INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2441 Post by thundril » November 13th, 2015, 1:43 am

Latest post of the previous page:

On a lighter note!

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2442 Post by Dave B » November 13th, 2015, 11:44 am

thundril wrote:On a lighter note!
That could be the inspiration for a load of puns . . . No, I think i'll forgo that pleasure

:D
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2443 Post by Alan H » November 14th, 2015, 5:41 pm

Theresa May's proposed spying law is 'worse than scary' United Nations says
Theresa May’s proposed surveillance and spying laws are “worse than scary”, the United Nations’ privacy chief has said.

Joseph Cannataci, the UN's special rapporteur on privacy, said the draft Investigatory Powers Bill heralded a “golden age of surveillance” unlike any that had come before.

The draft law, published by the Home Secretary earlier this month, would require internet companies to hand over any and all of their users’ communications as required by authorities.

Other provisions in the bill require the visited websites of all users to be stored on record for a year.
Mr Cannataci accused the British Government of an “orchestrated” propaganda campaign through its allies in the media to get the law passed with public consent.

“We're now at the stage where for the first time we have an absolute offensive,” he said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2444 Post by Nick » November 15th, 2015, 12:49 am

I assume this diatribe against surveillance and spying also includes financial matters too.... :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2445 Post by Alan H » November 15th, 2015, 1:34 am

Nick wrote:I assume this diatribe against surveillance and spying also includes financial matters too.... :wink:
What diatribe?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2446 Post by Alan H » November 15th, 2015, 9:40 pm

The “Carlile Doctrine”
Lord Carlile has used the atrocities two days ago in Paris as the basis for calling for proposed new UK surveillance laws to be “expedited”.

It is, of course, far too early to say whether anything about the French attacks warrants any legal change in UK.

For example, France already has more extensive surveillance laws than UK, and the atrocities still happened.

This does not matter to Lord Carlile and the rest of the security lobby. They have a pretext for demanding more legal powers for the security services, and so they do.

We should now have a name for this opportunistic approach, and perhaps a good name for it would be the Carlile Doctrine:
Any act of terrorism will justify more legal powers for security forces, regardless of what it is.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2447 Post by Alan H » November 15th, 2015, 11:27 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2448 Post by Nick » November 16th, 2015, 10:49 pm

So no snooping into people's financial affairs, then, Alan?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2449 Post by Alan H » November 16th, 2015, 10:54 pm

Nick wrote:So no snooping into people's financial affairs, then, Alan?
What diatribe, Nick?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2450 Post by Nick » November 16th, 2015, 11:40 pm

Yours, Alan. Now how about answering mine?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2451 Post by Alan H » November 16th, 2015, 11:46 pm

Nick wrote:Yours, Alan. Now how about answering mine?
I would have to assume you think the majority (if not all) of my posts are diatribes, so you'll need to be a teensy bit more specific.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2452 Post by Nick » November 17th, 2015, 12:00 am

This one: (for now.... :wink: )
Nick wrote:So no snooping into people's financial affairs, then, Alan?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2453 Post by Alan H » November 17th, 2015, 12:15 am

Nick wrote:This one: (for now.... :wink: )
Nick wrote:So no snooping into people's financial affairs, then, Alan?
That's not one of my 'diatribes', Nick. Which diatribe are you referring to?

But even if you're asking me that question without hinting at what your previous question was referring to, it's an odd question, out of the context, almost rhetorical.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2454 Post by Nick » November 17th, 2015, 12:57 am

Alan H wrote: But even if you're asking me that question without hinting at what your previous question was referring to, it's an odd question, out of the context, almost rhetorical.
:rolleyes: Not odd, not out of context, nor rhetorical. If you can't follow the logic, I really can't help you.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2455 Post by Alan H » November 17th, 2015, 1:08 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: But even if you're asking me that question without hinting at what your previous question was referring to, it's an odd question, out of the context, almost rhetorical.
:rolleyes: Not odd, not out of context, nor rhetorical. If you can't follow the logic, I really can't help you.
Agreed.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2456 Post by Alan H » November 17th, 2015, 7:33 pm

The young will lose out, again, in George Osborne’s spending review
The chancellor’s spending review looks set to intensify the trend away from investing in the younger generation towards concentrating spending on the older one
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2457 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2015, 3:32 pm

Tory MP Philip Davies up to his old tricks again: Tory MPs block bill to give first aid training to children by talking non-stop until debate ends
Conservative MPs have blocked a bill to bring first aid training to schools by talking non-stop until time to discuss and vote on it ran out.

The Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-Funded Secondary Schools) Bill would have required schools to teach first aid training to children as part of the national curriculum.

The group of MPs used up the bill’s time by talking for hours, with one speech by an education minister described by the deputy speaker as like reading a “telephone book” out loud.

Because the proposed law is not supported by the Government it only has a limited amount of time to be debated in Parliament, or has to be shelved.

It is backed by St John’s Ambulance, the British Red Cross, and the British Heart Foundation .

Tory MP Philip Davies, who is famous for “talking out” bills during Friday sessions of parliament, gave the longest speech of all, lasting around 50 minutes.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2458 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2015, 7:45 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2459 Post by Dave B » November 20th, 2015, 8:19 pm

BBC's "Law in Action" was pretty scathing about this, one magistrate even risked his position to say that it was iniquitous.

They had a woman on who said that the only way she would be able to pay the court fee, solicitor's fees, victim compensation etc. was to go out and steal again to raise the money.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2460 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2015, 8:23 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2461 Post by Alan H » November 20th, 2015, 8:48 pm

Dave B wrote:
BBC's "Law in Action" was pretty scathing about this, one magistrate even risked his position to say that it was iniquitous.

They had a woman on who said that the only way she would be able to pay the court fee, solicitor's fees, victim compensation etc. was to go out and steal again to raise the money.
From the Howard League for Penal Reform: Criminal Courts Charge case-studies
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply