The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Xann]

Quote

George Osborne has agreed to make MPs exempt from anti-money laundering checks under pressure from moaning Tory backbenchers.

Tory MP Charles Walker claimed MPs and their families were being treated like "African despots".

MPs appear on automatic watch lists of "Politically Exposed Persons" (PEP), used by banks to prevent money being funnelled into criminal gangs or hidden in offshore tax havens.

It means MPs and their families could be subject to extra checks on their bank accounts.

But the Chancellor said banks could go too far and become "disproportionate."

Ministers will now move to exclude MPs from the watch lists in the forthcoming Bank of England bill.

Mr Osborne caved under pressure from influential Tory backbencher Charles Walker, who has been pressing for the change for some months.

Mirror

 

 

[Davkaus]

I don't see a problem with that. They're subject to the same checks as any other UK citizen, when the law is clearly meant to target money laundering from corrupt overseas officials. The headline is intending to stir up ire by missing out that the anti-money laundering checks are for politically exposed people only, they're still subject to normal checks that any of us are.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/04/uk-file-sharing-10-years-jail-time/I'm not too happy about this, though.

 

Quote

 

 

UK ploughs ahead with plan for 10-year jail term for online file sharing

Responses from individuals were overwhelmingly negative.

UK government

The UK government has confirmed that it wants to bring in legislation increasing the maximum sentence for online copyright infringement to 10 years of imprisonment, despite widespread objections and doubts about its feasibility.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe, parliamentary under-secretary of state and minister for intellectual property, writes in her foreword to the document responding to the consultation held at the end of last year: "we are now proposing changes that include increasing the maximum sentence, but at the same time addressing concerns about the scope of the offence. The revised provisions will help protect rights holders, while making the boundaries of the offence clearer, so that everyone can understand how the rules should be applied."

As the UK government's summary of responses reveals, 1,032 submissions were received, of which 938 came through the Open Rights Group. Concerns raised included the fact that there was no requirement to prove that an infringer had intent to cause harm for them to be considered guilty. That meant the proposed offence had an element of "strict liability," which would result in somebody being held liable even if they had no intention of causing harm.

 

The UK government has responded to that issue by saying that it accepts there are concerns, and writes: "the policy intention is that criminal

offences should not apply to low level infringement that has a minimal effect or causes minimum harm to copyright owners, in particular where the individuals involved are unaware of the impact of their behaviour."

 

Another major worry was the use of the term "affect prejudicially" in judging copyright infringements, which many felt was too vague and could mean a single infringing file would fulfil the requirement—for example, if it were widely shared online. Many thought this set the threshold for committing an offence far too low.

The UK government said it was not aware of any cases where minor infringement had resulted in a criminal prosecution, but "agrees that the undefined term ‘affect prejudicially’ could give rise to an element of ambiguity." The government is now proposing to introduce "re-worded offence provisions" to address that.

However, that still leaves unanswered the important questions raised by a group of legal experts in their consultation submission. As Ars reported last year, the group called the idea of bringing in a ten-year jail sentence "not acceptable," "not feasible," and "not affordable."

 

[Xann]

44 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I don't see a problem with that. They're subject to the same checks as any other UK citizen...

It's not a brilliant article, granted.

Interested to know what's in the 'enhanced' check that's causing concern?

They're looking to monitor everything we do, after all.

[Demitri_C]

I actually detest Jeremy hunt the guy is a complete ahole, he alone is making me consider never voting conservatives again

[Davkaus]

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I actually detest Jeremy hunt the guy is a complete ahole, he alone is making me consider never voting conservatives again

You shouldn't consider not voting conservative because you don't like Jeremy Hunt, you should not vote conservative because he's doing a fantastic job of implementing the tory's goal of a starved, and mismanaged NHS. A cynic would say, an NHS so starved and mismanaged that it justifies flogging off the attractive bits to their mates.

Hunt is the fall guy, to push the unpopular policy, and somehow it works, and Cameron avoids blame. The same thing happened with Gove in Education.

This is Tory policy, not Jeremy Hunt implementing his own agenda, with the rest of the cabinet watching on hopelessly. This is what the conservatives want.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Davkaus

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

You shouldn't consider not voting conservative because you don't like Jeremy Hunt, you should not vote conservative because he's doing a fantastic job of implementing the tory's goal of a starved, and mismanaged NHS. A cynic would say, an NHS so starved and mismanaged that it justifies flogging off the attractive bits to their mates.

Hunt is the fall guy, to push the unpopular policy, and somehow it works, and Cameron avoids blame. The same thing happened with Gove in Education.

This is Tory policy, not Jeremy Hunt implementing his own agenda, with the rest of the cabinet watching on hopelessly. This is what the conservatives want.

I think you have valid points. I voted Tory last election and I feel they are destroying the nhs I don't want to vote for them again. I can't stomach voting  for labour as I think they are even worse with Bliar and brown. So what hope do we have in this country when the alternative is just as crap?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Demitri_C

[Davkaus]

I find that a good bottle of scotch helps.

[mockingbird_franklin]

26 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I think you have valid points. I voted Tory last election and I feel they are destroying the nhs I don't want to vote for them again. I can't stomach voting  for labour as I think they are even worse with Bliar and brown. So what hope do we have in this country when the alternative is just as crap?

To be fair they are finishing off what started under B-liar's government, same with how they are finishing off the destruction of our education system, and in the process gifting £billions of public property over to the private interests that run academy's, where a 27 year old with no teaching or management qualifications or experience can be appointed head of a school. Probably being a junior member of a right wing think tank (civitas) was all she really needed.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Oh and Teresa May has been busy showing her total lack of understanding of human rights, fundamental human rights and freedoms are just that. They are rights, not privileges, they are not given by governments or anybody, the convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms just recognises what they are and puts them in a written document for upholding that governments can agree to uphold, governments can not give them and they can not take them away. Governments can only choose to uphold them or infringe on them and deny them to people. To talk about prosperity when talking about human rights is absurd and a perversity. We don't need a bill of rights, we don't need an act of Parliament to give us some rights that we already have. what we need is a government that will acknowledge them and uphold them, something this government appears to see as an inconvenience to their ideological driven agenda 

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I think you have valid points. I voted Tory last election and I feel they are destroying the nhs I don't want to vote for them again. I can't stomach voting  for labour as I think they are even worse with Bliar and brown. So what hope do we have in this country when the alternative is just as crap?

Well, for what it's worth, Blair and Brown aren't around any more. 

Nor is the Labour leadership today particularly similar to the Labour leadership of 2010 (for better or for worse). 

[chrisp65]

In a gratuitous attempt at cool by association, my gig buddy from last night was one of the backroom team that worked on trying to get Blair impeached.

 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, for what it's worth, Blair and Brown aren't around any more. 

Nor is the Labour leadership today particularly similar to the Labour leadership of 2010 (for better or for worse). 

The problem i have is labour caused so much damage under those two clowns i dont think i coukd ever trust them to run this country again. I think s coalition is the best thing for this country. Id say it was better with lib dem-tory than just tories now. But whats alternatives ukip? Greens who will tax the hell out of us to protect the environment? 

British politics is a complete mess at the moment.

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

In a gratuitous attempt at cool by association, my gig buddy from last night was one of the backroom team that worked on trying to get Blair impeached.

 

I hope you constantly remind him of this failure

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I hope you constantly remind him of this failure

He got 550 votes in the last election and is convinced he will win the next one, in May. He's not one for dwelling on what others perceive as failure!

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

The problem i have is labour caused so much damage under those two clowns i dont think i coukd ever trust them to run this country again. I think s coalition is the best thing for this country. Id say it was better with lib dem-tory than just tories now. But whats alternatives ukip? Greens who will tax the hell out of us to protect the environment? 

British politics is a complete mess at the moment.

I think one of the things the tories have been really successful at is making people think Labour was responsible for way more "bad things" than it actually was. And secondly that of many of the bad things Labour can be blamed for, the tories wouldn't have done the same or worse. (e.g. Iraq). Politically that level of persuasion and false narrative enabled the tories to get in (in coalition) and then to get in on their own. Once they've got in people have been able to see what a bunch of self-serving, ideological, hypocritical, divisive, incompetent, blundering, vile, self aggrandising, lying wretches they really are.

Just about the only part of society they haven't royally pissed off are bankers and hedge fund managers.Funny that.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I think one of the things the tories have been really successful at is making people think Labour was responsible for way more "bad things" than it actually was.

you could put forward the same argument for the NHS though , couldn't you ?  Burnham's NHS  privatisation often excused by "supporters" as a necessary evil  , and ignored that they privatised more than any other government ever did  ... and yet it's the Tory bastards that want to privatise it according to the rhetoric and labour are the party of the NHS

To some extent Labour also did it to themselves , Ed apologised for immigration in a round about way and also  admitted they previously got a lot of things wrong , of course he was trying to distance himself from Blair / Brown by doing so  and yet at that time I think the keys to number 10 were still his  ......

and then interestingly the point at which he "lost"  the election was probably the live TV appearance where he refused to accept (labour ) had borrowed to much money  .... I think his credibility to PM went on that moment .. that and the Stone of course  

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

you could put forward the same argument for the NHS though , couldn't you ?  Burnham's NHS  privatisation often excused by "supporters" as a necessary evil  , and ignored that they privatised more than any other government ever did  ... and yet it's the Tory bastards that want to privatise it according to the rhetoric and labour are the party of the NHS

To some extent Labour also did it to themselves , Ed apologised for immigration in a round about way and also  admitted they previously got a lot of things wrong , of course he was trying to distance himself from Blair / Brown by doing so  and yet at that time I think the keys to number 10 were still his  ......

and then interestingly the point at which he "lost"  the election was probably the live TV appearance where he refused to accept (labour ) had borrowed to much money  .... I think his credibility to PM went on that moment .. that and the Stone of course  

 

Probably so - definitely on the NHS - New labour started the privatising thing, for sure. Personally I think the Tories absolutely want to ultimately privatise all of it, rather than a very small part of it.

And yes, Labour shooting themselves in the foot is fairly common.

I find it incredible that the tories have made such a monumental mess of stuff, and continue to do so, and yet the opposition isn't absolutely hammering them into the ground.

[tonyh29]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

Probably so - definitely on the NHS - New labour started the privatising thing, for sure. Personally I think the Tories absolutely want to ultimately privatise all of it, rather than a very small part of it.

And yes, Labour shooting themselves in the foot is fairly common.

I find it incredible that the tories have made such a monumental mess of stuff, and continue to do so, and yet the opposition isn't absolutely hammering them into the ground.

maybe Corbyn has been tipped off about  Ahhhhh but  

tbf some of the privatisation stuff has worked but as we've seen the private companies want to cherry pick what they do and what they don't do .. i.e they only want the profitable stuff

Personally something like the NHS should be taken out the hands of a party and be something that is put together with cross party support and neither side then touching it for xx number of years , rather than the next Labour govt coming in and then ripping up everything the Tory's have done only for the Tory's to then rip that up next time they come back in power.

[Jon]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

I find it incredible that the tories have made such a monumental mess of stuff, and continue to do so, and yet the opposition isn't absolutely hammering them into the ground.

How are they meant to do that Pete, when the vast majority of the media is in the pockets/sharing the same hymn book as Dave? For the people that own the various forms of media (not forgetting the BBC which appears to be 'owned' by Dave and his cronies at the moment), getting this Govt out and Jez in is the last thing they want. Why would they then be sympathetic to the Jez and Labour attacks on the govt?  

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Jon said:

How are they meant to do that ... when the vast majority of the media is in the pockets/sharing the same hymn book as Dave?

How about they stop arguing amongst themselves. How about they stop tilting at windmills and concentrate on things that they can affect and change.

For all the press is largely unsympathetic to Corbyn and labour, the TV legally has to give balanced coverage. So they (Labour) should be working much harder to talk about stuff. Furthermore papers like reporting on arguments - so argue with Cameron instead of spouting weasel words.

I mean this Doctor's strike, overwhelmingly has public support and the public side with the Docs. Apart from a couple of backbenchers, I don't see or hear Labour making the same case as the doctors. Pretty much every TV interview with a doctor leads to a clearly espoused case. The same doesn't come from labour, sadly.

The tories are generating huge amounts of "ammunition" for Labour to use of it could be bothered. All this stuff about yurp is a mine of source material , where tories are slagging each other off with more zeal than Labour can manage.

But this isn't the mung-bean munching, yoghurt knitting, little red book thread, so I'll stop there.