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 it seems the new blue passports will be made in France.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/blue-british-passports_uk_5ab2d3c8e4b0decad046824e

I'm sure the free market advocates will be happy with the decision.

Was just about to post that. Truly hilarious.

Shame about the UK firms employees, though

jouso wrote:
So it seems the new blue passports will be made in France.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/blue-british-passports_uk_5ab2d3c8e4b0decad046824e

I'm sure the free market advocates will be happy with the decision.

Yes. It's just international trade after all.

I imagine UKIP's reaction will be amusing.

I find myself baffled by the fishermen's overreaction. It's a two year stint whilst we work out things of vastly more importance to the UK and European economy. If it was long term, they'd have something to complain about, but a two year interim period? Sheesh, have some goddam patience.

The firshermen are nervous because in some cases they have come to realise that they are going to lose a lot due to Brexit.

For instance it was Hull, I think, or might have been Grimsby, which having voted solidly to Leave, turned around to ask for special exemptions from the soon to come tariffs because they export so much of their catch to the continent.

Another set who are liable to miss out are small scale coastal fishermen, such as scallop divers. It's mainly the bigger firms who are likely to gain.

Thus when we see the "fishermen up in arms" we are seeing the extreme Brexiteer wing pushing their agenda at the expense of the industry (and the country) as a whole. It's no accident that Rees-Mogg and Farage are the poster boys for this campaign.

Grimsby.

It was Grimsby.

"The UK’s fishing industry, whose total contribution to the British economy is slightly smaller than that of the pet insurance sector, would have to toil under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy for 19 long months more."

(From The Independent...)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

The crime was putting it on YouTube.

IDK if the guy involved is a neo-nazi or just a fething idiot. Does either position justify him posting such videos, which are guaranted to enrage and offend people?

There is a very thoughtful article on this general issue here...

Criminalised wilful stupidity and attention seeking horribleness.

Wonderful. That'll keep the courts busy.

They're already busy, fighting hard not to issue a warrant for Cambridge Analytica until CA have had time to clear any pesky remaining evidence

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/22/cambridge-analytica-warrant-high-court-adjourns-hearing-information-commissioner

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Fair points. I shall withdraw my remark on Rees-Mogg.

I’m sure we’ll be back here sooner rather than later.

About the French made passports: isn’t it the EU’s own rules that are doing that? Contracts must go to the lowest bidder with the EU regardless of nationality? No doubt if we broke that agreement you remoaners would be bitching about that too.

There are rules about tendering but not about selecting contracts.

If there was, the point of leaving the EU is that we will no longer be subject to it.

The failure of the bid from the UK company is partly bad business (it seems the French bid lower) and partly bad politics.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Fair points. I shall withdraw my remark on Rees-Mogg.

I’m sure we’ll be back here sooner rather than later.

About the French made passports: isn’t it the EU’s own rules that are doing that? Contracts must go to the lowest bidder with the EU regardless of nationality? No doubt if we broke that agreement you remoaners would be bitching about that too.

No, it not to do with the EU at all.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gp_gpa_e.htm

It's a WTO law -- in other words it'll still apply to us even after we've finished maiming ourselves economically.
.. those same WTO laws that we will, apparently, be better off under outside of the EU.

Note however that we did this deal, saving us £50M or whatever it was whilst in the EU.
Public procurement law aims at non-discrimination.

Procurement decisions should be made on a procurement basis, without favouring domestic firms or shutting out foreign firms.For simple contracts (eg goods), this means procurements should be on a lowest price basis.
For more complex contracts/deals, the tender should be on a "most economically advantageous tender".

This means De La Rue were not awarded the tender because their tender was not the best tender, when assessed on a MEAT basis.

A French firm put forward a better tender.

EU public procurement law is part of the Acquis which the UK has already agreed to accept. accepted during the "transition period".

And, with State aid and competition law, it would be central to an UK-EU trade deal.


Public procurement laws do not force a public authority/similar to put X/Y/Z out to tender if the thing can be done in-house.

Instead, if there is to be a tender exercise, then it has to be "transparent and non-discriminatory"

Note that whatever deals we will, apparently, sign once outside of the EU , they are more than likely to have provisions in them to make it even easier for foreign firms to bid for UK contracts -- as most other countries we'd be looking to make worthwhile deals with are larger and therefore often benefit from economy of scale , things like this will in fact become more commonplace as more and more parts of the Uk are sold/bid off.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

Absolutely not.

It's a gross violation of freedom of speech (seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?)
...completely ignores context (the guy spells out in the actual video that it's simply a prank to annoy his girlfriend)
...and it makes a mockery of British Law.

We should not be convicting people for offensive humour. Humour and offense are subjective, so there is no objective test to decide where the line should be drawn on acceptable and unacceptable speech. The Overton window is constantly shifting, what is considered Politically "Correct" today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What you say today may land you with a conviction tomorrow.

Taking this case as a precedent, anybody can now say anything and if it offends just one person, you can now be convicted for it. Comedians make a living out of being offensive. If you can be convicted for a joke about a Nazi out, then how long will it be until the likes of Frankie Boyle is convicted? He's said plenty of nasty jokes.

Or, more likely, a double standard will be established. Saying "Gas the Jews" as a joke command to your dog will land you with a conviction, but saying "Kill the Whites" will not. This is because of the political climate. There's no political will to prosecute people for anti white racist remarks or jokes, but jokes about Nazis and Jews are an easy target.

This Case was a blatantly political prosecution, a gross misuse of the law and a frivolous waste of court time.


To illustrate my point about the chilling effect on free speech, I could have reported Kilkrazy to the Police for his ill judged remark about punching politicians. Especially in light of the Jo Cox murder.

(I wouldn't, because I acknowledged the context and recognized it as a joke even if it did offend me. But according to this Count Dankula case, context does not matter).


And just to be clear before some idiot ignores context and calls me a Nazi...none of this is in any way an endorsement of what Count Dankula did. I personally didn't find his words funny. It's a "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" type of situation.

What Shadow Captain said.

I should say too that using the law like that only benefits activists and lawyers.

And is that bid by the French going to stay competitive once the eu slaps tariffs on us?

It would be the British tariffs on imports of foreign produced goods that would make the passports more expensive.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


It's a gross violation of freedom of speech

The UK does not have freedom of speech as a law, right or guarantee. Whether you like it or not, that's how things are.

That's not to say you can be arrested for anything you say on a whim. Cause had to be established that you broke a law with what you said or did, but nowhere is it written down that you have the right to say what you like with freedom from interference by the government, nor that government can not curtail your right to say something.

We ain't got one of them there first amendable thingies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be the British tariffs on imports of foreign produced goods that would make the passports more expensive.

Indeed.


And a correction.

It's actually a potential "It also said the new deal could save the taxpayer £100m-£120m " not £50M as I stated earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43489462

apologies

https://order-order.com/2018/03/22/victory-global-britain-franco-dutch-blue-passports-deal-saves-taxpayers-50-million/#disqus_thread

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?

He isn't joking about Nazis. He's joking about genocide.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?

He isn't joking about Nazis. He's joking about genocide.

You say potato, I say potahtoe?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

Absolutely not.

It's a gross violation of freedom of speech (seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?)
...completely ignores context (the guy spells out in the actual video that it's simply a prank to annoy his girlfriend)
...and it makes a mockery of British Law.

We should not be convicting people for offensive humour. Humour and offense are subjective, so there is no objective test to decide where the line should be drawn on acceptable and unacceptable speech. The Overton window is constantly shifting, what is considered Politically "Correct" today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What you say today may land you with a conviction tomorrow.

Taking this case as a precedent, anybody can now say anything and if it offends just one person, you can now be convicted for it. Comedians make a living out of being offensive. If you can be convicted for a joke about a Nazi out, then how long will it be until the likes of Frankie Boyle is convicted? He's said plenty of nasty jokes.

Or, more likely, a double standard will be established. Saying "Gas the Jews" as a joke command to your dog will land you with a conviction, but saying "Kill the Whites" will not. This is because of the political climate. There's no political will to prosecute people for anti white racist remarks or jokes, but jokes about Nazis and Jews are an easy target.

This Case was a blatantly political prosecution, a gross misuse of the law and a frivolous waste of court time.


To illustrate my point about the chilling effect on free speech, I could have reported Kilkrazy to the Police for his ill judged remark about punching politicians. Especially in light of the Jo Cox murder.

(I wouldn't, because I acknowledged the context and recognized it as a joke even if it did offend me. But according to this Count Dankula case, context does not matter).


And just to be clear before some idiot ignores context and calls me a Nazi...none of this is in any way an endorsement of what Count Dankula did. I personally didn't find his words funny. It's a "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" type of situation.

You probably need to read the background and the details of the court case. The whole basis of it was the question of if this was a joke or if saying it was a joke to cover it up. You can’t get away with “oh I was only messing around” unless you are in the school playground. The prosecution based the case on his links to far right groups and apparently convinced the jury and judge that this was not just a joke.

If you are going to bring race polotics in to it your going to have to prove it. When has someone in the UK, with links to radical groups, posted visions on the internet with them saying “kill all whites” and not been charged because “it was a joke”?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

Absolutely not.

It's a gross violation of freedom of speech (seriously, we cant joke about Nazis now?)
...completely ignores context (the guy spells out in the actual video that it's simply a prank to annoy his girlfriend)
...and it makes a mockery of British Law.

We should not be convicting people for offensive humour. Humour and offense are subjective, so there is no objective test to decide where the line should be drawn on acceptable and unacceptable speech. The Overton window is constantly shifting, what is considered Politically "Correct" today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What you say today may land you with a conviction tomorrow.

Taking this case as a precedent, anybody can now say anything and if it offends just one person, you can now be convicted for it. Comedians make a living out of being offensive. If you can be convicted for a joke about a Nazi out, then how long will it be until the likes of Frankie Boyle is convicted? He's said plenty of nasty jokes.

Or, more likely, a double standard will be established. Saying "Gas the Jews" as a joke command to your dog will land you with a conviction, but saying "Kill the Whites" will not. This is because of the political climate. There's no political will to prosecute people for anti white racist remarks or jokes, but jokes about Nazis and Jews are an easy target.

This Case was a blatantly political prosecution, a gross misuse of the law and a frivolous waste of court time.


To illustrate my point about the chilling effect on free speech, I could have reported Kilkrazy to the Police for his ill judged remark about punching politicians. Especially in light of the Jo Cox murder.

(I wouldn't, because I acknowledged the context and recognized it as a joke even if it did offend me. But according to this Count Dankula case, context does not matter).


And just to be clear before some idiot ignores context and calls me a Nazi...none of this is in any way an endorsement of what Count Dankula did. I personally didn't find his words funny. It's a "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" type of situation.

You probably need to read the background and the details of the court case. The whole basis of it was the question of if this was a joke or if saying it was a joke to cover it up. You can’t get away with “oh I was only messing around” unless you are in the school playground. The prosecution based the case on his links to far right groups and apparently convinced the jury and judge that this was not just a joke.

If you are going to bring race polotics in to it your going to have to prove it. When has someone in the UK, with links to radical groups, posted visions on the internet with them saying “kill all whites” and not been charged because “it was a joke”?

I'm not a judge, but uh...

What part of teaching a dog a Nazi Salute, isn't a joke?
Or does their case center around how he's teaching the dog to be a Nazi so it'll spread the furher's wishes within the general canine population? Or was his plan to set out and offend jewish people on purpose using a dog, as opposed to any other more pratical method?

The bit in which you do it completely seriously in order to post neo-Nazi videos on YouTube with the cover story that it is a joke.

Alternatively, if it really is just a joke, why should anyone be worried about suppressing free speech?

This looks like an argument that we should worry deeply about whether the rights of loon-headed racist tossers, or idiot-brained bigot spankers, to make gak-faced gakker videos, are more important, against a the background of a society in which race hate crime genuinely has increased in the past couple of years in an atmosphere of supposed social leaders encouraging and enabling hate against minorities.

I was planning a YouTube series in which a dead prawn representing the Roman Catholic Church enacts a series of simulated rapes on sea anenomes and mussels, and I am outraged that my freedom of speech should be curtailed merely because millions of decent citizens would be outraged.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

Thoughts on whether or not this post has anything to do with British Politics?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The bit in which you do it completely seriously in order to post neo-Nazi videos on YouTube with the cover story that it is a joke.

Alternatively, if it really is just a joke, why should anyone be worried about suppressing free speech?

Because this is YOUR free speech on the line, too.

Just a day ago you made a remark about punching politicians in the face. That remark offended me, especially considering the recent murder of a serving MP. Inciting people to violence is a criminal offence, and this Count Dankula conviction shows that context is irrelevant. You have a history of expressing contempt for Conservative politicians, which leads me to believe that the sentiment you expressed was genuine, and any attempt to pass it off as a joke is merely a cover story. That puts your offence in the same category as his offence.

Why should he be convicted for a joke about Nazi's and genocide, but you get away with a joke about violence against politicians? Why should you benefit from a double standard?

(Do you see how context matters now?)

This looks like an argument that we should worry deeply about whether the rights of loon-headed racist tossers, or idiot-brained bigot spankers, to make gak-faced gakker videos, are more important, against a the background of a society in which race hate crime genuinely has increased in the past couple of years in an atmosphere of supposed social leaders encouraging and enabling hate against minorities.

Rights are universal. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to have rights, and who doesn't get to have rights. Either we all have the same rights, or nobody does. Because if you set that precedent, one day somebody will use it against you. Maybe even those same loon-headed racist tossers and idiot-brained bigot spankers.

First they came for the loon-headed racist tossers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a loon-headed racist tossers.

Then they came for the idiot-brained bigot spankers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a idiot-brained bigot spankers.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Kilkrazy

I was planning a YouTube series in which a dead prawn representing the Roman Catholic Church enacts a series of simulated rapes on sea anenomes and mussels, and I am outraged that my freedom of speech should be curtailed merely because millions of decent citizens would be outraged.

Already been done. I bet you don't care about the gross offence this caused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Springer:_The_Opera



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

Thoughts on whether or not this post has anything to do with British Politics?

How it possibly not be about British politics? The entire case was politicised. The conviction is politically motivated.

Any one of us here could be committing criminal offences for the things we say now in this thread, thanks to the precedent that this court case sets.

Youtube and Nazis, yes I can see why you're discussing this in the UK politics thread.

Thanks for getting all outraged over feth all to do with the thread.

This is an ongoing issue in British Politics. This is a thread about British politics.

Deal with it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
....Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

Man convicted of causing gross offence for getting his girlfriends dog to do a Nazi salute when he said rather extreme comments.

Thoughts on whether or not this should have been a crime?

Thoughts on whether or not this post has anything to do with British Politics?

How it possibly not be about British politics? The entire case was politicised. The conviction is politically motivated.

Any one of us here could be committing criminal offences for the things we say now in this thread, thanks to the precedent that this court case sets.

I must have missed the bit that involved politics and not just shouty opinions about a gakker and his dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This is an ongoing issue in British Politics. This is a thread about British politics.

Deal with it.

Nazi saluting pugs are an ongoing issue in uk politics?

Being falsely convicted in a politically motivated case for something that comedians including trendy leftists do every day on television, with disturbing implications for the future freedom of speech of everyone including you and I is very political, yes.

Let me ask everyone here a hypothetical question...Do you believe the Far Right is on the rise as a political force in the UK, and is there a credible risk of the Far Right forming a Government at some point in the near or distant future?

If the answer is yes...


The way I see it, cases like this will only be counter productive. You cannot defeat extremism by suppressing and criminalising extremist speech. That just serves to reinforce their victim narrative, drive the rhetoric underground where it is less easily monitored, and drives more people into the arms of extremists. Extremist ideas need to be defeated through open and honest debate, mockery and refutation in the light of day, they should not be permitted to fester in the dark. That goes for all extremism, Far Right, Islamist, Far Left.

You need to discredit the message itself, and you can't do that by locking up the messenger for expressing what he thinks.