Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stranger83 wrote:
Thank you for getting us back on topic. Now I agree with you that the tories would LIKE to do most of what you say, I just don't see them actually doing it. If they tried they would get kicked out at the next general election by any party that said they would reinstate the laws. Now I'm not saying we don't need to watch them carefully, and we don't need to keep informing them what we do and don't want, but I just don't see them actually doing things like allowing people to put lead paint onto children's toys. You might disagree but until I see it actually get announced that they plan to do it I'll still believe that this is not the plan.

You are missing the issue, unfortunately. If we leave the EU we are not going to suddenly have legislation that bans lead paint. But for example they may repeal the chemical legislation that puts the onus of companies to prove their products are safe and replace it with something that says any chemicals can be used unless they are proven to be unsafe but it's no longer on the company to prove before it goes to market. It's a small change but with dramatic consequences - instead of companies having to put the time and effort in to prove they are OK, it will be up to someone else (say Trading Standards). However if Trading Standards budget is slashed they will not have the resources to check every single product. It benefits the businesses because you have less 'red tape' and it can be claimed it is safe because their are third party bodies enforcing it. The problem is that they can't effectively enforce the situation. So when company Y introduces a new product called "Balasdafthamite" which is really cheap and makes toys look really bright and clean all the time. No one checks however this product; it has tiny traces of lead in it (much less than hazardous amount) but after 2 years "Balasdafthamite" starts decaying and starts releasing this previously bound level of lead in quantities at much higher levels. These toys then become a health hazard, but no one checks and the implications are not seen until it actually occurs. Of course the company has done nothing wrong by the legislation.

It's not blunt legislation that will cause the harm because that is obvious where the issues are; it's the subtle relaxation that will occur that will over time build in to problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Politics is all about PR. Nobody in this country would be insane enough to let companies put lead paint on toys. Think of the headlines.

I disagree. They wouldn't even think of that happening until a load of toys from china were legally imported with lead paint all over them.

Remember, these are the politicians who pushed through the psychoactive substances bill, saying it would ban poppers, which it did not. They have no concept of the actual effects and legal workings of the bills they push through.

Agreed, such as

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/19/shopping.toys or
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/03/estheraddley.uknews4

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
Thank you for getting us back on topic. Now I agree with you that the tories would LIKE to do most of what you say, I just don't see them actually doing it. If they tried they would get kicked out at the next general election by any party that said they would reinstate the laws. Now I'm not saying we don't need to watch them carefully, and we don't need to keep informing them what we do and don't want, but I just don't see them actually doing things like allowing people to put lead paint onto children's toys. You might disagree but until I see it actually get announced that they plan to do it I'll still believe that this is not the plan.

You are missing the issue, unfortunately. If we leave the EU we are not going to suddenly have legislation that bans lead paint. But for example they may repeal the chemical legislation that puts the onus of companies to prove their products are safe and replace it with something that says any chemicals can be used unless they are proven to be unsafe but it's no longer on the company to prove before it goes to market. It's a small change but with dramatic consequences - instead of companies having to put the time and effort in to prove they are OK, it will be up to someone else (say Trading Standards). However if Trading Standards budget is slashed they will not have the resources to check every single product. It benefits the businesses because you have less 'red tape' and it can be claimed it is safe because their are third party bodies enforcing it. The problem is that they can't effectively enforce the situation. So when company Y introduces a new product called "Balasdafthamite" which is really cheap and makes toys look really bright and clean all the time. No one checks however this product; it has tiny traces of lead in it (much less than hazardous amount) but after 2 years "Balasdafthamite" starts decaying and starts releasing this previously bound level of lead in quantities at much higher levels. These toys then become a health hazard, but no one checks and the implications are not seen until it actually occurs. Of course the company has done nothing wrong by the legislation.

It's not blunt legislation that will cause the harm because that is obvious where the issues are; it's the subtle relaxation that will occur that will over time build in to problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Politics is all about PR. Nobody in this country would be insane enough to let companies put lead paint on toys. Think of the headlines.

I disagree. They wouldn't even think of that happening until a load of toys from china were legally imported with lead paint all over them.

Remember, these are the politicians who pushed through the psychoactive substances bill, saying it would ban poppers, which it did not. They have no concept of the actual effects and legal workings of the bills they push through.

Agreed, such as

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/19/shopping.toys or
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/03/estheraddley.uknews4

I do get your point, I really do - but I just don't see them repealing things such as the legislation you identify I think it's much more likely to be things like the classification of cucumbers based on shape (which is a piece of legislation, even if you can still sell them whatever their shape, and whilst I still haven't seen anything that says you can sell class 3 cucumbers I'll concede that point.). You may disagree, but I just don't see them targeting things like the laws you identify, because again it'd be a sure fire way to hand power to another party.

If Brexit has taught us anything its that ultimately power lies with us the people - and not with our political elite.

Even if they did for whatever reason loosen the laws in such a way that a company COULD put lead paint on a childs toy, I don't see any company doing this. Retail, much like politics is a PR game, we live in a world where people boycott a company over a tweet that could be construed as being offensive if you take a small section of it out of the context it was written in - what do you think would happen to a company that knowingly sold childrens products that endanger the life of the children?

Stranger83 wrote:


I do get your point, I really do - but I just don't see them repealing things such as the legislation you identify I think it's much more likely to be things like the classification of cucumbers based on shape (which is a piece of legislation, even if you can still sell them whatever their shape, and whilst I still haven't seen anything that says you can sell class 3 cucumbers I'll concede that point.). You may disagree, but I just don't see them targeting things like the laws you identify, because again it'd be a sure fire way to hand power to another party.

I presume you saw my post about Cucumbers and the like. The market rules on these are due to the UN *not* the EU or the UK. Unless you propose to live in complete isolation from the rest of the world you will still be bound by these rules.

Stranger83 wrote:

If Brexit has taught us anything its that ultimately power lies with us the people - and not with our political elite.

You honestly believe this? I fear you are going to be sorely disappointed. In some ways the EU protected you from being the sole plaything of the elite class not the other way round because they managed to prevent some of the worst excesses right wing governments can introduce. You only have to look at some of the MPs that are now leading Brexit to know that at best you have replaced one set of political elite for another who will do their best to entrench that power even further. For example you have Boris a known liar, and a person that will do anything he can to further his own career. You have Liam Fox who had to resign in disgrace previously because he was using trips to promote UK business to effectively benefit him and his own friends - and now he is in charge of sorting out International Trade! You have a PM that wants to water down Human RIghts acts so that the public have less ability to challenge how the government operates (and never mind she wanted to give employees the option give up their working rights for a handful of shares). This is just a new breed of political elite, one that will use peoples own prejudices and populist messages to gain what they want.

Stranger83 wrote:
Even if they did for whatever reason loosen the laws in such a way that a company COULD put lead paint on a childs toy, I don't see any company doing this. Retail, much like politics is a PR game, we live in a world where people boycott a company over a tweet that could be construed as being offensive if you take a small section of it out of the context it was written in - what do you think would happen to a company that knowingly sold childrens products that endanger the life of the children?

No companies ( the multinationals, I'm not talking about the SMEs here) want to maximise their profit for the shareholders, peoples health is only secondary as long as it gains them more profit (see Apple sweatshops for example). If that means they loosen their standards because the regulations allow them to then they will. We already have products that endanger the life of children. Just look at the issue over sugar in foods. This in itself is potentially leading to a generation of diabetic adults with a variety of health issues. On your basis the companies would have recognised that it causes an issue and dealt with it but they don't. They argue over and over that it's not just their products that they are not at fault yet these products are likely to be equally (if not more so damaging) than lead paint would ever be as we consciously consume them.

The variety of legislation isn't likely to be scrapped overnight, but little by little it will be watered down and eventually we will be wondering just how we got here - it's the same as a frog; drop it into scalding water and it will jump straight out. Put it in cold water and slowly turn the heat up it will sit there and happily allow itself be boiled alive. This is what the public are like, they don't recognise the slow creep, only the major incidents.

Here is an interesting article by the BBC about Greenland's post-Grexit situations...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37246181

Whirlwind, I haven’t seen your post about the UN – however the UN has not passed any regulation on the shape of cucumbers – possible they have said that everyone should adopt the principle but it is the EU that has adopted the regulation.

I agree with you about Liam Fox, I actually don’t think Boris is as bad as many like to think – I do wish he would think before he opens his mouth sometimes but, particularly considering his upbringing, I think he really tries to give the public what they want.

But your view is a very short term one, you’re looking at it based on the current government whilst my claim is that if they do implement the things you claim they will they’ll be kicked out of power – this is why the power lies with the people and short of them abolishing democracy (and if you think they would go this far then there really is no point in discussing anything with you) they KNOW that this is the case, Brexit has shown that the people will NOT blindly follow what the political elite (who massively supported remain) in whatever they want and that we are prepared to go against their wishes if we so choose.

As for our sugar claim, unfortunately there is a massive difference. Sugar is something we actually require in our diet, and we have guidance with regards to the correct amount to take, taking too little is just as bad as taking too much. They also, as far as I’m aware don’t try to hide the fact that they contain sugar – nor claim that they are healthy snacks.

Frankly as far as I’m concerned if the law is reduced to say that lead based paint is allowed (not that I think it would be), and companies follow the same rules as sugar (i.e. clearly stating on the side of the product that it contains lead based paint and that it is dangerous) then I’ve not got a problem with this – I see the company going out of business as nobody would buy the product but maybe I’m just a crazy man who doesn’t want to go out and buy dangerous products for my kids. Nobody needs lead paint on their childrens toys, so the comparison is not a very good one. We could talk about the amount of cyanide that multinationals are putting into our food – as this is equally something that is not good at all, but as far as I know no multinationals are doing this.

And the Human Rights act is a joke I’m afraid, I’m very glad it’s there but it essentially gives the government the right to ignore it anytime they choose to say it’s in the nations interest to do so (not that they ever have – again see my comments about how this would result them in being kicked out of power) so replacing it with something more robust that DOESN’T given them this power I’d be in favour of. It’s only right that we occasionally see if there is a better way to word our laws to ensure that they are still relevant. I highly doubt that the removal of the human rights act and replacing it with a Bill of rights act is going to result in the return of torture or the death penalty or give the government the right to take me off the street and lock me up for no reason.

Again, you might disagree – but I just don’t see this dystopian future that you seem to have created now that we’ve gone for Brexit.

Now I’m not going to claim that everything will be sunshine and lollipops either – and we are all going to need to watch carefully to ensure that the government doesn’t overstep it’s bounds, but this is something that the citizenship of a democracy should be doing anyway.

Stranger83 wrote:
But your view is a very short term one, you’re looking at it based on the current government whilst my claim is that if they do implement the things you claim they will they’ll be kicked out of power – this is why the power lies with the people and short of them abolishing democracy (and if you think they would go this far then there really is no point in discussing anything with you)

Since we're a 2 party state, and 1 of the parties is much more interested in internal conflict, I think the tories will need to do something awful before they get voted out. I dislike the idea of letting them do whatever they want, because they can always be kicked out and have the changes reversed, because (a) there's no guarantee they will get kicked out (b) the new party might not want to reverse things (c) the new party might not be able to reverse things.

they KNOW that this is the case, Brexit has shown that the people will NOT blindly follow what the political elite (who massively supported remain) in whatever they want and that we are prepared to go against their wishes if we so choose.

I'm not sure, we don't really know *why* most people voted for Brexit - was it a rebellion against the government? If so, why did the same rebellion not happen at the last GE?
Plus, the electorate being more likely to blindy follow lying rabble rousers like Boris or Nigel, rather than the experts, doesn't really sound like an improvement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:

And the Human Rights act is a joke I’m afraid, I’m very glad it’s there but it essentially gives the government the right to ignore it anytime they choose to say it’s in the nations interest to do so (not that they ever have – again see my comments about how this would result them in being kicked out of power) so replacing it with something more robust that DOESN’T given them this power I’d be in favour of. It’s only right that we occasionally see if there is a better way to word our laws to ensure that they are still relevant. I highly doubt that the removal of the human rights act and replacing it with a Bill of rights act is going to result in the return of torture or the death penalty or give the government the right to take me off the street and lock me up for no reason.

Is there any evidence that May (who is predisposed to reducing civil liberties) is likely to tighten up the HRA? If that was the case, why scrap it instead of adding to it?
The only reason I can see for replacing it, is to make it significantly weaker (though potentially not on the face of it).

I think we know perfectly well why enough people changed their minds and voted for Brexit.



This was the point at which the momentum suddenly changed.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/suns-imperial-up-yours-to-brussels-falls-down-on-the-facts/#more-2794

The Sun runs an article on 31 August by Bill Cash MP claiming the EU has banned the use of pounds and ounces. The paper follows up by suggesting ten ways to “say up yours to the EU.” This may be intended as humour. But it repeats inaccuracies and misleading statements which seem to be widely believed and therefore are worth correcting yet again.
First, the EU has never banned pounds and ounces or other imperial measures. EU law does require metric measurements to be used – though already in 1965, eight years before joining the EEC, the Wilson Government decided to initiate the UK’s metrication programme, in response to global moves in this direction. However, EU law has always allowed imperial measures to be used alongside metric ones – as the Sun itself acknowledged at the bottom of this earlier article. Visiting any supermarket or market stall is enough to confirm this. This issue has been addressed on this blog several times, for example here, back in 2001.
The Sun proposes “having cleaner carpets by swapping weak, EU regulated vacuums for powerful ones”. In fact, consumer magazine “Which” has found that new EU rules – backed by Member States, industry and consumer groups – on the specifications for vacuum cleaners (the facts here) have led to better performance and cheaper running costs. In any case it is uncertain that vacuum cleaner manufacturers, who operate globally, would want to produce models generally considered obsolete just for UK markets.
There are no proposals on the table to introduce similar rules for hair dryers, toasters or other appliances not already covered, as referred to in two of the Sun’s helpful suggestions for saying “up yours” to the EU and as we explain here. Only if there is cast-iron scientific evidence will the Commission put forward such proposals, and in any case they would need to be agreed by Member States and the European Parliament. If such evidence were clearly established, it would remain to be seen whether the UK parliament or public – inside or outside the EU – would wish to create unnecessary pollution, environmental damage and higher electricity bills by insisting on energy guzzling appliances, even in the event that manufacturers did want to keep producing them.
Another suggestion the Sun puts forward is bringing back old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs that require changing more often and thus cost consumers more. The Sun is correct that incandescent light bulbs have been phased out in the EU, not on the basis of a high-handed bureaucratic decision but as a result of a clear mandate from elected ministers and MEPs. They have been, or are being, phased out also in the US, Canada, Switzerland, China, Australia, Brazil, Russia and many other jurisdictions. Again, we have covered this issue in earlier entries and again there does not so far seem to be any evidence that the UK – which supported the EU measures – would now want to go against this global trend.
The Sun also calls for the UK to “reclaim jam” from EU rules that stipulate it should have 60% sugar content. But the rules already allow flexibility on this. What is more, the British media – including the Sun – have previously complained about this very flexibility, saying it would “ruin British jam”! This saga is explained here.
There are no EU rules preventing the recycling of tea bags. Again this is a very old – and wrong – story.
This leaves four more ways in which the Sun believes the UK could in future deliver a resounding “up yours” to its EU friends and neighbours.
“Scrapping tough EU fishing quotas” would mean scrapping a system the UK has broadly backed, which has been successful in restoring stocks and which has also been substantially reformed in recent years in a process partly driven by the UK. It would also require international negotiations.
Removing VAT from gas and electricity might mean slightly cheaper energy bills – energy is currently subject to a 5% VAT rate in the UK, the lowest in the EU – but the revenue would need to be made up elsewhere. British business has welcomed most EU VAT rules as they combine a considerable degree of flexibility with reducing red tape.
The Sun calls for the UK to “reclaim countryside from turbines and solar panels, built to meet EU targets.” The UK has been a leading voice calling for tough EU targets. Successive governments have identified renewable energy, which now accounts for a quarter of the country’s power supplies, as a major economic and environmental opportunity.
Finally, the Home Office has said there are “no immediate plans” to bring back blue British passports. It is worth noting, too, that there are now global norms for the format of passports, based on the ISO/IEC 7810 ID-3 standard and intended to ensure universal machine readability. This standard does not cover colour but does specify a size of 125 × 88 mm (4.921 × 3.465 in) and a flexible cover, as used in EU passports. The EU format for passports complies with this and was formally agreed between EU governments, including the UK.

The Sun is effectively the Beano for people over 18. I nearly said grown ups then.

I'm looking forward to the day when print media withers away, and the journalistic scum who populate this tawdry industry have to find real, productive work, and not just spout worthless opinion.

Online is far worse, I'm afraid.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Online is far worse, I'm afraid.

The reasons why will shock you. Click here to find out!

That maybe the case, but it is likely that greasy opionated arse ferrets like Richard Littlejohn and Katie Hopkins could lose their jobs, and audience.
We can but hope anyway.

Unfortunately a lot of good journos will go down with them.

Good, investigative jurnos will always find a way to get their stories out and promote quality, researched journalism.
The weak, opinion based hacks will only find short lived noteriety and eventual obscurity.

In the spirit of the various campaigns in the UK seeking to divide us, and tear down established entities, I would weep tears of unalloyed happiness if I heard that the tabloid press has gone to ruin.
If the Daily Mail went down, I think I would literally explode with joy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37253025

Melania Trump is suing a British newspaper and a US blogger for $150m (£114m) over allegations she was a sex worker in the 1990s, her lawyer says.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37253025

Melania Trump is suing a British newspaper and a US blogger for $150m (£114m) over allegations she was a sex worker in the 1990s, her lawyer says.

Now on the one hand, I hate the Daily Mail and really hope that they are made to pay as too often they get away with this kind of stuff as the people they target lack the resources to take them to task for it.

On the other hand she's married to Donald Trump.

Stranger83 wrote:
Whirlwind, I haven’t seen your post about the UN – however the UN has not passed any regulation on the shape of cucumbers – possible they have said that everyone should adopt the principle but it is the EU that has adopted the regulation.

You mean the one 9 posts prior to this that you posted straight afterwards and two posts before on...well fair enough but then I encourage you to read this before you carry on about cucumbers any further.

http://www.unece.org/info/media/blog/previous-blogs/cucumbers-blame-the-un.html

Stranger83 wrote:
I agree with you about Liam Fox, I actually don’t think Boris is as bad as many like to think – I do wish he would think before he opens his mouth sometimes but, particularly considering his upbringing, I think he really tries to give the public what they want.

He's a populist (not surprising considering his background). He listens to what the prejudices are and then acts as an echo chamber. It makes him sound like he is in touch with 'the people' because it plays on humans base fears; whereas in reality he is ignoring highlighting the whole picture or the scientific evidence so he can progress through the ranks. In some ways he is more dangerous than Farage as he has a realistic chance of becoming PM and at that point we might as well give up trying to determine the best course of action based on evidence. Ignoring this is like

Stranger83 wrote:
But your view is a very short term one, you’re looking at it based on the current government whilst my claim is that if they do implement the things you claim they will they’ll be kicked out of power

Yet it won't happen this way, the government are not idiots, manipulative yes, but not idiots. As I said the legislation will be changed slowly and subtle enough that the general populace don't recognise the changes or if they do notice it has been forgotten about the following week. As I mentioned they may make it not the onus on the companies to prove something isn't a danger to human health, they may place the onus on the state or individuals (say for example the Equality's Act where it is up to a disabled person to go to court to prove that a company is not compliant). They then cut back on the state (or even just keep it the same) so there isn't money to properly police the legislation (smoking in cars with children is a good example here) or rely on the public (who can't afford the cost for going to court against an army of legal consultants). Companies then slowly make cheaper nastier products (and those on the lowest incomes will be all they can afford) because they are legal until proven otherwise. In these cases when it goes wrong the government won't come out and say well folks we reduced the regulations and reduced state funding to make it impossible to enforce; it will be blamed on the nearest and easiest other state body (likely Trading Standards in this case). The papers have a field day and everyone blames the local state without digging any deeper than the first few mm to actually realise what the issues are.

Stranger83 wrote:
As for our sugar claim, unfortunately there is a massive difference. Sugar is something we actually require in our diet, and we have guidance with regards to the correct amount to take, taking too little is just as bad as taking too much. They also, as far as I’m aware don’t try to hide the fact that they contain sugar – nor claim that they are healthy snacks.

Yes we do need sugar, but the WHO target is 5% (or about 25g) per day whereas *one* can of coke is about 40g, so almost double the target. Two cans of coke takes you above what the maximum recommended amount is. These products have added sugar (and companies adding salt to everything is also to be fingered here). These are added because they simply make the food taste better because of how our chemistry works and it allows companies to avoid using better healthier alternatives (such as herbs and spices). It makes the food and drinks cheaper to manufacture and hence keeps profits higher. We need no added sugar in our diet if you have a healthy diet because vegetables, fruits, roots and meat all contain more than enough sugars to survive upon. So unless you are living in 3rd world poverty or are a top athlete you do not need *any* added sugar in your diet. But again the companies keep adding it, advertising it to parents and children because they can, none of them are thinking about the health of these people later in life because it is all about profit now. And the Government has shown it's complete lack of willingness to deal with the issue (barring a pitiful tax that they are more interested in raking in than any benefits to public health it could bring in) and let the sector voluntarily change (which 'aint happening because it has plenty of opportunity to already do it).

Stranger83 wrote:
Frankly as far as I’m concerned if the law is reduced to say that lead based paint is allowed (not that I think it would be), and companies follow the same rules as sugar (i.e. clearly stating on the side of the product that it contains lead based paint and that it is dangerous) then I’ve not got a problem with this – I see the company going out of business as nobody would buy the product but maybe I’m just a crazy man who doesn’t want to go out and buy dangerous products for my kids.

So what you are saying is that those that don't bother to read the label or simply do not understand the issues relating to lead you're not bothered about as long as you and your children are safe? This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, you reduce the legislation and the protection it brings to society then it is not rich or well educated that pay the consequences. It's those that a poorer and less educated and it would be the child that paid for this health wise. You potentially cause significant health issues for a human being that has no say in the matter. Is this a type of society that is fair?

Stranger83 wrote:
And the Human Rights act is a joke I’m afraid, I’m very glad it’s there but it essentially gives the government the right to ignore it anytime they choose to say it’s in the nations interest to do so (not that they ever have – again see my comments about how this would result them in being kicked out of power) so replacing it with something more robust that DOESN’T given them this power I’d be in favour of. It’s only right that we occasionally see if there is a better way to word our laws to ensure that they are still relevant. I highly doubt that the removal of the human rights act and replacing it with a Bill of rights act is going to result in the return of torture or the death penalty or give the government the right to take me off the street and lock me up for no reason.

And yet that is exactly what May wants to do, hold people indefinitely without trial just because they may be a threat but they don't have enough evidence, she's tried it before. It was their ability to challenge these decisions under such things as the Human Rights that makes this illegal. Yet they want to get rid of it and replace it with something and I quote Liz Truss "And we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of parliament." This isn't leading to something more robust, this is leading to a pick and mix of rights where the government (and military/police) can ignore certain rights if it is 'beneficial to the country' which in some cases will mean you will have no rights at all when it comes to challenging the state an their actions.

Stranger83 wrote:
Again, you might disagree – but I just don’t see this dystopian future that you seem to have created now that we’ve gone for Brexit.

I'm afraid with this government "Brexit means Wrexit". I'd be happier if Labour or Lib Dems because at least they better represent the people and/or liberalism but then we wouldn't be in this mess.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769798/Melania-Trump-retraction.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37253025

Melania Trump is suing a British newspaper and a US blogger for $150m (£114m) over allegations she was a sex worker in the 1990s, her lawyer says.

Uh... in the US, she's a public official so suing under Slander laws is tough.

Melania Trump is a public official?

Does that not allow her to sue?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Melania Trump is a public official?

Does that not allow her to sue?

Sorry... meant public figure, not "official"

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

A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.

Is Melania Trump a "public figure" according to the legal meaning?

I had never heard of her until she delivered the controversial speech at the RNC a few weeks ago. Trump has had several wives, which reduces their individual "fame". I am more familiar with Ivana, to be honest, though as I am a Brit perhaps this doesn't signify. They will be more concerned with their reputation in the USA, of course.

Hey there brexit-haters!

First instance of parliment passing logical legislation which the eu refuses to.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/microbeads-ban-uk-countries-british-environment-water-toothpaste-free-without-a7222756.html

Seems like honourable reasons for not imposing the ban at face value, but i think it's really to do with cosmetics companies needing to clear out their supplies of the things before making a big fuss of "going microbead-free".
If you just ban them then they may even have to pay to dispose of them properly!

Evidence that the EU has refused to pass such legislation? Not that it hasn't got round to it yet, but that it has actually been debated in the EU parliament and been defeated.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Hey there brexit-haters!

First instance of parliment passing logical legislation which the eu refuses to.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/microbeads-ban-uk-countries-british-environment-water-toothpaste-free-without-a7222756.html

Seems like honourable reasons for not imposing the ban at face value, but i think it's really to do with cosmetics companies needing to clear out their supplies of the things before making a big fuss of "going microbead-free".
If you just ban them then they may even have to pay to dispose of them properly!

In reality they are riding the crest of the wave.. it doesn't show any real initiative. The US (not necessarily known for it's Environmental credentials, but rapidly improving) has already introduced a ban from the middle of next year and the UN has been trying to encourage the removal for years. In addition most of the major cosmetic manufacturers are now phasing them out anyway by the end of 2017. These microbeads are also only the tip of the iceberg with regards micro-plastic pollution. The breakdown of plastic litter and other things like polyester fibres from clothing/rope etc also creates vast quantities of these micro-plastics and these have yet to be tackled at all.

How come the UK, a member of the EU, is able to defy the tyrannical EU dictatorship ban on banning things?

Answer; there isn't one. The story is another piece of Daily Mail style spin/lies.

Case dismissed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How come the UK, a member of the EU, is able to defy the tyrannical EU dictatorship ban on banning things?

Answer; there isn't one. The story is another piece of Daily Mail style spin/lies.

Case dismissed.

Well we all know that the Daily Mail is put in the wrong wrack on the shelves. It should be in the fiction section with Marvel Comics etc, but they resist such a move because it would pale into comparison against the better fictional works magazines.

I can't believe brexit is going to happen until I see article 50 invoked. And I still can't shake the feeling that some excuse is going to be used to delay it. Probably indefinitely.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Evidence that the EU has refused to pass such legislation? Not that it hasn't got round to it yet, but that it has actually been debated in the EU parliament and been defeated.

Are you even bothering to look or just demanding links to prop up your cognitive dissonance surrounding the EU and it's machinations?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-004237&language=EN

They have had the data saying it's a problem for more than 6 months and this link above is the reply to an EU parlimentary question to the EU commission.
We went from 'towing the eu line' to making our own rule over a weekend - whats holding the commission back? taste? incorrect mood lighting?

Allowing your cosmetics firms to dump what microbeads they still have stockpiled into the consumer market and avoid paying for correct disposal

Kilkrazy wrote:How come the UK, a member of the EU, is able to defy the tyrannical EU dictatorship ban on banning things?

Answer; there isn't one. The story is another piece of Daily Mail style spin/lies.

Case dismissed.

The link was from the independent; heres one from the telegraph...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/uk-could-ban-plastic-microbeads-minister-suggests/

The UK is already calling for the European Commission to ban their use in cosmetics and detergents, but Rory Stewart, the environment minister told MPs: "If we cannot get a common position out of the European Union, we are open to the possibility of the UK acting unilaterally."

That was in May this year

heres one from a non mainstream media source...
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/uk-open-to-microbead-ban-if-eu-fails-to-act/1010261.article

Case most definitely still under investigation!


Still, keep up the anti brexit echochamber everyone - if you 'win' this thread you get a second referendum, i hear.

You said that the EU has refused to pass such legislation. Not having passed it is not the same as refusing to pass it. *insert snarky comment*

Having glanced back over the last few pages, all this discussion of cucumbers is misleading. The EU generates red tape, sure, but so does the UK Government, and any other form of bureaucracy. Hoping for a sudden boost to business thanks to slashing a few regulations, or having that as a motivation for leaving the EU is simply self-deceptive. It's really a non-issue invented by the Daily Mail.

I voted out on grounds of sovereignty, dislike for the structure of the EU (and it's likely future incarnations), and distaste towards the more rampant negative results of global capitalism and integration. That's ultimately based on opinion, and I make no pretence that my beliefs there will necessarily turn out to have been the correct ones. I hope they will, but we'll have to see. Going on about immigrants and cucumber length however, is just missing the point and consequences of brexit.

Whirlwind, I'd like to point out that this:-

I fear you are going to be sorely disappointed. In some ways the EU protected you from being the sole plaything of the elite class not the other way round because they managed to prevent some of the worst excesses right wing governments can introduce. You only have to look at some of the MPs that are now leading Brexit to know that at best you have replaced one set of political elite for another who will do their best to entrench that power even further. For example you have Boris a known liar, and a person that will do anything he can to further his own career. You have Liam Fox who had to resign in disgrace previously because he was using trips to promote UK business to effectively benefit him and his own friends - and now he is in charge of sorting out International Trade! You have a PM that wants to water down Human RIghts acts so that the public have less ability to challenge how the government operates (and never mind she wanted to give employees the option give up their working rights for a handful of shares). This is just a new breed of political elite, one that will use peoples own prejudices and populist messages to gain what they want.

is surprisingly negative in light of your former optimism regaridng the EU. This country is one of the most desirable places in the world to live in terms of human rights, worker rights, and citizen benefits. It didn't get that way by accident, and it certainly did not get that way thanks to the EU! One thing I've found quite distasteful throughout the entire Brexit saga is the portrayal of the EU as being the saviour of the average citizen against the cruel excesses of Government. Our hard won rights were won from centuries of struggle against the dominant elite. Not from a piece of human rights legislation emanating from Brussels!

You get good governments, and you get bad governments. You get ones that defend the country against Nazism, and ones that advocate using planes to put terror into the heart of the colonies. Ones that add all sorts of worker rights, but also cripple the economy. Ones that bring in things like the Freedom of Information Act, but also the Terorism Act. Good and bad juxtaposed together. It is rare you get a government that does nothing but bad things, almost as rare as you get one that does nothing but good things.

Whatever you might make of the various civil servants and politicians who funnel endlessly through Whitehall, one thing tends to pervade the majority of them as much as a sense of self-interest, and that's a desire to try and make the country a better place. It might be out of a misplaced optimism, a selfish desire to leave a good legacy, or out of some strange mental instability. Some of them will succeed in that, and some will fail. Depending on your political beliefs, any individual point or policy could sit in either box.

But ultimately, the trend in this country has been (in my opinion) a good one, and we often get too wrapped up in the negative news of the 'now' to appreciate that fact. The EU is not responsible for that trend, but rather the collective democratic will of the British people and those we elect into power. And I have faith in that, far moreso than I ever have done the opaque machinations of foreign diplomats eeling their way through Brussels. You are free to put your faith in people like Juncker, but you'll have to forgive me if I refrain from doing so.