"the world’s biggest pop star"
Who?
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
This is the same IPT that came up with the ruling that British Law forbids mass surveillance, but even though GCHQ is troughing every bit of data on us as they can, they're *not* performing "mass surveillance".
Matt will now explain how many angels can dance on the head of that particular pin.
(Well, actually he won't, he'll just call people by silly names and dodge the question and move the goalposts as we've all come to expect...)
... Apple have created a Giffen Good
See Hanlon's Razor for details...
> So its ok for the third world to live in actual poverty as long as your salary is guaranteed to keep up with mine?
No, try a different Straw Man and, please, put the Racism Card away, it just makes you look silly.
"...is worth widening in rich country inequality. Others might not agree."
See icon for details.
Why don't we try getting rid of some of those top-level CxO jobs? You know, the ones that pay big bonuses for, frankly, doing fuck all or, even worse, give massive golden parachute pay-offs for screwing up the company, causing your workers to lose their employment and leaving them scratching around for minimum wage jobs to try to feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads?
Oh no, says Tim, those workers should be *happy* that someone else, somewhere else in the world is "getting out of poverty", meanwhile the bosses and the shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. Trebles all round!!
>> Shooting misidentified civilians or friend ground forces is not.
> I honestly think you've got that the wrong way round. In the very infrequent event that compensation is paid to foreign victims it will be paltry,
It's not the cost of the compensation, it's the cost of the cover up full enquiry that follows...
And Call-me-David Cameron is doing his utmost to get rid of even those ones.
Equal access to justice? Not now the Tories have denied many people access to Legal Aid. Now it's "how much justice can you afford?" If you're wealthy, fine, if not, you're screwed. Worse than that, they want to outsource the system to their mates in G4S and the like (the same people who are likely to end up running the privatised prisons) so obviously there's no conflict of interest there!
"No imprisonment without trial"? Well, unless you're an immigrant being held without any idea of if and when your case is going to be reviewed.
And, of course, there's Cameron's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act and bring in their hypocritical "British Bill of Rights" which really means "British Bill of the Rights we say you can have, provided you're someone we like". The only reason that's been kicked into the long grass at the moment is that he knows he can't even convince a lot of his own party to support it, but like the Snoopers Charter, it won't go away, they'll just do it slowly, chipping away at a Right here, a Protection there, a Liberty somewhere else...
Cameron, in his utterly hypocritical speech, said "We talk about the 'law of the land' and this is the very land where that law – and the rights that flow from it – took root". What he didn't say is that he's doing his utmost to uproot those laws and salt the earth so that those inconvenient rights don't get in the way of their control freak ways.
Icon: Our Rights going up in flames...
"... photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them."
So if I make a film in London which includes aerial footage of well known buildings or shows a statue or another public work of art in the background, I have to get "prior authorisation" from the "author or any proxy" working for *every single one* of them? And, presumably, if I don't, they can then sue for breach of copyright when my film is distributed?
Wow, what a great fucking stupid idea!
I'm getting the same in Firefox.
I'd assumed it was due to my running NoScript and AdBlock which occasionally can cause odd errors like that.
Who else is having this problem and *why* can't El Reg get their Up/Down Vote system working without needing to refresh the page?
... cui bono?
The Independent Living Fund, which helps around 18,000 disabled people work and live in the community, is being wound down.
The NAO has said that more than half of Britain's councils risk falling into serious financial crisis and may not be able to provide services they are legally obliged to offer.
Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC), has said that 17 out of the 43 police forces may "struggle to sustain themselves in the medium term in light of continued austerity".
Cuts to Legal Aid mean that many less well-off people are now excluded from the system and cannot "afford" to get justice.
Meanwhile the richest get a £100,000 a year tax cut, banker's bonuses (you know, the people who helped cause the crisis and the ones who have been fixing LIBOR rates etc) have risen, George has not "eliminated the public sector deficit by 2015" as he claimed he could (in fact he hasn't even managed to cut it in half) and British workers have had the longest decline in average wages since records began whilst minimum wage jobs and zero-hours contracts have risen "reducing" unemployment with near poverty level labour.
Cui bono? As always, not us...
Ah, there's nothing like reasoned and adult debate. Pity your post was nothing like reasoned and adult debate. Still, at least you don't call people by silly nicknames like Matt Bryant, so I suppose I should be thankful for small mercies.
As to the relevant parts of your post, yes, I'm aware that no voting system is ever going to completely and accurately reflect the wishes of *everyone*, but you appear to be arguing that since it's not possible we might as well stick with FPTP on the basis of "well, it is broke, but we can't find a perfect fix for it, so let's do nothing at all".
Naturally that suits the Tories and Labour fine because they know that they'll eventually get back in power by the principle of Buggin's Turn. Whether it's good for us, the people who they are supposed to be *serving* (not ruling) is another matter entirely.
"Our 'broken' electoral system did exactly what it's meant to do [...] ensure that our two-party state system remains in place and ensures that people don't get a real choice"
FTFY.
> People who hate FPTP never seem to specify precisely which system they think would be an improvement
ORLY? I could have sworn I've seen many posts on exactly that, but perhaps some people just don't read them (or don't want to read them?)
Here, let me repeat mine (which I've posted before in these comments pages): Personally I think we should switch to a form of AV or STV system (like the one they use in Scotland!).
At the same time we switch to an elected House of Lords where the seats are apportioned to Parties according to the First Choice votes expressed by the electorate in the election of MPs.
That way we ensure that the MP in a constituency is actually chosen by a *majority* of the votes, rather than being the "least disliked" option, but the "revising house" represents the actual views of the population.
PS as I've said before (also in these pages) the AV Referendum was a complete stitch up. We did not get a *choice* of what FPTP was going to be replaced by, we were simply told "it's either FPTP or AV" which meant that those who wanted some form of Proportional system were forced to vote for either of two choices, neither of which they wanted.
> England voted and chose steady hands
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
Do you know how many more votes the Tories got this time than last? 600,000. That's it. Thanks to our broken electoral system hat's all it took to give the Tories a "majority", even though they only got 37% of the votes.
Meanwhile the SNP got 4.7% of the votes and got 56 seats, but UKIP got 12.6% and the Greens got 3.8% yet each only got *one* seat, whilst the Lib Dems got 7.9% and 8 seats.
So, no, BB, England (or rather, the United Kingdom) did *NOT* vote for Call me David and Gideon, 60% of them voted for something else entirely, yet still we got this bunch of idiots who think that kicking the poorest in society and giving their rich mates all the money is going to make things better.