Printable version of thread

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th February 2018, 11:40 AM

A place to gather weekly news events that are actually quite Big....

How about a billionaire getting private space travel off the ground, and and a monument with whimsy "Don't Panic/David Bowie" rocketing away from Planet Earth. Alien civilisations will have great theories...

How about a privileged billionaire lying about Brexit so he can get richer then calling for support for the poorest (tax money he avoids in large part with offshore advice and creations) to be cancelled entirely.

Anti-semitism on the front page of a millionaire-owned Rag towards a rich holocaust survivor because they don't like his political views - but are happy to push their own agendas.

Ancient Britons - evidence discovered that our ancestors were black-skinned. Obviously that gives a degree of self-righteousness for black-skinned British to say to fair-skinned British people to piss off back to their own countries (that'll be EUROPE!) having arrived illegally and uninvited in hordes over the course of centuries. Karma is a thing.

Turns out Melania's parents have no qualifications and are living in the USA without a job or finances. Surely exactly the sort of people Donald Trump is trying to get kicked out? Karma is a bitch.

Contrary to White House made-up memos, the investigation in Russia and the Trump election and staff is steaming ahead on several fronts.

An actual Nazi is up for election for the Republican party. Not hidden. Not kicked out. Not made-up. An actual statement-making admitted Nazi. That is the State of the USA right now.

Meanwhile the Republican Party, who fought against every Obama Bill that meant spending on the excuse of "debt" are trying to shut down government rather than amend a hugely debt-creating Bill, having given away trillions in tax to billionaires.

World Gone Mad?

Posted by: vidcapper 9th February 2018, 02:19 PM

Trump finally outed himself, then?

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2018, 07:20 AM

Labour MPs 'were paid £10,000 to meet spies’: Ex-Czech informant claims at least 15 senior figures were used in the Russian-orchestrated operation as Westminster is urged to launch a probe into the allegations

I've been trying to find the Guardian's opinion on this story, but curiously, they seem to be silent.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th February 2018, 08:58 AM

Stories originating from spies are always suspect. Equally, stories dominating one front page but ignored by the rest of the press are often dubious at best.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th February 2018, 09:02 AM

Probably because the Czech Government said it was a complete fabrication...

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2018, 09:42 AM

Oh I agree, but in my experience they only get dismissed out of hand when they are about political figures on the side of the dismissee.



I saw the story in the Express & Independent too.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2018, 09:43 AM

*Every* government would issue a denial in similar circumstances...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th February 2018, 10:26 AM

Look forward to seeing some evidence. We actually have evidence of UKIP involvement in the same.....not least farage's clandestine meeting with Julian Assange after leaving Trump. What was the purpose of that meeting? How is it Assange gets hold of so much KGB-sourced material that supports Trump, Brexit and right-wing parties in Europe and seems to always be against non-extreme democratic parties?

Funny that.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th February 2018, 11:38 AM

What information were Labour (opposition) backbenchers likely to be able to provide that couldn't have been gained simply by reading a newspaper?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th February 2018, 05:23 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/15/labour-hits-back-at-defence-secretary-over-corbyn-spy-claims

journalists have one key purpose: to make sure that what they cover has been verified and investigate both sides before publishing. Otherwise, as I constantly say, it's propaganda.

Produce some proof, get the "spy" to come clean and give accounts, like bank account details, correspondence that they knew (if it happened) the people involved were Communist Spies - 30 years ago - and then explain how it is any different from Corbyn meeting members of terrorist organisations for free, or getting paid to speak on Russia Today. I mean, I would love it to be true, but y'know, I need proof....

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th February 2018, 10:57 PM

And so the "Corbin was a spy" story continues to fall apart...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/19/tory-deletes-spy-tweet-about-jeremy-corbyn-after-legal-threat

Posted by: Doctor Blind 20th February 2018, 12:17 AM

What secret information is a (newly elected) back bench MP supposed to have had back in 1983?

This story has been running all weekend, I wonder what has spooked the right-wing press all of a sudden?

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th February 2018, 11:41 AM

That's the point I made earlier. It's the reason why the story just doesn't make any sense. It's not even as if he was being spoken of as a rising star who might, therefore, be worth cultivating. He was laws known as a left-winger with no real ambition to be on the front bench. The fact that he became leader long after the Soviet bloc collapsed doesn't invalidate that general perception.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 21st February 2018, 12:57 AM

Indeed. Oh and:

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st February 2018, 03:15 PM

indeed

Posted by: Brett-Butler 21st February 2018, 03:19 PM

I do love Matt's cartoons. This one remains my favourite he's ever done -

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th February 2018, 09:01 PM

There's a few things today:

kids trying to get the NRA to change it's stance so they dont get regularly murdered have become targets of the right-wing media and Republicans because they are a danger to their core belief of children getting murdered being perfectly ok.

Successful campaigning has encouraged some companies to stop financing the NRA (who pay no tax as they are a "charity". A charity in the same way as a dog with rabies is just spreading the love) but there is a day of action planned against Amazon and Apple on Thursday. I certainly won't be buying anything on Thursday. It remains to be seen whether I buy anything on friday (or thereafter) from them....

A major paper seems to be preparing a piece about Cambridge Anal-litica, Aaron banks and the use of money during the referendum. May be enlightening.

Trump encourages Americans to vote for "Lyin'" Ted Cruz and help keep his "Ugly wife, who's not as hot as his -Trump's - 3rd wife" (Paraphrased from earlier Trump quotes) in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed.

The Brexiteers have had a field day. Johnson thinks the London Congestion Charge should be adopted instead of actual passports and checks at borders. Why has no country in the world thought of this marvellous idea! The man's a genius!

Fox is a bit uppity cos he's frightened his job might become irrelevant and his cash reserves affected, so he's been spreading some more not-quite-true-isms.

There's been a bit of snow. It's the end of the world as we know it! Truly shocking that a country so close to the Arctic Circle should get a day of snow. It might be worse! 2 or 3 days! God help us all!!!

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 07:19 AM

If the Mail had come up with a misrepresentation that gross, you would be outraged.

There's a *big* difference between the unintended consequence of a policy, and actually reveling in it - the idea that anyone in the NRA is happy about school massacres is bordering on libelous.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th February 2018, 01:07 PM

The Mail reports news. My own statements are opinion about news when I use exaggeration and sarcasm in a sentence. Their core belief is that kids getting murdered by assault rifles is better than stopping unstable people having access to them is a matter of record. Therefore, rather than agree to sensible gun control they would rather dead children. And attack the children who witnessed it, and are trying to stand up for not being murdered. I would call that evil. It is a policy that killing children is preferable to minor legislation to avoid it.

So they don't care at all. No person who cared genuinely would object to what the survivors of the massacre are doing and trying to achieve.

PS at least SOME members and supporters of the NRA are very keen on the idea of murdering children - the ones that do it. The "few bad apples" manage to murder tens of thousands of people each year.....

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 03:26 PM

Nobody could object to *unstable* people being denied access to guns, but would you be so keen on the notion that 'no-one should be allowed to drive because drunk drivers kill hundreds of people a year'?

If you object to that analogy, then what about the law of unintended consequences? The Temperance Movements that led to Prohibition were undoubtedly sincere in their belief that banning alcohol would be a good thing, but they could not have predicted that organised crime would make the situation far worse.

IRO banning all guns, there's a very foreseeable possibility that more people will be mugged, burgled, raped or even killed if they no longer have the means to defend themselves.

In short, *all* the consequences have to be considered, not just the headline ones.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th February 2018, 09:31 PM

1. no there wont be bad consequences we have proof from every country in the world which has banned guns

2. but the NRA DO object to laws against nutters

3. drunk drivers dont intend to kill people. cars have a purpose that isnt to kill, guns purpose is to kill. alcohol is the problem not cars. car drivers have to be licensed and tested, gun owners dont in the usa. whats the problem with checks and limits on guns as there are with driving cars?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th February 2018, 10:54 PM

That is the equivalent of the idiots who opposed the introduction of "chip and pin" because it would "only" reduce fraud by 80% (or whatever the figure was) rather than 100%.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st March 2018, 06:49 AM

1. So nutters don't murder people in countries that've banned guns?

2. Have you heard of the cliche 'guns don't kill, people do'?

Seriously though, iro cars, it is people who flout the rules intended to protect drivers, who cause most problems : unlicenced, uninsured, banned ones - pretty much the same people who also ignore gun control legislation in fact...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st March 2018, 12:59 PM

1. The number of murders in countries with banned guns is minute compared to those that have free access to guns. This is a fact.

2. That is a lie perpetuated by the NRA. Most people murdered by guns are family and friends (so it is NO defense at all). The number of people whose lives have been saved by having a gun is very minor because you have a bullet in your head before you can react. Why do you not think mass murderers have never been stopped by the 100zillion guns owned and carried by many in the USA? facts.

3. The point with cars is - you have to prove you are sane, not blind, not subject to blackouts, recognise safety signs, know the law, apply for a licence, pass a test, and be of an age. Cars are not weapons of mass destruction. There is nothing on the constitution stating that mentally ill 17-year-olds should be able to buy and use assault rifles before they are legally even allowed to drink alcohol. The onyl reason the NRA object to ALL forms of control is they see their wealth and power being attacked and the principle of reasoned amendments frightens them to death because it might lead to more reasonable amendments.

I repeat, they want MORE people to buy guns because it makes them richer and more powerful. NOT to make people safer. All evidence conclusively proves it has the reverse effect.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st March 2018, 03:18 PM

1. I decided to do a bit of Googling - make of it what you will...

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2/#switzerland-is-obsessed-with-getting-shooting-right-every-year-it-holds-a-shooting-contest-for-kids-aged-13-to-17-1
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html
https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

2. The problem is - it is easy to document how many people have been killed, but almost impossible to tell how many people who Might have been killed, but weren't, due to defensive gun use.

3. Most states *do* have background checks before you can buy a gun - but naturally, criminals find ways to circumvent those. Unfortunately there's no reason to think they wouldn't also circumvent any new gun control laws that might be passed.

Now the usual disclaimer : I do not support the mass ownership gun culture of the US

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st March 2018, 08:45 PM

1. I know the stats. You live in a country that doesnt have gun death problems thanks to legislation passed after the murder of children in a school

2. No it's easy to document. To avoid being accused of murder you have to make a case of self-defense. So it's VERY easy to record.

3. Those generally are token gestures like making a statement or waiting a day. Nothing of significance. Criminals gaining access to illegal arms is another matter entirely. That happens in this country - but it is not the huge problem it is in the USA and evryone knows if they get caught with one they going to prison....

PS deciding to avoid making something illegal on the grounds that criminals will still get access is insane logic. There would be no laws for anything using that logic. ie no point convicting anyone of murdering people because they'll just do it whether they end up in jail or they don't. NOTE: it is illegal to murder, yet 10 million people have been murdered in the USA. Therefore jail or the death penalty is not a deterrent. Therefore that means you either give up on having laws or you tackle the root cause: guns.

Not supporting mass gun ownership doesn't mean I see you arguing for controlling it in anyway, just making excuses for not controlling it. So the 2 statements don't sit comfortably together.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd March 2018, 06:45 AM

1. We didn't have *that much* of a gun problem even before Dunblane, but then we didn't have a US-style gun culture in the first place.

2. OK, but that doesn't cover every eventuality - what about the deterrent effect?

Which area is a burglar most likely to target

a) An area where the majority of homes contain a gun
b) An area where there are few or no guns

3. If you're implying that gun legislation is mere tokenism, what is the point? OTOH are you suggesting an outright ban across the whole US?

As for my disclaimer - I didn't think I had to be *that* specific, the implication that control was included in my statement should have been obvious.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd March 2018, 07:40 AM

Some good financial news...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/01/back-black-uk-current-budget-surplus-imf-says-osborne-right/

Back in black: UK in current budget surplus as IMF says Osborne was right to cut spending

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd March 2018, 10:27 AM

1. Err IRA/ terrorism/gangland... you have a very poor memory of your childhood. It was never as bad as the USA but then virtually nowhere outside war zones ever has been as bad as the USA. It's only the Good Friday agreement that stopped the violence.

2. There is no deterrent effect. All statistics prove it.

3. Burglars dont know which houses have or havent guns. they wait till you are out when they strike. Not a deterrent. If they are armed too then far more likely to shoot you than vice versa unless you hear them even if you are in. fake sense of security.

4. No I'm implying that your logic taken to it's logical end means there would be no laws on anything. I thought I made that clear. An outright ban is the only solution to the problem, but any legislation is better than no legislation.

5. yet you seem to look for reasons against something you say you support instead of stressing that, yes criminals may likely still get hold of guns, but gun-control is weak and non-existent generally in the USA so anything that can be done to improve the situation is welcome. I just summed up for you what you appear to have been saying.... You're welcome.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd March 2018, 10:37 AM

good news unless you have died from austerity cuts or are struggling as a result of 10 years of wage cuts or have nowhere to live or can never afford to buy a house. Great news for rich people who dont pay taxes.

Just a reminder: This was supposed to happen years ago (it didn't). It just means we have finally stopped spending more than we earn, not that the debt has gone away. 10 years. That could easily change post-Brexit when what we earn could plummet and costs go up. If we get the Hard Brexit you want then watch this reverse quickly.

This is reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd March 2018, 10:34 PM

So, in the match to see which party has raised more than it spent, the Tories have pulled one back against Labour, Even though the Tories have had more possession (i.e. they have been in power for longer), they are still behind in the figure that matters economically.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd March 2018, 12:51 AM

There’s a lot of carefully selected quotes and very little detail in that article.

To claim austerity in the UK as a success is delusional at best. The NHS is on its knees, public services are f***ed, the welfare system is literally killing people, homelessness has skyrocketed, income inequality grows daily, the emergency services are at breaking point (Manchester alone is 2,000 officers short of where it needs to be) and as a result people have bought the lies fed to them by the overly right wing media and by the coalition that immigrants were to blame for this falling standard of living and near triple dip recession instead of the ideology of the government.

No conclusion can be effectively drawn from Ireland as it’s very much like Luxembourg in that it’s a bit of a quasi tax haven home to a lot of paper companies and the very low corporation tax makes it attractive to US firms hiding global revenues. Without that, Ireland never would have survived austerity and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Southern Europe is crippled by this toxic ideology that the IMF were talking down just the other month. So honestly I really wonder if the IMF even knows what year it is, they appear to be rather incompetent

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd March 2018, 06:32 AM

One point that has been avoided iro the time taken to balance the books, is that to have done so quicker would have meant austerity would have needed to have been even more extreme.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd March 2018, 08:06 AM

I dont agree with that scenario - taxes could have been increased, most especially those megarich firms and individuals hiding dosh in British tax havens. Americans are MUCH more clued up on chasing and imposing high jail sentences on dodgers. That would have lessened the impact on the general public and all those promises of sorting it out by 2014 (lies) might have been met. Also, just a point, rescuing bankrupt banks made a huge hit on the public pocket - wiping out the cash we get from banks. They still havent paid it back and the shares bought are worth just a fraction of the cash Gordon Brown paid. Any bank profits should go back to the UK public until it's all paid back. That would help a bit (not much, but at least morally).

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd March 2018, 08:56 AM

The same ones who bankroll the party who were in charge of tax decisions, you mean?



Interesting term you used there : 'dodgers' - are we talking avoiders (legal), or evaders (Illegal)?

As for bank bailouts - surely the situation would have been a lot worse if millions of ordinary people had lost their saving through bank collapses?

As for the moral aspect - unfortunately politicians don't have any (or if they do, they have several sets that they swap around as needed).

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd March 2018, 10:05 AM

Avoiders are not acting legally. POTAS and DOTAS legislation has pretty much ended tax 'loopholes' these schemes exploited by making it illegal to exploit the loophole and the need for promoters of avoidance schemes to declare them to HMRC including all the details of the benefits and the beneficiaries.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd March 2018, 10:10 AM

To save anyone else having to look then up : POTAS = Promoters Of Tax Avoidance Schemes, DOTAS = Disclosure Of Tax Avoidance Schemes

Unfortunately, no matter how many schemes you close, other ones always slip through the net. Either that, or the highest rate taxpayers just move elsewhere.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd March 2018, 10:30 AM

The whole point of P/DOTAS is that schemes can’t slip through the net because if they aren’t declared they’re illegal and the penalties are f***ing huge.

Higher rate tax payers won’t move elsewhere. This is a complete fallacy of the right wing low tax ideology. If they work in the UK they’re taxed here. Most of the high earners don’t have the job that allows them to do a Lewis Hamilton and flee to Monaco. Although he’s employed by a British firm and works here so arguably is liable for tax in this country anyway. (And I’m still waiting to see him charged with VAT fraud over that jet HMRC)

HMRC needs more staff and rules on tax residency status needs firmed up to ensure that if you want to flee abroad to avoid NI and Income Tax then you cannot be employed by a UK firm, do any work for a UK firm, hold a position on the board of a UK firm, or benefit from things such as the NHS.

Regrettably while the conservatives cling to power there will never be the type of action we need to kill off avoidance or evasion, nor make it an imprisonable offence.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd March 2018, 01:29 PM

1. Yes those ones..

2. both. Morally both are wrong.

3. Yes, it would have been catastrophic had they let the bansk collapse

4. I don't disagree!

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd March 2018, 02:14 PM

There is no way a responsible government could let a major High Street bank collapse. Of course, the Tories will never acknowledge the fact that the bank bail-out was by far the biggest contributor to the deficit, or the role their deregulation of the banks played in the downfall of RBS and HBOS.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd March 2018, 02:39 PM

I wish we could agree more often.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th March 2018, 06:50 AM

Sorry, I missed this post before.

1. Now I'm confused - I thought we were talking about random loonies going postal, rather than organised violence?

2. My reply to that is surely very predictable : obviously existing deterrents aren't strong enough.

3. Most burglaries happen under cover of darkness, which is also the time most people are at home. Also, burglars have to be lucky *every time* - armed homeowners only have to be lucky once...

4. An outright ban was tried in the US, on alcohol - remind me how that turned out.

In any case, an outright ban would require repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and I cannot see that ever happening.

Also, how could you ever hope to confiscate guns from 100 million people - many of whom would fight to retain them? Some States might even secede rather than comply.

5. I merely point out the practical problems in the policy you advocate - something you seem keen on emphasizing where another issue is concerned <cough>Brexit<cough.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th March 2018, 11:01 AM

1. We were talking gun violence generally.

2. You can't get more deterrent than execution and that doesnt deter. If someone is intent on dying in a blaze of glory that negates any deterrent effect. ALL statistics prove it makes no difference what the penalties are.

3. Point to stats that show burglaries take place when people are in bed.....

4. An outright ban on pesticides in food took place. How did THAT turn out? PS. alcohol isnt used to murder other people, it's self-destruction, plus occasional friendly-fire of family and friends. It's not legal in the USA to drink and drive, for example. That is against the law. The right to drink alcohol is not universal, there are sensible restrictions. Age. Work. Driving. Others. There are restrictions on guns. Age. Republican conventions. Facts: gun-related incidents drop 20% when 80000 NRA members hold a convention. Think that speaks volumes about who's contributing towards causing the problems...

5. the Amendments have already been repealed (see Alcohol, and others) so it's not a god-given-right. They weren't in the original Declaration, it was an amendment. It's purely politics and the will of the People.

6. The practical side of it, taking away guns, is easy. You give a year to hand them in, and then make it illegal and deal with it on a case by case basis. It'll take decades but numbers will go down. I dont envisage gunfights at the OK Corral (except illegal suppliers), I envisage people getting caught in illegal acts being prosecuted for ownership.

7. Not pointing out practical problems is something you are also very selective about, cough, Brexit. Discussions on the economic future of the UK - being practical and using facts - is not quite the same as shrugging your shoulders and saying 10 million dead, waddya do hey...

Posted by: vidcapper 4th March 2018, 11:28 AM

1. But most of that is perpetrated by people who are already convicted criminals - a law-abiding American who buys a gun for self-defence doesn't suddenly turn into Rambo, just through owning a gun!

2. Sorry, but I simply do not accept that!

3. Burglaries happen mostly at night - people tend to sleep at night - therefore a lot of burglaries happen when people are in bed.

4. Strawman - people don't care about pesticides like they do about crime.

5. If the will of the people wanted guns banned, then they've had plenty of opportunities before now - but they haven't - so what does that tell you?

6. You make it sound so easy - but no-one in their right minds would voluntarily make it easier for themselves to be victims of crime!

7. This is not about me - I leave the practicalities of achieving Brexit to those who offered us the choice in the first place.

Posted by: Dexton 4th March 2018, 11:42 AM

Putting a ban (or just stricter control) on guns in place would not work logistically. It’s extremely impractical, not to mention dangerous, to attempt taking back a large proportion of all firearms issued in the US.

Those who have to have their firearms taken back (ones who would not pass stricter background checks for example) are the ones more at risk of potential mental disabilities and I can assure you will NOT be open to giving their weapons back to the government. Thus there is a HUGE security risk which spans across the whole nation, opening gateways to basically anarchy as everyone refuses to give back their guns... using (or threatening to use) their guns to stop people taking their guns.

Another option I believe would be for the government to buy back all weapons from the public. Preventing the ownership of guns in the first place would seriously cripple aspects of the US economy, and then the government buying back weaponry would make things a hell of a lot worse. The only way to avoid losing thousands of jobs (at least) would then be to focus on exporting more guns across the world as barely anyone in the US would be allowed them. Australia won’t buy US guns, Europe won’t, Canada doesn’t need to, China doesn’t need to... after that it only leaves the Middle East which of course would love an influx of weaponry...

I can’t see devastating impacts not coming from a gun ban. Gun control would be less hurtful on the US population, but would also be much less effective. If simply removing all weapons from the public would work, then yes I and many others would completely endorse it. But I feel like the consequences of such an action would have serious impacts for everyone to the point where a gun ban could put the US in a worse, more deadlier state than it’s already in

Posted by: vidcapper 4th March 2018, 12:25 PM

This pretty well sums up the practical problems that I envisage.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th March 2018, 12:31 PM

GroKo is a Go Go!!

The SPD have voted in favour of a third grand coalition:

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th March 2018, 02:32 PM

An economy which is based on the selling of weapons of death is morally corrupt and unstable in the long run. I'm sure if everyone stopped buying hairspray and skin creams it would be a hit to the economy but they dont kill people. If economies depended on the building of guns then all countries would do it. They don't. They don't suffer, they build other stuff. America is resourceful and has a whole continent of natural resources and is the most powerful nation in history ever. That isn't based on gun sales (worth about 15 billion dollars a year), and the US economy generates 19 trillion dollars a year. That's 1.5% of the annual GDP, I make it. Significant but not something that can't be worked out with investment in alternative industries to create something less hurtful. What the stats DON'T take into account is the cost of having guns to the economy: tourists stay away cos they are frightened of the violence (trust me it's a common explanation and reason so many choose not to go the USA), medical costs, insurance costs, cost of enforcement and court cases, not to mention the social costs of families destroyed by loss of earners. Pretty sure it would end up zero cost to the economy, bar those that depend on a constant supply of dead bodies (tax-payer paid, many of them).

I didn't promote the forced taking back of guns. I suggested an amnesty for a year, that will get rid of loads, followed by making selling them illegal. Faced with a jail sentence the vast majority will comply. Some will go underground and they will be crooks, sooner or later they will go to jail. Home ownership will then be based on older weapons and they will decline over time, and as all these law-abiding citizens get caught doing something they will get prosecuted for having possession, and more guns get removed. It's a long-term prospect, with that many guns it will take a lifetime to sort, but there will be millions of people who dont die as a result, most of them non-gun-owners,

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th March 2018, 02:42 PM

1. Most firearms deaths are committed by "law-abiding citizens". Those that do it habitually end up in prison or dead.

2. Don't care if you accept it. I have facts on my side. There is no study that shows murder rates are lower with the death penalty, or torture, or hung, drawing and quartering someone.

3. you are wrong (if one takes "night" to mean when asleep):

When and Where does burglary occur?
Every year, there are over 1 million burglaries and attempted burglaries.
A burglary happens every 40 seconds in the UK.
Most burglaries are not pre-planned but are committed by opportunistic criminals.
Burglary victimisation occurs in 6% of cases when no or less than basic security, and 1% of cases where basic or enhanced security exists, in other words where there is window locks and double locks or deadlocks on outside doors.
A poll by Halifax found out 34% of householders with an alarm fitted to their home said they rarely activated it while a further 33% also said that they assume sounding burglar alarms in their neighbourhood to be false.
73% of burglars use doors, which are open in 3% of cases.
64% of householders also confessed to occasionally leaving doors unlocked whilst away from home and a further 37% whilst inside the home – even though statistics show that 22% of burglaries are carried out with the thief aware that the home was occupied.
Infographics say that 57% of burglaries occur when someone is at home.
Through a Victim Support Survey, it has been discovered that 1 in 4 victims have had their house broken into more than once.
A British survey has found that repeat victims are likely to make up between 60-80% of all crime incidents.
Most likely break-in and burglary victims are single-parent families in urban UK areas as they are affected twice more than homes with two parents, and thrice more than households without children.
Urban residents are twice more susceptible to be burglars’ targets than rural dwellers.
56% of burglaries happen at night.
Most burglaries take place after dark; 10% occur in the morning, 20% in the afternoon, 32% in the evening and 23% during the night, whereas 30% occur in the weekend.

4. Not strawman. Read the whole paragraph.

5. It tells me the NRA pay for politicians. 80% of Americans dont want guns and dont own guns. Why are you so sure that most people don't want change when facts say otherwise. Stop making excuses for the gun lobby.

6. The UK had a gun amnesty. There were no murders, death and crime rates didn't go up. Statistics prove gun ownership makes you LESS safe and more likely to die. This is a fact. You might FEEL safer, but you are deluding yourself, as Oscar Pistorius's girlfriend found out (note: the problem is not confined to the USA).

7. You made it about me, I made it backatcha. Kettle calling frying pan.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th March 2018, 02:43 PM

You're leaving aside the possibility of jury nullification, though.

In a state where 50% support RKBA, good luck in finding 12 people who'll all vote guilty if the charge is just gun *possession* with no other associated criminal activity.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th March 2018, 02:50 PM

I said: gun-ownership coming to light as a result of other criminal activity. That could be traffic violations, burglaries, violence against a family-member. The gun-possession wouldnt be the key charge, and it wouldnt necsesarily have to be prison-based, a fine could cover it and a jury would not be required any more than it is when bunged up in front of a magistrate. They key point is: THE GUN IS GONNEY

Posted by: vidcapper 5th March 2018, 06:35 AM

But ISTM that idea might invite trumped-up charges designed to criminalise someone, just so the authorities would have an excuse to confiscate their guns. Also, trying to bypass the jury system in order to do so, would surely be an abuse of process, and be challenged through one or more articles in the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th March 2018, 10:08 AM

you are making up ludicrous excuses and are unclear on American law. The law is always subject to abuse. All laws. One doesnt go to a jury in the UK OR the USA for minor misdemeanors - it's just a fact. Police found a gun, persons admits charge, gun is taken away, fine issued. It only becomes a jury issue in the case of serious charges which would be much worse than the possession of illegal firearms. At some stage, far in the future, gun ownership COULD become a serious charge - but there is no logical base to turn 20% into hardened criminals overnight and a legal system that couldnt cope. Let them die out naturally with age. Guns would reduce over time.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th March 2018, 10:16 AM

But what if they refuse to roll over - then the case could go to a jury.

There's also the 4th Amendment to consider - the one that bans unreasonable searches.

The only way the police could be sure there is a gun in a house, is if it is registered - and if it is, then what's the problem?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th March 2018, 02:16 PM

If there is a gun in the car that isnt covered. if the police have a warrant to search a house due to other crime (which is WHAT I SAID) then a gun would turn up, if they are carrying a gun in public they would be charged and the gun taken away. If someone is stupid enough to demand a jury trial over a minor misdemeanor it would end up more expensive than the fine and the jury, even if all redneck NRA members (which is unlikely) can't deny the police having found an unregistered/unlicensed* gun as evidence with fingerprints on it.

As I say, you are making excuses and inventing issues that aren't there. There is only one issue: you either support guns or you don't. Everything else is just bullshit. Thankfully I live in a country (your tops absolutely fave country in the whole universe, blub) that sees things the way I do. If you don't, feel free to campaign, but stopping making excuses as to why not having guns is an impossible ambition. It isn't.

(* I don't see sports guns and hunting rifles as problematic, and these could be licensed and used in controlled areas - even though I dont see the point of either, I accept they are not generally the cause of mass deaths or family tragedies on anything like the same scale)

Posted by: vidcapper 5th March 2018, 02:49 PM

That is not quite correct - we're back to the 'Fruit of the poisonous tree'. In most of the US, you can only use as evidence items that have been specifically named on a search warrant. A gun might be confiscatable in those circumstances, but you couldn't be prosecuted for owning it unless it was specifically being searched for.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th March 2018, 05:09 PM

tell that to Trump - exceptions have been made:

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3219840/security/trump-signed-bill-into-law-allowing-warrantless-searches-in-parts-of-va-md-and-dc.html

however, I'm not too worried whether there is a prosecution or not. The aim isn't to criminalise everyone this isnt a war against people who disagree, it's to get rid of the guns. Losing something they paid potentially hundreds of dollars for is enough...

Posted by: vidcapper 6th March 2018, 06:26 AM

iro the above Trump example, surely that's all the more reason to ensure the Constitution is adhered to?

Posted by: vidcapper 6th March 2018, 06:57 AM

An example of hypocrisy :

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/kings-college-london-building-evacuated-after-masked-protesters-storm-talk-featuring-alt-right-a3782206.html

A King's College London building was evacuated after masked anti-fascist protesters stormed an event featuring a controversial 'alt right' speaker.

**************

How can they justify calling themselves anti-fascist, when they use Brownshirt tactics themselves?

The Mail's version :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5466359/Several-people-hurt-thugs-shut-FREE-SPEECH-event.html

The Guardian's version :

Posted by: vidcapper 6th March 2018, 07:29 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/burials-cab-rank-coroner-religion

Why I’d happily give up my place in the burials ‘cab rank’ queue
Peter Ormerod

The coroner who insists on the first-come, first-served principle when releasing bodies for burial misunderstands religion

**************************************

I'm surprised the Guardian would even draw attention to an issue like this - normally they avoid anything that could stir up racial/religious tensions.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th March 2018, 12:33 PM

No. It's not the Word of God, and it can be changed whenever suits - as Trump has just proved. It isn't 1776 anymore on the wild frontier with citizens railing against a foreign oppressive occupying power. It's almost as if you DO want guns....

Posted by: vidcapper 6th March 2018, 01:02 PM

I guess I have to state it for the record 'I do not support RKBA'.

Trump has *not* changed the Constitution, he has (IMO illegally) circumvented it - the worst aspect is that Congress meekly accepted it.

I strongly suspect this will be challenged in the Supreme Court at some point.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th March 2018, 04:26 PM

http://www.bromley.gov.uk/press/article/1338/bromley_residents_asked_to_bring_id_to_vote_in_may_local_elections

Bromley residents asked to bring ID to vote in May Local Elections

Published Thursday, 15 February 2018

Voter ID - 3 May 2018 election.
Bromley is taking part in a Voter ID pilot at the Local Council Elections on 3 May 2018.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 6th March 2018, 07:17 PM

I'm firmly against voter ID laws. It disproportionally impacts PoC and the less well off.

No surprise the Republicans and Tories are fans

No they don't. They don't just slap a sensationalist front page on with aggressively racist undertones

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2018, 07:01 AM

But surely you wouldn't disagree with the principle of minimizing the number of illegal votes?

Of course, postal voting is the area must susceptible to abuse, as the checks there can be circumvented, and there is greater potential for influence by family members, friends, etc.



How on earth did they report on the Rochdale & Rotherham child abuse scandals, then - the racial undertones on those were unavoidable.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 7th March 2018, 07:17 AM

Yes it was avoidable.


There is a handful of votes at most at every GE that are fraudulent and that’s it. Not enough to change the result in any meaningful way at all. I recall maybe 1 vote in Scotland that was suspect in the last election. Out of a couple of million that firmly comes under “accept” on the TARA risk framework. The problem is so minute that it’s not really an issue at all. Voter ID laws are a disproportionate response as it defranchises people. The statistics from the US are staggering and seriously dent the POC vote at such a rate you have to question the true intention of the laws

Also this law does nothing to prevent potential postal vote fraud. Just in-person on the day voting.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2018, 07:32 AM

There are only a handful of votes that are *proven* fraudulent, which is not quite the same thing.

I agree that voter ID laws may be overkill, but the sector they might adversely affect is also the sector most likely be involved in fraudulent voting in the first place <cough>Tower Hamlets<cough>

I already acknowledged that postal voting has particular issues.

On a side issue - 'POC' voting?

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2018, 03:57 PM

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5469581/Ryanair-boss-Michael-OLeary-threatens-ground-planes-post-Brexit.html

Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary threatens to ground planes after Brexit in a bid to force Britain 'rethink' its vote to quit the EU

Michael O'Leary said he is considering the stunt to show voters they were 'lied to'

Airline chief executive said Brexit will spell the end of cheap holidays for Britons

Tory MP and Brexiteer Peter Bone said the idea the stunt will work is pure fantasy

*******************

This time though, the Labour-supporting Mirror carries the story too...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ryanair-chief-threatens-ground-cheap-12138248?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th March 2018, 04:07 PM

According to Electoral Commission estimates the number of fraudulent votes at the last election was 28. I'm prepared to live with that.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2018, 04:21 PM

I assume that's the number they could *prove*?

So if the Home Office said 'this is the number of crimes we can prove', would you so readily accept that that's all the crimes that took place?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th March 2018, 08:53 PM

More to the point: do you have evidence that it WASN'T 28? If not, then you're just guessing cos it suits you to. No voting system is ever going to be foolproof. I mean, I'd love to overturn the result of the last 2 elections and the referendum based on illegal voting, but sadly I have no proof so PLEASE tell me you have proof, and give me some hope we can get rid of the Tories and the stupid economic suicide pact they are currently pushing.....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th March 2018, 09:06 PM

That isn't a front page headline, it's not racist, it's not Calling Ryanair Enemies Of The People for running it's business how it wants to run it, political or not, so I'm guessing "NO!"

(PS Tory Party and Brexit campaign minted by rich business owners spreading political propaganda, so hypocrites much, no headlines about that online or otherwise.....)

Posted by: vidcapper 8th March 2018, 06:34 AM

But you seem to be accepting 28 as a maximum, rather than a minimum - that's my point.

As for getting rid of the Tories, past experience suggests that Labour gov'ts are even worse at handling the economy.



Well, I was thinking in terms of sensationalist presentation as a general example, as this specific one wasn't racist, and I obviously cannot tell what their headline in the physical edition is without seeing it.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 8th March 2018, 08:02 AM

Obviously not. This is entirely unrelated to the point and you know it.

On the subject of this article, it’s not a threat it’s actually a very real possibility. Ryanair have an Irish AOC and without an agreement with the EU on openskies Ryanair won’t be allowed to operate any flights to/from/within the uk. Easyjet have been rapidly transferring their non-domestic operations to a new AOC so they can continue to fly their non-UK routes

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th March 2018, 08:03 AM

Errr given the banking crisis was caused by Thatcher/Tory worshipping the free market and devoted to the idea that rich greedy bast*rds can be trusted to self-monitor and grow so big that it can cripple the host country, and that New labour adopted the same mantra, and then both felt saving the rich people at the expense of the poor people who have suffered over a decade of austerity, I'm kinda thinking they at the very least are as bad as one another.

Given the joys of both parties being split over Brexit and the forthcoming economic mess (yes it IS going to happen) but happy to go along with it I'm not seeing any optimism that either of them knows what they are doing (but at least Labour pays lip-service to putting the needy first, the Tories just lie about it).

The BBC has the front pages of all the press daily. You dont have to buy them or walk to the newsagent, you only have to spend 15 seconds flicking through them. I know it sounds kinda complex, but it really isn't.

PS previous front pages are available on the interwebby thing too. There's a thing called google (spit, ptui, tax-dodging mega-corp) or lesser brands that do the same thing for less tax-evasion purposes.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th March 2018, 08:10 AM

Ah, but you have to know something is available before you know to look for it - I was not aware of the above.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers

I've now bookmarked this.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th March 2018, 01:08 PM

happy to help!

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th March 2018, 05:29 PM

At the risk of being boring (I have, after all, said this before) the Tories have been in power for roughly 60% of the time since WW2. In that time there have been very few years when the government has operated a budget surplus. Most of them have been under Labour governments.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th March 2018, 12:38 AM

Trump 'ready to meet North Korea's Kim Jong-un'.

^What a meeting that is going to be...

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th March 2018, 01:04 AM

Just like a meeting of two six-year-olds. They will spend their time arguing about what type of jelly is best.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th March 2018, 06:44 AM

It would also be useful to know for each government, whether the deficit was bigger at the start of their time in office, or at the end, as that would tell us which way the economy was heading.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 9th March 2018, 06:50 AM

Ideology has caused a ballooning deficit and some serious damage to our nation since 2010. There is no getting away from the economic mismanagement of the Tories here

If we were lucky they’d end up killing each other

Posted by: Dexton 9th March 2018, 07:36 AM

The conspiracy theorist within tells me that this could be a trap for the US President as a result of South & Norh Korea’s combined forces. Kim Jong-Un’s been swinging his nuclear dick around for years, there’s no way he’s suddenly decided to make (somewhat) peace with the US and South Korea when they were on the brink of war not too long ago.

On another topic...


A BBC report I just read says that Amelia Earhart, who famously disappeared over the Pacific Ocean in 1937, has been confirmed dead as remains found on the Pacific island of Nikumaroro, about 1,800 miles (2,900km) southwest of Hawaii. Human remains were found in 1941 and concluded to be male, but new forensic technology claims that the remains are in fact a 99% match with Earhart. A whole generation of mystery, solved by technology

Posted by: vidcapper 9th March 2018, 07:57 AM

I saw that story too - are they running DNA tests to confirm/refute it?

Posted by: Dexton 9th March 2018, 08:01 AM

Funnily enough...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th March 2018, 09:13 AM

So, an "expert" concluded that the bones from a body dead for a year or two, with a woman's shoe, and a bottle of something Earhart was known to carry, plus some Navy tools exactly like that carried by her navigator, somehow co-incidentally turn up on a remote island close to her last known position - and they somehow jump to the conclusion that it was another person who happened to die on the same remote island with the same stuff in the same approximate time frame with no explanation as to how they got there with no other record of reports of lost planes, or passengers from ships, boats or submarines. I presume.

Dismissed because the big-bones were thought to be a man (there was a man on the plane)

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th March 2018, 09:16 AM

well...Kim has poisoned his brother with nerve agents. Trump owns apartments where a Russian citizen died in mysterious circumstances. Fingers-crossed the handshake signals the start of a short meeting....

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th March 2018, 09:55 PM

The list of governments that have reduced debt over their term of office will be rather short.

Posted by: vidcapper 11th March 2018, 07:40 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/06/man-becomes-first-person-convicted-under-belgian-sexism-law

First conviction under sexism law for Belgian who insulted officer
Man who verbally abused police officer fined €3,000 under law criminalising sexism in public

****************

Is it usual in Belgium cases for the name of the convicted person to be withheld?

****************

Also, the Mail's reporting of it :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5469797/Man-person-convicted-Belgiums-sexism-laws.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th March 2018, 04:44 PM

so all newspapers have seen sales decline over the last year, except the free papers. Only the Metro has increased circulation (it is actually a better read than the paid-for equivalents). The Mirror has been disastrous, but the Sun and Mail have also had big hits, along with most of the tabloids. Only the quality end papers have declined modestly. I think we can all agree on "HA HA HA HA HA" as the appropriate response......

Don Trump Jr is getting divorced. On behalf of the child survivor of a mass murder in a Florida school who he's been attacking verbally, can I also suggest a similar unsympathetic response is also not out of order for him personally? At the very least it's good news for his wife not to be involved when he gets charged with dealing with Russians and corruption - best to keep his 5 kids away from that circus. (addendum: apparently it's an uncontested quickie divorce on the same day subpoenas are served on DT's business which may or may not mean funds able to be transferred to the ex. Hiring a criminal lawyer doesnt however stop an ex-wife getting investigated, though may know a few helpful escape clauses, I'm guessing. Hypothetically, of course)

Another of those pesky kids who keep meddling with bigots minds' has succeeded in asking for a volunteer to run against an uncontested Maine Republican after he called one of them a skinhead lesbian. I absolutely love those kids. Total heroes.

Facebook bans Britain First for racist behaviour. About time. "H AH AH AH HA HA HA AAAAH" Today has been a rare good day for news....

Posted by: vidcapper 16th March 2018, 05:03 PM

I thought you above engaging in schadenfreude?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th March 2018, 08:44 PM

whatever gave you that idea? Firm believer in sincere forgiveness, but also cumuppance to dangerous people who wouldnt even recognise the concept of fairness and decency.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th March 2018, 08:59 AM

another day another Russian exile murder in the UK (made to look like suicide - I must say the number of exiles who commit suicide after warning of fears of being murdered by the Russian state is quite the trend. "I'm frightened I might get murdered, I know I'll kill myself before they get to me")

Puting doesnt want to rock the boat on the day before his coronation in an election against a good friend. I think she has a great future ahead of her as long as she doesn't win.

Accountants warn up to 80% of academies are in deficit. I must say I'm shocked at how quickly they are on the verge of going bankrupt, I felt sure they would last a few years longer before getting to that state. Why? Head teachers mostly havent a clue about fulfilling all the roles done by Councils, not least building maintenance, valuations, insurance, monitoring, grounds care, planning - they didnt get that training as part of the Teacher training courses which selfishly concentrated on how to teach kids. This is a New Labour/Tory success story that will run and run as parents get to see classes of ooh, 537 pupils taught by one trainee....

On a lighter note, great to see 101-year-old Olivia De Haviland, last surviving legendary star of the biggest money-making movie in history (Gone With The Wind, adjusting for inflation, is far and away the most bums-on-seats film ever) sue a TV company for putting unflattering words in her mouth about her sister in a docudrama. That'll teach them to have the decency to wait until she had died before rewriting history in the name of making a fact-based story more dramatic....

Posted by: vidcapper 27th March 2018, 07:32 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5547009/Universities-not-safe-spaces-puts-free-speech-risk-says-Harriet-Harman.html

Universities should not be ‘safe spaces’ as this puts free speech at risk, says Harriet Harman
A study found students have been shutting down talks by controversial speakers
Former Labour frontbencher Miss Harman said freedom of speech was vital
The Joint Committee on Human Rights which she chairs warned of censorship

****************************************

Never in a million years did I expect to agree with Harriet Harmon, even partially, on something!

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th March 2018, 12:35 PM

You clearly don't agree on how to spell her name. I think I'll side with my former MP (many years ago) on that issue.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th March 2018, 01:29 PM

Well, I'm not used to writing it.

Posted by: ionderella 27th March 2018, 03:22 PM

crazy shit going on in here re: the Kemerovo fire. unofficially at least 5 times more people died than being reported (64). and i'm not surprised.

i always knew going to malls in Russia was a risky business, it's just got confirmed now.

i bet the officials are like "thank GOD this happened a week AFTER the election".

no information AT ALL is being released and there are no lists saying who died or got injured. it's been more than 2 days since the tragedy.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th March 2018, 03:29 PM

Such a terrible tragedy and reports that the fire alarm was turned off and fire doors locked is appalling if true.
The loss of so many children is heartbreaking.

Posted by: ionderella 27th March 2018, 03:49 PM

don't let the fire extinguishers, alarms, cameras and fire exit here fool you. they don't work (unless we're talking about givenment buildings obviously)

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 27th March 2018, 03:53 PM

I disagree. Controversial right wing views spread hate and should not be given a platform.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th March 2018, 05:54 PM

And that's why we don't give people like you power.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th March 2018, 05:56 PM

It's all too typical of the British media that this story is not getting much coverage here. Of course, if it turns out that a British tourist escaped from it and went to hospital for a check-up, that will change.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th March 2018, 08:18 PM

That's awful! And Suedey comment above:

I think we can firmly blame the general public for once. As I type the BBC have the story amongst the top 5 in the world, though granted equal footing to Boris and Bercow squabbling like brats.

On the Most Read: Not even top 10, behind fish tank fumes leaves 10 in hospital, Dynamo has Crohns, and topping the list some gossip crap about a footballers car. meanwhile topping the Most watched: Cat stuck up a pole just beating owl released at wedding, Bowie statue vandalised and Flat Earther flies a DIY a rocket to prove he's a deluded or lying dick attempting to make money out of fools. If they fell off the edge of the flat Earth bet that would top the list for ages....

Posted by: vidcapper 28th March 2018, 05:29 AM

What about controversial left-wing views too?

We'd also have to drop the pretense that we have freedom of speech...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th March 2018, 07:13 AM

Anything that spreads hate is against the law, left, right or centre. That is perfectly right. There is no such thing as unlimited free speech anywhere in the world and never has been. That's because where it is bound to conflict against other sorts of rights one or the other has to take precedent, and in those cases the right to mouth off, lie, disregard peoples rights, cause malicious harm, threaten, and so on, violates those rights. That will always be the case from now until the human race ends.

If someone isn't doing those things, then their right to free speech should be respected. If there is evidence that they intend to target one religious or racial group, for instance, then that is a world of difference from criticising the politics of a particular country....

Posted by: Queef of Peace 28th March 2018, 07:20 AM

Yes but I can't think of many left wing views that spread hate or ignorance? Maybe extreme conspiracy theorists, yes, or Stalin worshippers ... If they existed.

The threat right now to world peace and society as a whole is the alt right and their hate.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 28th March 2018, 07:21 AM

Mwaaa centrist Blairite running to help the right wing. Sweet.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th March 2018, 09:12 AM

Leftists tend to hate capitalism - the very system that created the wealth that Western countries enjoy - and that millions of people come to western countries to share in.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 28th March 2018, 09:33 AM

Late stage and unfettered capitalism that has created immense poverty, extreme wealth and a plutocracy where the rich have ALLLLL the power. Advocating for a different economic system is um not hate speech lmaoooo. Loving crashes booms and busts is just bizarre and not patriotic.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th March 2018, 09:53 AM

That assertion is not borne out by the data, which demonstrates that the % of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 60% in 1970, https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/declining-world-poverty-1820-2015-step2 (and still falling) - and remember that there's been a major population boom since then, so there's even less people overall living outside of this.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 28th March 2018, 09:59 AM

Surely that would be due to the economic rise of China and India and Brazil?

I was talking extreme poverty in more relative terms - the collapse of the middle class, lack of a living wage, 0 hour contracts, depressed wage and living standards, and extreme relative poverty in even advanced nations. You cannot believe for one minute standards have improved for anyone who is not the 1% across most of the world.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th March 2018, 10:06 AM

I can, and I have just provided evidence to back that up.

I'm not going to argue any more on this topic with yourself as I feel we'll just be around in circles, but I do welcome intelligent contribution from other members of the forum in relation to this topic.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th March 2018, 10:17 AM

Leftists don't generally hate capitalism per se. They are just more inclined to believe that it requires rules and that unfettered capitalism is a bad thing.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th March 2018, 10:34 AM

I'm not sure where 'queef' is on that scale, though.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 28th March 2018, 10:56 AM

That unfettered capitalism is gross. Well regulated capitalism is better and socialism even better still.

Well then let's have a look at the % of wealth the 1% and top 10% have in comparison to the rest of the world. Oops. Blows your argument out the water. It has coalesced in the hands of the few. We have a record number of food banks here along. Record number of people basically living in poverty and not given a living wage. Capitalism is feudalism rebranded.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th March 2018, 11:44 AM

Err not quite. I agree about unfettered capitalism, I agree standards have dropped since the banking crisis which is a perfect example of unfettered capitalism, and previous generations have been ignored by previous generations of Capitalist-inclined inherited-wealth promoters and their cronies.

that said, i don't agree that in the West we are worse off, we aren't. Through a mixture of capitalism and social policies the living standards of ordinary people is hugely better than it was 50 years when I was a child (and we were so poor we had no indoor toilet, no hot water, no car, no phone, no central heating, no mobile, no colour TV, reduced nutrition in food availability which was expensive, no SKY, no expensive videogames, no internet, no new clothes, no bath, no shower, no fridge, blankets made out of old jumpers, piss-pots under the bed, no fitted carpet, no holidays, I could go on and on...

we DID have a few toys, a few books, a few old 78's, a black & white TV, a tin bath filled with a kettle, coal fire in the front room most of the time, a mangle/washing machine, a gas cooker, some old furniture." Oh and we lived in a cardboard box, but we were 'appy...!"

Equivalent poor people are WAY better off in the UK than 50/60 years ago and we don't have to go down t'pit and shorten our lives to earn cash to get by on, cos in those days there was piss-all subsidies for people who didn't work. So, explain how that all came about without capitalism (bridled or unbridled) because I don't recall any handouts from the State - it was working, free education, free further education, the NHS that all helped, but it was making money as a nation that paid for it. Nothing in life is free, and a balanced sensible combination of the least-bad parts of capitalism and socialism is what is needed. Extremism of any kind always fails because it isn't flexible and it encourages corruption which is the start of people using their own position to better themselves at cost of everyone generally. That applies to every political system ever invented....

Posted by: vidcapper 29th March 2018, 06:05 AM

I can't disagree with this - but it is inequality that fuels socialists like Queef, rather than absolute poverty.

Not every rich person inherited their wealth though - many earned their fortune by hard graft, but socialists would rather ignore that, in order to 'justify' clobbering them with high taxes - as if it was a crime to be rich...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th March 2018, 11:21 AM

I dont have problems with rich people paying taxes. I do have problems with a system that allows tax avoidance and tax evasion because those in power have interests in keeping it going.

Utopia would be lovely, but....fantasy.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th March 2018, 12:43 PM

OTOH, Tories always justify support for cutting Inheritance Tax by pointing to people who have made their own money (in whatever way). The conveniently ignore the people who inherited their wealth and are demanding the right to pass that wealth down the generations tax-free ad infinitum.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 29th March 2018, 01:01 PM

The main argument I've seen regarding Inheritence Tax is that it is essentially a "double tax" ie that the money is taxed firstly at the point of income (presuming they haven't "offshored" it, of course), and then again when it is treated as Inheritence Tax (and if it does get passed down the generations, triple taxed, quadruple taxed, etc).

Of course, given that the current tax threshold for IT is £325k, you could feasibly tax 100% over that amount and still give a reasonably comfortable inheritence to your benefactors. I will however make the caveat that given that house prices in London have risen so substantially in the past 40 years, anyone who bought a house there when it was reasonably affordable will suddenly find that their descendents will face an unexpected tax bill due to the incredible appreciation in property prices over the last few years. I imagine that this will become a much bigger issue as these home owners begin to die out, and it is one issue that politicians could make a lot of capital out of (to pardon the expression).

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th March 2018, 01:18 PM

The double taxation argument is silly. After all, the same argument could be applied to VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty etc.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th April 2018, 07:14 PM

Nigel Fartarse appears on Alex Jones Infowars. Alex Jones is the man who denies the Sandy Hook massacred children existed and is facing lawsuits from their parents for defamation. The more time goes by, the more the Hitler story makes more and more sense from the far-right riffraff public school Hitler-baiting hate-spreading lying nonce. Even his German wife has had enough of him....

Farage has no morals or scruples, just nastiness to spread.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th April 2018, 07:21 PM

Meanwhile Sean hannity, another Breitbarting-style Fox News fake news spreader has been found to be a lying hypocrite as he claims his lawyer, now under FBI investigation, was never paid and just advised him for free. Him and Donald Trump. The lawyer who somehow found 130,000 dollars to shut up a scandal with a porn actress, despite not getting paid by one of his non-clients it seems. What a generous man that lawyer is, working for free for very rich men who subsequently defended him on national news TV without ever mentioning that he occasionally "advised" Hannity for "free" about stuff which didn't concern other people. As some wag pointed out - all legal advice concerns other people or you wouldn't need it.

It's amazing how virtually everyone involved with the Trump campaign and Presidency turns out to be corrupt or hypocritical in some way. Who coulda guessed that!?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd April 2018, 08:04 PM

Black Hero tackles white AR-15 murderer from Illinois in Waffle House in Tennessee, gets shot in the arm for his troubles but likely saves further deaths by removing his gun.

Moral: murderers without guns don't kill people. Murderers with guns kill people.

Moral: Black men without guns can still tackle white nutters with guns and all the headlines will still be about the shooter being nude rather than the hero risking his life to stop him.

No motive is known. Let me guess: loner who follows right-wing media on the internet, has never had a girlfriend, idolises guns, has no friends but is an NRA groupie......

I could of course be completely wrong and he's a well-adjusted married men who loves the world and everybody in it.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 05:26 AM

Technically, if you haven't killed anyone, then you cannot be a murderer.

[Well, you seem to have the Sarcasm title pretty much wrapped up, so I have to concentrate on cynicism & pedantry instead ]

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd April 2018, 07:18 AM

or....

what I say is so true that you have no response to it so resort to saying nothing.

That man murdered 4 people with a gun. The gun was removed and he murdered no further people. He was by that point a full-blown murderer. You can still be a murderer who hasnt been caught and if you have no guns it restricts further murderers.

Pedant winner here.

PS There was no sarcasm in that post of mine, I meant every word.

PPS Still giving the appearance of supporting something unsupportable by resorting to needless comments. Say nothing on serious issues if you have nothing to add.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 08:28 AM

OK


I wasn't specifically referring to your last post.



I will do that, as long as *you* agree not to assume I support something merely through absence of condemnation.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd April 2018, 10:50 AM

4 people dead and the best you can do is nitpick on the correct use of "murderer". I don't need to make any comments or assumptions.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 11:06 AM

Am I supposed to go into mourning for all the hundreds of people who are murdered every day?

Of course the deaths of the 4 you mentioned are regrettable, but saying so won't bring them back.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd April 2018, 01:55 PM

Fairly clearly you have no concept of scale. "regrettable" is something you use for making an insensitive comment in an inappropriate situation. The correct term is "tragic".

FYI.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 01:59 PM

Oh come on - even when I *do* express sympathy, you throw it back at me!

I guess that means you reject the truce offer I made earlier 'I will do that, as long as *you* agree not to assume I support something merely through absence of condemnation.'?

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd April 2018, 03:19 PM

Have you never heard of the law of common purpose? Under that law it is possible fore someone to be convicted of a brutal murder without being anywhere near the murder scene at the time.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 04:04 PM

I've not heard it called that, but I am familiar with the notion.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd April 2018, 06:47 PM

Oh please, just read your own words back to yourself, you come across as callous:

"Am I supposed to go into mourning for all the hundreds of people who are murdered every day? "

(No, you just condemn it and express sympathy if commenting on it)

"Of course the deaths of the 4 you mentioned are regrettable, but saying so won't bring them back"

(oh that's all right then if they are dead and stay dead and their families don't get to read what you comment on and the manner in which you do it. Sadly we do and you keep using the "excuse" that you dont know how to express sympathy. Clearly true. Try going on a writers course and learn how to actually express your feelings, assuming your sentences above aren't a true reflection of your feelings. I've been on a writers course, I seem to do OK out of it)

FYI sorry but I dont give a toss about a "truce" with anyone anywhere in the world (not just you). If I see something that needs a comment I say it, right then and there off the top of my head, I'm not going to let it pass, and that includes friends, family and colleagues. The 4 young black kids that were murdered were murdered by an out-of-state white man on a shoot n run. I'm assuming he was racist in the absence of any other evidence which is, of course, a pass-time of many white racist nutters in the US, only they dont get called gun-obsessed terrorists they get called "lone wolves". For lone-wolves there seems to be shitloads of the evil SOB's in a never-ending series of gun-toting mass murders.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th April 2018, 05:37 AM

The idea of guys expressing their feelings was not regarded as being a positive thing at the time I went to school - it tended to make you a target for bullying.



Then surely you can see that I tend to do the same thing - yet when I do it, it's somehow a negative thing?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th April 2018, 07:08 AM

1. Yes it was the UK male macho crap thing. That doesnt however mean one doesnt have feelings or that one shouldnt learn to express them. It's healthy.

2. No, when I do it it's to defend the rights and sensitivities of others and argue against injustice, not to ignore those issues either intentionally or unintentionally. This is a publicly published document, and the murdered and their families should be treated with respect and sympathy. I have tact, usually. If I don't and I slip I apologise and admit I was wrong or phrased something badly. It's not difficult to say sorry...

Sorry about that....

Posted by: vidcapper 24th April 2018, 07:35 AM

1. Psychologically healthy, you mean? Certainly not physically, if it makes you a target...

2. I certainly don't ignore injustices, in fact they are one of the things that enrage me most!

The thing I do that upsets people here most seems to be unwisely constructed analogies - having a relatively thick skin myself, I sometimes forget that others are far more sensitive.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th April 2018, 11:45 AM

1. Times have changed..

2. What you see as injustice is usually not what I view as injustice, given the amount of times you support the status quo that allows injustices to carry on, or make worse. Theory over reality. People's, and the planet's, well-being matters more than anything else.

You have a thick skin? Have you seen a dermatologist?

Posted by: vidcapper 24th April 2018, 01:37 PM

1. I doubt school bullies have - they always go after someone who stands out from the crowd, for whatever reason.

2. Which of the below is the closest to your definition of injustice, then?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/injustice

a. the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity.
b. violation of the rights of others; unjust or unfair action or treatment.
c. an unjust or unfair act; wrong.

3. Very droll.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th April 2018, 07:31 PM

1. Let's ask people recently at school shall we, and give our fading 45 year-old memories a rest?

2. I believe I said what I meant quite clearly.

3. I thought so, but then I DO love my own jokes. I'm my own best audience...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th April 2018, 07:41 PM

meanwhile back in actual news mode:

Unknown driver horribly kills people in Toronto. The internet gets a hard-on stating he was definitely a Muslim and blaming police and Canadian government for a cover-up.

Then this:

@hairykiwi420

Racists going silent now that the Toronto attacker isn't middle eastern, was an angry man, who frequented alt right sites and was angry because he couldn't get laid.
An angry, right wing misogynist, Incel, as in Involuntary Celibate.
An angry asshole who couldn't get laid

Doesnt fit in with the agenda you see, so they dont condemn him, having been rabidly condemning him when they thought he was Muslim-y. Bit racist you see, and not remotely concerned about dead people and stopping nutters unless it's a black man or a Muslim man.....

(It's usually a white man, or "terrorist" as I like to call them)

Posted by: vidcapper 25th April 2018, 05:48 AM

So your point is... he was a copycat killer?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th April 2018, 07:00 AM

No. My point is the Far Right attack the media, politicians and Muslims at every drop of the hat, and never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever attack racist far right white mass-murderers.

I thought I made that pretty clear. Anyone else miss that central point that I stated quite clearly?

Posted by: vidcapper 25th April 2018, 07:32 AM

Would you expect them to? I wouldn't.



That sounds like a rhetorical question to me.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th April 2018, 11:46 AM

Calling out lying racists is a worthy enterprize cos if one doesn't they spread their hate unchecked.

OK they won't be reading Buzzjack, but it doesn't hurt to make others aware of how evil they are.

Would you prefer we all made no comment on lying racists with genocidal aims?

Posted by: vidcapper 25th April 2018, 01:23 PM

Surely the main check on them is the impossibility of their views appealing to the 99% of people of decency & common sense.



Now that definitely is a rhetorical question!

Posted by: Cody💧Slayberry 25th April 2018, 03:08 PM

No matter how you it it, it’s always been a a pattern. Republicans were all for background checks and protecting the people from guns when a Muslim shot up Pulse Nightclub and yet were all up in arms during Vegas which was exponentially worse, all because the shooter was a white man. And it doesn’t stop there.

Boston Marathon. A white man. Sandy Hook. A white man. Parkland, Florida. A white man.

Explain that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th April 2018, 06:58 AM

famous black rapper criticises American (black) President, one of the greatest in living memory, and throws support around white racist President who excuses the KKK and calls for the deaths of innocent black children, before posing for photo with white men doing the white supremacy sign behind his back.

Someone has lost the plot.

News leaks out that the mountain in North Korea used for nuclear testing is collapsing in on itself with risk of contamination if used again. Suddenly the need to appear to be doing something positive in nuclear talks makes sense...

Posted by: vidcapper 26th April 2018, 09:29 AM

I was never keen on Kanye, even before his infamous 'attack' on the lovely Taylor Swift, but this latest statement is extraordinary!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th April 2018, 07:26 AM

Ted Cruz (remember him? He will be consigned to history in November, so last chance to appreciate how dumb he is) has been tweeting

a) complaining about Macron telling other countries (ie USA) what to do in their own country, and then immediately

b) slagging off the UK government/NHS and holding up the USA as a model to follow when the little boy in question, having come from a poor family, would not have had ANY medical help whatsoever in the real USA, and just made worse than the likes of Cruz and his hateful fellow Republicans having lied to the American people about replacing the Obamacare with something better, rather than nothing at all.

The thick twat doesn't even see himself contradicting himself with what he says, nor have an inkling about what the "American Dream" means to poor Americans.

Posted by: Jonny Evans 28th April 2018, 11:54 AM

Data Protection is also main issue nowadays..if you hear about facebook data leak blog post. What you think guys ?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd May 2018, 06:32 AM

Victory for free speech: Minister bans student trend of censoring controversial speakers in first intervention of its kind for 30 years

Universities will be penalised if they allow students to shut down speeches
Student groups are increasingly disrupting speeches they don't like
Victims include Germaine Greer, Peter Tachell, and Jacob Rees-Mogg
Feminists, Tory politicians, gay rights activists, even race campaigners targeted

Student zealots will be banned from censoring controversial speakers on campuses following the first ministerial intervention on free speech in 30 years.
Sam Gyimah, the universities minister, has announced tough new guidance which will see institutions disciplined if they allow valid debates to be shut down.
He vowed to stamp out the 'chilling' trend of speakers being blocked from campuses simply because there is institutional hostility to unfashionable views.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5684887/Minister-bans-student-trend-censoring-controversial-speakers.html

AS usual, the Guardian puts a rather different slant on it...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/03/universities-minister-one-set-of-guidelines-free-speech-campus

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd May 2018, 11:24 AM

Now wait for the howls from the Daily Mail when a university invites a spokesman from Hamas to debate the Middle East.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd May 2018, 11:37 AM

No-one says they can't complain about it, just not *prevent* it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd May 2018, 01:51 PM

They'll be campaigning for the Home Secretary to issue a banning order.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th May 2018, 11:41 AM

Leek butcher warned by police over 'risque' adverts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-43961019

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th May 2018, 07:09 PM

I suggest a Carry On News thread for trivia like this....?

Posted by: vidcapper 7th May 2018, 05:45 AM

Well, there is a 'General Whining' thread that could be bumped up. I'd start one called 'PC gone mad' except that the moderators would be unlikely to allow it.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th May 2018, 06:11 AM

Labour's 'plans for two-tier press regulation that would favour supportive Guardian over other newspapers' would be illegal, warns a leading QC

Antony White said proposals to punish papers would be 'struck down' by courts
He said amendments tabled by Tom Watson would violate human rights laws
Mr Watson's measures would apply to any newspaper that refused to sign up to the state-approved Press regulator

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5697875/A-chilling-assault-Press-freedom-Labour-illegal-warns-leading-QC.html

Attack on papers spares Guardian

Labour's bid to force newspapers into state-backed regulation contains an extraordinary loophole that would exempt just two national newspapers – the Labour-supporting Guardian and Observer.

Proposals put forward by deputy leader Tom Watson would expose all national newspaper groups to punishing legal bills every time someone chose to sue them, even if the newspaper won.

It would apply to any newspaper that refused to sign up to the state-approved regulator Impress, funded almost entirely by ex-Formula 1 boss Max Mosley, whose racist past was exposed by the Mail. Mr Mosley has also given £540,000 to fund Mr Watson's private office.

Almost all national and local newspapers, including the Daily Mail, are members of Ipso, which is free of state control and operates an arbitration scheme giving the public means to sue newspapers without the ruinous cost of going to court. The Guardian and The Observer have no independent regulator and no arbitration scheme.

But Mr Watson's proposed new law would not apply to a publisher that ploughs all profits back into the business.

That would lift the threat of extra legal costs from The Guardian and The Observer, which are controlled by the Scott Trust. Its rules say that if the loss-making papers move into profit the money would be put back into their newspaper and website operation.

It would mean national newspapers that supported Labour but do not belong to an independent regulator and do not offer arbitration – the two most persistent demands of critics of the Press – would not be hit by the proposed punitive costs regime.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th May 2018, 11:39 PM

I'm delighted to see that there is so little for the police to do in Staffordshire that the chief inspector can spend his time on non-issues like this.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th May 2018, 11:41 PM

That would be the Guardian and Observer, two papers that are not exactly the biggest fans of Jeremy Corbyn.

As for "leading QC" Antony White, anyone here heard of him before?

Still, it's interesting to see the Daily Mail so keen to see a proposal ruled out on the grounds that it would violate human rights law.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th May 2018, 05:34 AM

That's not the impression I got - they's surely be one of the biggest victims of it?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th May 2018, 07:04 AM

"Enemies Of The People"

Yeah right....

Posted by: vidcapper 8th May 2018, 08:53 AM

How about 'enemies of most of Buzzjack' then?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th May 2018, 11:57 AM

Since when have I (or anyone) accused you of treason? Or being anti-democratic?

Self-pity much and blinkered. If you can't justify your views that's hardly our fault if we can. That suggests either you are self-deluded about your views or just very bad at expressing them. Personally I don't think it's the latter, you just choose to ignore true statements you don't like.

Like commenting that the rich EU-dwelling, UK tax-dodging owner of the Daily Mail, who's family have a history of far-right-views, called for giving British Courts total control over British law - until they got it and then suddenly they were traitors because he disagreed with the correct Legal Opinion.

This is a fact, however much you don't like hearing it.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th May 2018, 01:44 PM

I was calling the *Daily Mail* enemies of most of Buzzjack - nothing more - did you not see the smiley to indicate I was making a light-hearted comment?

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th May 2018, 09:43 PM

How are the DM victims of the ECHR? Please confine your answer to events on this planet.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 06:17 AM

I *meant* - they'd likely be one of the biggest victims of press regulation - I never mentioned the ECHR!

Posted by: kindagood 9th May 2018, 09:16 AM

There is a conundrum in the UK free speech is not absolute. The press is not totally free. (D notices etc). Should a newspaper be allowed to report on a private individual who has committed no crime? The daily mail is not the most reputable or impartial news media, but should it matter what views they have? Should they be allowed to say anything. Also who owns the media? Do they advance their own agendas or do they reflect the wider society?

There are lots of questions. However a media owned by the few, which promotes a certain agenda that benefits that group can not really be deemed a free press. Where are the dissenting voices and the well researched journalism, free of partisan opinions? This is why especially in Scotland many people read alternative news blogs. The free press have already failed society. Press regulation doesn't really change anything, it's a veneer to hide the reality that until we change the ownership rules, and stop allowing huge interest to control the media including the BBC our media will always have a bias.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 09:24 AM

Problem is - how do you stop newspapers being owned by rich individuals, whether local or foreign?

Also, no matter what political stance a newspaper has, there will always be people of the opposite view who'll accuse it of being biased.

The only alternative would probably be newspapers so bland that no-one would want to read them in the first place...

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 09:44 AM

Apologies for having to reply here, but the original thread seems to have been closed.

I agree that others cannot really appreciate what minority groups face - but that still doesn't give them the right to act in a similar manner themselves - surely you'd agree that the rule of law has to apply equally, whoever the perpetrators are?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th May 2018, 11:54 AM

Smiley? More like a one-eyed wincey!!

Smileys..

Posted by: Popchartfreak 9th May 2018, 12:00 PM

You pass a law saying: Rich foreign billionaires with ulterior distorting political motives shall not own newspapers, and British ones shall not be tax exiles.

That way they have an interest in UK PLC and not MeMyself&I PLC.
Piece of piss.

Bland NEWSpapers are NEWSpapers. Scandal-sheets and propaganda are more gossip-obsessed-sly-propagandists drawing in people prone to being influenced with claptrap (fairly obviously) with tidbits in order to manipulate them.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 02:14 PM

Don't look at me, I didn't *design* them.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th May 2018, 02:21 PM

1. Unfortunately the former have too many politicians in their pockets to pass such a law + it'd hardly be PC to ban foreign owners...

2. But the law you suggest wouldn't stop a British newspaper owner, living in the UK, from having a political agenda you object to.

3. But nobody would read boring newspapers, that's my point - like it or not, sensationalism sells.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th May 2018, 05:48 AM

A great day for a free and fair press': Bid to force new Leveson inquiry and make the press pay for the legal costs of cases even if they win are both rejected by MPs

Ed Miliband wanted to use a Data Protection Bill to start another Leveson inquiry
But, despite an animated speech, his move was voted down in Parliament
Culture Minister Matt Hancock hails a 'great day for a free and fair press'
Comedian John Cleese is mocked for saying he'll leave England over the issue

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5709581/Labour-bid-crackdown-press-make-critical-investigations-near-impossible.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th May 2018, 06:56 AM

1. It would still be a piece of pass to resolve ands that makes it desirable. Negativism is merely that. Rich people don't have the right to decide what's best for the people, especially foreigners, that's for voters.

2. No it doesn't but I refer you back to my reasoning why this is not a problem.

3. Lots of people read "boring" newspapers. The better-informed ones. Dont care if sensationalism sells as long as it is British-owned and British-tax-paying sensationalism because of the reasons I refer to in 2.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th May 2018, 07:00 AM

Leveson was needed to make newspaper-owners and staff who have flouted the law be seen for what they are and be charged. Now they have gotten away with it because the Tories need them.

The issue about making newspapers pay for court cases they lose was a stupid one and should never have been suggested because it gave the scummy press a complete Get Out Of Jail Free from the issues of the above. Funny that.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th May 2018, 12:56 PM

It would not be a "brand new enquiry", it would be the second part of the original one. That was originally postponed to allow legal proceedings to be completed but the government of the day - headed by Cameron and with May as Home Secretary - promised that it would be completed.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th May 2018, 07:32 AM

Oliver North, a military political officer who sold weapons to Iran in the 80's covertly, and then used the proceeds to fund anti-government forces in Nicaragua - he was guilty but got away with it by turning testimony in exchnage for a pardon - is now President of the NRA and has accused Florida teenagers campaigning not to be shot to death like their classmates "terrorists" because they want to have reasonable checks on people buying guns and stopping AR-15's, the mass-murderer weapons of choice.

Oliver North was a conscience-less interfering secretive lying little shit in the 80's and he now he's an old conscience-less interfering secretive little shit heading an organisation part-funded by secretive Russian money. Such an all-round US military hero example for all Americans to follow.....

Fund guerillas and support mass murderers, lie and commit illegal political acts involving guns and money-laundering, then head an organisation that calls kids terrorists as a means of deflecting attention from their own dodgy foreign dealings and funding.....

Sounds about right, and I can't think of anyone more perfect they could appoint to be President Of The NRA.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th May 2018, 07:37 AM

just look at this blatant BBC bias in favour of Tories. Not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44074572

The evil May regime has no conscience at all, the ones who should be prosecuted are the virtual slave-masters not the victims chucked out the country in states of terror.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 14th May 2018, 10:19 AM

Pleased Police Scotland were one of the few to give an outright no, highly disappointing that only 3 forces refuse to do this. You shouldn't be scared to report a crime because Maybot will deport you. What a disgraceful and toxic environment we now live in

Posted by: vidcapper 18th May 2018, 01:55 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/14/ex-soldier-guilty-of-racial-hatred-after-cps-initially-declined-to-prosecute

I wonder why they initially refuse to prosecute?

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th May 2018, 03:05 PM

I'm guessing the clue is in the words "army veteran".

Posted by: vidcapper 21st May 2018, 11:03 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/21/detoxifying-social-media-online-misogyny

Detoxifying social media would be easier than you might think
William Perrin

To find the tools to clamp down on online misogyny, racism and bullying, parliament needs to look to the past

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th May 2018, 02:37 PM

France, 2018 - A Malian immigrant scales the outside of a building to rescue a child hanging from a balcony. His reward? A meeting with the President and fast-tracked to citizenship.

UK, 2018 - A Zimbabwean man rescues two children from a burning house next door and spends time in hospital suffering from smoke inhalation. His reward? An invitation to Buckingham Palace and UK citizenship. Deportation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/03/man-who-saved-two-children-from-house-fire-to-be-deported-from-uk

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th May 2018, 07:43 PM

Moral: Tories would rather risk seeing children burn to death than risk immigrants being granted citizenship.

I think we already know that though. I'm sure they wouldnt risk foreign-born people burning to death just to save a few quid, though, even Tories have limits, don't they....?

Don't they?

"Health & Safety gone mad" © Farage, Johnson and many many more....

Posted by: vidcapper 30th May 2018, 05:57 AM

If this story is accurate, it is appalling!

Posted by: vidcapper 30th May 2018, 06:21 AM

End of the cold calling sharks:

Bosses of firms that plague householders will be held personally liable and face fines up to £500,000
A major crackdown on the bosses of cold-call firms is to be announced today
Directors' companies that place nuisance calls will be held personally liable
They can be fined up to £500,000 and will no longer be able to dodge penalties

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5784611/End-cold-calling-sharks-Bosses-firms-plague-householders-held-liable.html

**************

Hah - I'll believe this only when I see the first successful court case...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st June 2018, 08:22 AM

Please feel free to correct me if I misunderstand the DUP and their politics:

"We want to be part of the UK even if that means Brexit against our own citizens' votes!"

"...but we don't want to be part of the same human rights legislation as either Ireland, EU or the UK. We want our own way and if we don't get it we'll bring you down"

I think that sums it up.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 1st June 2018, 03:39 PM

Sounds about right! The same in every way apart from the bits we don’t like/believe in

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st June 2018, 04:47 PM

Are you expecting to live to be 398,206?

Posted by: vidcapper 13th June 2018, 02:21 PM

A boost for workers rights...

Millionaire Pimlico Plumbers boss warns gig economy firms such as Uber to brace for a 'tsunami of claims' after 'self-employed' heating engineer wins landmark workers' rights battle

Gary Smith worked self-employed for nearly five from 2005 but had heart attack
Smith tried to reduce his hours, and claims he was unfairly dismissed afterwards
Pimlico Plumbers fought him in the courts but judges agree he was employee
Boss Charlie Mullins says his loss will now lead to a 'tsunami of cases' in the UK
Legal experts tell MailOnline ruling means gig economy model has to change

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5838579/Supreme-Court-REJECTS-landmark-appeal-Pimlico-Plumbers.html

Posted by: vidcapper 18th June 2018, 03:30 PM

Score one for the 2nd Amendment....

https://www.kiro7.com/news/south-sound-news/police-respond-to-reports-of-a-shooting-inside-walmart-in-tumwater/771756019

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th June 2018, 04:02 PM

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

Because someone thinks that one incident where someone else had a gun means everyone owning a gun is a good idea.

These people are dead and wounded and gun ownership does nothing to save lives OVERALL.

fact.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 05:42 AM

No, not *everyone*, just the law-abiding ones...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 06:53 AM

deluded. You see evidence and are still deluded. Repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it any more right. I will keep on arguing and pointing out reality to people like you because the alternative is to let the nonsense arguments win out of weariness, that;'s how fascism works: Trumpo is doing it right now - you chip away at decency until people get so depressed they dont object to inhuman treatment of people.

Your glib retorts dont convince anyone and just make you look foolish.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 06:58 AM

One person's 'glib retort' is another's genuine opinion.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 12:04 PM

I agree. Genuine. Genuinely deluded.

I can do glib too. na na na na na na.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th June 2018, 01:56 PM

I don't mind you disagreeing with my opinions, but dismissing them as 'deluded' just seems rude.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 07:48 PM

delude
dɪˈl(j)uːd/Submit
verb
past tense: deluded; past participle: deluded
make (someone) believe something that is not true.
"too many theorists have deluded the public"
synonyms: mislead, deceive, fool, take in, trick, dupe, hoodwink, double-cross, gull, beguile, lead on; More

And no matter how many facts I and others offer up you continue to believe lies on behalf of liars who lie constantly and who you constantly try to justify as not liars or try to give some weedy example of how someone else is just as bad.

I think the word is fairly accurate. Try to discuss matters in a fair way, using true facts, and express where your opinion remains firm despite all the evidence to the contrary, or else provide evidence for your views.

That's how scientists come to conclusions and how reasonable people make their minds up. As Ive said many times, you can believe what you want to believe, but if you express something that is provably incorrect then you shouldn't get surprised if others find it tedious at having to repeat themselves constantly at your apparent joy in trying to goad them into over-reacting by your constant looping favourite response lines.

PS Your response to the gun comment WAS glib. We have proven that guns uncontrolled kill people, and I gave you a link proving it, and you still made some pathetic short sentence to have the last word on something that has killed 12 MILLION f***ING PEOPLE IN 50 YEARS IN SO MANY WRONG WAYS. I call that a glib response to a majorly serious issue that we have discussed at length and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth of. Now feel free to go back to the start of this response and then ponder how not rude that description was considering how offensive tossing aside millions of deaths with an ill-considered short sentence is to some people.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th June 2018, 08:01 PM

..and back to important stuff: Italy moves back towards fascism as well..

"@antoguerrera
Follow Follow @antoguerrera
More
BREAKING. #Italy Interior minister and LEAGUE leader Salvini: "I've asked for a census of the Roma community living in Italy. The irregular ones will be deported. However, we'll have to keep" in Italy "the Romas with Italian citizenship, unfortunately" (ANSA agency)"

blatant ethnic cleansing "unfortunately", you can tell how reluctant this racist minister is to have to do it, so it will be interesting to see how the EU respond.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd June 2018, 01:18 PM

"@GlennWool
23h23 hours ago
More
In a huge step forward for human rights,
Saudi women will now be able to drive THEMSELVES to the town square to watch the state sponsored murder of homosexuals.
What a time to be alive!"

Just to point out May and Trump are Besties with Saudi rulers.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd June 2018, 01:25 PM

Probably nothing, the Roma are pretty universally discriminated against across Europe. There’s a good half a dozen countries, including ours, that are probably itching to follow Italy’s lead

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd June 2018, 01:32 PM

Only until the oil runs out...

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd June 2018, 01:32 PM

By 'Roma' do you mean gypsies, or Romanians?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd June 2018, 02:27 PM

If John and I meant Romanians we would have said “Romanians” rather obviously.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th June 2018, 05:56 AM

I thought it best to clarify.

There does seem to be some press confusion between Romas and 'travellers'.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 24th June 2018, 05:08 PM

This isn't until 4 November, but it looks unlikely that 'New Caledonia' will vote for independence in their independence referendum. Current polls suggest around 58 percent are firmly against independence (with estimates of around 66 and 73 percent opposed).

It is however likely that in the Bougainvillean independence referendum (tentatively: 15 June 2019) they will vote for independence and would create the first new state on the planet since South Sudan in July 2011. *Much excite*

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th June 2018, 06:25 PM

After Bougainvillea, can Rhododendron be far behind?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th June 2018, 07:53 PM

I thought they were called Zimbabwe these days?

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th June 2018, 10:01 PM

And I thought my joke was bad

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th June 2018, 07:14 PM

I can always be relied on to lower the tone....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th June 2018, 07:17 PM

here's an interesting thread featuring actual newspaper discussions on cosying up to Hitler in 1934 as fascism started to get a hold and hate rhetoric get a grip across Europe.

https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1007301941540655106

I trust this firmly ends any arguments that trying to appease Haters is a total waste of time, you have to stand up to them, take them on and fight before they destroy anyone who disagrees with them......

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 05:40 AM

I was always told that appeasement of the Nazis happened because of countries trying to avoid a repeat of the slaughter of WW1 at any cost.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th June 2018, 08:23 AM

Who told you that? And even if it were true, it proves conclusively that turning a blind eye to injustice doesn't work, and turning a blind eye to try and avoid mass murder doesn't work either. Either way it happens, regardless of the Ostrich-head-in-sand motives.

Think a bully in the pl;ayground punching you in the head and taking all your money then trying to justify it by threatening everyone with the same thing. If you don't stop him he keeps on doing it and starts taking money from others, starting with the weedy and easily bashable as the majority feel they wont be bothered if they dont stick their head up and start complaining on the grounds they might be next.

Or, everyone gets together agrees the bully is a menace and confronts him and collectively brings him down.

Those are the only 2 options ever in life and you are either one who stands up for what is right or you are one who doesn't give a shit what happens to others as long as you don't get bothered. The latter is winning at the moment....

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 08:41 AM

Personally, I've always though of myself as someone who stands up against injustice - that's partly why I suggest we punish criminals more severely...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th June 2018, 10:59 AM

Great! Let’s start with that criminal Farage, the tax evading owners of the Mail and News Corp and the Tories who fiddled their expenses for their campaigns! Then let’s follow that up with all those involved in the dark web of illegal financing for the leave vote.

Oh wait. You just mean putting more struggling victims of austerity trying to put food on the table in jail instead of addressing the root cause

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 11:38 AM

I just walked right into that one, didn't I?

Seriously, though - there does have to be an arrest & trial before any of that happens. I'm sure you wouldn't want to skip those steps...

There are plenty of victims of austerity who haven't turned to crime, though, so that rather undermines your insinuation that I am trying to scapegoat them.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th June 2018, 12:55 PM

On the subject of crime and punishment, what about the man who picked up a London Marathon runner's number that had fallen off, ran the last part of the race and claimed a finisher's medal? He was jailed for sixteen weeks. The marathon organisers tried to claim the sentence was justified because his actions damaged the integrity of their race. I don't see how any sort of custodial sentence in this case does anybody any good.

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 27th June 2018, 01:27 PM

Ew.

That is not justified at all. It is a RACE. Strip the medal, the end.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th June 2018, 01:27 PM

I completely agree. That just makes a complete mockery of our justice system. The only silver lining is that this homeless man is going to get a roof and 3 meals a day for a few weeks and hopefully some support post-release to help him find a permanent home and some support for any addictions or MH issues he has.

You did indeed!

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 01:51 PM

Usually I am good at spotting those.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 01:54 PM

Perhaps there's more to this than has been reported?

You won't hear me saying this too often , but I agree the punishment seems a bit steep.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th June 2018, 02:02 PM

No you exclusively go on about prosecuting SOME people you selectively pick and never stand up for those in need or as Phil says people in power doing heinous acts. So that makes me suspect if faced with a bully bullying others you would mind your own business and shoulder shrug not my problem mate...

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 02:03 PM

Here's an interesting story, from the Guardian :

Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/27/uk-ban-on-heterosexual-civil-partnerships-ruled-discriminatory

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 27th June 2018, 02:05 PM

Don't we now have private prisons for profit now, like the US, thanks to the Tories? That might explain it

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 27th June 2018, 02:05 PM

Don't we now have private prisons for profit now, like the US, thanks to the Tories? That might explain it

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 02:06 PM

I don't think we have, but if it works in America...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th June 2018, 02:10 PM

It doesn't work. Crime rates are horrific due to guns and terrible rehabilitation which makes the problem worse.

vidcapper reply insert usual tedious " imho" here

Reply: check out the facts

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th June 2018, 02:31 PM

If you want something with less rights that only existed to keep religious fundamentalists happy and so the Labour Gov could attempt to appease Gay Marriage activists without ever having to do anything useful, then by all means go ahead.

The cheek of heteros crying discrimination tho. I hope someone gave them a Gibbs style smack round the back of the head for this.

It really really really doesn't. There's a lot of evidence out there, including disbarments, of judge's being paid off to send people to prison. It's such a thing it's become a TV Crime Drama trope. If I remember correctly, The Good Wife had a particularly good episode on it.

It impacts PoC at high rates leading to incarceration for minor things that should never carry a custodial sentence and just increases the prison population. Sentences are longer and conditions are terrible. It's a big part of the massive problem that America has with the never ending reoffending cycle amongst certain communities.


There are a number of our prisons that are semi-privatised in that their management is contracted out to shady f***s like G4S and the recently demised Carilion.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th June 2018, 02:43 PM

Surely it's wrong for *anyone* to be discriminated against?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th June 2018, 03:23 PM

As you have been repeatedly told: A minority group cannot discriminate against a majority group when that majority group are dominant throughout the positions of power and the general ruling class.

The heteros control the world therefore discrimination against heteros is not a thing.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th June 2018, 04:56 PM

I remain in favour of civil partnerships still remaining in place for same-sex couples because it allows Christian same-sex couples who want to make a commitment of love towards each other whilst not entering into a partnership that they believe contravenes their religious beliefs (of which I imagine there are more than you may think, especially within my own faith). I'm actually surprised that when the law changed in 2013 that they didn't set out a timetable for phasing out civil partnerships, although I'm glad that they didn't.

As for this couple in question, someone should have told those snowflakes to suck a lemon instead of letting them win their court case. We've had marriage for most of civilized history, we've hardly been pushed for options. Peter Tatchell is a supporter of allowing non same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, which I found quite strange.

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 27th June 2018, 05:26 PM

Civil unions should be given all the rights afforded to marriages and extended to everyone. Not everyone wants to enter into the dogma of marriage and its associated past. Marriage is old fashioned these days anyway.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th June 2018, 05:35 AM

You've repeatedly expressed that *opinion*, yes - but you keep talking about *groups*. Individuals of one group can discriminate against those of another, whatever their relative numbers, though.



So you are in favour of one group having an option available to them that another doesn't, after all...

I doubt anyone can really predict what Tatchell will do.



I agree with all of this, except for the last sentence.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th June 2018, 07:29 AM

In this particular case, yes, and in many other cases I'd say the same thing.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th June 2018, 08:00 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems like you're saying 'a bit of payback towards former oppressors is acceptable'?

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th June 2018, 08:06 AM

You are wrong.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th June 2018, 08:41 AM

Fair enough.

Then what *did* you mean by 'In this particular case, yes, and in many other cases I'd say the same thing'?

IMO, if you have anti-discrimination laws then they *must* be applied in an objective manner, i.e. without regard to historic transgressions by either side against the other.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th June 2018, 11:02 AM

It's been so quiet here recently, I'm almost tempted to post something *really* controversial, just to wake everyone up...

Posted by: Iz 30th June 2018, 12:49 PM

Please don't feel the need.

It's a quiet time for politics. Well, it's not, but clearly no one has found much to say about Russia continuing to brag about influencing the US election, Erdogan taking more freedoms away from Turkey by the day despite flagrant corruption in his election, more promising pushes for cannabis legalisation across the world, Puerto Rico looking to become a state by 2021 (that's a cool little thing I almost missed).

Partly, I blame the World Cup. It's easy to ignore headlines that don't directly apply to you when there's a big international sporting event taking up all of the limelight. Which is nice, it's a mostly positive event.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th June 2018, 01:27 PM

Don't worry, I'm bound to do so purely by accident, sooner or later.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th June 2018, 02:25 PM

Unless you're German

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 30th June 2018, 02:53 PM

It’s the new “don’t mention the war”

So looking forward to returning to Berlin in a week and a half

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 1st July 2018, 10:33 AM

Don't forget Mein Trumpf now showing anti-immigrant propaganda videos to people visiting the detention centres. Can no one remember history, orrrrr??

Posted by: vidcapper 1st July 2018, 10:40 AM

Is it all immigrants he is against, or mainly illegal ones?

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 1st July 2018, 10:44 AM

'When Mexico sends its people, they are not sending its best' - I assume all.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st July 2018, 04:07 PM

Just the non white ones. See previous trump tweets. He married 2 white immigrant models, his mother was a white immigrant, his father a kkk loving racist. Everything he does and says shows he is utterly racist and its nothing to do with illegals nor terrorist states. The 911 bombers were from countries that arenot banned and which have trump business dealings.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th July 2018, 06:28 AM

IMO 'control' is too strong a term here.

Getting back to the point though : civil partnerships gave inheritance rights to gays which were not available to unmarried heterosexuals. Was that equality?

Posted by: Iz 5th July 2018, 06:29 PM

The EU’s elected MEPs have, thankfully, used their democratic powers to reject the proposed Article 13, the one that was going to destroy user-created content on the internet. That was something I was worried would go the way of US net neutrality, but fortunately, having 600 people voting on it has yielded a more representative result than the equivalent 5 people did in the US.

Not over yet, it was just the first (obviously technologically inept) draft that was rejected from what I can see, by a margin of only 40 votes as well, and it is going to a second vote in September, but for now, good stuff.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th July 2018, 05:55 AM

How did the British MEP's vote on the issue?

Posted by: vidcapper 6th July 2018, 06:10 AM

This is the kind of article I would have expected from the Guardian, rather than the Mail!

***********************************************

Older people really ARE more racist: We become prejudiced as we age because we feel isolated and anxious about death, psychologists claim

Scientists said hating a group can grant some elderly people a sense of identity
This is because they can share their prejudices with others
For some the insecurities that commonly come with age lead to self-hatred
This self-hatred is then directed at minority groups, psychologists claim

http://dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5921739/Older-people-really-racist-Prejudices-grow-feel-anxious-death.html

Posted by: Iz 6th July 2018, 07:30 AM

A mixed bag, not along party lines aside from UKIP and Leave supporters (all of EFDD voted against) voting against. Which for once, I can agree with, even if they probably just voted against as a matter of course.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th July 2018, 02:40 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44757403

Pride in London sorry after anti-trans protest

'People's Front Of Judea', anyone...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BpfwazhUA

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th July 2018, 07:12 AM

The reports on this protest are useless and biased. Some lesbians feel they are being pressured by some not even in the gay community to accept the basic concept that a man who wishes to self identify as a Lesbian - that is a man who like to dress as a woman, but is physically a man, and is sexually attracted to women, can call himself a Lesbian. Now, anyone is free to call themselves what they like, but when gay women are pressured to accept this as a thing and get criticised for not being able to accept shacking up with men wishing to be Lesbians then they have a right to express a view that is being ignored by self-righteous people who aren't part of the community and who are pressuring the community?

Posted by: vidcapper 11th July 2018, 09:41 AM

Central Europe is a lesson to liberals: don’t be anti-nationalist

Ivan Krastev

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/11/central-europe-lesson-liberals-anti-nationalist-yugoslavia-poland-hungary

Posted by: Popchartfreak 11th July 2018, 11:58 AM

No the lesson is try and persuade your young people not to be so pissed off that they leave the country and let it fall into nationalistic anti-immigrant-based propaganda because that sows the seeds of right-wing fascism.

Also, don't fragment into local groupings within a culture and watch it split apart and war amongst each other.

It's called tolerance and making sure that every part of society feels involved in society. Blaming Liberalism for what are social malaises is just bollocks. Liberalism didn't cause the banking Crisis which has sparked off so many other problems, it was purely Western-based money-chasing and blinkered monitoring, and fires stoked-up by fascist states in the East aimed at easily-persuaded angry people who feel left-out of society.

Or in other words, nothing to do with liberals. It's just that liberals end up having to sort out the messes made by non-liberals when they eventually f***-up as they always do because unfair societies are inherently unstable. Articles that sound pseudo-intellectual phrases and words always piss me off, I've made a lifetime of translating bullshit into plain English.....

"definition:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

Feel free to explain how those are undesirable traits in society and what you mean exactly by "anti-nationalist" because as far as I'm aware liberals arent demonstrating in the streets to stop people waving the flag for England/Any Other Country, they are criticising those that hijack the flag to twist arguments against those that don't see things their way.

Posted by: Queef of Skreech 11th July 2018, 12:06 PM

Ah nationalism. The belief that being born in a certain.place makes you better than another person born in another place. The antithesis of reason.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th July 2018, 07:39 PM

bit unfair to post this in Brexit - it's linked though. It's a tragic murder with "You couldnt make it up" usual UKIP bullshit "we're just normal blokes" self-excuses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-44861508

So, shagging your son's partner, strangling your wife, ex-Marine, and a UKIP councillor who thinks he's still a lovely bloke and victim of unfortunate circumstances. The circumstances being the aforementioned.

"UKIP - where morals are not required, and are in fact a hindrance to career prospects"

Posted by: vidcapper 19th July 2018, 05:42 AM

You got the 'unfair' part right - unless he killed his wife for voting Remain, politics has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th July 2018, 07:03 AM

the response of his UKIP mate shows it does. It shows a lack of morality in a serving Councillor who belongs to a party that encourages a lack of morals. That people show they have shit judgement when it comes to selecting candidates for office shows all parties have problems with it, but UKIP especially so. AS we've seen with the revolving door leadership. Feel free to give examples of their strong, stable leadership and strong, stable policies and ability to agree, rather than say someone who strangles his wife to death after an affair is a victim somehow. I think we can all agree the wife is the victim. The husband is the murderer.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th July 2018, 07:44 AM

I still don't agree that politics has anything to do with it - to me, it just seems like something that could happen to anyone.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th July 2018, 12:12 PM

no it couldnt. most of us manage get through our lives without murdering our spouse, and you completely miss m point that the immoral twat in UKIP is trying to call the murdering husband a victim. Where is your usual "criminals are GUILTY!!!!!!!! String 'em up! Got no-one to blame but themselves!!!!" slant? I mean, honestly, you say burglars should expect to be murdered but have no condemnation of someone who's a murderer and someone who defends him as a "victim". He was 100% totally to blame for his own actions.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th July 2018, 07:29 AM

here's quite another Big Thing.



"Rachael Swindon
‏

This is quite horrifying. MPs have just voted to keep corruption & sexual harassment investigations into themselves a SECRET. And just minutes after the vote, the list of MPs currently under investigation disappeared from the Parliament website. Transparency is dead."

Yes, you can trust them to handle Brexit, obv......

One rule for them, one rule for everyone else. Maybe they should follow other employment guidelines and go on "garden leave". Granted a fair proportion of the House would be sat on their arses doing nothing, but I doubt anyone would notice...

Posted by: vidcapper 20th July 2018, 07:46 AM

Please stop routinely accusing me of supporting anyone I do not actively condemn.

I will thus state for the record : Unless I specifically say otherwise, you can take it as read that I condemn any criminal activity mentioned on this forum

It distresses me that you don't trust my word on this, even though I trust yours.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th July 2018, 04:45 PM

It's not a question of trust, it's a question of what you choose to comment about and choose not to comment about. All I am doing is reminding you that having expectations on one issue should always tally with your expectations on similar issues.

A murderer was called a victim by a serving UKIP councillor. That is a morality issue, and you could have just simply said he was a morally flawed human being and agreed with me that it showed him in a bad light, as well as the murderer. Or not commented at all. Instead you chose to call it an incident that could happen to anyone, which is completely irrelevant as well as not true. If that can happen to anyone, then again you are contradicting yourself about criminals and non-criminals, essentially inferring we are all capable of strangling our spouse because we want to shag our son's partner, and then excuse that as just one of those things.

So your statement was worthy of comment, and you have clarified your position on the murderer, and anyone who tries to say that he wasn't to blame, when he was, and he deserves to go to prison.

Which is what I implied and said in the first place. Everything else has been unnecessary additional words which could have been avoided by just agreeing with me. Or saying nothing.

Maybe you should just consider whether you want to post a comment for some time before actually posting it and we can carry on having reasoned discourse? I suspect it's just a case of seeing something you think is attacking something you support (UKIP, in this case) and so automatically try to flip it off before pondering a bit on the point being made. The reasoned response would have been to condemn my final line about UKIP morality, and state that I couldn't fairly make blanket statements about a whole party based on 2 people. Which is true, but which invites me listing other examples, so it's sort of a loaded unreasonable blanket statement. And you could point that out quite fairly.

Hope that helps!

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd July 2018, 05:59 AM

More cultural vandalism...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5978465/Mamma-Mias-songs-PC-makeover-remove-hints-inappropriate-relationships.html

Mamma Mia’s songs get a PC makeover to remove hints of inappropriate relationships between girls and men

************************************

IMO songs, pictures, books, etc should be left in their original form - it's just tough sh1t if some people today are too psychologically weak to handle it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd July 2018, 08:18 AM

Not cultural vandalism. This is a non-story. I adore Abba, have from the moment I saw them 44 years ago. This is Daily Mail drumming up anti-PC dross where non exists. The lyrics to some early Abba songs could have been improved, they got better in English as they progressed (Note they still keep the incorrect line in Fernando "Since many years I havent seen a rifle in your hands") and changing a gender from male to female doesnt in any way change the song When I Kissed The Teacher. Kids get crushes on teachers, it's a fact of life, male or female. The song is from the point of view of the kid/young adult (the age is not discussed). The teacher "smiled" when she kissed him/her as he was leaning over helping with geometry. This is not a sexual relationship with a teacher leading on a child, this is a child/young adult giving a peck on the cheek and blushing and reading all sorts of things into it.

So the story is a complete lie to try and shit-stir. It fits better into the film if the duet song is sung by a woman, that's what Bjorn/Benny said, and that's all, as it's in the wrong key for a man. If the Mail understood anything about anything they would be trying to accuse Mamma Mia of trying to force kids into Lesbianism, but they know they would be on very dodgy ground there and get sued.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th July 2018, 07:58 AM

murder and Russian money-laundering in the UK, and links to Australian banking accounts.


https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/banking/sunday-night-claims-links-between-australian-banks-and-russian-criminals/news-story/2e7883c89d6fc16df5c777dfc4629cfa

Note: British governments do nothing about obvious assassinations until they were forced to once it happened in public and a British citizen was killed....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd August 2018, 08:44 AM

minor annoyance but indicative of the sheer lack of journalistic standards in modern media:




"@thismorning
Martin Kenny believes the moon landings were faked and humans couldn’t possibly land on the moon as it’s not solid, whereas Dr Sarah Bosman dismisses these conspiracy theories as nonsense. What do you think? 🌝
James O'Brien
‏
James O'Brien Retweeted This Morning
This is an unbelievably awful editorial decision. But in many ways horribly predictable. Brexit & Trump have cleared the way for taking every tinfoil-hatted reality-denier seriously. In the deep end, Holocaust denial. In the shallow end, undiluted hogwash like this."

Everything that has ever happened on the moon is available to view by satellite images, or backed up by inarguable scientific evidence across the world from all nations (you can shoot a laser beam up their yourself tonight to verify how far away the moon is thanks to equipment left on the moon by Nasa astronauts). This is not a subject for discussion any more than arguing about the colour of a red rose is. It's fantasy from stupid people, or lies promoted by crooks duping people into buying their crap. Shit journalists just making themselves look like dumb twats, or else in on the duping.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th August 2018, 07:05 PM

fab tweet from a fab MP

"@Telegraph
With Etonians shunned in the modern Cabinet, where will the new talent come from?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/03/etonians-shunned-modern-cabinet-will-new-talent-come/?

Jess Phillips Retweeted The Telegraph
The other 99.999999999999% of the population who are considerably cleverer and more knowledgeable. Maybe them, oh and women."

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th August 2018, 07:23 PM

Only The Telegraph could publish such a bonkers article in he first place.

The last three Etomian PMs were Anthony "Suez" Eden, Harold McMillan and David "Oops I broke the country" Cameron. The Telegraph obviously use a different dictionary from everyone else - one where "talent" has a completely different meaning.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th August 2018, 08:55 AM

Yes, I think it has "etonian" as a noun: definition: "one of us".

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th August 2018, 09:08 PM

That sounds about right.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th August 2018, 05:40 PM

Gerry Adams, former Sinn Fein leader, is releasing a cookbook.

Seems right, I'm sure he knows how to use a timer.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 31st August 2018, 10:48 PM

Quite a few politicians know all about Cooking The Books too....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 31st August 2018, 10:50 PM

Hell has frozen over - I'm going to defend Mrs May. All those in the media slagging her off for having a go at dancing in public in African countries, get over it, at least she's game for trying rather than offending the hosts!

Posted by: YOUSHALLNOTPEEN! 31st August 2018, 10:51 PM

She looked disgraceful

Posted by: Popchartfreak 31st August 2018, 11:10 PM

more accurately she looked uncomfortable, because she was uncomfortable, and did it anyway. Speaking from personal experience, I was at an all-black dance do last year, bar 3 or 4 guests, and I was too embarrassed to dance even though the music was fab because of my own hang-ups about being a crap dancer in a room where I would stand out like a sort thumb. Undoubtedly I'm a fabulous dancer who would win Strictly, were it not for my hangups

Posted by: vidcapper 21st October 2018, 02:41 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/20/sajid-javid-lambasted-for-asian-paedophiles-tweet-huddersfield

Home secretary criticised for noting the ethnicity of the grooming gang in Huddersfield

******************************

Brave of him to mention it - breaking down the wall of PC silence that allowed such abuses to flourish in the first place...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 21st October 2018, 04:57 PM

IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. WHAT. RACE. THEY. ARE. UNLESS. YOU'RE. A. RACIST.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd October 2018, 05:32 AM

Chill out - high blood pressure can be a very bad thing, as I know only too well!

Seriously though, I don't believe it is wrong to name the perpetrators of crime, especially when some groups commit it more than others.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd October 2018, 11:13 AM

How many headlines along the lines of “White doctor murders hundreds of patients” or “White Cheltenham couple murder dozens of women” have you ever seen?

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd October 2018, 01:44 PM

Err, Dr Harold Shipman?

But my point is, I don't regard it as politically incorrect to give out such details about crimes, when it is important to know who the perpetrators are, whatever their group affiliation.

Before they go to court is another matter, information should be concealed then, to ensure they get a fair trial.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd October 2018, 03:43 PM

You missed the point (as ever). None of the headlines of the time referred to Shipman's race. Similarly, none of the headlines referred to Fred and Rosemary West's race.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd October 2018, 05:23 AM

Because in a less PC era, the default assumption was they were white, unless stated otherwise?

Face it, we will always be fighting crime with one hand behind our backs, if we don't release as much information about suspects as possible. Correctly identifying suspects is far more important than upsetting a few PC leftists!

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd October 2018, 11:57 AM

You're still muddying the waters. Javid's comments weren't about suspects, they were about convicted criminals. Back in the 1970s and '80s, it was quite common to be told that a suspect was black with no more information given. That was hardly likely to lead to anyone being arrested. By contrast, if the only information about a suspect was that they were white, the police gave no information at all. If the colour of a suspect (i.e. somebody the police wish to talk to) is the only thing they know, they might as well say nothing. If they also have information about approximate height, age, etc., all information is relevant.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th October 2018, 05:26 AM

I could hardly muddy the waters more than they already are.

Nowadays there's likely to be more info about suspects - DNA for example, and CCTV footage.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th October 2018, 03:18 PM

Ah yes, I can just see the BBC announcing that the police have released a DNA profile of the suspect and showing a picture of said profile. I'm sure that will really help.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th October 2018, 04:23 PM

Well they can't release a picture a picture of the suspect, that'd be racist...

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th October 2018, 07:14 PM

Can you provide a single example to back up that bizarre assertion?

Posted by: vidcapper 25th October 2018, 05:26 AM

Don't you recognise a wry comment, based on the more extreme examples of PC?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd November 2018, 03:56 PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6346087/School-reports-asylum-seeker-pupil-Home-Office-claims-30.html

'How is there a THIRTY-year-old man in our maths class?' 'Asylum seeker' pupil is removed from school and reported to the Home Office after parents and classmates claimed he was 'lying about being 15 to get GCSEs'

The schoolboy, from the Middle East, started at Stoke High in Ipswich this year
He is alleged to told another GCSE student he is not 15 and is much older
Pupil posted Snapchat picture saying: 'How's there a 30-year-old man in maths?'
Parents have complained to the school who have now called in the Home Office
The boy is claimed to have a bearded selfie on a now deleted Facebook profile

Posted by: vidcapper 7th November 2018, 04:25 PM

More nannying?

https://theconversation.com/meat-tax-why-taxing-sausages-and-bacon-could-save-hundreds-of-thousands-of-lives-every-year-106399

I may have had to cut down on red meat because of my stroke, but i'll be damned if this suggestion ever comes to pass!

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th November 2018, 05:14 PM

It's an idea floated by someone who, as far as I know, has no direct influence on any party's policies. The idea has its merits, but I'd be surprised if any party adopts it as a policy any time soon.

As a general principle, there is nothing wrong with governments using tax policy to try and change behaviour. In particular, there is nothing wrong with a government trying, at the same time, to raise money and reduce demand on the NHS.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2018, 06:21 AM

But I hope they would be sensible enough to recognise fringe suggestions like this...

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 8th November 2018, 01:52 PM

Why not? Meat destroys the environment and is cruel. Why not reduce demand in any way possible?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2018, 03:57 PM

The one thing vegans/veggies don't seem to realize is that, if everyone give up meat, countless millions of livestock would end being put down, as it would no longer be economical to support them - and they could not be released into the wild, as we've bred them to be docile, and therefore would be at the mercy of any predator...

On a personal level, I have reduced my meat intake on doctor's orders, but no way would I do so just on the say of a bunch of lefty environmentalists!

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2018, 04:07 PM

Dutchman, 69, brings lawsuit to lower his age 20 years

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46133262

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 8th November 2018, 05:59 PM

Orrr with higher tax, meat demand gradually decreases?

Posted by: vidcapper 12th November 2018, 06:48 AM

Another absurd suggestion...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6376191/Health-Minister-Matt-Hancock-considers-age-tax-40s.html

Health Minister Matt Hancock considers 'age tax' on the over 40s to pay for their social care later in life and bridge 'catastrophic' funding gap

Matt Hancock, the Health and Social Care Sec, said he was 'attracted to' plans
Scheme would see compulsory premium deducted from the earnings
It would only affect over 40s and 65s, committee said it needs to be compulsory or else it 'wouldn't be done'

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 12th November 2018, 10:14 AM

Worryingly sensible suggestion from a Tory. We need to do a lot more to account for the aging population and their care needs. Taxation is a necessary option. There are other alternates too but this is a good starting point.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th November 2018, 05:40 PM

Which part do you object to?

It is an inescapable fact that the demand for social care is increasing as the population ages. That has to be paid for somehow.

The last Labour government made an attempt to achieve a consensus on how to fund it. They achieved that initially, until the Daily Mail started moaning. At that point, the Tories changed their minds and suddenly opposed the proposals. I'm sure we all remember their attempt to get their own proposals in through the back door in the last election.

The simplest solution is to pay for at least a decent level of social care through general taxation (i.e. not paid for just by the over-40s). Any means-tested solution has the downside that it can encourage people to spend their money rather than putting it aside in case they need social care. Relying on insurance will mean many wealthy people taking a risk and not taking out insurance while the least well-off would decide they can't afford the premiums. What would you do if they then needed social care? Of course, there is also the issue of whether insurance companies would offer the product in the first place.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th November 2018, 06:21 AM

The part about over-40's paying extra.

They already pay for it via their taxes - this would be like introducing private health by stealth.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 14th November 2018, 06:37 AM

No it would not. An increase in NI contributions for the over 40s for a national care service would be expanding the NHS and help secure its future. The fact is that we’re getting older and that needs to be funded some how. This is an entirely sensible and logical proposal

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th November 2018, 09:01 AM

But we’re not paying for social care. That’s the point. As I said above, I don’t like the idea of increasing taxes only for the over-40s. It should be paid for by all taxpayers.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th November 2018, 02:55 PM

I can just about see the rationale for 40-65 y/o's paying more tax for the NHS (although I don't agree with it), but not the 65+. They've been *paying* tax for 45 years or more on the understanding that the NHS will be there for them when they become infirm.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2018, 04:04 PM

Do you really want this woman as a future Home Secretary??

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1051474/diane-abbott-moped-gang-robber-police-twitter

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 28th November 2018, 04:24 PM

Faaar better than Mad May, Amber Rudd etc

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th November 2018, 04:28 PM

I assume it's another attack on Dianne Abbott. My guess is that, even if Labour win an election under Corbyn, she won't be Home Secretary.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th November 2018, 04:45 PM

Are you kidding - we'd be lucky if the doesn't abolish the police altogether...

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 28th November 2018, 04:45 PM

Labour is going to put money INTO police, not say they are crying wolf whilst cutting their numbers and funding. Oops.

Posted by: Steve201 28th November 2018, 11:29 PM

Horrible paper the Express!

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 28th November 2018, 11:44 PM

Hilarious that Tories like Vidcapper 5hink they can attack Labour over policing, when the Tories literally slashed their numbers and budgets to the point where they can barely respond to burglaries AND SAID THEY WERE 'CRYING WOLF' WHEN THE POLICE TOLD MAD MAY AS HOME SEC HER BUDGET CUTS WERE MAKING IT HARD TO FIT CRIME AND TERRORISM!

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2018, 06:19 AM

I may appear to be a Tory, but I would NEVER vote for them, so how do you reconcile that?

The Tories only cut police numbers as pert of the austerity package caused by the last Labour gov'ts profligacy.

When your credit card is maxed out, you *cut* spending - but Labour refuses to acknowledge this...

Posted by: Buttered Muffin 29th November 2018, 12:22 PM

LIES.

WHEN EVEN GIDEON OSBORNE ADMITS THAT WAS A PROPAGANDA SLUR, THEN YOU SHOULD LET THAT PROPAGANDA DIE.

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/10/16/osborne-admits-labour-did-not-cause-the-great-recession-2/

I told you you have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda. The fact you repeat one of their biggest, most ridiculous lies shows that. Perhaps you will listen now?? Miliband's biggest mistake was not challenging that big fat lie. I bet you are going to use that note the Tories used as propaganda as 'evidence', when for DECADES the outgoing treasury has left similarly glib comments as an ongoing JOKE? Hmm?

1. The response to economic problems is to INVEST. We have the WORST PERFORMING MAJOR ECONOMY DUE TO AUSTERITY!!

2. AUSTERITY was nor an economic necessity, but a political choice to funnel money up to the Tory ruling class!!!

https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/chancellor-finally-admits-austerity-was-political-choice

3. Seriously. Seriously. SERIOUSLY you are going with that old credit card chestnut? Surely we have debunked you equating government finances with household finances like a 100 times now? Stop propagandising please. That is clearly what that is, seeing as we have been over this point 100 times before. And you wonder why we say you are a Tory!

4. Mad May cut the police numbers, not Labour. YOU CANNOT BLAME LABOUR FOR MAD MAY CUTS!!

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2018, 09:32 AM

Austerity was a political choice. It is not supported as a course of action by economic theory and in the field it is widely acknowledged as causing more problems than it alleges to fix.

And the Tory government have destroyed the police in England/Wales with their policies. Greater Manchester is becoming a lawless hell hole because they are 2,000 cops short of their minimum staffing level to respond properly to crimes and keep people safe. They’re about 3,500 cops short of the community policing model they desperately want to provide. Head of GM police is honest and open about the fact that they just don’t respond to some crimes now or bother to investigate them because of a complete lack of resources to do so

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd December 2018, 09:56 AM

No it isn't it's selective taxation on one group, many of whom may not live long enough to get any personal benefit.

Using this logic, only under 40's should pay for education for their children's education, or maternity care towards the NHS. Everybody gets old. Or they die. It's a lottery. Those of us unlucky not to have children don't moan that we pay for everyone else's children's education and welfare, because it's fair that society as a whole pays for the young. AND for the elderly. Getting old is not something you can opt out of, and the way things are right now, the elderly already pay for their own old age by having their house taken away from them to pay for it (after they die). Children have a choice: look after your parents and give up some of your own wages and life (like I have been doing for over 10 years) or put them in a home and lose out on any claim to inheritance (if any).

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd December 2018, 10:11 AM

*Me* stop progagandizing? You're the one who has a delusional 19th C view of the Tories!

I see myself as a little more pragmatic where political parties are concerned.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2018, 11:02 PM

If the over 40's don't want to pay for it perhaps they should stop hoarding all this countries f***ing wealth then coz the millennials sure as shit don't earn enough to subsidise this. All the multi-millionaire 40+ wealth hoarding w*n**rs who only give out unpaid internships and low pay then moan about millennials can pay for this.

Posted by: December's Dong 2nd December 2018, 11:24 PM

But you repeat the same lies about austerity and Labour no matter how many times we tell you the ACTUAL truth. You blame LABOUR for MAD MAY'S massive cuts to policing.

My view is the accurate one. They have NEVER changed.

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2018, 11:27 PM

You know as well as I do that the people you're referring to manage to avoid paying tax on most of their income. We don't increase income tax at 40 on the grounds that people over 40 are closer to drawing their pension; why should it be increased because they might be closer to needing long-term care?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd December 2018, 11:49 PM

That's my point..... They should be made to pay their taxes.

National Insurance funds your pension, not income tax, and it's based on contributions throughout your working life. Not enough contributions impacts the level of benefits you get as a pensioner.

If this system works on the same premise, of you start paying in at 40 and as long as you have enough years of credits you get the benefit, then I have absolutely no problem with it and will happily contribute aged 40.


Why are the older generation so content to pass the burden of this onto Millennials? Why don't you think you should pay your way?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 2nd December 2018, 11:57 PM

Personally I quite liked Ed Miliband's so-called mansion tax or some kind of land-value tax instead, because wealth inequality is the bigger problem here IMO.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd December 2018, 06:29 AM

You are aware that far from all over-40's are wealthy?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd December 2018, 06:33 AM

People do not like paying taxes, period.

Any time they claim to, it is some group other than themselves that they propose the burden falls on - curious that...

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd December 2018, 07:44 AM

It wasn’t Ed Miliband’s idea. Labour took it from the Lib Dems, specifically Vince Cable.

Posted by: Steve201 3rd December 2018, 09:57 AM

I'm not rich in any way but I like paying taxes believe it or not, it's the price of living in a civilised society understanding that we all move forward together or don't move forward at all.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd December 2018, 11:03 AM

But presumably you wouldn't volunteer to pay more than you owe...

But in terms of taxation, I think it's the big corporations like Amazon, Starbucks etc who should be the main targets, rather than individuals.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 3rd December 2018, 11:09 AM

OMG, something I actually agree with Paul on!

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2018, 11:15 AM

Well, I keep telling you I'm not right wing on the economy...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2018, 04:08 PM

Ageism is against the Equalities Act and any political party which introduced age-specific taxation would be slaughtered. older people who have been paying tax for 45 years to look after previous older generations pay twice for the privilege of being old ourselves when our turn comes? It's all about paying paying taxes THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE until it's your turn.

A few "f***ing" wealthy "w*n**rs" who tax dodge thanks to other rich "w*n**rs" do not represent the vast amount of older people who have paid taxes all their life and provided a society that young people have all the advantages of - even if recent political rich tosspots have been doing their best to ignore them including all of the political parties in power, none of whom I agree with. That's like slagging off all young people for some tosspot scrounging lazy do-nothings who sponge of the state and contribute nothing in taxes. It's called. "trying to change the subject because I have no basis to support my rather-glib instant reaction to something that seemed a good idea before I thought about it and other people pointed out the inherent unfairness of it"

What you are proposing is in effect lower taxes for your generation compared to people who have already spent their life paying taxes, so over 40's get hit twice (and trust me as I care for my older parents who get virtually zero help from the state, as in NOTHING WHATSOEVER apart from emergency surgery and free prescriptions, that I am poorer for having to do it so my own old age would with your brilliantly and deeply-thought analysis make me even poorer than I'm having to make myself as I head into old age with no kids to care for me or look after me.)

Thanks for your empathic support.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th December 2018, 11:52 AM

The prize for the best Christmas card of the year may well be going to Mr Ed Miliband for a card that both makes a political point and takes the piss out of himself.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 13th December 2018, 07:05 PM

Seen that on twitter, aul Ed should return to the cabinet lol

Posted by: vidsanta 21st December 2018, 08:18 AM

BTW - a big thank you to Brett Butler for closing the EU thread, it'll be a relief not to hear Remainers complaining about it for a few days...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st December 2018, 01:53 PM

Try putting up with moaning for 40 years....

Posted by: vidsanta 21st December 2018, 03:06 PM

I'd be happy with that, as long as we're out.

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 21st December 2018, 06:16 PM

And yet 80% of the youth want in. Sooo how long would we even br out?

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2018, 06:35 AM

Newsflash : the young are not the *only* voters...

Correct me if I'm wrong - but you seem to believe that the votes of over-50's shouldn't count as much, as 'they won't be around to face the long-term consequences of their choices'?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2018, 12:37 PM

Your moaning about 2 years worth of moaning suggests it'll still be same people doing the moaning. Mostly from the other side it'll be factual "i told you so" statements.

Plus, saying thank you for closing down a brexit thread that you caused and hijacking another thread to carry it on suggests you arent happy about your comments closing it down at all.

This thread is for non eu brexit items for those BOBs out there...

Posted by: vidsanta 22nd December 2018, 03:09 PM

If you check back, you'll see I never once used the word 'Brexit'...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd December 2018, 08:50 PM

"BTW - a big thank you to Brett Butler for closing the EU thread, it'll be a relief not to hear Remainers complaining about it for a few days... wink.gif"

Posted by: vidsanta 23rd December 2018, 06:45 AM

Yes, but I still didn't use the word 'Brexit', did I...

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 23rd December 2018, 11:31 AM

Don't be so facetious. It is clear what IT means here.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd December 2018, 11:36 AM

Nobody said you did. Patting yourself on the back for something you commented on but seem to get childlike joy out of the irrelevant vocabulary used when it was pointed out comes over as a bit, yknow, na na na na.

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2018, 06:14 AM

Given how unrepresentative this group is of the EU referendum decision, I have to look for whatever I can get.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2019, 03:15 PM

Are we turning our children into 'snowflakes'?

OK, that's not quite what the article is saying, but at least it acknowledges the danger in over-protecting them...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/10/by-mollycoddling-our-children-were-fuelling-mental-illness-in-teenagers

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2019, 03:58 PM

The key point is that, contrary to a lot of tabloid headlines, the over-protection tends to come from parents. They are the ones not letting their children play outside etc. Of course, some of the people who complain that children don’t play outside enough are also the people who complain that children playing outside make too much noise.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th January 2019, 07:05 PM

I'm a really big admirer of Jonathan Haidt - as I've stated on many occasions, his book "The Righteous Mind" is one of the most important books I've read in the past few years - it essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why people on the other end of the political divide think the way that they do. I've meant to get around to reading the book he's promoting in this piece, although I imagine that I won't get as much out of it as I did from "TRM" (at least until I have children).

Posted by: vidcapper 25th January 2019, 11:47 AM

Saw an interesting documentary last night on PBS America - Winston Churchill : Winning The War, Losing The Peace

It gives an insight on why he lost the 1945 election - basically because he was out-of-touch with the ordinary people, coming across as the type of 19th C Tory that a certain poster here likes to claim the Tories still are. If nothing else, that very landslide win for Labour showed the Tories there was no future in that outdated attitude, and why so few Tories nowadays actually espouse it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th January 2019, 02:55 PM

It's often forgotten that Churchill was loathed by many working class voters before the War. Even in wartime they still despised much of what he stood for even if they respected his role as a figurehead.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 07:06 AM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636337/One-20-Britons-not-believe-Holocaust-took-place-study-finds.html

One in 20 Britons do not believe the Holocaust took place, and one in 12 believes its scale has been exaggerated, study finds

One in 20 people in Britain do not believe the Nazi death camps ever existed
The revelation provoked concern from Jewish leaders and Holocaust survivors
A survey by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust also found one in 12 believe the scale of the Holocaust has been exaggerated

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/one-in-20-britons-does-not-believe-holocaust-happened

****************************

I simply do not believe these numbers - we know the extreme-right gets 1% or less in national elections, so IMO that's surely the maximum it could be.

I wonder just how the survey questions were phrased?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th January 2019, 09:57 AM

I believe the question asked was Have you ever seen or heard the word Holocaust before? so I think it is more about ignorance than actual Holocaust denial, though still quite shocking itself. The Independent headline claiming that 2.6 million people in the UK are Holocaust Deniers is just ludicrous and it makes me quite sad that journalism has just basically become copying and pasting press releases.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th January 2019, 03:00 PM

I guess it proves that even I don't read newspaper headlines unquestioningly.. .

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2019, 04:14 PM

Straw poll ; which is a more reliable source, Daily Mail, or Breitbart?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 6th February 2019, 05:27 PM

C) A meth addict on a 60 day bender

Posted by: vidcapper 7th February 2019, 10:01 AM

Very droll.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th February 2019, 06:49 AM

John McDonnell's comments have created some controversy, so...

Tonypandy - a different perspective

For many people, the name Tonypandy means little, except perhaps when applied to the late Viscount Tonypandy, a much-loved Speaker of the House of Commons in the Seventies and Eighties.

However, for socialist rabble rousers such as Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, the name of this former coal-mining town is seared as deeply into their memories as Orgreave, Wapping and other places where violent militancy was dealt a bloody nose by the forces of law and order.

According to Left-wing mythology, Tonypandy was the scene of the shameful and brutal suppression of a coal-miners’ strike and rioting in November 1910, with the insurrection finally quelled by the then home secretary — none other than Winston Churchill — who sent in the Army to crush the disturbance.

If you listened to McDonnell this week, you might start to believe that the way Churchill and the British Army behaved at Tonypandy outweighed their courage decades later in liberating Europe from tyranny.

Yesterday, when justifying calling Churchill a ‘villain’, McDonnell told ITV News: ‘He sent the troops into Tonypandy to shoot the miners, and a miner died. Others were injured. It was to break a strike.’

Later in the interview, McDonnell repeated his claim that the troops killed a miner: ‘Tonypandy was a disgrace, sending the troops in, killing a miner trying to break a strike.’

McDonnell added that if his comment ‘prompted a more rounded debate about Churchill’s role, well, I welcome that’.

As a historian, I would certainly welcome a more rounded debate about Winston Churchill — or indeed any historical figure.

No serious historian would ever claim that Churchill was without flaws, some of which were very large indeed. And yet McDonnell’s egregious misrepresentation of the events that took place in Tonypandy are so shocking that they cannot go unchallenged.

The truth is almost the complete opposite of what the Shadow Chancellor claims.

The problem is that hard-Leftists such as McDonnell and his acolytes — who predictably attacked Churchill on Twitter yesterday — are utterly wedded to the Marxist narrative that the murderous forces of capitalism crush the workers into poverty and early graves.

Any presentation of facts that may conflict with their blinkered worldview will simply be dismissed as Right-wing lies.

So what exactly are the facts? What did happen in South Wales back in November 1910, and why do the events in a small town a long time ago still resonate so deeply for the Left?

The roots of the story lie in the summer of that year, when a dispute between miners and management broke out at a colliery near Tonypandy over rates of pay.

On September 1, the owners locked out nearly 1,000 pitmen after a disagreement over the rate at which coal was to be extracted from a newly created seam. This was despite the fact that the dispute involved only 70 workers. This resulted in the 12,000 miners who worked for the local mining cartel — called the Cambrian Combine — going on strike on November 1 in support. Matters soon turned ugly — and then violent.

Striking and picketing miners tried to stop the enginemen and stokers from ensuring that the pits did not fill up with water and poisonous gas.

In most instances, the miners were successful in turning the workers away, but some, such as David Deere, a winding engineer at the Clydach Vale pit, were determined to get through.

On Monday November 7, he tested his luck.

‘I went on, and soon had a crowd of hundreds round me and could get no further,’ he told Daily Mail’s Special Correspondent. ‘It was one man against 1,000.

‘I turned to one side towards High Street and at once I was off my feet. For 50 yards I never touched the ground. They were striking me and pushing me against the wall. At last I got into a doorway and a brave woman, Mrs Duveen, let me into her house.’

For the next two hours, Deere stayed inside, fearing for his life. Throughout the rest of the day, the miners paraded around the town, and cared little for the fact that hundreds of ponies had been left in the pits without food or water, and with dangerous gases building up.

It was by that night that local officials were fearing the situation would turn worse, with one informing the Mail that he hoped some troops that had been requested from the Home Office would turn up.

The official’s hopes were in vain, because although Winston Churchill had dispatched two squadrons of the 18th Hussars to Cardiff from Marlborough, they had still not arrived, and — despite the claims of John McDonnell — the home secretary was extremely reluctant to use them.

They were not to arrive in Cardiff until 6.30pm the following evening. The Chief Constable of Glamorganshire, Captain Lindsay, was desperate for troops, and asked the Home Office for the Hussars to come as soon as possible.

Churchill’s reply was to dismay him, and was to be lambasted as ‘vacillation’ by an editorial in this very paper.

‘You may give the miners a message from me,’ Churchill cabled. ‘Their best friends [the Government] are greatly distressed at the trouble which has broken out, and will do their best to help them get fair treatment.’

After calling for a cessation of rioting, Churchill continued: ‘Confiding in the good sense of the Cambrian Combine workmen, we are holding back the soldiers for the present and sending police instead.’ In other words, he was showing precisely the kind of restraint that John McDonnell says was shockingly absent.

Tuesday, November 8 would prove to be fateful. With a limited local police force, and with Churchill hesitating about sending in the troops, the miners had the town to themselves.

As a force of 270 London policeman were not to arrive until around 10 o’clock that night, they were too late to stop much of Tonypandy being laid waste by a marauding mob, who smashed and looted nearly every shop and tried to light several fires.

It was estimated that they caused some £30,000 worth of damage — the equivalent of some £12 million today. Yet there was no mention of that in the avalanche of Left-wing condemnation of Churchill yesterday.

When the police finally did arrive, several baton charges were made against the rioters, and around 120 of the local men were injured. One of them, Samuel Rhys, received a blow to the head which fractured his skull.

He would die a few days later, and would be the only fatality in the riots.

His sad fate is of course completely contradictory to the claim made by McDonnell on TV yesterday: he would have us believe that Rhys had been shot by the Army. Yet as we have seen, the Army was still on its way to Cardiff when Rhys was injured, and his skull fracture was clearly the result of a blow rather than a bullet.

The baton charges were led by the Chief Constable, Captain Lindsay, who was injured, along with six other policemen. The fact that at least one miner was seen carrying a double-barrelled shotgun is a testament to the bravery of the police.

It would not be until the small hours of the Wednesday morning that the Hussars were finally ordered in and, even then, they did not arrive until around 8am.

Photographs from the time show smart lines of mounted cavalry trotting incongruously through the streets of the mining town as though they have been dispatched directly from the Napoleonic wars.

Their presence would immediately quell the rioting, and for the next few days, they effectively occupied the area.

Although that made good sense in terms of security and safety, Churchill well knew there would be a political cost. He was understandably keen to avoid the impression that the government was trying to settle an industrial dispute by force.

In the Commons, Churchill expressed his dislike at having to use the troops, even though they thankfully caused no deaths.

‘Law and order must be preserved,’ he said, ‘but I am confident that the House will agree with me that it is a great object of public policy to avoid a collision between soldiers and crowds of persons engaged in industrial disputes. For soldiers to fire on the people would be a catastrophe in our national life.’

Ultimately, Churchill would always regret sending in the Hussars. He did his best not to, and even regarded the miners as his friends, but politically, the move backfired, and he would be loathed by some quarters in South Wales — and on the Left — for decades to come.

But the notion, as propagated by John McDonnell, that Churchill willingly sent in the troops to shoot people is just bad history. Churchill was no villain.

Article by Guy Walters

https://preview.tinyurl.com/y2bgumnp

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th February 2019, 08:39 PM

I see no point in reading any further than the words "socialist rabble rousers".

Posted by: vidcapper 17th February 2019, 06:37 AM

So you admit you are only interested in one pov - that leaves you as just pure propaganda-fodder, a quality you always indicate as a negative where the Daily Mail is concerned - hypocrisy much!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th February 2019, 08:27 AM

The use of the term shows bias, not an unbiased factual reporting. It would be like starting a factual report on Brexit in the Tory Party and saying "right-wing shit-stirrers who don't give a toss about people's lives" while reporting facts unrelated to the topic. You can make those observations but then it becomes opinion, not fact, because it's being selectively niterpreted through one viewpoint.

The striking miners in 1984 were also slagged-off ruthlessly, they didn't riot and destroy property, they were people carrying out a highly-dangerous job, which has long-term health problems associated with it, and the government politically decided to give our energy needs to Russia by doing exactly what the miners accused them of doing. Killing mining and union power as if they were one and the same.

My younger brother, BTW, now has serious health issues from years of mining, so I've little time for anyone trying to justify the need for people to know their place, shut up and put up.

BTW my father was also in the armed forces so the insulting inference that being socialist is the "enemy" and being in the military is the "forces of good" is simplistic and insulting. My dad voted remain, my brother Leave.

An inability to see the nuances of the real world just shows blinkered "my gang" viewpoints. I include people of all political and social views in that comment.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th February 2019, 09:27 AM

A certain amount of socialism can be beneficial, but anyone who has blind faith in it alone (like our friend Michael), is extremely naive, given multiple examples of it being disastrous for those it is *supposed* to benefit...

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th February 2019, 09:46 AM

I'm always prepared to read reasoned argument. Opening with a phrase such s "socialist rabble rousers" is not a sign of a reasoned argument.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th February 2019, 10:28 AM

But what John McDonnell said was more reasoned, just because it didn't include emotive phrases?

I do my best to post in polite terms, but it does me little good, Sometimes though, however polite you are, people just don't want to listen to what you have to say.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th February 2019, 10:56 AM

He was asked a binary question with no space for nuance. he was asked if Churchill was a villain or hero. There were no other options so said 2 words. That's the problem with referendums that give you a yes no simplistic question, there is no room for discussion, a bit yes-no, hero for this, villain for that. Had it been an interview about the merits of Churchill for a programme about Churchill then a proper answer could have been formed. As it was, it was fake-outrage about a response to a moronically simplistic question, he should have said "That's a dumb question" and he should be criticised for being dumb enough to fall for it, rather than for his response.

My take is: McDonnell is a politician and he should have thrown it back, so his judgement is questionable on that basis.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th February 2019, 02:50 PM

Wow - I did not see that one coming...

Posted by: vidcapper 17th February 2019, 03:01 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/47247835/jacob-rees-mogg-comments-on-concentration-camps

Boer War ones, that is.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th February 2019, 03:20 PM

Funny how that hasn't generated as much outrage as McDonnell's comments.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th February 2019, 03:33 PM

Presumably because more people got the context?

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th February 2019, 04:54 PM

He was defending the use of concentration camps. How do you think a Labour MP defending Stalin's gulags would have been treated?

Posted by: vidcapper 18th February 2019, 06:23 AM

I suspect such comments would be equally stripped of context...

The camps the British set up in SA were not deliberately designed to kill their occupants - that is the crucial difference to the Nazi camps and the Soviet gulags.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th February 2019, 08:16 AM

try telling that to George Takei who was imprisoned in a concentration camp for US Japanese citizens during WW2 just because they were thought to be a bit too Japanesey, while those Americans of german and Italian descent werent thought to be a bit too Germaney or Italianey. You are either guilty of actual crimes, or you are innocent because there is no such thing as "potential-crimes" or "sorta-guilty of being the wrong ethnicity/religion/sexuality/whatever"

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th February 2019, 08:59 AM

Except that they were. They deliberately starved people to death.

They may not have had the same degree of brazen openness as the Nazi camps did, but to say they weren't designed with death in mind is a shameless attempt at whitewashing a vile chapter of British history.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th February 2019, 09:11 AM

So the high death rate was just bad luck?

Posted by: vidcapper 18th February 2019, 02:48 PM

No higher than the death rate in Glasgow, apparently - that was one of the points made.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th February 2019, 02:49 PM

Unfortunately the normal rules don't operate during wartime.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th February 2019, 02:50 PM

I take it you have proof of the above, then.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th February 2019, 03:15 PM

Yes. "Try Googing!" Stop arguing about unresearched facts because it doesn't fit your world-view and save yourself looking foolish. The death rate was high, the British elitist government did what they did everywhere the British Empire went: subdued and conquered, either by force or economics. The crap comparison by one of the current wealthy elitist liars trying to manipulate the poor (and causing more deaths through his money-making business interests linked to cigarettes) is meaningless. The proportion of deaths of women & children were high, as recorded by British activists at the time, photos included. Arguing that it was "only" as many as die in Glasgow, or anywhere or any situation else is a nasty evil attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Cos that is Rees-Mogg all over, depending on people not rushing onto Wikipedia and swallowing his loathesome crap as usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps

There is no justification. There is no excuse. It happened.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th February 2019, 03:22 PM

Unfortunately facts are hard things to get over when you get exposed for doing things that are inexcusable for highly dubious and hypocritical reasons (or dumb public opinion. at the very least "it's for your own safety, and we have stored all your property and made sure your property is cared for" would the be very least to be expected.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th February 2019, 03:36 PM

A point that many people dispute.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th February 2019, 04:07 PM

I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th February 2019, 09:07 PM

The BBC.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th February 2019, 09:41 PM

You missed the point. He made a statement of "fact". He just assumed that people would believe him because he said it with confidence on a posh voice.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2019, 06:57 AM

Are you saying then that your default position is extreme scepticism over any information from a source on the 'wrong' side of the political divide?

Over the years, I've learned to be very cautious on information even from *my* side of a debate, as I recognize that they have an agenda too.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2019, 07:51 AM

Men found guilty of stealing free newspapers at London Bridge

https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9837?utm_source=SE1+Direct&utm_campaign=37d0c0a725-SE1+Direct+947_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9d1f71fd65-37d0c0a725-408108629

Curious one, this.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th February 2019, 08:04 AM

Possibly because I & others are quick to point out provable lies, the vast majority of which come from "your" side of the debate - people who disagree are equally free to poo-poo any statement made by anybody over anything by quoting facts. The fact that that doesn't happen should tell you something.....

The internet contains the history of the whole human race and entire universe, freely available, and people instead push lies and agendas despite the facts that can easily prove they are liars or twisting conversations away from facts, and a major problem in society world-wide now is intolerance based around anger and shutting down debate of anyone who holds a different point of view. The only way to win a debate in the long run is truth and reason. Everything else is temporary and ultimately insubstantial in the long run.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2019, 08:26 AM

If only.



The question then must be, why would people even bother posting easily disprovable lies?

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th February 2019, 09:05 AM

Because they can and they often get away with it, particularly if the press are on their side.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2019, 09:27 AM

BUt they *don't* get away with it - their lies are exposed. After that, you're just left with people who choose to believe them, because it suits them.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th February 2019, 09:36 AM

The exposure of the lies frequently gets less coverage than the original lie. Remember, a lie has got half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th February 2019, 12:31 PM

Cos people are lazy and just read headline propaganda. They expect other people to do their research for them....

Posted by: vidcapper 19th February 2019, 03:18 PM

Perish the thought that I'd ever do that...

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd February 2019, 06:04 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2019/feb/21/us-china-trade-hopes-lift-markets-business-live

UK public finances hit record surplus in boost to chancellor

*************************************

Isn't this what austerity was *supposed* to achieve?

I dare say Corbyn is working out how to plunder it, though...

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd February 2019, 07:28 AM

The figures are for January, the month of the Self-Assessment deadline. It is always a bumper month for tax receipts.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd February 2019, 07:48 AM

Are you really playing down some *good* economic news?

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd February 2019, 07:51 AM

I'm putting it in context. One month's figures on their own are meaningless. It's longer-term trends that really count.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd February 2019, 08:49 AM

I'm glad you said that...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6728947/Treasury-records-14-9billion-surplus-January.html

Even though it's a Mail article, the 25 year deficit graph it contains is based on real figures, rather than the usual politically slanted opinion.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd February 2019, 10:38 AM

perhaps these stats will help with the issue of debt relative to the rest of the world and as a percentage of GDP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

all of the crisis-avoiding money-printing has been made by the Tories and Labour since 2008.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd February 2019, 11:22 AM

All very nice, but surely the issue is that it is heading the right way - comparing the relative levels to the rest of the world is irrelevant in this context.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd February 2019, 01:38 PM

That things are not quite as bad as the recent historical highs is a good thing. That it's still nowhere near where it needs to be after a decade amid promises it would be all be sorted in 5 years is bad. Comparing with the rest of the world is vital because you need to see how you are doing in comparison - if a world depression was giving everyone a bad time then blame is not on anyone in particular for failing to improve, if you're debt levels are on a par with 3rd world & war torn countries, then that shows you that things are not at all good.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd February 2019, 03:03 PM

I didn't realise America was a third world country.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd February 2019, 05:58 PM

hey you read the bit just below United Kingdom! Yes the US debt levels were eye-wateringly huge. I mean, think of the biggest debt levels you can possibly imagine, and then treble it. You can thank George Dubya Bush for that, Obama spent 8 years having to work on it.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd February 2019, 06:30 AM

You see, I do read some of your references.
o
Seriously though, it shows that high levels of debt do not necessarily mean a failing economy. Also, how is Obama working on the levels of US debt, any different from the Tories working on ours?

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd February 2019, 07:24 AM

Someone didn't think this one through...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/22/rubbish-spot-london-council-mocked-for-placement-of-brexit-posters

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd February 2019, 08:06 AM

It wasn't significantly different initially. Both Brown & Bush started the ball rolling on that one, and Obama & Cameron followed through in their own ways - Obama struggled to get Republican support for social policies which would have tempered the downturn effects, and the Tories out-bid Labour in persuading the electorate that massive cutbacks were needed, again without a policy of support to those most affected. Once the Libdems were out the way, they went full-on mad attack in fact until the last election drummed in that they had messed up, and here we are now, both countries reaping the rewards of those policies.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd February 2019, 08:10 AM

Most parties wouldn't mind a +5.5% vote share 'mess up'.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd February 2019, 10:00 AM

Yes but they were facing Jeremy Corbyn and still lost their majority.....

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd February 2019, 02:49 PM

Or you could say, despite the Tories troubles, Corbyn *still* couldn't win...

Posted by: Brett-Butler 4th March 2019, 06:31 PM

Okay, who on their "Most Unexpected News of 2019" bingo card had - "https://t.co/zINqgeTYa5?"

Posted by: vidcapper 6th March 2019, 02:53 PM

https://news.sky.com/story/momentum-fined-for-multiple-breaches-of-electoral-law-11656570

Momentum: Corbyn-supporting group fined for 'multiple breaches' of electoral law

******************************

I guess it's not just Leave groups who are guilty of this, then, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they are *all* at it...

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th March 2019, 04:51 PM

The difference is that Momentum have been found guilty of accounting errors, not overspending. Those accounting errors cannot possibly have affected any election result.

Try again.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2019, 06:10 AM

'Accounting errors'

Yeah, right - like you'd believe that if Leave tried that one...

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th March 2019, 08:15 AM

They didn’t overspend. They have been fined for not accounting for everything correctly. Surely you can get the difference.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2019, 12:41 PM

There *is* a difference, but I just don't assign it the same level of importance as you do. And as I've said repeatedly, there's no evidence it made a decisive difference to the result.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th March 2019, 03:45 PM

So why did they overspend if they thought that the money would make no difference? If they went ahead and spent the money anyway, doesn't that make them totally unsuitable as custodians of the public purse?

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2019, 04:16 PM

It might, except they weren't spending public money on it - unlike the taxpayer-aided Remain campaign. I assume you're not going to argue that that the gov'ts EU referendum leaflet had *no* effect, merely because it was issued before the official campaign start date?

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th March 2019, 04:56 PM

The Remain campaign was not taxpayer-funded.

If the government leaflet had made a significant difference, you might have expected Remain voters to quote from it when justifying their vote. If anyone did, I didn't come across it. The same cannot be said of slogans in the Leave leaflets and the nonsense contained in the dodgy Facebook adverts.

Besides, the law is the law. Leave broke it, Remain didn't. The cost of the government leaflet falls into the same category as the tabloid front pages. The only difference is that the tabloid front pages, partly through endless repetition, were more effective.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th March 2019, 05:02 PM

...and like the Leave campaign many tabloids are paid for by foreign or foreign-dwelling billionaires with dodgy democratic habits and agendas to pervert the course of British democracy.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th March 2019, 05:08 PM

IT didn't have to be - virtually the whole establishment was behind it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th March 2019, 05:13 PM

The Telegraph? Various Old Etonians? Half the Cabinet?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th March 2019, 06:59 AM

At least!

However, my point remains the same - even if 99.99% of the establishment support Remain, if voters choose Leave then IMO that is what they must strive to achieve!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 8th March 2019, 08:46 AM

BY which you mean the populist press, the bailing self-serving politicians and half the people who voted?

Think you'll find that campaign was the illegally-funded campaign who lied throughout.

The other campaign told the truth and stuck to the rules. If the Lying campaign had told the truth they would have been slaughtered, and that's why you keep excusing all they did, and whinging about the people who told the truth and continue to tell the truth vainly looking for something to slag them off about - just because you don't agree with that point of view.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th March 2019, 10:58 AM

I don't recall you protesting against the UK Government leaflet that was dead dropped to every household in Scotland in 2014.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th March 2019, 02:52 PM

You've often accused me of not reading what I write - in this case, that seems to be exactly what you've done!

Posted by: vidcapper 11th March 2019, 06:29 AM

'GPS systems will be struck by Y2K-like bug on April 6': Security expert says he will NOT fly on 'day zero' after governments warn global devices will RESET due to calendar glitch

The error could cause disruption to plane's navigation systems and electric grids
Time counters are predicted to roll back to zero in older GPS devices says expert
Experts raised the alert this week at RSA 2019 San Francisco security meeting
Bill Malik, vice president of Trend Micro, says he will not fly on April 6
Navigation systems on ships and older aircraft may be affected

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6789857/GPS-systems-struck-Y2K-like-bug-April-6-Security-expert-says-NOT-fly-day.html

*****************************

I dare say some will try to blame it on Br***t.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 11th March 2019, 08:17 AM

Not me. I'm more likely to blame it on countries trying to destabilise Western society, such as Russia, or fake news pushers trying to distract from the corruption of events or negative results of anything happening in early April. Brexit-pushers won't have any reason to make things worse deliberately, as they'll just look even-more like liars

Posted by: vidcapper 11th March 2019, 02:55 PM

That might world in some third world craphole, but hardly in strong western democracies!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 11th March 2019, 05:29 PM

Errr President Trump. Brexit. Corruption.

https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum

Posted by: vidcapper 12th March 2019, 06:05 AM

Do you seriously believe that Brexit & Trump's election would have been impossible without 'interference'?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 12th March 2019, 12:49 PM

They were both so close that anything could have swayed the result: INCLUDING foreign money and corruption. To ignore that is to ignore corruption forever more and allow anyone to do and say anything, regardless if they Putin, wannabe Hitler's, rich media moguls intent on destroying democracy or anything you can invent or hypothetically see happening.

If corruption in democratic elections is not, never will be, a thing, in terms of affecting results then logically there is no argument for having it because it "has no effect" on the result. Except that it does, because they do it, proving that it does effect outcomes. Always has, always will.

Posted by: blacksquare 17th March 2019, 05:54 PM

Very impressed with Jacinda Ardern this week. I haven't seen a leader act with so much compassion and humanity in a long time.

Posted by: Iz~ 17th March 2019, 06:28 PM

I've been impressed whenever her name has come up and especially so in this horrific time for her country. New Zealand's politics look pretty appealing at this point in time, and I'm aware that's only an outsiders view but she is the sort of person I would wish were much more common among our world leaders.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th March 2019, 05:55 AM

Adulthood begins at 30

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6824499/Adulthood-begins-30-Scientists-say-brains-not-fully-grown-twenties.html

People are highly susceptible to mental health problems in their twenties
This can resolve around the age of 30 when the brain reaches full maturity
There is no strict neurological definition of when a child becomes an adult

*****************************************

This could explain a lot...

Posted by: Iz~ 19th March 2019, 09:05 AM

I miss when this topic was built around obscure international news that wasn’t big enough for a topic.

As opposed to insinuating ageist crap. The principle is logical but using it to make generalizations based on age and implying delegitimising their opinions is rude.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th March 2019, 10:44 AM

Congratulations - that the first time I've ever heard ageism used in this erroneous context - i.e. against the young.

I guess you missed my smiley *again* though.

Posted by: Iz~ 19th March 2019, 10:54 AM

Ageism can affect all ages just as racism can affect all races.

And I don’t miss your tone, I just don’t find it particularly funny to be patronizing people over an attribute they have no control over.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th March 2019, 03:00 PM

But other kinds of patronising are OK, such as insinuating most Leavers are uneducated xenophobes?

BTW, maybe we weren't so wrong to raise concerns over immigration levels...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/18/england-to-run-short-of-water-within-25-years-environment-agency

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th March 2019, 08:33 PM

"I think we should stop immigrants because of water shortages"

One of the wettest nations on the planet. Build some more reservoirs.

BTW Brexit won;t make the slightest difference to immigration numbers - we've already seen non-EU numbers rise to compensate for leaving EU citizens, and we have FULL employment, meaning they are needed to work here to keep us in the lifestyle we have been accustomed to (ie tax creation, service sectors, NHS).

Posted by: vidcapper 21st March 2019, 06:22 AM

I agree the whole 'water shortage' situation is farcical.

Are you saying that Brexit wouldn't change our Full Employment situation?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st March 2019, 12:37 PM

I'm saying the reason we have immigration is because there aren't enough Brits to do the jobs that generate money that pay the taxes that support the nation and that despitre having the power to totally stop non-EU immigration for a decade May just sent round vans moaning and extradited actual British Empire citizens and stopped much-needed doctors coming over - because they are needed. The EU immigration thing is just political blame-shifting, they have and always have had the power to stop and limit immigration but don't because it's needed.

Now when the job start going as a result of Brexit, THEN we'll see even more full employment, in the minus figures. It was several million on the dole back in the 80's in case you've forgotten, including me, my brother, my dad, and my grandad. People have totally forgotten what that does to society, or have no idea what it does.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st March 2019, 01:40 PM

I'd like to offer an amendment to that 'but don't because it's politically incorrect to discuss it'.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 21st March 2019, 10:02 PM

Water shortages not a problem for pro-immigrant Scotland and never will be. Even if we take in 5m immigrants

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd March 2019, 06:31 AM

Comment saved for later reference.

Progressives are full of big talk over loving immigrants, but very few of them live with/near them... I wonder why?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd March 2019, 07:02 AM

You do realise that a significant amount of England’s water supply comes from Scotland right? We get so much rain that our sustainable water usage level is far far far higher than our population.

My parents house is rural and all of the farms are manned by immigrants from Eastern Europe. People born outside the UK make up a lot of our population. I’m used to having large numbers of migrants around us and I actually think it’s great. Until Brexit both our neighbours were migrants as well as the house next door but one. Now one of our neighbours has moved to Germany to escape the madness.

I currently live in highly multicultural Manchester and have spent 6 months living as an immigrant in Berlin - a city with a high migrant population.

After all of that I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I am pro-migration. I’ve seen the benefits it brings.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd March 2019, 07:18 AM

What about the distinction between legal & illegal immigrants then? The latter is where problems usually arise.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd March 2019, 07:34 AM

Stop moving the goal posts to suit your bigoted agenda hun.

We do not have an illegal immigration problem. We have a problem with our migration system that means it is hideously inefficient and is downright cruel to those seeking legal status. It prevents people from working and forces them into destitution. A fairer and quicker system would resolve many issues. As would exit controls at our borders (as the majority of “illegal immigrants” are visa overstayers) and a clear legal framework for deportation, as well as dedicated courts for requests and appeals, to make the system more effective. Doing as other countries do and automatically banning overstayers from entry for a couple of years is a good incentive to depart on time, as is mandatory deportation for overstayers.

Key for me though is an appropriate system for asylum. I side eye people claiming only after they’ve been caught and I side eye our current system which is so cruel that people trafficking has sprung up as a cottage industry. Making it easier to claim asylum at port of entry or a British consulate will cut the people traffickers off at the knees.

Pro-immigrant doesn’t mean anti-border control. It means welcoming people who want to better themselves and will contribute to society as well as providing a home and assistance to those who need it most. The system should be compassionate, fair and efficient but firm where appropriate. Properly enforcing EU law on freedom of movement would be an ideal start

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd March 2019, 07:50 AM

If it is 'bigoted' to want to protect the country from foreign criminals entering illegally, then so be it.

God knows, we've already got too many home grown criminals, without letting in more!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd March 2019, 08:39 AM

laws exist to deport foreign illegal entry criminals. There is nothing stopping stopping the UK do this already. Just as we can already deport EU citizens who don't have registered tax-contributing jobs. Stop blaming the EU for failures of British governments to allocate resources to do what is the law. Blame those in power in this country and ask why they have done nothing about it - because it suits their hatred-whipping anti-EU agenda, that's why.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd March 2019, 09:47 AM

cough<ECHR>cough



Those in power are pro-EU not anti - that's why parliament is having problems passing Brexit legislation!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd March 2019, 02:21 PM

1. The rest of Europe doesn't have problems deporting people, and there are occasional rare instances in this country. It's not like there's a massive list of cases clogging up courts in the UK and the EU. You don't hear about the ones that go smoothly because they go smoothly. Even the ones that illegally deport British citizens to countries they barely know eg The Caribbean.

2. The legislation would have passed if the DUP and ERG had got behind it. They are Hard-line Brexiters, so you don't get to blame Remainers, sorry. They have the numbers but they are so swivel-eyed extreme they can't support their own cause in their own party as organised by their own fellow-Brexiters, that's how nuts they are. Nobody else is in power, the Tories enterd into a deal with the DUP to hold power, following a GE called by Tories and a referendum arranged by Tories, and all that has happened since has been Tory, they havent involved Parliament and deliberately tried to exclude Parliament even though it's constitutionally illegal. May hasnt tried to engage, amend, co-operate with, or listen to the opinions of anyone other than her own inner insane self, so the entire mess is entirely her creation, aided and abetted every step of the way by blatant meh behaviour from Corbyn giving her an easy ride. to allow her to hang herself, hang the Tories, and hang the country.

Just saying.....

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd March 2019, 06:12 PM

Seriously. That’s the only line you’ve read?

If you had bothered to continue reading beyond the point where I call out your actual agenda, you’d note that I discuss ways I believe we can tackle “illegal immigration” that is wholly free from a bigoted undertone.

So yes it is possible, just not by you x

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd March 2019, 06:08 AM

Of course not, but it's the only one I chose to respond to.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th March 2019, 06:41 AM

PETER HITCHENS: 'I fear a British Trump who'll crush our civilisation'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6843465/PETER-HITCHENS-fear-British-Trump-wholl-crush-civilisation.html

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th March 2019, 07:50 AM

Project Fear.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th March 2019, 10:06 AM

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th March 2019, 08:28 PM

MEPs have complained that they had accidentally voted in favour of a controversial EU law which will result in more stringent regulation of the internet after https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/mar/27/mep-errors-mean-european-copyright-law-may-not-have-passed. Had their proper votes been recorded, then some of the more stringent amendments would have been rejected.

Posted by: Iz~ 22nd April 2019, 11:55 AM

4 years ago, a popular Ukrainian TV show, called Servant Of The People, started, starring a teacher who became President of Ukraine following a viral video. The teacher is played by Volodymyr Zelensky.

Today, Volodymyr Zelensky, an entertainment mogul with no political experience, wins the Presidential election in Ukraine with 73% of the vote.

Hi reality, meet fiction.

(though from a quick browse of his positions, he SEEMS promising if only because he's a blank slate that Ukrainians are projecting their need for change onto)

Posted by: Doctor Blind 22nd April 2019, 05:27 PM

Yet another event that Charlie Brooker seems to have foreseen, this time with his 2013 episode of Black Mirror ‘The Waldo Moment’.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd April 2019, 05:36 PM

He has predicted far too much to not be hanging from his toe nails in a CIA black site.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd April 2019, 06:48 PM

But before that, there was...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Mrs_Pritchard

Then, of course, there was Being There.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 6th May 2019, 10:36 AM

The organizers of the Belfast Marathon have had to apologise after discovering that the new route was a https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/48169540.

On the bright side, at least it's a story of changing the route in Northern Ireland that doesn't end in a fiery riot.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th May 2019, 06:08 PM

When the far-right Italian government shut the power to a homeless shelter, the Vatican's almoner, (his actual title) Cardinal Krajewski, defied the police and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/13/divine-intervention-vatican-aide-defies-police-to-restore-power-to-homeless-shelter

The conflict between the reactionary, borderline-fascist Italian government and the Catholic Church in Rome has been one of the more under-reported stories in the English speaking world to date - there was a protest against the Vatican's stance on immigration by a group of Mussolini lovers over the weekend, so expect to see more stories showing a conflict between the two in the months ahead.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th May 2019, 05:19 AM

'No jab, no school’

Call for 250,000 teenagers to get MMR jab to halt spread of measles, as experts say those who don't have it must be banned from class

A study warned that current vaccination policies are ‘not sufficient’
Researchers said the UK should consider making vaccination compulsory
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that he ‘wouldn’t rule out’ such a ban

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7039121/Call-no-jab-no-school-rule-halt-spread-measles.html

*************************

Personally I think anti-vaxxers are crazy, gambling with the health of their children.

IMO it's a similar situation to seatbelts in cars - protecting people from their own stupidity.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 17th May 2019, 01:07 PM

can't believe i agree with you. anti-vaxxers are dangerous child abusers

Posted by: vidcapper 17th May 2019, 01:18 PM

Don't worry, it won't happen very often. perhaps you can be vaccinated against it.



When I was a child, the MMR vaccine hadn't been invented - it was probably as case of 'we either caught the diseases, or didn't'...

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th May 2019, 02:07 PM

I had measles as a child and was almost deaf for six months as a result. My parents were faced with the worry that I would lose my hearing permanently - I was too young to know what was going on.

That said, the case is a classic dilemma for liberal-minded people. Clearly it is in the best interests of the population for all children to be vaccinated. The claims that the jab causes autism were dismissed as nonsense years ago, not that certain people have yet accepted that scientists tend to know about science and scientific proof. Even when there was a doubt about its safety (and the evidence was always between very slim and non-existent), the potential damage caused by measles surely outweighed any risk posed by the jab.

Even so, the policy of preventing children from going to school unless they have been vaccinated can be seen as punishing the child for the actions of the parents. That leaves me unconvinced that such a ban is the right thing to do. In the case of teenagers, a campaign to encourage those who were not vaccinated to get it done asap - with schools and universities playing a big part in the campaign - is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

The Daily Mail, of course, published rather more anti-vaccine articles than most (if not all) of the rest of the press. The BBC didn't help matters by treating the matter as if opinion was evenly divided, thereby ensuring that a pro-vaccine guest (usually someone with scientific qualifications) was always "balanced" by an anti-vaccine guest (usually not a scientist of any sort).

Posted by: vidcapper 18th May 2019, 05:11 AM

I take it you recovered your hearing, although still with some impairment?

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th May 2019, 07:17 AM

Thankfully, it recovered almost to normal levels.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th May 2019, 08:49 AM

I also had measles. Any parent happy to risk their child's life when faced with evidence vaccination protects doesn't have their interest at heart (or anyone else's children). "I survived therefore it must be fine for my kids to plod on through it"

Posted by: vidcapper 18th May 2019, 09:19 AM

Someone needs to invent a vaccine against stupid parents...

Posted by: vidcapper 6th July 2019, 06:15 AM

Random thought...

I wish I had a time machine so that I could go 30 years (or whatever period) ahead, to find out immediately what gov'ts are hiding under the 30 year-rule.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th July 2019, 08:11 AM

The period is gradually coming down, so I'm hoping I'll still be alive when the papers from the last few years are released.

Can you imagine the fun you could cause if you could jump ahead, read the news reports on the released papers and then return to our time and start briefing the press

Posted by: vidcapper 8th July 2019, 05:04 AM

Some ww2 papers are *still* classified, and the longer for, the more juicy info they must contain...

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th July 2019, 06:47 AM

If May is still around, i’m sure she will try to withhold as many papers as she can.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th July 2019, 07:26 AM

immigration-hating Yaxley-Lemon applies for haven in death-sentencing USA after he feels he's on "death-row" for breaking UK laws on being innocent until proven guilty. Hilarious, and oh the irony of Tommy Rottingson becoming what he hates so much: a foreigner trying to get into another country, one who is "persecuted" for breaking the actual laws of a nation that he supposedly loves so much, and he can't even give his actual real name on his application.

What a shit-stirring big baby hypocrite. All those troops worshipping the ground he farts on must be kicking themselves for being fooled by a publicity-seeking charlatan who hates the country they serve so much that a potential minor jail sentence (which he was warned about beforehand and chose to ignore) reduces him to a self-pitying fool.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th September 2019, 05:11 AM

Tories to break convention by running candidate against Speaker John Bercow...

He says he will quit at the next election...

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 8th September 2019, 09:07 AM

Authoritarian dictator wannabes gonna authoritarian dictate!

Posted by: vidcapper 8th September 2019, 01:46 PM

Is in this case, though? It's only convention that says the main parties don't run candidates against the Speaker, not a *law*.

If a Speaker really was breaking their mandate of impartiality, shouldn't there be *some* means of keeping them in check?

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 8th September 2019, 01:53 PM

They need a yes-man EXTREME HARD RIGHT spesker to subvert the laws and conventions of parliament.

I told you all along that this was the true face of the landed gentry party. Believe me now?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th September 2019, 01:57 PM

No - because you are delusional, as always.

Posted by: Izzy 8th September 2019, 02:07 PM

It's shocking because this is not how that works. The Speaker is and has been following the laws of parliament (against attempts by the government to break them) and for the Tories to try and oust him, unprecedentedly breaking a convention of gentleman's honour, because they don't like his results shows they truly are gone from pretending to be democratically respectable.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 8th September 2019, 02:08 PM

Preach, Iz!! They really showed their authoritarianism under Mad May, but this is verging on full on dictatorship. And people like vidcapper will still doff their caps and defend their Tory landed gentry master of the manor!

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th September 2019, 02:17 PM

It isn't unprecedented for the Speaker to be opposed by the main parties. Both opposition parties stood against Bernard Weatherill in 1987. However, I suspect it is unprecedented for the Speaker's former party to oppose him.

When John Bercow stood for the Speakership, he promised to uphold the rights of backbenchers. That is exactly what he has done. He did it when Gordon Brown was PM and has continued to do it against a string of Tory PMs. The trouble with Johnson and his acolytes is that they don't like it when people do their job.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th September 2019, 08:11 PM

A man in New Zealand was told that he was allowed to bring an advocate in with him to his Redundancy meeting.

He chose to bring in a clown, who blew up balloon animals & https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12267350

Posted by: Izzy 19th September 2019, 05:09 AM

Canadian politics emerging onto the front page as an old photo of Trudeau has emerged wearing brownface (during a performance of Aladdin). This is a month before their elections on October 21st.

Awful stuff, particularly from one in the upper half of current mainstream Anglosphere leaders (almost the best but Ardern has him beat).

HOWEVER, I've watched his apology and it's a fairly good as far as these things go

.

The main reason I'm worried is that this is the sort of thing that Canada's Conservatives need to get back into power and they are a rather unsavoury lot, far more consistently, and sadly, their social democratic party is by some way the third option. Polls will be interesting to watch in Canada now.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th September 2019, 08:57 AM

In 2015, an academic paper published in a major academic journal, claimed that the children of religious parents were less altruistic and meaner than the children of non-religious parents. Unsurprisingly, this paper was picked up by https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study, and much heralded by the usual suspects as "proof" that the religious are worse than the non-religious, and has continued to be cited since.

Well, four years later, that same paper has https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/human-flourishing/201909/does-religious-upbringing-promote-generosity-or-not. The reason for the retraction is that the data set they used was incorrect, and once updated, the https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/human-flourishing/201909/does-religious-upbringing-promote-generosity-or-not that "country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes."

I hope that the same publications that promoted the original paper with much pomp will highlight the fact the original paper has been retracted, and will give this exactly the same amount of prominence as the original article. Although I very much doubt it. It's not the first time that a much shared paper has been subsequently retracted - further evidence of the so-called "replication crisis" in the social sciences (where academic papers have to be retracted as their findings can't be replicated, due to faulty data sets), as well as the "science gap" between academics & journalists (where the latter aren't able to properly communicate the findings of academic papers, and not follow-up when the original findings are found to be wanting).

A good rule of thumb for any findings you hear in the media: if the findings go against your personal biases - question them. If they confirm your personal biases - question them even more.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th September 2019, 09:45 AM

Good advice.

Some people just can't be convinced though - anti-vaxxers for example, despite the original 'vaccines cause autism' article being discredited, retracted,and the Dr who wrote it being struck off...

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 27th September 2019, 11:03 AM

Papers should be forced to give as much print and as much prominence to retractions as the sensationalist propaganda they printed about falsehoods/ lies. The S*n etc would be forced to have a grovelling front page every other day!

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th September 2019, 09:19 PM

Even if the data were used correctly there is another rule to remember. Statistical correlation does not necessarily mean causation. There are some great examples https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Posted by: vidcapper 28th September 2019, 05:09 AM

Surely that would only apply if it could be *proven* they knew a story was false in advance, otherwise they could maliciously be fed fake news in order to get them into trouble.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th September 2019, 07:36 AM

I would disagree. Most reputable news outlets should vet and fact check a story that they are sent before publishing it, so if they publish something that later turns out to be incorrect, they should put their hands up and admit that they got things wrong.

It would definitely be an improvement on what happens now, with the clickbait culture meaning that stories that are obviously false get published anyway, as competing outlets need to get eyeballs on their site to get the ad clicks, fact checking be damned.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 28th September 2019, 07:42 AM

That is currently what Ipso, the regulators for newspapers, already do. If a newspaper/magazine is found to have broken their code of conduct, it is required that they publish a retraction or apology on a page in the publication that is just as or more prominent as the original publication. ie if the error is made on page 14 of a newspaper, the correction needs to be published on page 14 or closer to the front of the paper. If the story is also published online, this apology is usually required to be posted on the homepage of the website for 24 hours.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th September 2019, 07:49 AM

Even if retractions *are* published, I suspect far fewer people read them than the original article.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2019, 05:32 AM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7532853/MSPs-vote-smacking-ban.html

Scotland becomes first UK nation to ban smacking children after MSPs vote to outlaw parents using physical punishment

Law gives children the same level of protection from violence as adults
Introduced by Scottish Greens MSP John Finnie who said it has 'no place'
Brings Scotland up to international standards and is first UK nation to do so

*****************************

A good move by the Scottish Parliament, but I fear it will have no impact on actual abusive parents, as they act out of their own anger issues, rather than 'reasonable chastisement'.

Posted by: vidcapper 11th October 2019, 05:17 AM

The Guardian would never draw attention to this level of absurdity...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7559049/Sheffield-Student-Union-bans-white-students-attending-meeting-campus-racism.html

Sheffield Student Union bans white students from attending meeting on campus racism as it plans to change 'from being simply non-racist to actively anti-racist'

The union said it wanted to change from being 'non-racist to actively anti-racist'
Union is going to hold meetings to get opinions and experiences from students
However, these meetings are only open to black and ethnic minority students

***************************

How unaware can these idiots be?

Posted by: Tones and Iz 11th October 2019, 09:12 AM

Reputable newspapers know that students trying to do the right thing, with a story lifted straight from a student tabloid of all things, isn’t worth reporting on.

It’s important for people to have a space where they can share how they’ve experienced racism and I guess they figured that ensuring they didn’t even have supportive white people ready to butt in and make it about them when it isn’t was worth it.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 11th October 2019, 02:20 PM

I don't even see a problem with that? Stop reading the daily mail. It has destroyed you and turnes you into a right wing puppet of the billionaire elite.

Posted by: vidcapper 11th October 2019, 02:23 PM

Yawn.

Posted by: vidcapper 11th October 2019, 02:26 PM

The method I use to judge such cases is to switch the victim group to the opposite one, and then re-examine whether the outcome seems fair...