I hope not!
6854 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
I hope not!
Which would have the Daily Mail et al demanding that it be used to monitor immigrants and dole scroungers and
Muslims potential terrorists...
Really? I've shipped my "leather goods" (well, that's what I put on the Customs label ;-) ) to Italy more than a few times without problems.
Yeah, right. They won't be punished, but if you say things that are inconvenient for those at the top, what's the betting that your life suddenly becomes bloody miserable, you get put on crap projects or shuffled sideways into departments that are dysfunctional or given jobs that are doomed to fail until eventually you have to quit for the sake of your own dignity or sanity?
Shooting the messenger never goes out of fashion...
... gets down to the end of the piece...
... Oh, *him*...
... would that be PastaJacking?
(Mines the coat and the colander...)
> access to a solicitor & legal advice? How would that be maintained on the street?
Ah, but you see, the copper just says "All I need you to do is answer a few questions and then you can be on your way, isn't that better than me having to take you down to the Station and then wait for ages for the Solicitor to turn up?"
Joe Public thinks "Oh, he's being friendly and helpful", answers the questions and then finds that they've managed to accidentally say something incriminating and they're nicked anyway.
If a copper wants to "ask you a few questions", the correct answer is "NO COMMENT".
DO NOT say *ANYTHING* without legal advice because they just want you to open your mouth and put your foot in it as that makes their job so much easier.
We wouldn't have expected that, would we, girls and boys, after all, we all know that downsizing and austerity and cost-cutting lead to better services, don't we...?
Assuming that's actually supposed to be "assess", they'll do it by the usual method of "how much do you think we can gouge out of the punters for this".
Of course they'll then bump the premiums up about 25% on renewal, hoping the hike will go through on the nod, but if people complain, suddenly the insurers will find they can give you a "special discount"...
"...for any organisation which behaves in this way"
... they don't go "YeeeeHawwww!" or have horns that play the opening bars of Dixie...
... which is only going to get longer and longer...
... Flying snakes?
Fucking FLYING SNAKES...?!
... report it as "Lost or Stolen" and get the DVLA to send you a replacement.
If they screw up and miss off half your qualifications, well suddenly you "find" the old licence again...
... clearly the authorities are going to try to ban this forthwith since it could stop the Security Services from
spying on protecting everyone!
"Time flies by when you're the driver of a train.
"Steaming into Trumpton with a carog of cocaine."
No, what the court is saying is that they don't want to have to deal with these cases, full stop and they're going to do their damndest to ensure that none is ever heard.
If you look at the history of their actions, this is nothing new.
... it was a stupid question.
Some people are going to believe whatever they read, no matter how "hateful" or ludicrous it is, trying to suppress it will only make matters worse since clearly we are "scared" of the "truth" of it.
"...does not belong the realms of possibility"
I suggest you ask some of the American Robber Barons of the late 19th century who were quite happy to screw the little people in all sorts of ways that were questionably legal at best, then put the proceeds towards philanthropic projects to salve their consciences.
... until it leaves a couple of gears inside someone...
> free trade is one of the Tory Parties 4 pillars/beliefs
Yes, free of all those tiresome restrictions on environmental damage and consumer protections and corporate responsibility and anything else that would get in the way of the owners making lots more money by screwing the rest of us.
> Freedom of Speech
ITYM "Freedom to say and do things that we approve of, but not otherwise".
Remember this quote from David Cameron: "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone"...?
> The Union
But not the Trade Union, unless you think that it's reasonable for strike ballots to consider that every person who didn't vote is a vote against strike action. (What percentage of the electorate *didn't* vote for the Tories...?)
> Small government
A "small government" which has voted itself a big pay rise whilst forcing austerity on the rest of us? One that is pi$$ing away huge amounts of public money on failing projects like Universal Credit? One that has flogged off the family silver and is now getting rid of the furniture in a desperate attempt to reduce the huge amount it's having to borrow, even though they claimed they'd have got rid of the deficit by last year?
Oh, BTW, I'm not anti-Tory, I'm anti- any entitled political idiots who desperately cling to failed policies whilst blaming the poorest in society for said failures.
> Looks like trade deals will be much quicker once we're out.
Of course, because the Tories will say "Yes, we'd love to dismantle all our environmental and consumer and worker protection regulations, which will make us all richer (after all, nobody will be poor, or, at least, nobody worth speaking of) since there's no pesky EU to stop us from doing it any more. Then we dump the Human Rights Act and make sure that the only people have Rights and Liberties are the ones we like... Trebles all round!"
"He says he doesn't want any more powers."
"He says he doesn't need them."
"Then why did he take the job in the first place...?"
"Buggered if I know..."
Not the "Fonzie" system?
Mine's the leather jacket...
... passing a law that prosecutes dumb executives for putting flashy bells and whistles and other nonsense, such as allowing your car's software to be altered remotely, over simple basic bloody security?!
Two more words:
My calculator makes it 58008618
> until some hacker opens the doors whilst I'm on the motorway withe the kids in the back.
So there are some positive benefits, then...?
> Ah you think there were only 2 parties to choose from?
No, I think that if one party gets 37% of the votes, it means that 63% of the voters DID NOT want that party in power.
In other words, a MAJORITY of people didn't vote for them, so how did they get over 50% of the seats?
I hope this helps you understand how fundamentally broken our system is.
>> "I'm sorry - but 37% is not a majority."
> Yes it is.
This is obviously some strange definition of the word "majority" that I wasn't previously aware of, so perhaps you could do some more "simple math" and explain to us how 37% of the votes gets over 50% (a "majority") of the seats?
At least Euro MPs are voted in by a proportional system such that they get a number of seats which is representative of the the number of people who actually support them.
> Do we elect who runs the country? Yes = out, no = in.
Remind me again: What percentage of the votes did the Tories get which gave them a "majority" in Parliament?
> Second pic, after Servlan
I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed...
1) All of them.
No, just a moment...
2) We just redefined the word "spying", so now it's none of them.
Happy to help :-)
Paging Mr Pot, please contact Mr Kettle..
> let's say you think that men are men and women are women. This used to be known as "logic" and "reason", now it's "transphobia" (the PC Police love to misappropriate scientific sounding words as it gives them an air of authority). That's the labeling.
> The shaming usually takes place in a loud manner, in public to humiliate and intimidate you into silence
That would be the sort of shaming that results in bigotted States passing anti-LGBT laws because you should be happy how some magical sky fairy made you and if he gave you *that* set of genitals then you MUST use that public toilet?
Or maybe it's the sort that a trans friend of mine experienced earlier today when, whilst she was minding her own business walking to work, some moron decided to cross the road and shout abuse in her face about how she was some sort of deviant and pervert and shouldn't be out on the streets?
Odd, I don't recall Hillary ever suggesting that people engage in this sort of behaviour...
Oh and as for that video, from a bunch of narrow-minded hetero-normative bigots who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives goes and talks to a selection of rational, sensible students whose attitude is "it's your life, it's your choice, I don't have a problem" and tries (laughably) to imply that it is the "College kids" who are "saying the darndest things".
The presenter says "What does that say about our culture?" Well, I think it says that, despite his narrow minded attitude, it's good to see that there are at least some who are willing to look past their prejudices and let people live their lives their way because it's doing no harm to anyone else.
> Your "reasoning" is like
Oh deary, deary me, FF22 and you were complaining (incorrectly) about *me* using fallacious arguments!
(You could, of course, also look up the definition of what "theft" actually is, but that's by-the-by...)
> the reason why I'm saying what I'm saying is completely irrelevant
Is it? Ok, FF22, you tell us *why* this *ONE* particular issue is so important to you.
As I said, out of (what was, at the time) just 86 posts since 2013, a large proportion of them have been about the blocking of adverts, so why this and nothing else? Why are you putting so much time into attacking Alexander Hanff? I, for one, would like to know.
> if what I'm saying is not factual and makes no sense, you could obviously still rather easily point that out, and expose the logical and factual flaws in my comments. But you didn't and don't do that.
No, I haven't and I'm not going to because others are doing that and comprehensively and repeatedly demolishing your arguments, but you are simply not willing to accept even the possibility that you could be wrong.
So, again, I ask *WHY* this one particular issue is such a big deal for you.
Now are you going to answer that, or are you just going to try to move the goalposts again and attack me for pointing out your fallacies instead?
Thank you for telling me about logical fallacies (which I'm *well* aware of)
However when you look at someone's El Reg list of posts and find that, since they joined the Forums on the 9th of October 2013, they have posted a grand total of 86 posts, a goodly proportion of which relate to the use of ad blockers and some of which contain such ludicrous comments like this one...
"Theft is theft, no matter what your reasons for doing it are. And using web services and consuming content without "paying" for them by tolerating ads IS also theft."
... it is neither a loaded question, nor an ad hominem attack to wonder whether the poster who doth protest too much is doing so because he's worrying about his job disappearing.
So if you *don't* work for an advert pusher, *WHY* are you getting so uptight about people using ad blockers or why it is that it seems that everyone else apart from FF22 considers that they way these ad-block-blockers work is illegal?
Please, let's have some full disclosure here.
Tell us, which advert pusher do you work for?
... you'll never believe what happened next...
"In an act of typical Whitehall hubris..."
Government consultations are *only* organised in order to get the responses they want and any others will be ignored, cf John Whittingdale claiming that "all" the replies to their consultation on the BBC's future had been read, except that the Radio Times sent in a USB stick with over 6,000 responses which was *password protected* so the responses could not have been read without the password, yet the Government never asked for it...
... 1... 2... 3.... 4...
(Remind me to change the combination on my luggage!)
Of course not. It's their ball and it's their back yard and *they* make the rules!
She's just lucky she hasn't suffered an unfortunate "accident"...
But was that before someone blew it for them?
At least this way they get to have some control over the way the story goes.
"We're allowed to have them, you aren't"
Signed - Your Government