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.

The court case and it’s outcome, decided in a British court of law, has far reaching political implications for everyone in Britain. Implications for freedom of thought and speech, and how the law is actually applied. So it does belong in here. If anyone doesn’t like it, maybe they should bugger off to another thread instead of derailing this one by bitching about it.

It deserves it's own thread.

Perhaps.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43501815

Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?

 r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43501815

Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?

Thats a very silly question with a very obvious and predictable answer.

Yes. Hasn't it always?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Do you not foresee the possibility that in a future where the Far Right has won and taken over the country, that the tables will be turned and it will now be like the likes of YOU on the Left Wing end of the spectrum who are being convicted for saying things that are "grossly offensive" to people of Right Wing leanings?

Not going to comment one way or the other on the rest of the debate, but if the Far Right has already taken over a country how does this matter? They'll persecute the hell out of political opponents regardless. It's kinda one of the defining factors of the Far Right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Do you not foresee the possibility that in a future where the Far Right has won and taken over the country, that the tables will be turned and it will now be like the likes of YOU on the Left Wing end of the spectrum who are being convicted for saying things that are "grossly offensive" to people of Right Wing leanings?

Not going to comment one way or the other on the rest of the debate, but if the Far Right has already taken over a country how does this matter? They'll persecute the hell out of political opponents regardless. It's kinda one of the defining factors of the Far Right.

Not if you have strongly defined legal rights, tradition of civil liberties, seperation of powers and a strong consitution.

Thats one area in which the USA has an advantage over the UK with it's written constitution. If a Far Right party took over, they'd still face an uphill battle to change laws, pass laws, take away rights and amend the constitution.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43501815

Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?

Thats a very silly question with a very obvious and predictable answer.

Yes. Hasn't it always?

And that is a patronising response from someone advocating discussions about a comedian and his pug.

Besides CAs methods are far more sophisticated ad insidious than anything used before, interestingly Leave.EU had used their services during the referendum to target undecided voters.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160512002859/http://leave.eu/en/news/2015-11-20/the-science-behind-our-strategy

You have to access the page from an archive site, because it's been deleted.

 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?

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.

If I wanted to post Neo Nazi youtube vidoes, I wouldn't need some crazy ploy that involved teaching my dog tricks.

There are like... Hundreds of Neo Nazi youtube videos. I've watched dozens of them while researching WW2, they're not hard to find, they're not camouflaged as people making 'Jokes', they're straightforward. If you think you need to teach your dog tricks in order to be a idiot on youtube and spout flith, then...You're an idiot. But being an idiot shouldn't be illegal, or Dakka would have a lot less posters. British law needs to focus on dealing with serious, and unopinionated crimes. There's enough murder, rape, drug running, assault, and what have you in this country for me not to be thrilled whenever a case like this goes to court and wastes taxpayers money.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43501815

Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?

Thats a very silly question with a very obvious and predictable answer.

Yes. Hasn't it always?

And that is a patronising response from someone advocating discussions about a comedian and his pug.

Besides CAs methods are far more sophisticated ad insidious than anything used before, interestingly Leave.EU had used their services during the referendum to target undecided voters.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160512002859/http://leave.eu/en/news/2015-11-20/the-science-behind-our-strategy

You have to access the page from an archive site, because it's been deleted.

I don't see how its a patronising response. I responded directly to the question you posed, "Has the British political system been manipulated by private interests?"

Thats like asking if the Pope is Catholic. Of course it has. Every British election in history has been manipulated by private interests. We have party donors, back handers, politicians rewarding their cronies with peerages, conflict of interest scandals.

If you wanted a more nuanced discussion about whether the sophisticated techniques are more insidious than anything before seen (Yes, I think its very insidious and worrying) then perhaps you should have said that.

The manipulation is extensive and far reaching, the implications are quite profound. A single private entity has potentially illegally acquired data on billions of people in order to directly influence the outcome of two major western democracies.

Brexit and Trump could be a result of the actions of this one firm, and it is a very concerning development for everyone. The consequences are momentous, global and far-reaching.

But obviously not as important for some who enjoy getting wound up about a man and his pug, a decision made in Scotland which sets no legal precedent for the rest of the UK thanks to the way we enjoy a separate legal system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
.... Implications for freedom of thought and speech, .... If anyone doesn’t like it, maybe they should bugger off to another thread instead of derailing this one by bitching about it.

I'll just leave this here for you to think about.

This whole free speech argument seems to have spun a bit out of control.

I think it would be best to drop it and get back to more central issues, such as today's meeting of the EU Council of Ministers.

Stop trying to fething tell me what I think, R Squared.

I'm very concerned about this Cambridge Analytica scandal. If I don't have very much to say about it at the moment, it's because I don't KNOW very much about it. Its an ongoing story which I've only just heard about like 2 or 3 days ago, and I don't know the details yet and haven't had time to update myself on it yet due to things going on in my personal life. Whereas I've been following the Nazi pug story all week and I simply know more about it.

So stop jumping to fething conclusions.

 r_squared wrote:
The manipulation is extensive and far reaching, the implications are quite profound. A single private entity has potentially illegally acquired data on billions of people in order to directly influence the outcome of two major western democracies.

Brexit and Trump could be a result of the actions of this one firm, and it is a very concerning development for everyone. The consequences are momentous, global and far-reaching.

That's a load of horse manure...

The outcry is simply because Trump won... when, the previous administration's campaign publicly boasted doing the exact same thing... the punditry swooned over the "cool data analytics" of the process.

Frankly... this is how Facebook makes money. By creating analytics to target a particular audience. Whether it's for targetted Ads... or for political campaigns, it's no different. The crux of the problem is really how cavalier Facebook was in selling these informations.

 Future War Cultist wrote:


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.

Can we not call each other names please. Otherwise we get into a cycle of "remoaner" and "quitler" and so forth. If the only point you can make is by undertaking an attempt at a disparaging remark then in reality you have no argument and deep down know that. Argue your points by all means...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

This was of course pointed out during the referendum but somehow the argument was won that EU sucks the sea dry of fish for the UK. I would suggest that if, as I suspect, quantities of fish will be deregulated then the best choice will be to buy fish from the EU because at least they try and use scientific evidence to control unsustainable fishing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:


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.

The other thing that is missed is that the EU generally runs by the same rules which to some extent balances the playing field for everyone. Once we open the doors to the world that control has gone. Then UK companies (and EU ones) will competing against companies with less stringent controls and can use slave labour to undertake certain aspects (e.g. financial management) under less stringent controls. That will make it very difficult for UK firms to compete. Take the passports for example; they could go to any Asian country and be printed for, likely, pence but at the expense of the social, democratic and environmental considerations.

@ Whirlwind

You never had a problem with posters in here calling brexiteers rascists and morons. You yourself repeatedly use the term Wrexit. So...no.

 whembly wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
The manipulation is extensive and far reaching, the implications are quite profound. A single private entity has potentially illegally acquired data on billions of people in order to directly influence the outcome of two major western democracies.

Brexit and Trump could be a result of the actions of this one firm, and it is a very concerning development for everyone. The consequences are momentous, global and far-reaching.

That's a load of horse manure...

The outcry is simply because Trump won... when, the previous administration's campaign publicly boasted doing the exact same thing... the punditry swooned over the "cool data analytics" of the process.

Frankly... this is how Facebook makes money. By creating analytics to target a particular audience. Whether it's for targetted Ads... or for political campaigns, it's no different. The crux of the problem is really how cavalier Facebook was in selling these informations.

This isn't about targeted adverts. It's by far more subtle than that. It's about manipulating what people see and influencing people without them recognising that is what is happening. In the UK it is illegal to do this. It's about gathering data of individuals even though it's through friends of friends actions and that you have never authorised the gathering of that data that is then used to target you in subtle and malicious way to influence your views. There's definite evidence that this was undertaken during the Wrexit campaign (he who shall not be named is not an appropriate discussion for this thread). There's less evidence on how this influences people. But given that millions have been poured into it companies like Cambridge Analytica must certainly think it does. However social scientists don't have evidence to this data so public examination of this influence is less publically available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Whirlwind

You never had a problem with posters in here calling brexiteers rascists and morons. You yourself repeatedly use the term Wrexit. So...no.

Actually I have, and at times have pointed that out when others have not. There almost certainly people that voted from either a racist perspective (but that doesn't mean that makes everyone like that) and there are plenty of people on both sides that don't understand what they voted for (and hence is a type of idiocy) but that again isn't everyone. It's individual responses that are important. Do I think enough racist people probably influenced the vote, yes I do (and I put my father in that category).

Wrexit is my term for the effect it will have on the country. It's not referencing individuals and their views. There's clearly a distinct difference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43521321

owen smith has been sacked by Corbyn.

.. mainly due to his brexit opposition, apparently.


.. TBF one wonders if him running against Corbyn for the leadership might also have had a wee bit to do with it.

meanwhile we're going to see/read about more .... " collusions" ....... between Vote Leave, various firms... where some money came from etc etc this weekend.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43521321

owen smith has been sacked by Corbyn.

.. mainly due to his brexit opposition, apparently.


.. TBF one wonders if him running against Corbyn for the leadership might also have had a wee bit to do with it.

Predictably it's been called a Stalinist purge, but obviously without the actual murdering of political opponents or dissidents. A bit annoying that it was a Labour peer who said the words.
How is it that the conservatives can chop and change as they wish and they are never condemned, however if Corbyn does it, it must be because he craves the iron fist of power and it's a forshadowing of some imagined totalitarian state and thought police.
It's a fething joke.
Especially when you consider the ever rolling conveyor belt of vile tory propoganda that is the right wing press.

As far as I'm concerned, Owen Smith had his chance to get the party behind his vision of the future of the Labour party, and he was rejected. He was offered an olive branch and a chance to exert real influence as a shadow cabinet member and fethed it up. If he loses his cabinet position and goes to the back benches, that's on him.

 reds8n wrote:
meanwhile we're going to see/read about more .... " collusions" ....... between Vote Leave, various firms... where some money came from etc etc this weekend.

Frankly, I'm not even that bothered about how corrupt the whole campaign was any more. As far as I can see it was a cess pool of lies, self-interest, and corruption anyway. That is wholly evident to anyone with eyes.
The important thing is that we now make sure that the country doesn't go completely belly up before we get a chance to get back into the EU in about 10 years down the line.

 r_squared wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43521321

owen smith has been sacked by Corbyn.

.. mainly due to his brexit opposition, apparently.


.. TBF one wonders if him running against Corbyn for the leadership might also have had a wee bit to do with it.

Predictably it's been called a Stalinist purge, but obviously without the actual murdering of political opponents or dissidents. A bit annoying that it was a Labour peer who said the words.
How is it that the conservatives can chop and change as they wish and they are never condemned, however if Corbyn does it, it must be because he craves the iron fist of power and it's a forshadowing of some imagined totalitarian state and thought police.
It's a fething joke.
Especially when you consider the ever rolling conveyor belt of vile tory propoganda that is the right wing press.

As far as I'm concerned, Owen Smith had his chance to get the party behind his vision of the future of the Labour party, and he was rejected. He was offered an olive branch and a chance to exert real influence as a shadow cabinet member and fethed it up. If he loses his cabinet position and goes to the back benches, that's on him.

 reds8n wrote:
meanwhile we're going to see/read about more .... " collusions" ....... between Vote Leave, various firms... where some money came from etc etc this weekend.

Frankly, I'm not even that bothered about how corrupt the whole campaign was any more. As far as I can see it was a cess pool of lies, self-interest, and corruption anyway. That is wholly evident to anyone with eyes.
The important thing is that we now make sure that the country doesn't go completely belly up before we get a chance to get back into the EU in about 10 years down the line.

Trotskist, Stalinist... all the same.....

Now Comrade Corbyn has a past 'anti semetic' comment coming back to light..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43523445

I'm almost certain that the real issue here is in making off the cuff comments on Social media Platforms.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Trotskist, Stalinist... all the same.....

Now Comrade Corbyn has a past 'anti semetic' comment coming back to light..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43523445

I'm almost certain that the real issue here is in making off the cuff comments on Social media Platforms.

That's about as far from the actual facts that you can get without completely fabricating the whole scenario.

His comment was about the removal of public art and freedom of speech. His claim is that he didn't look carefully at what it was meant to be representing and the implication of it being anti-semetic. What he definitely didn't do was state an anti-semetic comment.

And to be fair the imagery could easily be casually glanced at and miss the background context.

The only thing you can really accuse him of is being a bit naïve and not checking why something was being removed first.

Perhaps I should ask you first - why is the image anti-semetic to see if you understand or whether it is just reaction to the article?

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Trotskist, Stalinist... all the same.....

I... argh... I'm... I'm just going to go and cry in a corner.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Trotskist, Stalinist... all the same.....

Now Comrade Corbyn has a past 'anti semetic' comment coming back to light..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43523445

I'm almost certain that the real issue here is in making off the cuff comments on Social media Platforms.

That's about as far from the actual facts that you can get without completely fabricating the whole scenario.

His comment was about the removal of public art and freedom of speech. His claim is that he didn't look carefully at what it was meant to be representing and the implication of it being anti-semetic. What he definitely didn't do was state an anti-semetic comment.

And to be fair the imagery could easily be casually glanced at and miss the background context.

The only thing you can really accuse him of is being a bit naïve and not checking why something was being removed first.

Perhaps I should ask you first - why is the image anti-semetic to see if you understand or whether it is just reaction to the article?

Sorry, my comment was probably to rapid and off the cuff.

The only crime by Glorious Leader Corbyn is not to have checked why the image was to be removed.

I did place quotation marks around the words anti semetic?

I’m tired of accusations of anti-semitism against Corbyn and Labour. They’re no more anti-semitic than the Tories but they seem to get a free pass on all but the worst prejudices. The left wing should stop points scoring against each other about non-issues and start focusing on the roots of labour voters. Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights. Instead the left squabble over identity politics of a minority and grandstanding over baseless accusations. No wonder brexit happened.

In narrative terms, Labour are perceived to be the 'good guys' and thus, held to higher standards. Or, well, standards at all.

Same thing with the Lib Dems.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
...The left wing should stop points scoring against each other about non-issues and start focusing on the roots of labour voters. Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights. Instead the left squabble over identity politics of a minority and grandstanding over baseless accusations...

Absolutely right, Labour has effectively alienated portions of the working class through its pre-occupation with identity politics. I wish they'd give it a rest tbh.

Is there a Labour Party pre-occupation with identity politics?

Traditional labour voters are working class and want support against austerity cuts and eroding employment rights.

You're right, but I'm not sure austerity is that much of an open goal for Labour at the moment.

As I see it, to fund a increase in public spending you would need to either raise taxes or raise debt levels.
The message that we (as a country) have to live within our means and balance the books has been quite successful in the last few elections, so I will discount the debt option.

Some sort of robin hood tax option fits into the classic railing against corporate fatcat bogeymen, but this sort of speculative 'I can raise x from taxing billionaires' has been tried before and hasn't proved very convincing at the ballet box.
Also doing things to discourage companies or wealthy individuals from working and investing in the UK after Brexit could easily be seen as an attempt to 'sabotage' the project or 'frustrate the will of the people' when Labour are already seen as lukewarm on Brexit.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there a Labour Party pre-occupation with identity politics?

There is certainly an element of the left which includes some wings of the party.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there a Labour Party pre-occupation with identity politics?

Erm...yes? It’s practically their raison d'etre these days.