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.

so much for democracy eh ?!



Ed Miliband makes cameo as man blowing his nose on US news channel flu segment




Note how in the new alt-right USA even former Labour party leaders are still ....... wait for it.... .... bogeymen .

Ian Hislop has given some really good evidence and spoken publically about this issue; check out youtube for some videos.

But I guess there are those who are happy to trade freedom for "security", as there are those willing to throw freedom under the bus because of a few issues where other existing laws were not enforced which created problems...

 reds8n wrote:





Ed Miliband makes cameo as man blowing his nose on US news channel flu segment

Yep, noticed that. See a connexion

One is as popular as the other?

Wow. Much as I think Murdoch is one of the biggest problems of the UK, section 40 seems utterly crazy.

 reds8n wrote:



so much for democracy eh ?!

I'm guessing it clashes with Theresa Mays plan to crate a 100 foot tall Margaret Thatcher mecha suit.

 reds8n wrote:

Ed Miliband makes cameo as man blowing his nose on US news channel flu segment




Note how in the new alt-right USA even former Labour party leaders are still ....... wait for it.... .... bogeymen .

Worthy of a Christmas cracker.

Why is Ed Miliband so susceptible to such bad photos?

 Steve steveson wrote:


Why is Ed Miliband so susceptible to such bad photos?

For a photo of someone blowing their nose, it could've been a lot worse. There could've been tissue leakage, for example.

I dunno, picking your nose through a hanky is still picking your nose.

 notprop wrote:
@ Lofart

There's the rub though. There are certain types of work that many Brits do not want to do because they have been given the expectation that they are perhaps entitled to better positions straight from the off.

I don't think that Brits are lazy at all, assuming they are motivated, in a skilled/semi-skilled or "traditional" job relevant to their current disposition. The latter I would include low skill non-trades like drivers, sales, serving etc.

There seems however to be a genuine element in British society that miss the fact that one job can be a means to an end. Todays Labourer will be next years Apprentice and the following years tradesman; or that that labouring job just pays for you to train in something else.

You would not believe some of the "applicants" we see placed in our Apprenticeship schemes (that I am mandated to provide for Planning reasons btw, I have not problem filling places for motivated people). True they probably got sent by a Job Centre and didn't really apply but feth me if you get your foot in the door somewhere you'd want to appear interested. This is where the lazy Brit idea comes from for me.

I have 50 Apprentice places to fill over 3 years (or I get fined! ) and I already know that most will not last the week from bitter experience. I also get the pleasure of paying some council jobshop consultant £200k for of finding and placing them as well.

Lazy Brits do exist, we're not intrinsically so as I would hope others/my own 12-13 hour days would prove but we do as a nation enable a system where laziness is an option for those so inclined.

We've had this conversation before, so I'm not having a go at you, and to be fair to you, you've made some good points, but let me relate to you my own life experience when it comes to work.

My elderly father, 80 years old, worked his finger to the bone for 50 years in various jobs. From the age of 16 to 66, the guy was never out of work. Long days, low pay, barely any holidays, you name it.

I'll always be grateful he made that sacrifice for me and my siblings, but health wise, the man has nothing to show for decades of hard work except two false hips, breathing problems, and shattered knees. He can barely walk and that's on a good day

So, part of me vowed never to become as bad as that because of work. I'm not afraid of hard work, I've done it many a time, and I've had plenty of crappy jobs, but there has to be a reward, a sense of worth at the end of it. This modern world of hire and fire, zero hours, temp work, etc etc offers no encouragment of loyalty or dedication to those near the bottom.

I've nothing against low skilled jobs, and no disrespect to anybody, but I don't want cleaner, shelf-stacker, or whatever on my tombstone...

And as always, I don't blame my fellow Brit for not wanting these jobs as from experience, I know it's hard to run a house on minimum wage. And the long hours leave you in no mood to do anything else at the weekend i.e have a life outside work.

If jobs paid better, had stability, then yeah, it would be different. Hell, I was reading about homeless people who are employed.

Imagine that, people in Britain who work full time but can't get a house

I blame nobody for refusing to prop up this wretched and corrupt system in this country.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Press freedoms in this country is really on the line.

I won't pretend for one second that some publications have acted horribly in the past. However, this is not the solution to it. Making the papers pay out even if they win will only kill off investigative journalism and let "them" bully them into silence so that they can get anyway with their misdeeds.

That's what I think anyway.

You're not the only one that thinks that. Me, you, a few other dakka members, and Private Eye magazine, seem to be the last defenders of British press freedom these days


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Why is Ed Miliband so susceptible to such bad photos?

For a photo of someone blowing their nose, it could've been a lot worse. There could've been tissue leakage, for example.

I have no idea what the USA has against poor old Ed.

During the presidential campaign, some gutter press magazine was accusing him of being a hit-man for the Clintons.

I can't remember which dakka member posted that picture

@ DIKLT

Don't forget The Spectator. And we will miss press freedom when it's gone.

A hitman you say?

"The names Miliban. Ed Miliband".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A hitman you say?

"The names Miliban. Ed Miliband".

Don't look at me, I'm pretty sure it was reds8n that posted the article


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DIKLT

Don't forget The Spectator. And we will miss press freedom when it's gone.

Keep forgetting the Spectator. I disagree with their political slant, but their culture section is good, and yes, they do have a libetarian ethos which is always good in my book

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A hitman you say?

"The names Miliban. Ed Miliband".

"What do we know of Milliband, M?"

"Not a great deal, 007, except that his father apparently hated Britain and that if you take a picture of him eating a bacon sandwich he looks a bit weird."

 Orlanth wrote:
You are splitting hairs weather systems are to all intens and purposes random beyond short range forcasting.

However business methodology can retain patterns over time, an are not compounded away by chaos. So a manager can be realisticall predicted to find the shortcut to a good bonus tomorrow or a year from now.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between random and a chaotic system. Weather is a chaotic system and whether you want to accept it or not our ability to forecast tomorrows, next weeks and next months forecast is improving. It isn't perfect because we don't have enough data to refine the super computer models. However over time it is; the accuracy of next weeks weather is now similar to what the accuracy of tomorrows weather forecast was 30/40 years ago. If it was a random system then there would not be any purpose in weather forecasts. The weather also has cycles such as the El Nino effect. We can say it is predictable within a 2-7 year cycle, but no one can tell you which date it will start on because we simply don't have enough data to make that level of prediction. It does not however make it 'random'.

And the manager example is similar. However I still fail to see how this evidence that "straight, white, male" people are being constructively dismissed over other "not-straight, not-white, not-male" colleagues. You can point to all sorts of random conjecture that it has to be because companies want to make money and so forth, but that is not evidence. So again where is the *direct* evidence this is happening?!

 Whirlwind wrote:
However this is used to determine under-representation of minorities. It is not used to determine over-representation of minorities. Motive is everything. Also it makes no comment itself as to how the people came by their jobs, Were they shoehorned in? How could you tell outside of a minority only shortlist, which only accounts for some cases. A lot of discrimination occurs by the back door.

Some positive discrimination is allowed but only in circumstances where it is justified. A councillor to help women that have been raped is likely to have a positive discrimination for female candidates, because having a middle aged man waltz in, is not going to be helpful for the target group and so on. This doesn't meant the system in general is biased. And for a lot of companies these statistics *are* available, just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Sadly some evidence only comes from hearsay and is difficult to use. A good example being the Post Office. I know some workers in my local Post Office and they say that there is a very distinct ethnic bias. One can see this easily, The proportion of asian staff is way above the representation on society. Can you get a breakdown of the ethnicity of staffing? No. and if you did statistics are easy to manipulate anyway, by how you record temporary staff or omit promotion imbalances. The same staff believe the system is discriminatory with regards to promotion, and one can tell over time that the management is also disproportionate as are other factors like shift patterns. Can you get stats for that. Not from the Post Office you cant, and even if you could the press would likely not report it because it would be seen as anti-asian and therefore racist.

Anecdotal evidence is a very bad way of analysing data. It is open to bias and perception issues. For example it is scientifically proven that if there were 100 people seated in a room and there was a 70:30 split male to female ratio then 90%+ men would actually report this anecdotally as a 50:50 split and they would honestly believe it and tell you if asked that this was the case. It's a perception issue that then provides false information (which is how people like Trump and Farage work the populace). Lets take your example of the Post Office. It is almost certain that that they do record ethnicity/gender/sexual preference information.. that you haven't asked for the information is an issue you have. But you still are hearing/viewing a perception bias - have you visited every post office, how do you know you post office isn't just unique in this regard. Maybe there is an intrinsic bias but *for* "white, male, straight" people to be promoted. That leads to them moving up the ladder to management positions you wouldn't see on a daily basis - that leaves the "not-male, not-straight, not-white" in lower positions on the 'tip-face'. Hence you perceive that a certain visible effect but miss that fundamentally the opposite bias is *actually* happening (for the avoidance of doubt this is just an example, I'm not saying this happens in the Post Office!). Can you not understand that simply reading/seeing/hearing biased anecdotal evidence is a massively flawed way of thinking and makes you easily exploitable by others because you are question what people say without hard evidence?

New Labour on a point of doctrine did nothing about the Islamification of schools, and I knew this was happening because of eye witness reports of blatant heavy handed discrimination that reached me. However airing this evidence would get nowhere and would likely only lead to an accusation of racism. After 2010 Cameron did something about this phenomena, and it had an attached label the Trojan Horse plot, suddenly it was no longer impossible to talk about Islamification and gross discrimination in schools.

Islamification of schools???? I presume you have evidence for this? Yes there maybe bad eggs, there always are (and the same goes for any religion as well as atheism). But wildly stating this without large scale evidence that this is occurring is just exposing your sensitivities on the subject rather than any rational debate!

My problem is that I have to underspeak. Just as I was right in 2008 about gross discrimination in schools by Islamic biased staff, I am right now about constructive dismissal of people without protected status. I have seen it happen, often.

Hmmm, I think I will quote Obi-wan "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

All major employers gather discrimination related information on candidates, such as race, religion and sexual orientation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.

Good.

The legal challenge was initially championed by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who was then a backbench Conservative MP.

Course it was.

2016 just keeps on giving eh ?



perhaps he should be careful though :





Possibly a wee bit petty but it's understandable.

and my sympathy for the company involved is so small I'm not sure that science could measure it.

I hate management consultants.

That said, this is confirmation that the memo was real, not a piece of propaganda got up by the secret cabal of Remainers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All major employers gather discrimination related information on candidates, such as race, religion and sexual orientation.

Speaking from experience, so do employment agencies. We tend to be better at it.

This could be interesting.

Labour MP quits his North of England seat, by election set for next year.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/21/corbyn-critic-jamie-reed-quits-labour-mp-byelection-copeland

All sorts of interesting plays going on here: how will Labour react? Could UKIP gain? The Tories?

This is a heavy leave area - 62%. Could be a major litmus test.

Very interesting. Strokes chin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/letters-donald-trump-alex-salmond-wind-turbines_uk_585908ede4b0acb6e4b90a9a?daq2d0dnudcayvi

Trump's letters to Alex Salmond ....

...uh huh.

"mad alex"

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/letters-donald-trump-alex-salmond-wind-turbines_uk_585908ede4b0acb6e4b90a9a?daq2d0dnudcayvi

Trump's letters to Alex Salmond ....

...uh huh.

"mad alex"

I'm pro-SNP, but I'll be the first to admit that Salmond's collusion with that buffoon Trump was not his finest hour

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.

Good.

Now wait a minute, wasn't one of the Leave side of things was the ECJ did nothing to protect the rights of the common person and yet here we are where the UK government is reducing it's own UK citizens rights whilst the EU is defending. I could have sworn we had a conversation along the lines that the ECJ provides better protection against such things. However why I am not surprised that May wants to leave the ECJ first and foremost as whenever she implements draconian spying legislation the EU decide that by doing so really isn't protecting it's own citizens.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.

Good.

Now wait a minute, wasn't one of the Leave side of things was the ECJ did nothing to protect the rights of the common person and yet here we are where the UK government is reducing it's own UK citizens rights whilst the EU is defending. I could have sworn we had a conversation along the lines that the ECJ provides better protection against such things. However why I am not surprised that May wants to leave the ECJ first and foremost as whenever she implements draconian spying legislation the EU decide that by doing so really isn't protecting it's own citizens.

Wanna know the real kicker? The government took it to the ECJ on appeal after losing in UK Courts and are now appealing the ECJ ruling.

It is a clash of egos.

Salmond 'called in' the Menie golf course proposal after the plamnning committee of Aberdeen council rejected it.
He did so because he believed it would be a decisive act as a leader and prove his statesmanship credibility as First Minister, and also to throw his weight about, All which Wee Eck enjoys.

This began to backfire with Trumps antics and because opposing Aberdeen officials and activists blocked the quiet attempt to compulsory purchase holdout farms before it could get underway.

Salmond had already by then centralised the Scottish police force and was able to abuse his power by using the police as enforcers to intimidate home owners on the Menie and visiting press.

This backfired heavily on both Trump and Salmond, especially as sympathies rose for local residents and an ugly incident when policemen brutalised a reporter and his cameraman while at a Menie residents farm because they had dared to as a Trump official a question at the site office which could be legally visited.

Salmond got a well earned reputation of corporate cronyism, and Trump being increasingly frustrated by his lack of progress began pressing him. (Though this is the first time I have seen the docs myself).
Sal,ond has an ego to match ump and wanted to pont ou the he was the big man in Scotland, and Trump was just a foreign businessmen, and he should know his place.

The windfarm proposal predated the Trump golf course proposal but had been indefinitely shelved. Now not only was it back but Salmond fast tracked it to teach The Donald a lesson. Had all gone to plan there would be no windfarm, and had it not been of value for Salmonds on ego boost it would not have been fastracked, and possibly have not occured at all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I hate management consultants.

That said, this is confirmation that the memo was real, not a piece of propaganda got up by the secret cabal of Remainers.

I've done enough contract law to know that this is legally suspect under procurement rules. Anyone is allowed to bid and should be assessed on set evaluation criteria (which could I suppose include "Have you pissed off a petty minded PM in the last 6 months?"), but showing bias upfront is a big no-no. If Deloitte's were being particular bullish they could just submit any old contract and at the award stage challenge the decision and go to court. At that point given the government has effectively admitted this is the case, it would be game, set and match under the regulations that would mean not only Deloitte's would liable for compensation but then so would every other bidder as well!

From a more worrying perspective it's just another example of May trying to dominate and effectively bully what she wants. It's a "don't agree with me then you are out the door" (probably because some arbitrary Christian god told here to do so!).

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.

Good.

Now wait a minute, wasn't one of the Leave side of things was the ECJ did nothing to protect the rights of the common person and yet here we are where the UK government is reducing it's own UK citizens rights whilst the EU is defending. I could have sworn we had a conversation along the lines that the ECJ provides better protection against such things. However why I am not surprised that May wants to leave the ECJ first and foremost as whenever she implements draconian spying legislation the EU decide that by doing so really isn't protecting it's own citizens.

No.

I also particularly like this approach from Empress May. She's obviously not really learning from the current Supreme Court case at all

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-liaison-committee-brexit-refuses-to-commit-to-mps-vote-meps-veto-yvette-cooper-students-migration_uk_585952eae4b0acb6e4b96df1?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

However for Leavers this is an uncomfortable idea that we are getting our Democracy back. European MEPs (bound into an obviously undemocratic institution ) will be able to vote on the conditions of withdrawal of the UK, yet our own MPs (obviously in a democratic institution ) may be forbidden from doing so. I'm slightly confused when people said they wanted democratic control back...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

The European Court of Justice has ruled against the UK government following a legal challenge over data retention.
EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.

Good.

Now wait a minute, wasn't one of the Leave side of things was the ECJ did nothing to protect the rights of the common person and yet here we are where the UK government is reducing it's own UK citizens rights whilst the EU is defending. I could have sworn we had a conversation along the lines that the ECJ provides better protection against such things. However why I am not surprised that May wants to leave the ECJ first and foremost as whenever she implements draconian spying legislation the EU decide that by doing so really isn't protecting it's own citizens.

No.

I am entirely unsure what you are saying 'No' to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Wanna know the real kicker? The government took it to the ECJ on appeal after losing in UK Courts and are now appealing the ECJ ruling.

Yeah, maybe that will be the new legislation for our rights. UK government allowed to go to ECJ to try and overturn decision, everyone else isn't!

No to the entire premise of the comment.

The ECJ made a good decision, and protected the rights of the common man. A decision i agree with. Still doesn't change my desire to withdraw from a foreign court.

And if that removes all obstacles to the governments policy, so be it. Having achieved the objective of withdrawing from the EU and ECJ, I would then vote against the government, for a party promising to restore those rights and repeal the governments bill.

British rights are a matter for British courts and Parliament, not the European Court or Parliament. The freedom to make our own decisions is the freedom to feth up too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

British rights are a matter for British courts and Parliament, not the European Court or Parliament. The freedom to make our own decisions is the freedom to feth up too.

Might wanna tell that to the government who took the matter to the ECJ when they lost in British courts.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

British rights are a matter for British courts and Parliament, not the European Court or Parliament. The freedom to make our own decisions is the freedom to feth up too.

Might wanna tell that to the government who took the matter to the ECJ when they lost in British courts.

No argument there. When was the appeal launched? Before the Referendum, by the Cameron government? Or after, under the current government?

If it was the latter, then its very hypocritical, trying to exploit the ECJ to overturn a UK court judgement at the last minute before we withdraw from the ECJ.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No to the entire premise of the comment.
The ECJ made a good decision, and protected the rights of the common man. A decision i agree with. Still doesn't change my desire to withdraw from a foreign court.
And if that removes all obstacles to the governments policy, so be it. Having achieved the objective of withdrawing from the EU and ECJ, I would then vote against the government, for a party promising to restore those rights and repeal the governments bill.
British rights are a matter for British courts and Parliament, not the European Court or Parliament. The freedom to make our own decisions is the freedom to feth up too.

That wasn't the argument. The argument was that the ECJ provided an extra layer of protection from overbearing government to ensure that reasonable rights were maintained by everyone
The argument back was that the ECJ provided no additional benefits to the society at large and only benefited a few well off companies/individual. However this case shows this is a fallacy (and regardless of who you individually voted for, whoever had the majority couldn't then just then bring in whatever crack pot scheme they wanted, after they dissolved some of the courts powers to challenge them - which A Rudds previous wording implies they are going to try and do).

Hence this case clearly shows the ECJ protects the populace. It is no surprise that the only thing Empress May guaranteed to get rid of when leaving the EU was the use of the ECJ whilst transposing everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

British rights are a matter for British courts and Parliament, not the European Court or Parliament. The freedom to make our own decisions is the freedom to feth up too.

Might wanna tell that to the government who took the matter to the ECJ when they lost in British courts.

No argument there. When was the appeal launched? Before the Referendum, by the Cameron government? Or after, under the current government?

If it was the latter, then its very hypocritical, trying to exploit the ECJ to overturn a UK court judgement at the last minute before we withdraw from the ECJ.

It was before. But it was David Davis that was one of the parties that brought it, a key person in encouraging us to leave the ECJ (so hypocritical anyway)