off and leave each other in peace, and if the republicans are that bent on leaving the UK, perhaps they could just move to Eire and call it a day?

I'm requoting this because it's right

[Psychosplodge]

Afghanistan more than Iraq we had treaty obligations to aid our allies with though didn't we? I mean the invasion of afghaniston was a direct response to the talibans failure to hand over bin laden? did the the US invoke Nato article 5( I think its that one "attack on one attack on all")?

But yeah you're never going to "win" a war there when you're essentially fighting a society still stuck in tribal superstition but armed with cold war era weaponary, and with less regard for who they kill.

[grimmas]

Afghanistan more than Iraq we had treaty obligations to aid our allies with though didn't we? I mean the invasion of afghaniston was a direct response to the talibans failure to hand over bin laden? did the the US invoke Nato article 5( I think its that one "attack on one attack on all")?

But yeah you're never going to "win" a war there when you're essentially fighting a society still stuck in tribal superstition but armed with cold war era weaponary, and with less regard for who they kill.

Yep having allies is bit of a two way street it gets you in all sorts of trouble. The Great War being a rather tragic example of it as well.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I understand that it was part of our allies treaty, though I don't know the exact mechanics that lead to it. It seems the British public are getting tired of being America's me-too, though, so that may change. The Great War is a great example of how idiotic allied treaties can become without proper diplomacy in place.

The primary problem with the Taliban was more that once we invaded, we kinda confirmed that the West are trying to control things, so it made it easier to radicalise those who were skeptical of their claims of the West invading everything for the heck of it. Add on the very rare accidental fire on civilians, the limited routes of new propagation in a rural setting, and it's easy to turn things against an invading party. If a civilian is shot in a village by an allied soldier who panicked, missed, or whatever else may have happened, it's effortless for the Taliban and those sympathetic to them to start framing it as the beginnings of true oppression and occupation.

Then you do the same thing the US did. "These people attacked us, don't you want to attack back and keep your country/family/religion/way of life safe from these evil creatures who only want to hurt you?!"

And then you have a crap-tonne of radicalised kids who are willing to throw their lives away onto the Taliban's own rendition of the 'altar of freedom. You have a dogmatic resistance who eventually learned how long a gunship could stay on station before it had to refuel, who learned the routes allies took and mined them, and where they could place mortars to attack positions. Some even registered as Afghan Army soldiers in order to attack in the barracks themselves, because distrust of the ANA from the allies would be gold for the Taliban.

Plus, we made the Taliban anyway. When the Soviets invaded, we didn't care how they treated their women or followers, we just gave them weapons so they could fight the Soviets in yet another proxy war.

Ultimately, the West are kinda d*cks.

[Morgrim]

When was this Morgrim?

Were you North or South of the boarder?

This was in the early 90s and both sides of the border (near Derry to be more precise). My extended family's view is that they were there before the border was and they're not moving, so some consider themselves 'proper' irish despite living in the north, and others that Britain are actually okay chaps despite living in the south, and if you take the right back roads you can cross from one country to the other without anyone wanting to see your passport anyway. Apparently my parents did that accidentally once when trying to detour around a roadblock and were very worried they were going to get in a lot of trouble for it.


Firstly - someone mentioned 'The Military Police' being brutal to civilians. The Military Police is a contraction of the Royal Military Police. Who I am not aware of having any part in any proven or even alleged atrocities. Source it if you can. Did the OP mean RUC or PSNI, or some one else - maybe the B specials or Black and Tans? If you don't know what they are you are probably incapable of debating NI History.

No idea which group they were. I was a kid at the time, I didn't care which group they were, I was just told to avoid them if at all possible and if one approached me I was to stand still with my arms out so they could pat me down. Which made the aussie border guards look at me and my parents oddly when we came back home, since I couldn't tell uniforms apart very well and started doing it to them too.

[Kirsten]

Plus you say you served in Northern Ireland at the start of this millennium and that means you know everything about what happened, despite the Troubles coming to a close before then and the peace process was already well-underway. The worst decades were the ones before you even served there.

you forget, he automatically knows absolutely everything there is to know ever about all military branches through all of time and is the de facto expert who can tell us we are wrong and must be accepted.

[Path Walker]

you forget, he automatically knows absolutely everything there is to know ever about all military branches through all of time and is the de facto expert who can tell us we are wrong and must be accepted.
His knowledge is truly awe-inspiring!

[grimmas]

Cheers Morgrim, that context helps.

[Denzark]

So, once more, you fail to explain your theory that the broad term of leadership is anything more than military leadership? Do you ever wonder why so few actual positions of power are held by military leaders?

The Commander in Chief of the US forces is the President. Not very powerful, is he?

You've batted back my assumption (based on the balance that what you were saying is illogical and therefore the burden of proof is on you to explain why your hypothesis is sound) with the assurance that you've worked it all out and its sensible and then not actually explained why. And you wonder why I think you're talking out of your arse?

I didn't want to go OT. But if you insist - leadership is about influencing people to act in a certain way to achieve a task. In the military, that task may mean the death of the follower - that's a big ask. I rate that as the highest sacrifice someone can make, so it is the hardest leadership act to get someone to make that sacrifice. Sandhurst, Cranwell and Dartmouth have been turning young men and women into leaders capable of doing that for hundreds of years between them, with good success rates. If you can think therefore of a leadership school other than these in the UK that does this better, or can state a harder leadership act, please do.

Can you name one UK leader in the last 50 years that fits your definition of Leadership then?

Many have some aspects, few have had as few as Corbyn. Churchill probably - he karked it in 65 though, will you give me 51 years?



I can't say, but yes, I know enough to tell you that what you've written above is a joke because it doesn't bear any resemblance to UK Intelligence. Colour Codes? Not in the UK.

I said the colour of the files numbbrain not the classifications. Do try and keep up.

Regardless of that, are you trying to say that understanding colour codes and knowing the (self-explanatory) word bilateral is essential to leadership?

No I'm saying it points to whether you have an understanding of how the UK does intelligence. You are being found lacking.


Again, bull****, you have no idea what you're talking about and that you've quoted the Telegraph speaks volumes about where you're getting your information from. But the EU has three institutions to facilitate intelligence sharing between member States: the Berne Group, Europol and the European Union Military Staff, all of these would be lost were we to leave the EU. I notice, while we're on the EU, that you abandoned your poorly thought out reasons what the EU might be a poor economic choice, without acknowledging that you might have been pretty daft to have conflated two totally separate ideas.

I have quoted the Telegraph as it is what is called Open Source. This is unclassified. One would hardly go into specifics from classified material at work. If you look through some recent Con Coughlin editorials it describes 5 eyes. The Club de Berne, Europol and the EU military staff pale into insignificance before 5 eyes. Are you trying to say the EU military staff - without the US - is more meaningful than NATO?


I think calling it a brain was giving you far too much credit now that you've made a reply. You're a fantasist, obsessed with the military because it made you feel important. You're not a rarity. You're trying to say that the British military was entirely innocent and good during the troubles which is just utter nonsense that no one with any sense would agree with.

Pathwalker, you will actually never know if I am a fantasist or not. I don't know why the military made me (past tense) feel important, I am in my 15th year of service and my feelings haven't changed. I don't know what being a rarity has got to to with it or by what metric you judge that - there is about 200K currently serving which out of 70m in the UK is quite rare - my branch is less than 1% of the total military. Finally, nowhere have I said the military was entirely innocent during the troubles, you are making that up.


Surely as a military man, you'd want to accept the avoidance of war at all costs? At least Corbyn won't throw another 400-odd lives into a war that no-one in the public really understood the need for nor the ultimate goal of other than an vague plan of, "delivering peace."

Yes, I entirely agree, it should be avoided - I wouldn't say at all costs though - that would imply we should allow a country to march in and take over without fighting - just to avoid it at all costs. There are always reasons why one should wage war - it should be a last resort for sure. As to Corbyn, painting yourself into a corner by saying something like 'I would never use Trident' is just limiting the options open to your diplomats. If he says he will be non-interventionist, he automatically means he can never meaningfully criticise someone like Assad - because they will know his words won't be backed by actions.

Plus you say you served in Northern Ireland at the start of this millennium and that means you know everything about what happened, despite the Troubles coming to a close before then and the peace process was already well-underway. The worst decades were the ones before you even served there.

I entirely agree the worst bits of NI were thankfully behind me. To say nothing was going on when I was there - 02-04 - would be entirely wrong. Suffice to say, if you watched ITV news on the mainland, you would see very little reporting. If you watched UTV, there were constant beatings, shootings, bombings, marching season. My friends were shocked what was stil going on as I was shocked how little the mainland was exposed to. The UK military operation, Op BANNER, finished in 2007. The last military were killed in 2009, the last police and prison officers this year. If you think it normal that I had to wear a gun just to go to a police station in Belfast, so be it. Part of your training on arrival covers the history - in depth and with reporting not available to civilians.


you forget, he automatically knows absolutely everything there is to know ever about all military branches through all of time and is the de facto expert who can tell us we are wrong and must be accepted.

Kirsten sarcasm doesn't suit you. There is every probability that your life history means you know more about transgender issues than me, the same is true regarding my background and comparative levels of knowledge regarding the military.

[Denzark]

@Pathwalker

Further to my last, just found this article from today, by a former Director MI6:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/brexit-would-not-damage-uk-security


He describes the Club de Berne as 'of little consequence' and Europol as 'generally speaking little more than a forum for the exchanging of views and analysis'. I remind you these are the things you name-checked as showing off your pedigree of understanding of UK intelligence.

He then states:

Would Brexit damage our defence and intelligence relationship with the United States, which outweighs anything European by many factors of 10? I conclude confidently that no, it would not. The replacement of Trident, the access to overhead satellite monitoring capabilities, the defence exchanges that are hidden from public view, the UK-US co-operation over signals intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency/Secret Intelligence Service/Federal Bureau of Investigation/MI5 liaison and much more would continue as before.

Sort of pertinent, no?

[grimmas]

17811

Although in BBC style I will point out there are other political parties to abuse and they are all deserving of it.

[Kirsten]

The UKIP backed Bexit campaign hired migrant workers to staff their call centre for rallying support...

[CoffeeGrunt]

The UKIP backed Bexit campaign hired migrant workers to staff their call centre for rallying support...

Led by Farage, who has a German wife, and several other hilarious hypocrisies. :P

[Kirsten]

you would think really that if there is one mistake you don't want to make as a campaign protesting EU migrants taking British jobs...

especially when UKIP have made that mistake several times in the past...

[Psychosplodge]

It would be illegal for them to discriminate though wouldn't it? or do you mean they've outsourced it offshore?

[Kirsten]

they hired cheap immigrant staff for the call centre. they have previously done an ad campaign about British homeless people, using a southern Irish actor whom UKIP claimed was a real English homeless person...

[Mr Mystery]

Was it those doofuses that used a Polish Spitfire, or the likes of the EDL/Britain First?

[Kirsten]

nope, it was one of the two groups looking to become the official Brexit campaign, the one UKIP heads up. one is Leave Europe, the other is Vote No or some such, I can't remember. whichever one UKIP run are the guilty party anyway

[Mr Mystery]

One run by UKIP. One with Michael Gove heading it up.....

I'm confident it'll be an In on that alone, especially as Out so far only has racism and numbers out of context on their side. No coherent plan for what we'll do out of it etc.

To reiterate a sentiment adopted from a friend -Far better to be at the table complaining about the food, than rifling through the bins for scraps.

[Kirsten]

Farage or Gove, take your choice :p

[Mr Mystery]

Shotgun for Farage, salt shaker for Gove, on account I'm pretty sure he'd shrivel like a slug.

[Kirsten]

probably true

[Psychosplodge]

Was it those doofuses that used a Polish Spitfire, or the likes of the EDL/Britain First?

It was older than that I think it was the BNP in either a general or european election.

- - - Updated - - -


Farage or Gove, take your choice :p

As opposed to all those alternative trustworthy politicians :rolleyes:

[grimmas]

As opposed to all those alternative trustworthy politicians :rolleyes:

That's the trouble isn't it though both sides are lying through their teeth and it is just degenerating into calling people traitors or racists depending on what side of the fence they sit rather than actually offer reasonable argument.

[Denzark]

Today, Gus O'Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, has weighed in claiming that the UK would potentially take up to 10 years to renegotiate everything. Whereas, EU rules state a country must leave within 2 years. Thus, it is impossible for us to leave! Ever!

Wow a system that won't actuallly let you leave. It sounds like Paradise Towers. And just adds to a mounting list of reasons why we should get out.

Actually I think there is a significant proportion of people for whom the argument is not based on security or economics. And those people would perhaps compromise on security or economics to achieve their aim.

The left of the spectrum is those who think leaving is introspective, a backwards step, little Britain - we should be part of the EU community as a forward looking nation. The right of the spectrum is those who think sovereignty should be key - masters of our own destiny, free to re-define our relationships, not have laws that disadvantage us.

I think the 'In' would happily compromise on security and the 'Out' would happily compromise on economics.

[Mr Mystery]

That's kind of a misrepresentation.

We can nick off in two years, no problem. But the Out campaign have to start being honest that they have absolutely no credible alternative, at all to being In - which is the same issue the SNP had with the Referendum.

As for me - sovereignty is massively overrated. Inevitably, we will be one world, one day. It's time to start growing up as a species, and the whole 'YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, YOU'RE FROM NEXT DOOR' is just so utterly tedious and immature. We've made it through the Cold War - things can only get better in the long run.

I mean, look at current threats. It's not entire countries - even Putin is just a very tactical sabre rattler who uses the spectre of the old USSR to gain political favour from his electorate. No country is ever going to launch a nuke at the other, because the only one's mad enough to do so (so that's basically North Korea, and North Korea only) would never survive the reprisals - either other countries responding in kind, or a more traditional 'we're coming to smash your face in, you podgy little psycho' warfare.

The days of World Wars are thankfully behind us.

Does it really matter to the spod in the street (such as ourselves) who exactly is telling us what's legal and illegal? I say not. We get our say once every 5 years, and then the duly elected promptly set about doing pretty much whatever they want and to hell with their manifesto, safe in the knowledge that whilst the electorate absolutely have the right to force a new election, getting to that point is like herding Cats With No Sense Of Direction.

If it was really such a concern, there'd be massive outcry from the Right Wing about the terrifying level of influence Rupert Murdoch has on our government, and through that, our laws. But there isn't. It's just more jingoistic nonsense from the constantly terrified, but never quite sure why, middle Britain.

I mean, look at the immigration 'issue'. It's been proven time and again that European migrants to the UK are significantly less likely to use the NHS, use our benefits system (and by extension, abuse it) or generally be unemployed. Take the 'Polish Invasion'. What a lot of fuss over nothing. Many came, made their fortune, then went back to Poland to a more comfortable, settled life. Perhaps it's Middle Britain Jealousy that our kids don't have that sort of option?

To me, the Out Campaign is the last bastion of those who haven't noticed that our days as Imperial Lord And Master are long, long over and are never coming back. Doesn't matter how often you rewatch Last Night Of The Proms, Britannia doesn't rule anything. Not the waves. Not the world. Nothing. Leaving Europe isn't going to change that one iota, and poses significant risks for utterly undefined, entirely hypothetical benefits that the Out campaign don't like to dwell on for too long.

[Kirsten]

As for me - sovereignty is massively overrated. Inevitably, we will be one world, one day. It's time to start growing up as a species, and the whole 'YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, YOU'RE FROM NEXT DOOR' is just so utterly tedious and immature. We've made it through the Cold War - things can only get better in the long run.

this

[grimmas]

Hmm be consistent folks this isn't what some of you were saying during the Scottish referendum.

[Psychosplodge]

By that logic mystery we might as well just do away with elections, and democracy completely.

- - - Updated - - -

When it came to scottish independence I didn't understand the logic of leaving the UK while remaining in the EU. That would make a smaller country like Scotland less independent than it is now.

[Mr Mystery]

Not the same thing Splodge.

The world is getting much smaller. We can travel damned fast, and do international business pretty much instantaneously thanks to the internet - so borders are looking ever more artificial.

People complain about Economic Migrants - but I don't see why. What's everyone got about someone looking to stable, wealthy countries to try to make their own way in the world? Oh but dey ook ur jurb!....as the old adage says, if someone who can't speak your language, and has no recognised qualifications can get a job over you....it's not migration that's the problem.

We have a level of education, despite it's failing, which is the envy of much of the world. It's free, it's comprehensive, it's globally respected. It's not migration that's causing kids to come out of school unable to read or write now, is it? I'd say it's not even society's fault (but it remains society's problem to solve, on account no kid should ever feel punished for having bad parents. It's categorically not the kid's fault).

The whole thing of 'coming over here, taking our benefits' is a myth, and one as often busted as it is trotted out.

A single global government does seem increasingly inevitable. There used to be a fear Oil would run out, and we'd all go completely Mad Max - except alternative forms of energy are capable of replacing that source entirely. No, they're not currently as efficient as fossil fuels and Nuclear, but when Fossil Fuels are no more, that will hardly matter. All that will matter is that we can still continue as is.

And renewable energy, for the most part, removes the rush for resources. Every country has some form of natural energy in abundance. Britain has it's coastline, equatorial countries have solar. There's little reason any country couldn't become self sufficient, barring the cost. But as above, when push come to shove, it is a cost we will gladly swallow on account there'll be no alternative.

Suddenly, the dependence on foreign sourced fossil fuels changes the world map. The Middle East loses a lot of income. Russia loses it's threat of 'we'll turn off your Gas' etc.

And we will need a single, unified government, and that will inevitably be democratically elected. Quite how it might look, I don't know - but to say it would do away with democracy is patently nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -


Hmm be consistent folks this isn't what some of you were saying during the Scottish referendum.

Despite being a Scot, I offered no comment on the referendum as I live in Kent, thus it would have been of little impact on me, if any at all.

But do note that many of the Out campaign are using the same arguments the SNP used, despite having opposed Scottish Independence.

[grimmas]

They certainly are Mystery something which I have mentioned before as being a down right double standard.

[Kirsten]

Despite being a Scot, I offered no comment on the referendum as I live in Kent, thus it would have been of little impact on me, if any at all.

and I offered no opinion because I am not in the UK, so I am not sure who is being referred to really

[Mr Mystery]

Actually, I did have an opinion, but it was on the campaigns and behaviour, rather than taking a side.

For instance, refusing Devo Max as an option, then wheeling it out for the In campaign - very underhanded, and typical Westminster.

[Psychosplodge]

How is it? Scotland has more of a say as part of the UK then it would ever have on its own in the EU. Just because the population chose to opt out of the political process last time round by supporting a party that could never form a government, doesn't mean they couldn't have had major influence had they chosen someone more mainstream for parliament.


When it comes to immigration the problem I have is more the lack of sustainability. The housing market is like it is because there are too many people and not enough houses. net migration is estimated at what 300k+? a year, and we're building less than 100k houses a year? And that's not even considering associated required infrastructure it's simply not sustainable on this scale regardless of where an individuals point of origin is.

A single would government won't happen in my lifetime. Half the world are still religious nutjobs - including in the so called "developed" world. Democracy where the values you hold dear such as freedom of speech(however limited ours is its still essentially free), the right to marry who you want, "live in sin" etc wouldn't retain those values for very long.

We're living the cyberpunk dystopia mystery not the startrek utopia :D

[Mr Mystery]

It remains an inevitability, and a Federal Europe is going to be the first step on that ladder. Already you've got 28 countries largely co-operating with each other within the European Union. That's nothing to be sniffed at, and should instead be applauded.

House Building - it's not immigration that's the problem there, either. We've not been building enough homes for decades now - and those with the power to change that won't, because they've got their pudgy little fingers in that pie. Look at how much the Daily Fail focusses on house prices, and how often they promote buy-to-let.

Our generation never got a look in. We're the victims of the double whammy - artificially repressed wage levels and spiralling house prices. And for those who went to Uni, also a bagful of debt just to get to the level or earnings where you might, possibly, in 10 years time, if you don't go out or do anything even vaguely enjoyable, be able to buy your first starter home, which as we all know might as well have been built out of balsa wood, because it's all about profit.

Now is not the time to back away from lofty ideals, but to pursue them.

And I dispute we're living in a cyberpunk dystopia - we've even managed to screw that up. We've somehow managed to create a dystopic dystopia, and it's all because on inward ' I'm alright, Jack, but don't you dare try to improve your own lot' thinking.

EDIT - your figures are also misleading, as it assumes one house per migrant, rather than any form of house share, what percentage of migration is established families etc, who would only need a single house each and so on.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but as we all know the figures are also an estimate as the government has no idea and won't til 2021 when the next census is due?
Regardless, that number isn't sustainable.

Brown was the one encouraging buy to let wasn't he? Made his economic figures look good. It's interesting that both sides bang on about it, and both the BBC and channel 4 do their bit with all their programs encouraging people to buy to let as well. *******s.

Don't forget that a lot these flats they make now don't meet the minimum standards for social housing - as in housing associations refuse to consider them as the floorspace is too small, and often the insulation is poor and the snagging is not done correctly.

[CoffeeGrunt]

There are 615,000 vacant dwellings in the UK, (Table 615 here (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants).) Assuming a family of three per-home, on average. Actually, a couple, we'll be conservative. That's 1.2 Million people housed, inefficiently, without building any more homes at all.

And again, what does Britain have going for it that would make it such an entity on the world stage if it went solo? Scotland, had it went Out, would be struggling really hard right now, as Aberdeen is crumbling due to the oil price crash. Will London really pay the way for the whole country once we go independent?

[Psychosplodge]

And how many of them are someones second or third home? Unless we take them off them that's not going to affect the supply and demand is it?

IDK CG, but we'll be able to make our own decisions about whats good for us and what isn't. To mystery sovereignty doesn't matter. To me it matters above all else, it should be our parliament that we elect that makes our laws, no one else. Everyone is approaching from a different viewpoint and that's why we're having a referendum isn't it?

[grimmas]

I was referring to Sovereignty mattering when it comes to Scotland but that seems to be a no no when it comes to the UK. Some of you said it and you know it 😝

The thing with the immigration figures is that they often take into account the very successful groups that have come from non European areas, most notably Indians and Sheikhs who gained entry on merit and have added to the country and totally ignore that very serious criminals have been allowed into the country to commit very serious crimes due to EU membership. Quite frankly we've got enough of our own criminals without importing more. Also to use the example of the Pollish invasion you mention, we don't want people turning up using the system and then buggering off after sending all the money back to Polland, we want them spending that money in the UK as that'll be good for us.

Immigration is a very powerful economic tool but it does need to be controlled.

[CoffeeGrunt]

IDK CG, but we'll be able to make our own decisions about whats good for us and what isn't. To mystery sovereignty doesn't matter. To me it matters above all else, it should be our parliament that we elect that makes our laws, no one else. Everyone is approaching from a different viewpoint and that's why we're having a referendum isn't it?

How often does what the EU decides upon negatively affect us, though? The Sun has had a campaign against 'Elth an' Safety for decades, but HSE has been one of the best things to happen to industry, and is an international thing now, anyway. What about environmental laws? Most of those are still governed by a UK entity anyway.

[Psychosplodge]

That's the thing IDK because no one tells the truth, but I know theoretically they can impose laws or block ours and thats wrong(the VAT thing being the most recent example).

I think our health and safety laws are generally adopted by them not the other way round tbh, same with British Standards - at least thats what we were told about them at uni.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 came in shortly after we joined the EU, and is basically our localised version of EU HSE legislation. Most legislation came in after that, though we do have a history of factory-oriented HSE starting with the limiting of child labour in the Victorian era and continuing to the Factories Act in the 60s.

[Psychosplodge]

That may be true, but I doubt we stopped adding to it in 1974 though?

[CoffeeGrunt]

That may be true, but I doubt we stopped adding to it in 1974 though?

Oh no, it's just a foundation for future legislation. Our legislation from there starts to differ a fair bit, but the root stems from HASAWA '74.

[grimmas]

The EU didn't exist in 1974 that was the EEC. It's part of the issue though we the British people never got to vote on Maastricht which the thing that created the EU.

The H&S legislation is very good stuff though especially when used correctly and not abused to hide behind. The same goes for th ECHR, though not really aimed at us it is excellent legislation which like the H&S unfortunately gets blamed for things it really shouldn't. They were both a long time ago how though and the EU hasn't been helpful of late. And there's nothing to say we won't have similar legislation after any split

As Splodge says we don't know what's going on or will go on. Just quite frankly a lot of opinion and a bit of name calling. Its very difficult to make an informed decision. At the moment I'm just going to go with the side that annoys me least on the run up to the vote and that's no way to be making such a large choice.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I agree that it's irritating that there's no information being presented without bias or agenda on the matter, and that for something seemingly so simple to collate, no-one knows the money-in and money-out on our deal with the EU.

I know that, personally, my job will get a whole lot harder if we leave the EU, so personally I can see more benefits staying than leaving.

Plus HSE isn't abused as much as people believe. For example, the famous, "kids must wear goggles when playing conkers," controversy was entirely fabricated by The Sun, as was the subsequent 'wave' of conker bans...

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And the 'dafter' Elven Safety stuff stems not from 'barmy Brussels bureaucrats' but good old fashioned greedy sods on the make who see a personal injury claim in everything.

Most example of 'crazy' health and safety turn out to be total lies, and those that aren't are universally wildly misrepresented.

[Denzark]

@MM - I am not sure about how fair - maybe fair is the wrong word - but how reasonable it is to say 'Out has no plan for afterwards'. Firstly, 'out' is not a cohesive political group in the way that 'in' is actually the position of HMG.

Ministers for 'out' cannot use their departments to campaign for - or even INFORM the campaign for, out. They have to ask FOI requests to get relevant departmental information. HMG does not have this problem. No one with a bean of sense in their heads thought Cameron would finish his re-negotiations saying 'that's not enough I'm campaigning for out'. The negotiations were not even negotiations - they were Cameron stage managing with countries what the bare minimum was he could get away with and still campaign for out. To the best of my knowledge that has not even been ratified by the European parliament - and might not be - so the position of 'staying within a modified EU' is currently built on sand.

The out 'plan' does have a few tenets you can pick up. Chase preferential trade deals with emerging and current world markets, that we are currently hampered from doing by the EU. China, India, Brazil US etc. Stop allowing unrestricted migration. Stop the sort of thing that meant Abu Hamza couldn't be deported until years and half a mill of legal aid had been squandered. Don't be party to the French and Germans being massively jealous of the role of London as a financial hub, with them consequently trying to place restrictions on city trading. In short, take ourselves out of a system where policy is dictated by MPs who will never appear on any polling card in the UK.

Its not like Health and Safety and Human Rights legislation will disappear, and we will instantly get 13 year olds shoved up chimneys and people will be black bagged like a scene in V for Vendetta if they complain.

[grimmas]

Yup.

And the 'dafter' Elven Safety stuff stems not from 'barmy Brussels bureaucrats' but good old fashioned greedy sods on the make who see a personal injury claim in everything.

Most example of 'crazy' health and safety turn out to be total lies, and those that aren't are universally wildly misrepresented.

I've always found that it tends to be using H&S as an excuse to not to do something rather than the real reason.

Or just made up like its the reason coffee shops makes luke warm coffee.

Denzark what's wrong with sticking 13yr olds up chimneys? Best place for the little sods.

[Mr Mystery]

That's the thing....there is no coherent plan at all.

They have no idea what we'll actually manage to get agreements wise. And that's reason enough to stay in.

Europe may be flawed, but it has collective bargaining power. Britain on it's own? I'm far from convinced we have anything like the leverage to get a decent deal from the big players

And you watch the Right Wing demand protection for workers be stripped back, and stripped back. After all, we're all in this together. For workers, all in the poop together. For 'wealth creators', all in the trough together. Just depends which 'We' you're part of.

There is simply no logical reason for us to leave Europe, because we stand to lose far, far more than we might gain. Oh we got back sovereignty? Shame about the poopy end of the stick that came from world trade.

If we stay in, we can join in with the current feeling it needs reforms. And we get to watch Farage, Das Daily Fail and The Sun implode with impotent rage at the will of the people.

As I keep saying - would you rather be at the table complaining about the food, or rifling through the bins for scraps? That's what the choice boils down to.

[Psychosplodge]

There will never be reforms mystery, the political elite don't want them, europe works for them, they're just another "we" with their snouts in the trough.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I've always found that it tends to be using H&S as an excuse to not to do something rather than the real reason.

Or just made up like its the reason coffee shops makes luke warm coffee.

Actually, the one about hot coffee was a smear campaign (https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts). Or at best, a misrepresented story pushed hard by the media.


The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.


On a 79 year-old lady. Who rightly sued for damages because it's America and they don't pay it for you, the money she received is misrepresented, too.

Again, it's surprisingly rare that Health and Safety is used frivolously. For the offshore industry, that sh*t is gospel. It is standard procedure the world-over to kick someone off a rig immediately the moment they make a HSE violation, because in that environment an accident can be catastrophic.

The big thing about modern HSE is that it doesn't sit with its thumb up its jacksy waiting for a crisis to happen, then works on stopping it happening again. It's all about seeing the risk before it kills or permanently injures people.

[Mr Mystery]

There will never be reforms mystery, the political elite don't want them, europe works for them, they're just another "we" with their snouts in the trough.

So absolutely no different than if we had the much vaunted sovereignty then? Because none of the political parties in the UK have much interest in the little man (Corbyn does, but he's hampered by Blairites who won't admit they're Thatcherites)......

This is what's getting my goat. The Out Campaign keep trying to present leaving Europe as some kind of panacea, but can't even be coherent on what we'll do. Boris and co keep changing their future predictions, especially once it's pointed out certain solutions simply take away our influence within Europe whilst still being tied to it.

If that was a business plan, no bank or private individual would back it.

[Kirsten]

yup, we work with a lot of dangerous machinery, and even just doing work that can cause long term injury, like wheeling bins full to the brim with paper. Health and Safety is important, at the very least for a company to be able to say they told staff how to do it properly.

[grimmas]

I think we're in agreement on this one Coffee

[Psychosplodge]

So absolutely no different than if we had the much vaunted sovereignty then? Because none of the political parties in the UK have much interest in the little man (Corbyn does, but he's hampered by Blairites who won't admit they're Thatcherites).......


So scrap democracy.

*shrugs*

[CoffeeGrunt]

Haha, no worries. Again, working in the offshore industry, it's gospel, and it get hammered into you even when you're just onshore staff. There's audits and arguably a bit too much paperwork, but we've - so far - never had a serious on-site accident, and that's nice.

A previous factory job I had vaguely pretended to give a damn about HSE. I worked on the testing section for 10KV Capacitors, and a couple of safety systems failed while a colleague was handling a 3KV one that hadn't been automatically discharged properly.

Thank God he hadn't touched it directly, it was like a damn lightning strike. Everyone got the crap scared out of them, and it's stuck with me since because of how the whole incident was just glossed over and nothing was learned from it.

Place got shut down a couple of months later.

[Denzark]

MM the choice isn't 'stay at table and complain or rifle through the bins' - in that analogy its 'stay at the expensive ---- (insert European food type here) restaurant, with arrogant waiters who dislike you, complaining about the food with absolutely no results, or pop round the corner to eat Indian/Mexican/American where the service and cost is better'.

[Mr Mystery]

Scrap Das Daily Mail, The Scum and prevent Rupert Murdoch from having any influence, and reclaim our democracy.

As for the apparently hated Human Rights Act....at what point should be scrap a system just because like all systems, it's open to abuse? Never mind it enshrines a lot of protections for people. Never mind it's most commonly used for good reasons. Oh no. Captain Hook took the Michael (can't swear, work filter will eat my post!) SO SCRAP THE WHOLE THING! We certainly can't accept that some abuse is inevitable, but the good massively outweighs the bad, can we? (this in general, not a dig at a fellow poster)

- - - Updated - - -


MM the choice isn't 'stay at table and complain or rifle through the bins' - in that analogy its 'stay at the expensive ---- (insert European food type here) restaurant, with arrogant waiters who dislike you, complaining about the food with absolutely no results, or pop round the corner to eat Indian/Mexican/American where the service and cost is better'.

If they're open and willing to serve you, and all their seats haven't been block booked for the next hundred years by customers of the same restaurant whose bins are starting to look mighty appealing....

And does Europe hate us? Or is that just paranoid nonsense peddled by the press? Are the waiters arrogant, or is the person demanding Chips with ENGLISH GRAVY and that no other options should be on the menu because just who won the war anyway SPIRIT OF 66 we used to have an Empire you know cheeseeatingsurrendermonkeysausageeatingkrauts ENGERLUND ENGERLUND ENGERLUND (increased for dramatic affect, not a reflection of opinions expressed in this thread)

[Psychosplodge]

I think the problem with something like the human rights act is the judges that interpret it in a manner beyond what the common person would see as reasonable, and the lawyers that milk the system for their own ends. How much involvement the EU has in that one I'm not sure.

[Mr Mystery]

Still no reason at all to scrap it or withdraw from it, unless we're going to set up our own one, in which case what's the point in withdrawing in the first place?

[CoffeeGrunt]

The HRA is another one the Sun blames everything on. I wonder how much of that is actually true, given their campaign against Corbyn, Health and Safety, and everything else. The HRA, fundamentally, is an important legislation to have, or at least mimic. I'd hope for an analogue, but the problem is that what 'the people' believe is right isn't really what is right.

The people also can't agree on which sob story deserves the most votes on X Factor, nevermind how prisoners should be treated based on their crimes, and how to handle captured suspected terrorists.

[Psychosplodge]

Haha, no worries. Again, working in the offshore industry, it's gospel, and it get hammered into you even when you're just onshore staff. There's audits and arguably a bit too much paperwork, but we've - so far - never had a serious on-site accident, and that's nice.

A previous factory job I had vaguely pretended to give a damn about HSE. I worked on the testing section for 10KV Capacitors, and a couple of safety systems failed while a colleague was handling a 3KV one that hadn't been automatically discharged properly.

Thank God he hadn't touched it directly, it was like a damn lightning strike. Everyone got the crap scared out of them, and it's stuck with me since because of how the whole incident was just glossed over and nothing was learned from it.

Place got shut down a couple of months later.

I was once being rushed to dispatch a 40KVA unit at my first "proper" job and forgot to turn the three phase off before I disconnected. Thank **** for insulated screwdrivers. The sound of a bank of 100amp fuses blowing and the circuit breaker tripping could be heard over the everything else in the workshop :eek:



Post edit.

I dont think the HRA is EU legislation, although you have to have signed it to join the EU correct? The problems with that are not the act itself, its with our judiciaries interpretation of it. It's certainly not a factor in my negativity towards the EU.

[Kirsten]

the Tories wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it, saying it wasn't fit for purpose. there are areas where that is true, and I would support such a move. except that they never actually came up with an alternative. their plans actually just stopped at the scrapping part.

[Mr Mystery]

I once accidentally shortwired a laptop battery.

There was purple and yellow smoke, and I felt quite odd.

[Denzark]

I think the average man in the western European countries don't give a hoot. Except for the ones in Spain who want Gib back. I think the Eastern European ones like our infrastructure and don't give a rats about our community. I think who doesn't like us is the political euro elite, jealous we kept our own currency, jealous of the City and disliking the lack of balls of our Europhile politicians who daren't push us towards further federalism.

But its them who makes the EU and the bits that affect us tick. Our political touchpoints, that interact with Europe, aren't the costa del sol little Englanders you describe.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I was once being rushed to dispatch a 40KVA unit at my first "proper" job and forgot to turn the three phase off before I disconnected. Thank **** for insulated screwdrivers. The sound of a bank of 100amp fuses blowing and the circuit breaker tripping could be heard over the everything else in the workshop :eek:

Always use 1KV Insulated Drivers, nothing less. That sounds pretty terrifying, though. I don't even want to think about something like that discharging into a person.

When I was training to be a 'Leccy, there was a guy who was doing an apprenticeship while working a job in his father's company. He told us how they went to this one house, and did everything properly. Breakers were opened, and locked out with keys. Tested a nearby light, and it was dead. Went to the other room to find the offending light, started unscrewing the terminal and zap! Turned out whatever cowboy wired it the first time round had it running on the neighbour's power supply.

Always use Insulated Drivers. :P

[Mr Mystery]

Any evidence of that? Particularly legislation specifically designed to only hamstring Britain?

The proposed banking legislation was intended to prevent the reckless, downright moronic behaviours that 1) cause the global banking crisis (no, it wasn't Labour, Mr Cameron) and 2) ultimately ensured my ongoing employment.

If anyone is jealous of The City, it's the rest of the UK who have been repeatedly hung out to dry whilst Westminster and politicians of all stripes fall over themselves to change laws etc to increase profits in The City. Take UKIP. At least some of the members, most notably Godfrey Bloom, want to see my employer scrapped, which would leave the average consumer straight out of luck for sorting out any issues they might have short of going to court, and how many can afford that, especially now Legal Aid has been crippled?

[Psychosplodge]

Always use Insulated Drivers. :P


Yep. much yep.

[Kirsten]

'oh no, we can't have banking legislation, the top bankers will go elsewhere to earn their money without things like taxes on bonuses or penalties for failure'

good, we want rid of them anyway. we don't want to keep the people who have already caused one crash. they can't just up sticks and go anyway, there are very few places as good as London for banking. they haven't changed at all since the crash, it is still scandal after scandal.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

This time they're dealing with the FCA, rather than the FSA (and if I ever get a job with the FCA, I will be changing my name, by deedpoll, to Brunt. Because Nerds). FCA are pretty far from perfect, and already in some hot water, but they've shown better teeth than the FSA ever did.

Look up the record fine levied on Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank to see how far the banking sector still has to go....

[Denzark]

Any evidence of that? Particularly legislation specifically designed to only hamstring Britain?


Matey its my limited understanding from the press/media I listen to - which is Telegraph and BBC R4 mostly. I can't remember specifics, only some chinless wonder politician (possibly Osborne) saying he was going to try prevent some EU 'stuff'. It may have even been mentioned during the fake re-negotiation.

That said, the wider London economic area contributes 30% of GDP (according to Wikipedia) so I fail to see why anyone should whinge.

'Bash dem bankers dey gamble wiv our money' is the equivalent of your 'Engerlund' comments after all.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Can you link to the Wiki page? Preferably the citation they use to get that figure. It sounds about accurate, but it's worth checking.

Listening to the press and media isn't a great way to get the truth, either.

[Mr Mystery]

Not when proven reckless lending leads to them being bailed out of the public purse, and the next government sells the off shares bought to those thoroughly bloody nice blokes he went to Eton with it's not.

The bail out had to happen. For better or worse, that's how our economy was built. But no prosecutions, the banks continuing like nothing at all happened and still awarding massive bonuses isn't right at all. There's no reform there, at all. No guilt.

And there's dodgier and dodgier products coming on the market - due to work I'm relatively up on them (even if more than a few leave me cross eyed in bafflement) and the banks are pushing them.

Consider it like this....

Some poor soul becomes addicted to alcohol, and pickles their liver. But this poor soul is a highly important ambassador, whose works have helped the country immeasurably. So the NHS picks up the tab for the liver replacement.

So far, so fair enough.

But then they hit the bottle again with no effort made to beat that daemon, safe in the knowledge there's a never ending supply of new kidneys, even if it means others have to go without, so long as they're ok.

[grimmas]

It's the ECHR rather than HRA it's very much European legislation and it's bloody good. The only issues occur when the law isn't compatable with it and that's the law makers fault because they know any laws they write need to be.

God save the Queen.

The EU hasn't sorted Spain out for putting illegal restrictions on the movement of people to and from Gibraltar.

- - - Updated - - -


Not when proven reckless lending leads to them being bailed out of the public purse, and the next government sells the off shares bought to those thoroughly bloody nice blokes he went to Eton with it's not.

The bail out had to happen. For better or worse, that's how our economy was built. But no prosecutions, the banks continuing like nothing at all happened and still awarding massive bonuses isn't right at all. There's no reform there, at all. No guilt.

And there's dodgier and dodgier products coming on the market - due to work I'm relatively up on them (even if more than a few leave me cross eyed in bafflement) and the banks are pushing them.

Consider it like this....

Some poor soul becomes addicted to alcohol, and pickles their liver. But this poor soul is a highly important ambassador, whose works have helped the country immeasurably. So the NHS picks up the tab for the liver replacement.

So far, so fair enough.

But then they hit the bottle again with no effort made to beat that daemon, safe in the knowledge there's a never ending supply of new kidneys, even if it means others have to go without, so long as they're ok.

To be fair Msytery the same could be said about Greece they have been bankrupt a few time now and dot seem to want to anything about it.

[Denzark]

CG its here - can I caveat I don't rate wiki as academically sound - its a rough and dirty figure...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Economy

[CoffeeGrunt]

CG its here - can I caveat I don't rate wiki as academically sound - its a rough and dirty figure...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Economy

Sadly it actually says 20%, not 30%, and the PDF link goes to a dead link, so it's tough to check if it's legit. :/

[grimmas]

Sadly it actually says 20%, not 30%, and the PDF link goes to a dead link, so it's tough to check if it's legit. :/

It does say 30% for the London Metropolitan area which is what Denzark was referring to I believe. The 20% is just for the City of London (the sq mile in the middle)

Edit: Sorry the 20% is Greater London. I think it doesn't make it clear bloody Wikipedia.

[Denzark]

It does say 30% for the London Metropolitan area which is what Denzark was referring to I believe. The 20% is just for the City of London (the sq mile in the middle)

yes.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Ah, d'oh. The figures in that PDF appear to be from '99, so it's possible it might actually generate more now.

[Kirsten]

it could be worse, at least we aren't in the US

"A committee supporting Mr Cruz published a nude photo of Mr Trump's wife Melania from 2000. In retaliation, Mr Trump tweeted an unflattering picture of Mr Cruz's wife Heidi.
Asked by CNN about the dispute, Mr Trump said: "He started it."
CNN presenter Anderson Cooper said: "But, sir, with all due respect, that's the argument of a five-year-old."
"No, it's not," said Mr Trump."

[CoffeeGrunt]

Is that true?

[Psychosplodge]

Apart from the extreme right football hooligans and the apparently left wing fascist anti fascists I can't see anyone coming to blows over our issues on anything like the scale we keep seeing at Trumps rallies. Does the football season finish before the referendum?

[Kirsten]

Is that true?

yup, all true

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35923658

[grimmas]

I think it's time the Queen revoked their Independence they obviously don't deserve it.

Kirsten is the Isle of Man going to get a vote on any referendum on the EU? Would I be right in thinking you don't vote in EU elections? Any descion either way would affect you though.

[Kirsten]

we wont get to vote no. We aren't in the EU anyway, and not a part of the UK. It will affect us though I suspect, given that we are sort of honorary members and tend to get lumped in with the UK

[CoffeeGrunt]

How does the IoM's sovereignty work, btw? Are you entirely independent, different passport and all that?

I honestly didn't think American politics could be any more of a circus right now btw, but...well...

[Kirsten]

crown dependency, there is an Isle of Man passport, though I think they just say British now, not sure, not had one for fifteen years :p foreign policy is set by England, but other than that we are self determining, own currency and everything

[grimmas]

Yeah I was just wondering how it would work. It's a bit strange I was trying to work it out but the answer seems to be you're in the EU whilst not being in the EU.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm mildly disappointed that people from the IoM are known as, "Manx," and not, "Mannikin." Lost opportunity, I feel. :P

[Kirsten]

I will let Tynwald know...

[Kirsten]

Conservatives have borrowed more money than Labour, and paid back less. Party of economic responsibility...

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

[Al Shut]

From an outsiders perspective I'm still a bit confused how the government (or part of it) can highlight the uncertainty of an exit and still claim it would be the best to handle the whole situation. Is that some attempt to focus on the issue at hand and not let the referendum be about politics in general? Or is just to much of the debate lost on it's way over the channel?

[Denzark]

The government policy line is 'leave and there would be uncertainty - better to stay in a re-negotiated EU'. Hence they think they ARE handling the whole situation by taking that line.

[grimmas]

It just occurred to me last night that maybe the reason neither side of the referendum debate has any actual data to refute the other is because their isn't an actual difference between them and it's just preference. So in essence the vote doesn't matter maybe things have developed to the point where everybody is essentially so co-dependant and the treaties in place or will be in place mean that and apart from a name nothing will actually change.

And with the potential collapse of Tata steel. Apparently the main reason is the cheap imports from China which according to the BBC runs its Steel industry at a loss of 7.6bn pounds a year. Could we find the subsidies to prop up our industry granted it wouldn't cost as much as that (China produces 700+m tons of steel and we produce 12m tons). We should be able to but will the Tories go for it and will EU regulations allow it and is there a way for it to pay off in the long run?

[Denzark]

R4 this morning suggested that the government has to tread carefully around EU anti-protectionism laws with subsidies.

Problem being most Port Talbot workers are paid ever so slightly more than their Chinese peers - but I bet I know where the higher work ethic is to be found. Personally I hope the government doesn't nationalise something making a reported £1m loss per day. Mebbe the devolved Welsh parliament can do so without burdening the rest of the UK.

[Psychosplodge]

Isn't there an argument that its strategicly unwise to lose basic steel production in the country?

Also aren't the high quality portions of the company such as rotherham and stocksbridge profitable, or very near profitable?

[Mr Mystery]

R4 this morning suggested that the government has to tread carefully around EU anti-protectionism laws with subsidies.

Problem being most Port Talbot workers are paid ever so slightly more than their Chinese peers - but I bet I know where the higher work ethic is to be found. Personally I hope the government doesn't nationalise something making a reported £1m loss per day. Mebbe the devolved Welsh parliament can do so without burdening the rest of the UK.

Like how London did something when their banks went tits up, and that didn't 'burden the rest of the U.K.'?

[Denzark]

As I understand it, the effect of a major bank folding would have been far more drastic on far more people in terms of them losing money, than would Port Talbot closing. I don't quite recall the arguments why the Gordon Brown government decided to bail out some banks, suffice to say if one of the banks had been called 'Southern Rock' and was based in the south East, unlike Northern Rock it wouldn't have proportionately had so many labour voters about to pan out and I doubt Gordon Brown would have acted with such alacrity.

I don't know why London can be compared in this instance to Wales MM. One is a devolved country with its own parliament, the other ain't.

If the much bandied figure of 4000 workers and £1m loss per day is true, the government could actually save money by simply handing every man jack £100 pounds tax free cash every day and sending them home - at only 40% of the cost of £1m per day.

I'm given to understand also that the plant pays just under twice as much for its power as comparable foreign plants, due to green taxes on power processes. So would be silly to nationalise whilst its government policy causes it to be so unprofitable.

[Wolfshade]

Like how London did something when their banks went tits up, and that didn't 'burden the rest of the U.K.'?

Banks provided 10% of GDP by 2009, steel 0.1% strategically steel is unimportant to the economy.


Steel makers accounted for 0.5pc of GDP in 1990, compared with just 0.1pc today, according to an analysis of the data by the House of Commons Library. Between 1990 and 2014, total GDP rose by 62pc, manufacturing output crept up by 2pc and steel collapsed by 24pc.

I am in two minds, on the one hand, if it is not profitable to make it then why produce it, after all we aren't going to do a China and dump billions into its sector. Let us be honest, they are looking at cutting back the numbers as steel and coal produciton are outstripping demand so prices are getting to the point where it is better to leave it in the ground.

I think that there is a desire for the higher quality steel for specialist requirements, but that isn't a mass market.

On the other if the cost of benefits is so high and the drain on the area it might be best to keep it on and use it for public capital projects.

[Denzark]

I would have no problem with the Government insisting that stuff paid for by the taxpayer - ships, ambulances whatever - are constructed here. With steel from here.

But it is probably against some EU protectionist regulations, it does not represent best value for the taxpayer and you know - harsh but capitalist. If Port Talbot isn't profitable why prop it up?

[Mr Mystery]

Simple.

The Steel Industry offers 40,000 jobs nationally, and supports tens of thousands of others.

Now, the Government can either step in with a bailout now, take the hit in the short term.

OR.....they can bury their heads in the sand because but it's only plebs, and not in London and wind up dumping thousands upon thousands of people on the dole. Long. Term. Dole. Why long term? Because after how many years of but it's only plebs, and not in London thinking there's been little investment in other industries.

Invest for now, and stand the chance of getting a return. Or hang them out to dry and have a very long term drain on resources through no fault of the communities.

Oh, and how little does our Government care about industry? They're campaigning for Europe to keep import taxes on Chinese Steel stupidly low......see those plebs? **** 'em.

[Psychosplodge]

Just scrap the bloody energy taxes thats making them so uncompetitive.

[grimmas]

Yep it's the energy prices that are killing them.

We could nationalise all utilities, after all the Government just us to run them at even and all the companies currently make a killing so how hard could it be and don't forget all that profit is on top of the massive wages/bonus paid to all the top dogs.

Just read on the BBC that Comrade Corbyn is suggesting direct rule for crown dependencies who allow people to avoid tax. The thought of 2 Para deploying into Douglas and Gunships hovering over Jersey is so hilarious I might chuck a vote at the morally bankrupt fool.

[Mr Mystery]

Not sure how Corbyn in 'morally bankrupt'?

He's not the one living off a legacy of tax evasion, and selling as much as he can to his old Eton chums now, is he? Nor inflicting cuts to the disabled, telling people with terminal cancer they're well enough to work so no money for you, or giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest?

[Psychosplodge]

I think we agreed to disagree about two or three pages ago with his support for terrorism and him being no different to any other party leader in reality when it comes to people disagreeing with him and that?

[Mr Mystery]

Mostly because he's never actually supported Terrorism.

But hey, what's facts got to do with it?

[Kirsten]

direct rule has nothing to do with armed intervention, it simply centralises decision making for a few years whilst the mess is sorted out. there wouldn't be any take over of the Isle of Man. whilst some politicians like to complain about it being a tax haven, we actually have very stringent financial laws and share information with the UK, so money invested here isn't hidden the way this Panama stuff is

[Mr Mystery]

Out Campaigners talking absolute mince about Cabbages, and once again caught out making stuff up to spook the barely literate middle England (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35962999)

Not currently aware of any of the claims they've made actually standing up to any scrutiny?

[Denzark]

MM - seriously enough with the whole 'plebs' thing. You don't genuinely expect anyone to rationalise that is the reason it is going down the pan.

I fully acknowledge government policy has contributed to this. But several factors should be considered.

Firstly, one surely can't be blaming any one government for this - it is a long term rot from before the current term - and that failure to think strategically would include Welsh MPs. I've not heard them screeching about under investment.

Secondly, much of what makes this particular plant unprofitable is ridiculous green taxes and an inability to subsidise - EU regulations. Even though Italy is being taken through the European courts for nationalising their Taranto steel plant in 2014. Europe - where we play cricket whilst everyone else plays UFC.

Next - it makes massive sense to tend the fertile plants and prune the dead wood. If that translates to 'buff London and cut away Port Talbot' well fine. If you can't do everything, do what ever brings in the biggest income for the whole country.

Lastly, businesses must be profitable. You can't expect a/the government to subsidise all unprofitable businesses. If you do it for one you do it for all, no matter how large or small - and there is not the money for that.

Actually though, there is a small pot of 'wasted' money in the Budget - 0.7% of GDP going to international aid. I'd rather that went to British workers than overseas.

[Psychosplodge]

It's nice to see the partially EU funded BBC giving prominence to both sides isn't it?

[Mr Mystery]

MM - seriously enough with the whole 'plebs' thing. You don't genuinely expect anyone to rationalise that is the reason it is going down the pan.

I fully acknowledge government policy has contributed to this. But several factors should be considered.

Firstly, one surely can't be blaming any one government for this - it is a long term rot from before the current term - and that failure to think strategically would include Welsh MPs. I've not heard them screeching about under investment.

Secondly, much of what makes this particular plant unprofitable is ridiculous green taxes and an inability to subsidise - EU regulations. Even though Italy is being taken through the European courts for nationalising their Taranto steel plant in 2014. Europe - where we play cricket whilst everyone else plays UFC.

Next - it makes massive sense to tend the fertile plants and prune the dead wood. If that translates to 'buff London and cut away Port Talbot' well fine. If you can't do everything, do what ever brings in the biggest income for the whole country.

Lastly, businesses must be profitable. You can't expect a/the government to subsidise all unprofitable businesses. If you do it for one you do it for all, no matter how large or small - and there is not the money for that.

Actually though, there is a small pot of 'wasted' money in the Budget - 0.7% of GDP going to international aid. I'd rather that went to British workers than overseas.

So all that will happen is we'll get more people on long term dole.

Go back and read what I said.

The Government needs to intervene in the short term. Keep the foundry lit, cough up a bit of tax money until a legitimate buyer can be found.

The alternative is to do nothing, and watch significant areas fall into nigh-on inescapable decline, leading to long term unemployment issues lasting generations. Like when the coal mines were closed down, and nothing was done to help those communities - repercussions of that which are still playing out today. Because it's not just the three existing generations it hits. Oh no. You've got the one before, and the ones after all winding up in a region with no work and no prospects - all because Westminster can't be arsed unless you're a) A Bank or b) In the home counties.

And if you've not heard Wales 'screeching' about under investment, then I would suspect you're being wilfully ignorant on that count.

- - - Updated - - -

But Splodge...the In Campaign haven't been telling any porkie pies so far as I can see?

And the Out Campaign still haven't the foggiest about what Britain will do if we do leave. And that ain't right.

[Psychosplodge]

They're politicians of course they have.

The BBC also haven't highlighted with any prominence how EU rules prevent subsiding the steel industry. They haven't highlighted the difficulties in nationalising it. The only mention I've seen is one sentence at the bottom of a report. And we all know most people only read the headline and maybe the first paragraph. I've seen no mention at all on the TV news.

[Mr Mystery]

Erm....yeah the did. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35927542)

Quick 'Bing' (not even Google!) and that was the first answer to 'do EU rules prevent the UK subsidising the steel industry?'

[Psychosplodge]

I was busy stressing about kita the 30th and missed that :D

[Denzark]

So all that will happen is we'll get more people on long term dole.

Go back and read what I said.

The Government needs to intervene in the short term. Keep the foundry lit, cough up a bit of tax money until a legitimate buyer can be found.

The alternative is to do nothing, and watch significant areas fall into nigh-on inescapable decline, leading to long term unemployment issues lasting generations. Like when the coal mines were closed down, and nothing was done to help those communities - repercussions of that which are still playing out today. Because it's not just the three existing generations it hits. Oh no. You've got the one before, and the ones after all winding up in a region with no work and no prospects - all because Westminster can't be arsed unless you're a) A Bank or b) In the home counties.

And if you've not heard Wales 'screeching' about under investment, then I would suspect you're being wilfully ignorant on that count.

- - - Updated - - -

But Splodge...the In Campaign haven't been telling any porkie pies so far as I can see?

And the Out Campaign still haven't the foggiest about what Britain will do if we do leave. And that ain't right.

MM

If Westminster can't be arsed if you're not a.) a bank or b.) the home counties, how do you explain the Barnett Formula?

I genuinely am not being wilfully ignorant about Welsh MPs - if they have been highlighting issues for a long time (not just in the face of this closure) good for them. I tend to listen to BBC R4 daily, and read DT and BBC online daily. Whilst I am aware of Tata I had no idea until now they had a plant in Port Talbot. I can't be arsed to check with Hansard to form a conclusion about how effective Welsh MPs have been.

The In campaign porkie pies - like saying we have better security in the EU - whilst our intelligence sharing agreements are bilateral and the military alliance is NATO not EU? Thats the one for me.

And I've already pointed out that the out campaign don't have a specific point-by-point plan at this stage because:

They are not a sitting political party with a mandate from the people to make specific plans.
They don't know what would be up for grabs with negotations.
A lot of their plan is to do many things the same.
It is widely known where there will be change:

UK bill of rights
not paying £xxxm per day to the EU (insert yoyr academically assessed figure of choice
not accept free movement of workers from the EU
not allow EU legislation to hamper the city
form trading partnerships with US/China/ emerging economies



So please - it is a trifle disingenuous to say they don't have the foggiest. They clearly do.

[grimmas]

direct rule has nothing to do with armed intervention, it simply centralises decision making for a few years whilst the mess is sorted out. there wouldn't be any take over of the Isle of Man. whilst some politicians like to complain about it being a tax haven, we actually have very stringent financial laws and share information with the UK, so money invested here isn't hidden the way this Panama stuff is

I know I was just having a little fun with you 😉

And Indulging in a bit of Corbyn bashing which is always a nice bonus. Of course call me Dave also being moral Bankrupt or possibly just completely amoral doesn't excuse anyone else of doing it. Although I do kind of expect it form the Tories

They definitely do think we're plebs though (I'm assuming there's no Etonites here). Anyone remember Andrew Mitchell?

[Morgrim]

I don't know the situation with the steel plants, but it sounds like it could possibly be like the aussie fruit canning industry.

A year or two ago the fruit industry was in a bad way due to cheap overseas imports. It was running at a loss and the government stepped it to give it a boost, and people objected. Why should government save unprofitable businesses? It was pointed out that fruit trees take a LONG time to grow, and building canneries isn't quick or cheap either. If the industry collapsed, and later it was profitable again, it would take at least ten years to get it all back up and running again.

If you're expecting to have cheap imported fruit for the next century, that's no big deal. But if you're expecting the glut to only last a few years, bailing out the industry turns out to cheaper overall, even when you're not factoring in the job loses caused.

It's possible the steel manufacturing is facing something similar. Transporting large amounts of heavy bulky ore from Australia to China and then heavy bulky metal from China to Britain is currently viable because of two factors: cheap fuel for the ships, and cheap refining in China. But as China industrialises prices are gradually creeping up, the amount of surplice steel dumped on the international markets is creeping down, and while fossil fuels are currently very cheap the overall trend is upwards. (The shipping routes passing through some of the most storm-prone areas of the world won't help either.)

It could well prove cheaper in the long run to retain local steel refining capacity rather than mothballing it all and later having to build it up again, in which case bailing out is a good thing. (And if other places impose a green tax, as seems increasingly likely, it'll fall more into line on the profitability scale.)

Also there are the jobs issue to look at. A smart government - which admittedly I don't think any current governments are, but we can dream - may look at the consequences of losing that industry and decide the better idea is to keep it going for now while either developing alternatives or transitioning it to something related-but-more-profitable, like making high quality alloys for specialist manufacturing.

[Denzark]

@Morgrim certainly the high-spec stuff is being talked about as a potential saving grace.

[grimmas]

The British steel industry does produce very high quality steel. In fact the steel port Talbot produces isn't actually produced in China unless I'm mistaken. It's been said for some time in certain quarters that we should concentrate on very high tech/quality products for our manufacturing. We can't compete on price but we can blow the developing world out of the water on quality. A friend ran a power supply/transformer business and that's how he did it. If someone wanted cheap they went to China but if they wanted something that would absolutely work they went to him, things like military stuff, chlorine plants, oil rigs and the like.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The capacitor factory I worked in was pretty similar. End products ended up in everything from the Eurostar and CERN, to ones that were rumoured to be for the Eurofighter. People there said they were for the ejection system, but the supervisors just said Military, so I was dubious.

Still, they aimed for precision over price, which is about the only way a small country like Britain can hope to compete. Especially one that treats its workers properly.

[Psychosplodge]

Yep, when we do repairs we could put stuff in that will never go wrong again. Do we? Of course not we want to see it again 12-18 months down the line. None of the parts we use ever have a western country as a point of origin.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, for general use the aim is cheap but not great. For military use, that crap has to work first time, every time. Your tank's main cannon didn't fire when you pulled the trigger because the hammer didn't operate properly? Well, you're a dead tank now, because the other guy shot you. Ejection seat didn't deploy on a crashing jetfighter? Lost an expensive, highly-trained pilot as well as the craft.

It'd be nice if civilian kit was held to the same standard, but then it'd cost absurd amounts and no-one would buy it. :/

[Psychosplodge]

If you look at gaming motherboards they often list military grade caps as a selling point.

[Psychosplodge]

Radio Sheffield is currently reporting on a protest at a construction site in Rotherham where they've imported eastern european tradesmen(not unskilled labour) at minimum wage undercutting a nationally this site company/union agreed pay scale.

[Wolfshade]

I do enjoy it when people bring up the point about the pits closing. It is very funny that despite lots of talk about it not one pit was ever re-opened under the labour government.

If it isn't productive it shouldn't be propped up. Indeed, the running costs would be higher than dropping those people into job seekers allowance. It is harsh but in global industry if you cannot keep up then you go bust.

The problem as splogy alluded to is at least in part owing to the labour costs which we cannot compete with even if energy prices were the same it would be more expesnive here owing to lower production volume and higher wage bills.

Scraping the green subsidy is a bit of a joke, heavy industry should be taxed for all of it's electricity after all we are still fossil fuel reliant. Maybe we should take a leaf out of the american book and frakk our way to cheap electricity.

But the energy planning is a joke, for years and years no one has invested in the energy production and now too late to the ball is the nuclear deals which are above the price point that they should be operating at and it is questionable if they will every manage to be built.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2dNEQiHUUo

It's a funny video, but I'm not sure if it makes me want to vote Green.

[Psychosplodge]

Well as they're effectively against the idea of economic growth...

[CoffeeGrunt]

I dunno. I agree with stuff like going against fracking, and environmentalism in general. I'm working in the oil industry right now, and it's pretty well-known that fracking is just silly. It's only viable as a business venture during the Good Times for oil prices, and even then the collateral damage involved can be ridiculous.

Hence the reason the US has all-but-stalled their plans for fracking in the wake of the recent price crash.

Other than that, the Greens are alright, but I can't really see them becoming more than the 3rd party, even with funny videos.

[Psychosplodge]

See I get environmentalism to some extent. I don't see the point in spending billions destroying vast stretches of countryside to shave half an hour off the journey to London - which will be lost anyway here as they're talking about putting the station about half an hour out of the city centre by public transport. You can already do the journey in 2 hours. It just doesn't seem worth it.

But stuff like trying to price people out of their cars? opposing sensible infrastructure like a direct Sheffield - Manchester link road/tunnel of some sort? No that makes no sense.

Opposing nuclear when that's not subject to the whims of the weather? Nope makes no sense to me at all.

[CoffeeGrunt]

IMO nuclear is something we should definitely stop b*tching about as a society, it's so much fearmongering over actual fact. Especially in Britain where it's not like we'd have to worry about an earthquake or tsunami hitting it. Sizewell has ran for ages with no issues, and overall they're a much better option than coal or gas-fired stations.

[Denzark]

I dunno. I agree with stuff like going against fracking, and environmentalism in general. I'm working in the oil industry right now, and it's pretty well-known that fracking is just silly. It's only viable as a business venture during the Good Times for oil prices, and even then the collateral damage involved can be ridiculous.


CG can you explain a bit more about fracking? As an argument against its viability, profitability is sound. I always thought the safety/environmental argument was over-egged - purely in the basis that if the most litigious society in the history of the universe - 21st Century US - can get fracking done without people being sued at every step - then it ain't that dangerous either physically or environmentally.

I know as much as Jon Snow about it in truth so an oil industry explanation would be useful.

[Mr Mystery]

There's genuine concern it can contaminate the water table, and irrevocably so.

I'm not keen on it, but can see why it's ultimately worth looking into. But I'm very much 'well, the stuff we want it for is t going anywhere, so let's sit back and see if it's dangerous and whether it's profitable. Let others potentially stuff over their environment, and then learn from their mistakes where possible'

[Haighus]

I am definitely pro-nuclear myself, if correctly regulated oc. Having done a fair bit of reading research into the health effects of radiation, I just don't think the risk is that high, short of a full on reactor meltdown (which even Chernobyl didn't reach). The evidence at lower radiation doses is also very patchy, the majority of our knowledge on radiation poisoning and chronic radiation effects still comes from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the Japanese healthcare system was very thorough in their recording of the relevant data though, so it is still good information).
Overall, I agree with CG, there is a lot of scaremongering about radiation, despite the fact that air pollution from coal fired stations has it's own health risks which are not insignificant.

For the health effects of radiation, I believe the Lancet has a free-to-access series on radiation from about a year ago. Interesting reading.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, the Soviets tried to cover everything up with regards to Chernobyl, so we have very little modern data on the effects. Fukushima is less covered up, but also too recent and was well-evacuated before the breach. It's also a modern reactor that was breached in a different way.


CG can you explain a bit more about fracking? As an argument against its viability, profitability is sound. I always thought the safety/environmental argument was over-egged - purely in the basis that if the most litigious society in the history of the universe - 21st Century US - can get fracking done without people being sued at every step - then it ain't that dangerous either physically or environmentally.

I know as much as Jon Snow about it in truth so an oil industry explanation would be useful.

The US has much less stringent environmental legislation than our own JNCC and similar entities. However, fracking works by finding shale deposits full of oil, but said oil is mixed among the shale. Water with additives is pumped through the shale, sucking it out of its subterranean pocket and into a filter, effectively. The filter retains the shale, but lets the liquids flow through. From there, you skim the floating oil off the top.

It allows you to access previously difficult sources of it, but in Britain it's problematic in that a larger amount of our land is built up or built into/under. As you can imagine, pumping high-pressure water to rip a load of shale out also causes some pretty rough erosion to the surrounding area, causing potential issues in the long term as the ground above is then less stable. Think of Cornwall with all the tin mines running through it causing subsidence in heavy rain. IIRC, one such deposit is estimated to be below Windsor Castle, but I think that might just be rumour. Most of America's deposits are far from the cities and towns, so they're easier to access.

The other problem is that it's tough to prevent unforeseen permeable rock from allowing the water-chemical mix from infusing into the water table, thus potentially contaminating nearby bodies of water or the groundwater in general, which can have adverse effects. There's also the issue of pressurising the cavity holding the oil causing it to rupture a previously unexpected outlet, cause oil-infused water to fountain over an area, which would be disastrous. You're basically taking highly toxic oil, pressurising it, and hoping you pump it out to where your machinery is. It's mostly successful, but not ideal.

Not to mention the massive noise disturbance, which is often more of a factor than people realise.

There's a reason why, financially, it isn't viable unless oil prices are solid. It takes extensive surveying to make sure you know where the deposits are, where to pump in, and where to install the outlet. Not only that, but you only get a pretty small amount of oil that's currently worth less than the barrel you put it in, and that's before you pay to refine it. Said oil is often still contaminated with grit, sand, etc as well as other trace elements, making refining a little tougher than usual. Basically, we're better off investing in something less potentially environmentally-catastrophic and more profitable.

Also the US is a bit crap at environmental legislation. I mean, look at Flint, Michigan and their poisoned water supply, or that Colorado river the EPA accidentally offloaded craptonnes of toxic chemicals into. Not to mention them only just getting around to looking at the possibility of maybe considering green energy, and the fact their offshore environmental legislation is a bit behind UK and European standards.

[Psychosplodge]

So I'm sure we all saw people saying the Scottish referendum was fixed after the event? Well Saturday I heard my first "the EU referendum is fixed" conversation before they've even held it.

[Psychosplodge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36009564

Is this the North of the border version of Brown's PFI thing that built hospitals and schools?

[Haighus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36009564

Is this the North of the border version of Brown's PFI thing that built hospitals and schools?
From the article: "EIS general secretary Larry Flanagan called for a review of all PPP and similar private finance initiative (PFI) deals."
So I guess so?

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah it said similar, I didn't know if it was essentially just a renaming or there was some functional difference.

[Haighus]

I get the impression it is Scotland's particular brand under the PFI umbrella.

[Psychosplodge]

just to complicate things?

[Mr Mystery]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36009564

Is this the North of the border version of Brown's PFI thing that built hospitals and schools?

Pretty much.

Though of course it doesn't affect my old Primary School.

Because it's not there anymore :( Got knocked down in 2010, and replaced with an old folks home.

Also, PFI started under Major's run, not Labour. Though despite opposing it at the time, Labour did indeed expand it. But hey. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative#United_Kingdom)

[Psychosplodge]

It might be my age but I only remember hearing about it under "new" labour.

Although wtf did they extend it if they were against it?

[Mr Mystery]

1992, Labour were Labour.

Tony Blair and Diet-Tory kicked off 21 July 1994 when Tony Blair replaced the sadly deceased John Smith.

[grimmas]

It might be my age but I only remember hearing about it under "new" labour.

Although wtf did they extend it if they were against it?


Because New Labour just took Tory policies and rebranded them. They were the only Labour Government to ever manage a second term so it probably says a lot about the electorate really want.

I actually work at a PFI site and although I happen know the organisation as a whole gets humped cost wise (partly their own fault) we do get the toilets and stuff fixed quickly when it breaks (and we don't in the non PFI sites).

It's the same problem with any privatised "services" the same money is never going to get you the same outcome as the management company needs to make a profit out of that money so there's less for providing services. Also in the case of PFI sites the purpose of the management company is not to provide the service in question it's to manage the site which leads to a clash of priorities which is frequently unhelpful.

[Mr Mystery]

The devil is in the interest.

Now I work in finance (sort of), I'm amazed anyone ever relied on credit.

When you see someone take out a loan, and then wind up paying back at least 50% of the original amount in interest, you can't help but feel we all need our bumps felt.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Dennis Skinner, MP for Bolsover, the hero we need:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIUa47x_Oc

[Kirsten]

can't draw attention to the fact Dave is dodgy. frankly dodgy is incredibly mild considering.

[Psychosplodge]

The beast of Bolsover strikes again.
The offshore thing is questionable - but if he sold his assets in it before he became PM he should have just held his hands up about it at rather than um and ar and drag it out for four days.
The inheritance tax thing? I have no problem with. I think inheritance tax is wrong.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Considering that Dave was accusing Corbyn of being a 'terrorist sympathiser,' recently, and no words were uttered with regards to kicking him out. I'd rate Terrorist Sympathiser as far higher than Dodgy on the, "get the f*ck out of here for saying that sh*t," scale.

[Psychosplodge]

Bercow is pratically new labour rather than tory if I remember the fuss round his appointment?

[Kirsten]

Considering that Dave was accusing Corbyn of being a 'terrorist sympathiser,' recently, and no words were uttered with regards to kicking him out. I'd rate Terrorist Sympathiser as far higher than Dodgy on the, "get the f*ck out of here for saying that sh*t," scale.

yup, if there was any kind of equal standard all the tories who laugh and jeer whenever the issue of poverty is brought up would be evicted. dave would be evicted for his 'put on a tie' comment. the house is just a playground of yelling and insults, and nothing is done about it

[Mr Mystery]

It's a playground as long as you're Tory it would seem.

Nasty bunch of bullies, with no few bigots mixed in.

[grimmas]

Considering that Dave was accusing Corbyn of being a 'terrorist sympathiser,' recently, and no words were uttered with regards to kicking him out. I'd rate Terrorist Sympathiser as far higher than Dodgy on the, "get the f*ck out of here for saying that sh*t," scale.

I don't think he did. Wasn't it that he accused anyone who voted against bombing Isis of being a terrorist sympathiser. Still a bloody stupid thing to say and inaccurate as there were many military arguments against that actions regardless of anything else.

[Psychosplodge]

I thought he was referencing the Irish debate we derailed to the other day?

[grimmas]

Just read in the metro Mr Corbyn got fined for being late with his tax return. Not a great drama but it did make me chuckle and apparently Boris made £1.9M and paid £900000 in tax.

On the subject of shenanigans in the House of Common I defy anyone to watch PMQT and not want to burn the whole place down win the lot of them in it before the show finishes

- - - Updated - - -


I thought he was referencing the Irish debate we derailed to the other day?

Nope I think that was Me 😊

[Psychosplodge]

Fair enough.

[Psychosplodge]

We've got a generation of dangerous students. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423)

You don't get rid of hate speech by banning it. You get rid of it by giving it a platform and publicly challenging it.
Also who decides what is acceptable? And how do you trust them not to misuse it to ban political opponents? Terrifyingly authoritarian, and no doubt these are the politicians of tomorrow.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That's nice and all, provided both parties enter with an evidence-based attitude that looks at the cold, hard data and ignores emotional stuff in order to find the truth and remove bias.

Groups like the BNP or Al-Muhajiroun have no interest in such discourse. You can't have a solid debate with them, as was proved when Nick Griffin did a debate with other politicians on live TV and was torn apart, yet still the BNP have a following. The same as how Trump gets ripped to pieces all over the place, but still rakes in approval simply by appealing to emotion and fear.

It's based on the misnomer that all opinions are equally valuable, which is why we have kids dying of treatable disease because society didn't want to squash Anti-Vax and Homeopathy platforms, because we were more scared of insulting them than removing them as dangerous proxies for actual medicine.

[Psychosplodge]

I think when they had the BNP on TV it showed floating voters just how much of a joke they were. Of course they're still going to have their core following of racist dickheads, that's who they are - but it shone the light truely on them for anyone thinking "they're not that bad".

The likes of Al-muhjedan are government proscribed terrorist organisation. I doubt anyone thinks we should give them a platform.

No all opinions aren't equal, we know that. But you if someone wants to invite them, then someone else should be free to use whats it called "right to reply?" I mean things like banning greer, I don't like her or agree with her views that are expressed in the article, but she's the kind of person someone should go and challenge and argue against, not ban.

[CoffeeGrunt]

So if we shouldn't give them a platform, then we would need some sort of no-platform list to officiate that anyway. Which is what this is about. Thus if you agree that some parties shouldn't be given a platform by any sensible establishment, then the existence of the list itself isn't the problem, but the groups that are put in it.

In which case proper policing of what groups are blacklisted is all that matters.You can argue that it'll steadily go downhill, but Slippery Slope is a debating fallacy, so probably best to leave it out of a discussion on debating. ;)

[Psychosplodge]

No, I merely agree that illegal groups are generally illegal for good reason and that the government doesn't appear to be abusing that by banning political opposition.

[grimmas]

Using the most extreme example of somthing and using it to justify lower level stuff is pretty weak debating tool.

Having a debate and refusing to allow comment on one side of the argument isn't a debate it's a rally. If they don't want a debate don't have one, refusing to allow people to speak out during one is bollocks.

I actually don't have any problem with groups being allowed to voice their opinions in open debate that way they can be refuted (and down right ridiculed in some cases). The problem arises when they hold rallies and lectures etc that provides only one view point. So I'm very much against a no platform policy. Also driving ideas and opinions underground, as it will, doesn't weaken them it strengthens them.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean you have to agree with someone it just means they are allowed to day their peice, it also doesn't mean what they say is legal either.

- - - Updated - - -

I was also an elected official in the NUS (all be it a very low level one). That's sort of thing was not what they were about. I find it very sad what it has become.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Fair points, I've read into it a bit more and it does seem to be more than a simple ban list, which is problematic. The examples I saw were people who were espousing Transphobic views or were Holocaust Deniers, among other things. If it were a simple ban list that was voted upon by student representatives, that would be fine IMO. If properly vetted. However, it seems to be a much more flexible and less officiated reason to simply stop certain people from speaking.

[Denzark]

There seems to be sadly more and more examples recently of British Universities fostering an unhealthy atmosphere where debate is stifled, with no intellectual rigour being applied. However it seems this does not happen to all inappropriate behaviours. I've read reports recently where somewhere (can't remember, canlt be arsed to google but think it was the LSE) allowed a Muslim society - I don't use that pejoratively - it was to my best recollection a university group of Muslims - to segregate men and women.

Like - ignoring Katie Hopkins instead of debating the sh*t out of her and shooting her down.

Like - reports I read recently where the student union censured someone for a 'hand gesture' that intimidated someone's 'safe zone' - seriously, get a grip.

I was in London when the whole austerity riots first kicked off - the one where that junky idiot son of a Pink Floyd member swung off the Cenotaph. I saw a student with a placard saying: 'I only popped out for some milk'. That to me showcased the whole event.

[Psychosplodge]

this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25378713

[CoffeeGrunt]

In the example of Katie Hopkins, that woman thrives on getting her name out there in order to keep her public image. Engaging with her is just feeding her, by rights she should have been forgotten given that every time she appears on the news, it's to her detriment.

Holocaust Deniers, Flat Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers and the like are similar. You are not dealing with people who have a logical, truthful view of the world. If they did, they wouldn't support such hilariously-wrong beliefs that have time-and-again been disproven into the dirt. Personal biases are stronger than adamantium.

I mean, the Flat Earthers are just silly people, but harmless. Deniers are kinda a**holes and often anti-Semitic, but mostly harmless physically. Anti-Vaxxers have already brought back crap our grandparents suffered through and are threatening society at large by perforating the Herd Immunity.

Hence why Andrew Wakefield has been banned from speaking in the UK or practicing medicine, because he did one deliberately-misrepresentative paper that caused all this two decades ago, and we're literally unable to prove to people who believe him that he was wrong. When you think everything that disagrees with you is a government/corporate conspiracy, the evidence doesn't matter.

Engaging with groups like the EDL or BNP, sure. Sit them down, ask what their problem is other than, "we're uncomfortable with them forruners." Show the statistics, crunch the numbers, don't necessarily make them look like fools, just prove them wrong. You might make them think different, you might not. We have the luxury of them being a political minority with limited effect on the larger society, like Flat-Earthers, but they're the tip of a worried iceberg of people that really needs to be addressed.

Ultimately, stopping some groups from speaking is a matter of public safety. How many could reasonably predict Mr Wakefield would cause this much damage when he released his paper twenty years ago? Do we let anyone say their piece, regardless of the damage, or vet everything and release what seems safe?

I dunno. Oldest question of civilisation, that. Freedom vs Safety.

[Haighus]

Yeah, safety vs freedom is another way of viewing autonomy vs justice. Which essentially boils down to at which point to do the rights of everyone else become more important than the rights of the individual.

Wakefield is one of the people on my most-reviled list. The tragically ironic part of it all is that he wrote that paper for exactly the kind of Big Pharma money corruption his supporters uphold him as a paragon against. He wanted to discredit the MMR vaccine because he was being paid to do so by a lawyer wanting to make lawsuits AND he had just patented his own single vaccine for one of the diseases covered by the MMR, and which was about to be completely invalidated by the MMR vaccine. So basically all entirely for his own personal profit.

[grimmas]

The trouble is we've seen people such as Peter Tatchall being stopped from attending and recieving death threats for his opposition of the policy. This is not a reasonable or sensible policy. Of course if I was going to have Peter Tatchall arguing against me I might try and avoid it he's like a razor.

I'd still say I think part of the problem with the opinions of Holocaust deniers, Anti Vaxxers and the like is that they aren't challenged enough. These people need to be put on a platform and shown to be idiots and self servers. They need to be publicly discredited and disgraced. Banning them just makes it seem like they are speaking some dangerous "truth" that we need to be protected from which gives them a creditably they don't deserve.

[Denzark]

I've never really considered anti-vaxxers - or these religious people who would rather let a kid die than have a transfusion. Never heard of this Andrew Wakefield. Will do a bit of research.

'Splodge - there was a specific case that I don't think mentioned. The lecture theatre had signs 'brothers' on one half and 'sisters' on the other. Pretty sure it was LSE. But that sort of thing.

[Haighus]

Denzark, this link is a good place to start: http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

[grimmas]

Andrew Wakefield is he of MMR causing Austim infamy

[CoffeeGrunt]

He is that exact person.

And their views are challenged. Scientific papers that show there is zero correlation between vaccines and autism outweigh ones that do by hundreds to just one. Guess who wrote the only paper claiming that vaccines do cause Autism. Yup.

On top of that, every one of their beliefs has been torn to ribbons. The basis of their belief that Thimerosol is the dangerous agent is hilarious because vaccine companies very publicly stopped using that in the 90s anyway, because it was easy enough to replace and was the primary thing people were attacking with regards to vaccines. (You may have heard of the claim that vaccines are full of mercury, which is born of a lack of knowledge of the difference between an Element and a Compound. Thimerosol contains small amounts of a mercury compound.)

I honestly believe that giving these people a platform is the wrong answer, because they don't appeal to logic, they just fearmonger. That's all they are. Anti-Vaxxers, Faith Healers, Homeopaths, there are a hundred people selling "miracle cures" that fleece people out of money and kill people. There was a case last month of a couple who sell faith healing remedies refusing to call 911 and letting their newborn son die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272728/Faith-healing-couple-prison-killing-newborn.html) because they wanted to use their own products to prove they're miracle cures. There are constant cases of children getting ill from diseases we were on the verge of eradicating. We almost wiped Polio from the face of existence! A concerted international effort to send it the way of Smallpox is now being undermined by scaremongering snake oil salesmen who are letting it take hold in the most wealthy nations on the planet!

I would honestly welcome people like Farage, Britain First and the rest to the debating table, because there's a least some kernel of truth occasionally, and they work towards tangible worries. There's something to engage. I honestly feel they're misguided for the most part, though I feel Farage is less that and more that he's in tune with what buttons to push.

Most importantly, them walking away without changing their mind ultimately doesn't hurt people. But faith healers, homeopaths, and all the other "alternative medicine" are just too dangerous to let them get a platform. People are literally dying because of them. (http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/PreventableDeaths.html)

[Psychosplodge]

The idea is hopefully someone challenges them and they get ripped to shreds on that platform though.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The idea is hopefully someone challenges them and they get ripped to shreds on that platform though.

But they have. Repeatedly. Andrew Wakefield has been torn to pieces again and again. Banned from practicing medicine, banned from speaking in the UK, and tonnes of studies specifically disproving his. He can't submit journals, and the few times he's been to a debate he's been shown for the fraud he is.

Any attempt you make to take them down, he spins as, "me versus the establishment, they're all shills for Big Corporate, these Universities!" And people follow that, because people are not logical creatures, they don't function on clever weighing of the facts. All it takes is enough people to be scared that their kids are going to maybe, possibly be autistic and that fear gets blown out of proportion.

I mean, if people assessed fear accurately, America would be more scared of greasy teenagers with their dad's guns than Muslims, but hey, people are irrational.

[Psychosplodge]

Shrugs, maybe thats just an element of natural selection at work as well.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Except the people who make this decision are parents, and they're making it for their children, who have no choice.

Not to mention it erodes Herd Immunity. There are people who can't have vaccines. People who have immunocompromising conditions, organ transplants, or loads of other reasons. These people rely on everyone else being immune to the disease, meaning that they won't be exposed to the disease and get sick from it.

So the people adopting this stuff are only hurting/killing people who literally can't defend themselves against it.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah there is both of those problems.

[grimmas]

Yeah once an idea takes hold it's hard to kill in its entirely. Moral and legal issues aside it just not possible to prevent an idea getting out there's just too many ways to communicate so easily. You've just got to get in early make them look like idiots before it takes hold and people start to believe. Which was the problem with the MMR thing there wasn't a strong enough (or widely distributed enough) response at the time. There's no legislating for stupidity though.

[Mr Mystery]

I got my voting form through today.

For the Police and Crime Commissioner role

You know, that politically motivated change nobody actually asked for? The one where here in Kent has been an absolute farce so far?

Oh, and local council.

Should probably find out where my polling booth will be.

[Denzark]

Denzark, this link is a good place to start: http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

WTAF? This happened? My flabber is gasted. I'm surprised at the Lancet, not so surprised at the press.


I got my voting form through today.

For the Police and Crime Commissioner role

You know, that politically motivated change nobody actually asked for? The one where here in Kent has been an absolute farce so far?

Oh, and local council.

Should probably find out where my polling booth will be.

Was it Kent with the 15 year old?

[Mr Mystery]

Which one?

We've got through at least two. One a racist, the other allegedly shagging a Tory councillor.

This time? UKIP, Lib Dumbs, English Democrats, Independant, Tory and Labour.

Aka a shower of absolute ****s doing a role which was never bloody required in the first place?

[grimmas]

Didn't you have that Moron they did the TV show on?

PCC are just whats needed. All those cost cutting measures and a drop in Police numbers what we absolutely need is an expensive election followed with the expensive employment of a person who's not going to do any policing. There's no point spending that money on actual police officers that'd be stupid.

[Mr Mystery]

That's the cretin, yes.

She who apparently spent £200,000.00.....moving her office a mere two miles.

Waste of time and money, the whole thing.

And guess what? The forced Academisation of all Schools in England is gonna have a similar affect. No evidence they drive up standards. No evidence they're more cost effective. Growing evidence it's just another privatisation solely designed to line the pockets of Tory supporters and donors

[Kirsten]

Should probably find out where my polling booth will be.

probably the back of a van, driving down the road. so as to discourage people from actually voting.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

UKIP, Lib Dumbs, English Democrats, Independant, Tory and Labour.

Collectively known as "Sociopaths".

[CoffeeGrunt]

WTAF? This happened? My flabber is gasted. I'm surprised at the Lancet, not so surprised at the press.

Now you understand why I personally feel that not every speaker deserves a stage, and not every opinion deserves to be aired without proper vetting beforehand. Hence why I agree with the concept of a ban list for certain parties.

Take, for example, the myth that carrots improve eyesight in the dark. This is based on British WWII propaganda to promote the Dig For Britain initiative and also hide the fact that we'd developed sophisticated radar. Despite the knowledge that it was all a ruse being pretty prominent and repeatedly shown, a lot of people still think carrots improve your night vision, or at least improve eyesight, or keep your eyes healthy, or any number of variations.

To quote a certain masked vigilante, "ideas are bulletproof." Once they're out there, they're very hard to kill.

[Denzark]

Now you understand why I personally feel that not every speaker deserves a stage, and not every opinion deserves to be aired without proper vetting beforehand. Hence why I agree with the concept of a ban list for certain parties.

Who constitutes a proper person to do the vetting is the issue there...

[Mr Mystery]

If someone is ignoring evidence to further their agenda, and spouting pseudo-science rubbish (according to David 'Avocado' Wolfe, chocolate is an octave of sun energy) instead, deny them a platform.

Having an alternative interpretation of existing evidence, that's a different matter. Still a potentially difficult subject (holocaust denial for instance).

In short, if someone is ignoring the actual evidence, it's completely impossible to have a rational debate with them - they've made their mind up, and will spout ever increasing amounts of utter, utter nonsense to back up their position (see 'WeRe Bank' and 'Freeman on/of The Land arguments). Those arguing from a factual point of view have nothing to fight back with, because like The Lions at LARP, your opponent just won't take their hits.

Consider the bile spouted by the likes of EDL and Britain First - none of it stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny. All they do is attempt to shout down those pointing out said errors and lies, calling you a 'traitor' and 'unpatriotic'.

You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Who constitutes a proper person to do the vetting is the issue there...

The same way one vets a PhD or similar: a peer review by a committee familiar with the field, who interview the person before they go on stage. They test the veracity of their work before it goes public.

The ones who pass or hold up to such scrutiny are viable. The ones who are just making everything up, misrepresenting data, or are just plain wrong get a pat on the back and told to try again.

[Psychosplodge]

Though that would potentially encourage conformism and not allow dissenting views of anysort

[Mr Mystery]

Though that would potentially encourage conformism and not allow dissenting views of anysort

Not sure I agree.

Challenges to the orthodox view must always be welcomed - as long as they are evidence based, and don't involve allusion to some grand conspiracy which will always be impossible to prove.

Take Holocaust Denial. It's an utter nonsense. The evidence is there. Sadly, the corpses are there. The records are there. So such denial cannot successfully challenge the orthodoxy, because it's not evidence based.

However, if some evidence emerged to show something else happened to the millions of souls unaccounted for? That would be a legitimate item of debate. What is it's veracity? Is there a consensus on it's reliability? Is it directly contradicted by other evidence? Those are all valid things which would need to be discussed.

But some goon just saying 'no, no. It's all a Zionist hoax because I've carefully selected the evidence that supports said position whilst simply declaring the rest of the evidence part of the hoax' cannot be debated.

So the former would pass the test, the latter fail it, and miserably so.

[Psychosplodge]

What a farce.
How does the poor management by the police and the **** stadium design of Hillsborough cause the deaths of 96 people without the poor behaviour of the fans pushing into a space they don't fit?

It took all three for the disaster to happen, but the verdict was basically the only one the families would have accepted after the stupid initial cover up by SY police. What an absolute farce.

[Mr Mystery]

Because the Police chose to open the gate, making matters far, far worse?

Also, Jury have heard all the evidence, we haven't?

[Psychosplodge]

And I'm sure they said that after the initial inquest as well Mystery. You know the one that exonerated the police?
I've been to the stadium - the tunnel is probably still dangerous for crowds, no it took all three to create a perfect storm situation. But lets face it it would be impossible to get a jury for this that didn't have any kind of pre conceived view.

[Path Walker]

Utter, utter nonsense. The police have now been found to have acted irresponsibly and caused those deaths. They made the decisions that directly lead to the deaths of 96 innocent people.

[Mr Mystery]

Speaking of nonsense.

I see the Out campaign remain to come up with a credible alternative.

Apparently, we should now follow Albania's model - except even Albania are saying that's a silly idea.

[Psychosplodge]

Utter, utter nonsense. The police have now been found to have acted irresponsibly and caused those deaths. They made the decisions that directly lead to the deaths of 96 innocent people.



Of course they did. But it still required the fans to contribute and the poorly designed stadium. It took all three. Like it took all three in reality when they said it was all the fans fault last time round.

They'd had crushes on those terraces before, but it took the poorly behaved liverpool fans to make it fatal, didn't they get us thrown out european football as well? Or is Heysal just a coincidence?

[Path Walker]

The fans didn't make any decisions that directly lead to anyone's death though. So they're not culpable. They decided to show up en mass, fine, that wasn't going to kill anyone, they got drunk and rowdy, again, no one was going to die. Deaths occurred because the police, knowing the layout of the stadium, made the decision.

If you're going to get in to that sort of thing, treating the "fans" as one gestalt individual, then I think the history of policing has a far worse reputation of making poor decisions that lead to the unlawful killing of innocents.

[Psychosplodge]

Inreality it was Sheffield council at greatest fault as they allowed the game to go ahead despite the lack of safety certification.



If you're going to get in to that sort of thing, treating the "fans" as one gestalt individual, then I think the history of policing has a far worse reputation of making poor decisions that lead to the unlawful killing of innocents.

It probably does. As I said it took all three.

- - - Updated - - -

Also Jeremy Hunt is a smarmy ******* that needs a slap

[Mr Mystery]

Of course he is.

Not only is he a Tory, but he's the Tory in charge of the NHS, which they seem hell bent on wrecking and selling off piecemeal to those very nice chums they have, and no doubt at a rock bottom price.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Though that would potentially encourage conformism and not allow dissenting views of anysort

Hardly. You'd have a committee of people who know the subject, not necessarily people enforcing a certain ideology.

Again, any argument worth its sort would have at least some compelling evidence to back up its claim, something irrefutable unlike, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams." Something that an expert can't punch holes in and disprove immediately.

I'm just saying that we should really use scientific process in more areas, because letting anyone with an opinion stand next to an expert and be treated equally is a farce. It's how a**hats like Jeremy Hunt are regarded to know more than doctors about how doctors are treated, how anti-vaccination is still kicking, and how homeopathy is only now being removed from the NHS list of medicines they'll fund despite decades of dozens of studies proving that it's just damn water.

There's a difference between challenging the system with a new, unforeseen paradigm, and putting your fingers in your ears screaming, "LALALALALALA," while the evidence tears your argument asunder. One of them holds up to the evidence in some way, but is an unlikely hypothesis that warrants further research. The other is pure fantasy, more often than not, based on something that sounds like it might work but really doesn't.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Scientists and Historians are largely welcoming of any challenge to their findings - after all, that's how they support their conclusions.

[Denzark]

Jeez we're all over the place today - what can be allowed to be said in public, Hillsborough and Jeremy Hunt.

OK - who should be banned in Public. EDL is an easy example. As MM said, even a cursory glance can discount what they say as nuts. But hang on - they first came about as a deliberate response to Muslims against Crusades protesting against a home coming march of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton. They also don't want Sharia Law in the UK. Stopping protests against homecoming marches and not having Sharia law are 2 reasonable things according to me. So not all EDL stuff is whack. Then someone will retort - Muslims against crusades were only exercising their right to protest. OK so already we are in the grounds of - how do you peer review EDL or MaC? (I get in the med examples barking Wakefield should not have been givne the oxygen of publicity - or oxygen at all for that matter).

Hillsborough. Jeez. £116m to get to here, what price a life? Whilst I hope that police found to have lied or been obstructionate with statements get prosecuted, and whilst I hope those ignoring stadium maximum numbers for safety get corporate manslaughter, I've got to say, Police may have opened a barrier, but they weren't pushing their truncheons into the backs of fans who then crushed other fans. People WERE forced into security fencing, people WERE NOT forced into the stadium. Police should have planned and controlled better, but excited (not malicious) fans were part of cause and effect.

NHS - some interesting reports in the DT today about the new contract - 13.5% payrise and less hours overall iirc. Just arguing about their weekends. No sympathy - my pay and pension and contract was arbitrarily changed and I can't go on strike.

MM - I will start a Refrendum thread later when I can be arsed as there is defintiely enough for a separate thread.

[Psychosplodge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-36149020

Unless the ban only applies in Scotland, it seems wrong that a reading that wouldn't get you charged in England gets you banned (maybe they should just fine you in the overlapping part?)

[grimmas]

It'll be based on where the offence occurred. England and Scotland already have very different laws. In the case of Drink drive it'll be where they breath test you as that's where the offence practically occurs. Still there are already plenty of powerful beers and largers that'll take you over with just one pint in Engalnd as well.

[Haighus]

To be honest, it should be that low in England too, but we do tend to lag behind the Scottish in laws that benefit our health, such as in smoking legislation. I always hated it when Dad said he can have one pint, it'll be fine.

[Psychosplodge]

It'll be based on where the offence occurred. England and Scotland already have very different laws. In the case of Drink drive it'll be where they breath test you as that's where the offence practically occurs. Still there are already plenty of powerful beers and largers that'll take you over with just one pint in Engalnd as well.

Yeah but I meant they're being banned from the rest of the UK's roads as well when they haven't actually done anything illegal here.



To be honest, it should be that low in England too, but we do tend to lag behind the Scottish in laws that benefit our health, such as in smoking legislation. I always hated it when Dad said he can have one pint, it'll be fine.

I think its about right where it is. You can go out, have a pint with your lunch somewhere and drive home. The people that go out and ignore the current limit would ignore a lower limit, but all the currently law abiding people that do no harm would either be criminalised, or not bother going out - like a large percentage of smokers did.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm in favour of 'no drinks at all at all if you're driving'.

You can risk your own life and limb as much as you want - but think of those lives all too easily ruined because 'one more won't hurt'

[Psychosplodge]

I stick to no more than one, and no motorway driving.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The thing is, Just One Is Fine is too vague. One what? A pint can range between a piddly 3.5%VOL, up to 8%VOL+. There's clearly a big difference in how much you're drinking in terms of alcoholic content. What's sensible? Everyone has different opinions: one pint of whatever is fine, so long as it's one. One pint of weak stuff, nothing strong. Or nothing, nothing at all.

Are you a relative lightweight, or could you drink George Best under the table?

Nothing is the safest move because there's too many variables at play with Just One Pint to make it at all safe or reliable.

[Psychosplodge]

That's true, but you'd hope people would exercise reasonable judgement, I mean I wouldn't consider it if I was the sort to be falling down drunk after two or three pints.
Most pubs will have something at about 4% on that's just about drinkable?

[CoffeeGrunt]

That's true, but you'd hope people would exercise reasonable judgement, I mean I wouldn't consider it if I was the sort to be falling down drunk after two or three pints.
Most pubs will have something at about 4% on that's just about drinkable?

People don't exercise reasonable judgement, and part of alcohol's effect is that it makes you worse at reasonable judgement. It's kinda well-known for it.

If people could be relied upon to exercise judgement, we wouldn't have people exceeding speed limits, knife crime talks in schools, or smoking bans. Having it at zero is reliable, because the alternative is giving a vague count in pints which can vary in effect and potency, or asking everyone to be able to measure their own personal blood alcohol threshold and have the presence of mind to stop drinking when they reach it.

[Haighus]

The thing is, just one (weak) pint is enough to slow a person's reaction times and affect their judgement, even if they feel fine and normal. With driving, it isn't just the driver who is at risk too, as they are on the road with other road users and members of the public. So I think we should have a limit like Germany's, which is effectively zero, but has a very low limit because, in practice, someone could have a small amount of alcohol in their blood through a variety of means. However, a single drink of just about anything alcoholic would take someone over Germany's limit.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I usually feel right as rain until my fifth pint of the evening - but that would make me even more of a danger on the roads, simply because I don't think my judgement etc is at all impaired. Sure I can walk in a straight line, haven't started talking bollocks yet (well, no more than usual) and can still build models with accuracy, but none of those compare to driving a car, a task which after so many years of having a licence to do so has become largely second nature. And it's that unconscious competence that makes drink driving so dangerous.

[Psychosplodge]

People don't exercise reasonable judgement, and part of alcohol's effect is that it makes you worse at reasonable judgement. It's kinda well-known for it.

If people could be relied upon to exercise judgement, we wouldn't have people exceeding speed limits, knife crime talks in schools, or smoking bans. Having it at zero is reliable, because the alternative is giving a vague count in pints which can vary in effect and potency, or asking everyone to be able to measure their own personal blood alcohol threshold and have the presence of mind to stop drinking when they reach it.

But that's ignoring the vast majority that don't ignore the drink drive limit. The current limit obviously works as we don't have vast numbers of deaths caused by people just under the limit - because if we did you know someone would be campaigning about it and we'd see the figures.
As I said before the idiots that go out and drink three or five or eight pints and get behind the wheel will do that regardless of the limit. All a zero limt would do is get the poor *******s that have been and had three or four friday night and would be under the current limit by the time they drive saturday.

Speed limits are completely arbitrary and sometimes its perfectly reasonable to ignore them.

[Wolfshade]

Perhaps if we took the slaughter of people by drunk drivers more seriously then it might be a deterrent. Now, if you want to kill someone, run them over, the odds are that you would be unlucky to lose your licence for a year, and even more unlucky to see gaol time.

Speed limits were originally set at the 85% of speeds on a road, unless their is a "safety" concern. So engineering a 20 zone for instance. A lower speed limit is a down and dirty (but very cheap an effective) method of making a bad junction safer, the real solution is to redesign but obviously a couple of signs are cheaper than reordering.

[Psychosplodge]

Perhaps if we took the slaughter of people by drunk drivers more seriously then it might be a deterrent. Now, if you want to kill someone, run them over, the odds are that you would be unlucky to lose your licence for a year, and even more unlucky to see gaol time.

That's the point though isn't it. The people that currently ignore the current law and drive well over the limit are probably the same people to some extent that will ignore their twelve/twenty four month ban.


Speed limits were originally set at the 85% of speeds on a road, unless their is a "safety" concern. So engineering a 20 zone for instance. A lower speed limit is a down and dirty (but very cheap an effective) method of making a bad junction safer, the real solution is to redesign but obviously a couple of signs are cheaper than reordering.

The ones that are really pissing me off are the 50 mph ones on pretty decent country A roads, where they've left the winding country lanes at national speed limit, because you know the 50 is only there to allow them to catch more people(Those still doing 60), and ban more motorcyclists (as they're now exceeding the limit by even more so end up in court). I've been told by a motorcyclist friend that derbyshire police will sit and turn back motorcyclists preventing them riding on some roads completely.

[Haighus]

I always felt the 60 on country lanes was more because it was a waste of resources to make signs for it all, when very few people speed anyway, because you have to be a lunatic to go down country lanes fast. It is technically 60 through the hamlet I grew up in, but there are several jinks in the village dodging barns and houses, so anyone going at that speed would likely crash into a wall, never-mind not be able to see oncoming vehicles (like tractors, blocking the entire road).

[Psychosplodge]

It's cause it used to literally mean end of speed limit but then they changed it to national speed limit instead wasn't it?
But no if it was about safety they'd go out and put the repeater signs up on the busier ones or the more dangerous ones and lower the limit, but they don't they only do it on the ones it's worth sticking a camera van.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Just because some people ignore the law, doesn't mean it's not worth maintaining it though.

[Psychosplodge]

If we're talking about drinking and driving I'm all for more enforcement. There's plenty of times you see people and think "I bet they're over the limit" especially on quiet country roads where they're probably not going to see a police car.

If we're talking speeding it should be enforced properly by traffic officers along with other motoring offences (like dangerous driving, using a mobile phone, no insurance) not for a hundred yards by a camera and a postal fine.

[Mr Mystery]

I always felt the 60 on country lines was more because it was a waste of resources to make signs for it all, when very fer people speed anyway, because you have to be a lunatic to go down country lanes fast. It is technically 60 through the hamlet I grew up in, but there are several jinks in the village dodging barns and houses, so anyone going at that speed would likely crash into a wall, nevermind not be able to see oncoming vehicles (like tractors, blocking the entire road).

Ah, but they're quieter. And at night, when it's most likely there'll be drink drivers on the road, you get up a decent speed due to headlights clearly showing someone coming the other way.

I live in Kent where we have lots of beautiful, leafy lanes to explore via car - and something like a Fiesta can be hurled round the corners at surprising speeds - so you do get people speeding!

[Psychosplodge]

The fiesta being thrown round a corner too fast doesn't normally worry me, cause they'll normally be somewhere on their own side. The average non commercial 4x4 driver or anything with an audi/BMW badge on it seems to the think the solid white line is something to drive along - wouldn't want the shiney too near the hedge...

[Haighus]

White lines? You mustn't be thinking of the same country lanes 'Splodge... :D Central lines are a rarity in rural Shropshire...
MM, yeah, at night it is a somewhat different matter, and people do drive a bit too fast for lanes frequently, but it is generally hard to get up to dangerous speeds, more just speeds that would cause a minor accident usually. I know someone who wrote off their car coming down a lane in the middle of the night, only to have to veer off the road (into a ditch) due to spotting a muppet driving without lights at the last second, in the pitch black.

[Mr Mystery]

Though having said that, 4x4s seem to have it in for me today.

Took some sold models to Bracknell, as it's easier than posting. Thought I'd take the scenic, fun way home. Country lanes. Three 4x4's at different points driving too fast, full beam headlights, and didn't dip them.

Then I get home, and some arsehole has parked a 4x4 in the residents parking has managed to take up THREE spaces. The Beast is therefore now in the public car park. Will nip out around 11, see if the 4x4 has ****ed off (never seen it before, so probs a visitor. Hence the added indignation).

[Psychosplodge]

White lines? You mustn't be thinking of the same country lanes 'Splodge... :D Central lines are a rarity in rural Shropshire...

Mostly rural derbyshire/staffordshire when I'm on country lanes and some have the line their even if a car won't physically fit between the line and hedge - whether through the hedge being unkempt or the line being wishful thinking who knows?


MM, yeah, at night it is a somewhat different matter, and people do drive a bit too fast for lanes frequently, but it is generally hard to get up to dangerous speeds, more just speeds that would cause a minor accident usually. I know someone who wrote off their car coming down a lane in the middle of the night, only to have to veer off the road (into a ditch) due to spotting a muppet driving without lights at the last second, in the pitch black.

Yeah tbh I'm guilty of not slowing as much at night cause oncoming lights should give you more warning. Only works when they're on though :eek:

[Psychosplodge]

Brightside and Hillsborough by-election labour down to 15k votes from 22k at general election, turnout down 20%, vote share up 6%.
UKIP 5K
LD and conservatives about 1.3k each with LD about 100 in front.
Everyone else <1k

Ms Furniss said: "Tonight the people of Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough have sent David Cameron an emphatic message: Mr Cameron we have had enough of your uncaring government. We have had enough of your Tory government's unfair cuts which have hit communities like ours in Sheffield so much more than affluent areas."

Idk if this actually means anything - its been labour since 1935 just about anyone in a red rosette would have won it.
You expect lower numbers in a non general election year.

In the Scottish polls the SNP failed to secure an overall majority.

[Mr Mystery]

Share of the vote is the important thing though - especially when the knives were out for Corbyn the second he was elected to lead the party, by the party.

Increase share of the vote, even in a safe seat? That's still good going.

T Wells results to be counted this afternoon (because apparently, it can't possibly be done earlier)