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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


1. Brexit strengthens the EU's goal of ever, closer union, because the main opposition to this is leaving. A more integrated EU, with its foreign policy in Ukraine, is more of a threat to Russia.

2. Let's say for argument's sake that you're right about a weaker Britain - it's still stronger than most other NATO countries, and of course, it's still in NATO.

3. Cyprus and Malta are EU members, and they're none too fussy about Russian money in their banks, so that's an obvious elephant in the room, and if the EU is as democratic as people say it is, then Cyprus and Malta could block any EU attempt at cracking down on this, anyway.

There's more to disruption and dividing lines than full scale Nuclear war. Not every strategic decision needs to be done over plains and hills. Dividing hearts and minds is just as divisive - no one is going to start a war over crimea for example, but they may put forward sanctions. If those countries support each other then the impact of those sanctions can be lessened that might be more reliant on, for example Russian oil. If you divide them, make them squabble, then the deals they get are lessened, that makes both sides poorer and hence forcing them to look elsewhere to maintain trade and so on. If every country has a different solution to a problem then nothing may be achieved at all. Not every confrontation has to end, well, on the end of nuke!

I have an elderly father, and an elderly uncle, both in their 80s, who've never been on a pc or a laptop in their lives. Both of them would struggle with a VHS player.

Both voted Brexit, so I have no idea where they were getting their 'Russian' social media messages from. And they've been reading the same local newspaper for decades, which incidentally, supported Remain.

And as pointed out before they were never the target. Just because your old relatives weren't influenced doesn't mean that it wasn't going on. It's about subtle shifts to peoples attitudes that are affected that read news/stories/twitter and manipulation of our tendencies as a species.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


They do, and it is, and it's ironic to talk of Russian meddling when you consider what we, The West, were doing inside 1990s Russia.

So the argument is we've done it in the past so it's OK for Russia to do it now? Rather than it was never acceptable...

 Whirlwind wrote:


So the argument is we've done it in the past so it's OK for Russia to do it now? Rather than it was never acceptable...

Not really - the argument is that we are doing it now - same as them - thats what intelligence services do. Are you saying that we don't?

Whirlwind, my argument is an argument for honesty. It's great power politics - of course the Russians are engaging in counter-intelligence activities against the West - it's been going on for nearly 100 years.

I just hate the double standrads in our media that attacks Russia, whilst turning a blind eye to activities of Western intelligence agencies.

Feth me, in my lifetime, the CIA have rigged more elections, toppled more governments, and dreamt up more crackpot schemes than I've had hot dinners!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whirlwind, my argument is an argument for honesty. It's great power politics - of course the Russians are engaging in counter-intelligence activities against the West - it's been going on for nearly 100 years.

Didn't you contradict this a page or 2 ago?

If you know Russia does this; why do you doubt Russia did this?

Leavers seem furious that Parliament has exercised its sovereignty yet again....

Herzlos wrote:Other state owned railways run fine, so I don't think state ownership is the problem

Depends on your definition of "fine". Most of them achieve standards roughly comparable with our own (though their infrastructure tends to be more extreme weather resistant) and for that the Germans pay triple the amount of subsidy as Britain, the French four times the subsidy.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Cor, if only there was such a thing as Landlord insurance. Oh wait. There is. And yes, such policies will cover such things. Never mind the cost of said policy, just tack it onto the rent....

Have you ever tried to claim something off an insurance company? It normally involves a great degree of wrangling, as the insurance company attempts to squirm its way out of every conceivable expense. In theory insurance sounds great. In practice insurance is something of a minefield.

It has to stop. And rent controls are the best way forward.

Rent control has never been the way forward. Perhaps if the market for house building were liberalised somewhat we might actually see more houses being built. Ironically the demands of social housing supporters are one of the key contributors to the lack of housing.

Whirlwind wrote:So yes there were distinct bigotry undertones to the vote. That doesn't mean everyone is, but it was a significant issue and as I have always alluded to that the actual racist/bigoted elements likely swung the vote. If there was no immigration I would surmise we would still be in the EU. On the other hand we would be a lot poorer and worse off overall.

Can you not see that your prejudging of those people who mentioned immigration as an issue simply mirrors the same prejudiced attitude that was held (and still is held) by many senior politicians, which in turn led to the rise of groups like UKIP and had a massive impact on the failings of the Remain campaign? You're assuming that anyone who mentioned immigration as a concern is automatically a bigot/racist. In reality, a lot of the people who I've heard talk about immigration on things like radio phone ins and Question Time etc are not opposed to immigration in and of itself, they're opposed to the unrestricted element of it that comes from the EU. They're not saying "we don't want any foreign people in our country", they're saying "we want a cap of some form on foreign people, to stop the population rising faster than local service provision/the economy can cope with". You're either not listening to them properly or you're willfully misrepresenting their position because it's convenient to brand them as racists, which ironically enough allows you to fuel a sense of hatred among remain supporters against those you perceive as ignorant and ill informed.

I'm pro immigration, but even my preferred approach would recognise that there has to be limits on the amount of unskilled/low skill workers you allow in and has to have an absolute cap of some kind to give communities room to breathe and respond to their expanding populations.

You are about 15 years out of date. So to help you with your lack of legislation knowledge and basic false facts.

I get the sense you're a little rattled. My position on council profits was in relation to their annual budgets (their overall expenditure), which is why I specifically referenced them not having shareholders and having to put the money back into their budgets (or save it). I accept culpability for the error in that I should have said "surplus" not "profit", as this would probably have avoided the confusion.

If you do wish to be highly pedantic though, then social housing is administered by housing associations which are not part of the council and as such are allowed to make profits, which I believe is what someone originally inquired about. You also missed the point in your own legislation citation (section 5) which provides councils with a loophole to allow them to in effect charge "profitable" rates for a service, as they can charge different rates for the same service to different people, as it's only their annual income that has to be balanced with their annual expenditure on a given service.

Yes they will continue to be expensive, but you remove the incentive for them to be bought solely to be an investment. Therefore the wealthy but not wealthy investors can afford to buy them and that will move all the way up the chain as there is less of a driver forcing people out of the city. On the other hand maybe if they left these properties empty for too long (say 3 months continuously) then they have to allow homeless to live there free of rent. That might help solve one of the other scandals of this country.

How do you prove it's been bought solely as an investment. Do you think someone who can afford to rent a £1 million flat doesn't also have the cash (or credit) to buy other properties of their own further down the chain? You're doing nothing but trying to milk the rich and at the same time inflating the cost of housing again, worsening the cycle. As for seizing peoples property (which is what you're effectively suggesting), that sounds decidedly tyrannical. Are you a Tau player by an chance? Inquisition? Why aren't you advocating town halls and council owned community centres throwing open their doors to the homeless as a first resort, as opposed to state organised theft on a grand scale.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't see how Brexit benefits Russia?

1. It weakens the EU, which is the main organised opposition to Russia in mainland Europe.

2. It weakens Britain, which is one of the main European components of NATO.

3. It weakens the EU's ability to influence tax policy in the UK and its overseas territories, which are a major haven for Russian oligarch cash.

1. I think you'll find that's NATO. And by NATO we of course mean the USA.
2. Brexit, properly conducted, will do the opposite.
3. Part of why your point 2 is incorrect (the UK will now be able to set tax policy as it pleases). Also I think someone has already mentioned Cyprus. You might also want to ask Ireland, Luxembourg, Holland, and some other countries about their approach to facilitating tax evasion and helping people to hide their money.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breaking news, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.

This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.

A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!

This has nothing to do with the sovereignty of parliament. Pretty much everyone accepts it's a naked attempt to try and put the brakes on Brexit by Remain sympathising MPs who have no problem with surrendering Parliamentary authority to the EU when it suits them. Remainers are celebrating right now, but I suspect all they've done is sow the seeds of a whirlwind that they most definitely do not want to reap.

BB.....you’re talking to the wrong man about insurance.

Seriously.

Insurers can’t just decide not to play a claim. And if the terms are at all vague, well there’s mechanisms in place for that.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breaking news, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

The government has lost the vote about the Brexit bill amendment.

This means there will be a legal right for Parliament to have the final say on the treaty.

A genuine victory for the sovereignty of parliament!

This has nothing to do with the sovereignty of parliament. Pretty much everyone accepts it's a naked attempt to try and put the brakes on Brexit by Remain sympathising MPs who have no problem with surrendering Parliamentary authority to the EU when it suits them. Remainers are celebrating right now, but I suspect all they've done is sow the seeds of a whirlwind that they most definitely do not want to reap.

It is absolutely about parliamentary sovereignty. That argument does not wash. Powers were clearly handed to the EU under act of parliament. This is just the government trying to do what they want without any interference. Despite what some PMs think, we do not have a president, they are beholden to parliament.This is just more Brexit supporters attempts to bully valid criticism and due process to get what they want.

Waht whirlwind is that? Or is it just more of the vague brexit bullying that brought us judges being called traitors and MPs being named and shamed.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:BB.....you’re talking to the wrong man about insurance.

Seriously.

Insurers can’t just decide not to play a claim. And if the terms are at all vague, well there’s mechanisms in place for that.

You have to prove your claim is valid first and falls within the terms of the contract. That's where the fun starts.

Steve steveson wrote:It is absolutely about parliamentary sovereignty. That argument does not wash. Powers were clearly handed to the EU under act of parliament. This is just the government trying to do what they want without any interference. Despite what some PMs think, we do not have a president, they are beholden to parliament.This is just more Brexit supporters attempts to bully valid criticism and due process to get what they want.

Waht whirlwind is that? Or is it just more of the vague brexit bullying that brought us judges being called traitors and MPs being named and shamed.

Nobody realistically thinks this has anything to do with parliament being sovereign, it's about attempting to insert clauses that they hope will stop brexit. Some of the same people touting it as a triumph of parliament are some of the same people who have openly suggested we should integrate more closely with the EU, for example by in the long run dispensing with Parliament. Corbyn and some others didn't even vote themselves, they abstained, then took to Twitter to talk aboue what a victory for democracy this is against the dangers of government. So dangerous they opted not to bother showing up for the vote.

Brexit bullying? You realise the names of all MPs are a matter of public knowledge. You can even look up their address if you want, see a list of their declared interests etc. The whirlwind will be for the rebelling MPs, who are likely to find themselves deselected at the next election. One has already been sacked from their job in the conservative party. This will also come across to voters as being what it really is; an attempt by MPs to defy the Brexit vote, essentially telling the public that "mum knows best" and treating the public like children, which was a significant factor in the Brexit vote in the first place.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whirlwind, my argument is an argument for honesty. It's great power politics - of course the Russians are engaging in counter-intelligence activities against the West - it's been going on for nearly 100 years.

Didn't you contradict this a page or 2 ago?

If you know Russia does this; why do you doubt Russia did this?

No contradiction from me. There's a big difference between a British agent getting bumped off in a park at 3am in St Petersburg and a supposed 'conspiracy' that somehow convinced 17 million people to vote for Brexit.

The former has happened. The latter is the worst kind of tinfoil hat, crackpot conspiracy theory you're ever likely to hear.

Are we to believe that the CIA, FBI, and the NSA, some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world, with billions of dollars and thousands of personnel at their disposal, were unaware of a Russian plot to subvert the US election, only months after supposedly subverting the Brexit vote, was happening right under their noses? And nobody noticed?

I'm not buying it. Never in a million years.

BB. It’s really not that hard to have a successful claim. Take it from me, if it was really as hinky as you make out, I’d have no career, and nobody in this country would bother with anything except car insurance, which is a requirement.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
BB. It’s really not that hard to have a successful claim. Take it from me, if it was really as hinky as you make out, I’d have no career, and nobody in this country would bother with anything except car insurance, which is a requirement.

Read the tag line of this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/9843201/Insurance-claims-How-to-force-your-insurer-to-pay-up.html "Industry expert Peter Reeve has a way of making reluctant insurers honour claims"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/525000-peoples-claims-rejected--7249128 - "Home insurance claims were turned down most often because they didn't think customers were looking after their home properly. Or “wear and tear or damage caused by a lack of maintenance”.

In other words, some things very much are up for debate. Insurance companies pay out quite frequently, but it's nowhere as certain as you're making out.

No. They’re really not.

You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.

The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.

Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.

Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.

Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. They’re really not.

You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.

The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.

Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.

Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.

Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience

Damn Armchair insurance experts! What do they know?


But seriously, you can't just not pay out. A contract is a contract after all.

Kinda off topic-ey but I really do kind of feel I'm not well informed enough to sensible buy insurance, eg contents insurance.

So I can kinda see both sides of it all.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No. They’re really not.

You’re not gonna win this one. Insurance and assorted financial complaints are what I do.

The vast majority of claims are successful, and don’t come across my desk. And those that are declined, around 50% are overturned.

Some aren’t of course - but that’s nothing to do with allegedly dodgy terms and conditions.

Put simply the onus is on the insured to seek out the right policy for them. The complaints I can’t do much with are where peeps just want to ignore certain terms and conditions.

Seriously dude, you’ve got a bunch of stacked newspaper articles written to get a reaction. I’ve got knocking on for 10:years industry experience

Those were just the first two off a loooonnnng list of different articles, sites (like citizens advice etc) all focused on how to stop insurance companies from dragging their heels or squirming out of a claim. I don't want to spam the board with external links so people can just shove the following into google if they want to have a closer look;

- Insurance firms can no longer wriggle out of paying up if customers make technical errors on applications or tell white lies that don’t affect the claim, courts have ruled. A decision made on Wednesday by the Supreme Court is likely to affect millions of household policies and increase the number of successful claims. Insurers have become notorious for refusing to accept claims over seemingly small inconsistencies or lies on forms - even if they have no bearing on the claim itself. Consumer experts said the change would overturn "centuries of insurance practice".
It would seem the courts disagree about the self-proclaimed honesty of your industry

- Following a two-year battle and pressure from the Financial Ombudsman – the watchdog which arbitrates when consumers and companies cannot agree – Millennium was ordered to settle the claim with a £33,554 payout, plus 8pc interest and £350 compensation.

- A pipe-fItter who was horrifically injured in a workplace accident has won a £170,000 payout from insurance giant Aviva three years after it callously refused to pay his claim... It will be seen as the latest unedifying example of an insurance company attempting
to use small print to wriggle out of paying a legitimate claim. The payout is one of the biggest awarded by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in its ten-year history.

We could sit here all night going through further examples if you like.

Okay, but tell me, how many successful claims are made each day? What's the ratio between successful claim and a refused claim?

 welshhoppo wrote:
Okay, but tell me, how many successful claims are made each day? What's the ratio between successful claim and a refused claim?

I'm not saying there aren't successful claims, I suspect there's lots of them. I'm trying to refute the idea that insurance provides a 100% foolproof protection.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

No contradiction from me. There's a big difference between a British agent getting bumped off in a park at 3am in St Petersburg and a supposed 'conspiracy' that somehow convinced 17 million people to vote for Brexit.

Why do you keep thinking that the Russian involvement is responsible for all 17 million votes? It's a strawman we've burnt down 3 times already.

No-one is saying that the Russians caused Brexit. No-one. What we're saying is that the Russians paid for some pro-brexit propaganda, targeted at the undecided. That may have swayed some number of voters, and may or may not have been significant. Given the narrow margin, it may have nudged it over the line.

Why do you also think that killing agents is something an intelligence agency would do, but not tampering with elections/referendum? Disinformation is one of the biggest tools intelligence agencies use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bouncingboredom wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't successful claims, I suspect there's lots of them. I'm trying to refute the idea that insurance provides a 100% foolproof protection.

It's never 100% foolproof but pretty close. If you adhere to the terms and conditions so you should get a full payout, subject to an excess. It should be sufficient for landlords to offset the risk.

Yeah interesting question isn't "did russia make 17m vote leave" but did they cause at least 634751 people vote leave rather than remain(+- effect of voters that went from no vote to leave or remain to leave. Above is the ballmark if there all affected went from remain to no vote)

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah interesting question isn't "did russia make 17m vote leave" but did they cause at least 634751 people vote leave rather than remain(+- effect of voters that went from no vote to leave or remain to leave. Above is the ballmark if there all affected went from remain to no vote)

Not even that. Assuming Russia managed to sway 300,000 undecided's (not impossible), then that only leaves 334,751 other voters which swung it towards Leave for other reasons.

Russian involvement almost certainly didn't cause Brexit, but it could easily have been a contributing factor.

there were several pro-brexit social media accounts that had thousands of followers, and were seen by 10's thousands more. These were tracked back to russia.

Herzlos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah interesting question isn't "did russia make 17m vote leave" but did they cause at least 634751 people vote leave rather than remain(+- effect of voters that went from no vote to leave or remain to leave. Above is the ballmark if there all affected went from remain to no vote)

Not even that. Assuming Russia managed to sway 300,000 undecided's (not impossible), then that only leaves 334,751 other voters which swung it towards Leave for other reasons.

Russian involvement almost certainly didn't cause Brexit, but it could easily have been a contributing factor.

Huh? Difference was 1269501 votes. If 300k went from remain to leave by russia then gap would still be 670k or so. So in that case russia's involvement wouldn't have made in the end difference.

I'm just going by your 634k number in the quoted post.

Difference was 1.2m votes, so a change of 610k would bring us to a 50:50. If Russia was responsible for 300k of them, that only leaves 310k down to other factors.

Let me just point out something to you guys: if just one guy switches his vote, a hostile foreign power has still successfully changed the outcome of the election. Not a lot, but has had an impact someplace.

The fact they did it at all suggests that your enemies, at least, believe that they will weaken you through this.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm just going by your 634k number in the quoted post.

Difference was 1.2m votes, so a change of 610k would bring us to a 50:50. If Russia was responsible for 300k of them, that only leaves 310k down to other factors.

Yes but that would mean Russia still wouldn't have decided the result. I was interested in roughly how many votes Russia would have actually needed to affect for Russia to have changed the result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me just point out something to you guys: if just one guy switches his vote, a hostile foreign power has still successfully changed the outcome of the election. Not a lot, but has had an impact someplace.

The fact they did it at all suggests that your enemies, at least, believe that they will weaken you through this.

*shrug* all countries does that. So did France, German, US etc. More of interest is how much success they are having.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Nobody realistically thinks this has anything to do with parliament being sovereign, it's about attempting to insert clauses that they hope will stop brexit. Some of the same people touting it as a triumph of parliament are some of the same people who have openly suggested we should integrate more closely with the EU, for example by in the long run dispensing with Parliament. Corbyn and some others didn't even vote themselves, they abstained, then took to Twitter to talk aboue what a victory for democracy this is against the dangers of government. So dangerous they opted not to bother showing up for the vote.

No, its about ensuring our parliament is the ultimate governing body of the UK. Or can you provide evidence of that? Because that is what MPs who rebelled have been saying.

Brexit bullying? You realise the names of all MPs are a matter of public knowledge. You can even look up their address if you want, see a list of their declared interests etc. The whirlwind will be for the rebelling MPs, who are likely to find themselves deselected at the next election. One has already been sacked from their job in the conservative party. This will also come across to voters as being what it really is; an attempt by MPs to defy the Brexit vote, essentially telling the public that "mum knows best" and treating the public like children, which was a significant factor in the Brexit vote in the first place.

Yes, they are public knowledge, but there is a big difference between saying "people can look up for themselves, and lobby their own MPs" which is how our democracy works, and posting their details front and centre, and all but asking for them to be attacked and abused for doing their job.

One of the key attractions of Brexit is supposed to be not to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in Brussels.

Why would you want to be governed by executive fiat of whoever happens to be Prime Minister in London?

Just because they speak English as a first language, it doesn't mean they will do a great job as they re-arrange your living condiitions without reference to your elected representatives.

Always remember that everyone ends up in opposition eventually. These "Henry VIIIth" laws will be deployed by Corbyn in a few years if they get on to the books now.

tneva82 wrote:

Yes but that would mean Russia still wouldn't have decided the result. I was interested in roughly how many votes Russia would have actually needed to affect for Russia to have changed the result.

I don't think anyone is trying to claim Russia decided the result. Like mentioned, any vote changed based on Russian sponsored information interfered with the result, and any changes will have contributed to the result.

It doesn't really matter why MPs are wanting parliamentary oversight, what matters is that parliamentary sovereignty suddenly isn't very important when it could block Brexit. It's holding the Brexit side of the debate to its own argument. Is it an attempt to stop Brexit? Sure, at least in part. It's also a natural consequence of talking up the importance of parliamentary sovereignty.