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

[mockingbird_franklin]

13 minutes ago, Nicho said:

I've said it before, for any one that can't afford to pay for housing, health care or schooling outright, which is most of us, why would you ever vote Tory. 

They are not helping me pay off my mortgage, are not improving the health service I may require and want to sell off the public schools that my kids may use to businesses.

Alongside all the other services, police force, fire department, railways, roads etc that they under fund, they are a parasite party who don't represent most of the country. And yet in our psyche they seem to fit British identity. 

Had a conversation with a colleague a while ago, who was blaming labour for all of the countries wrongs. After a quick google, since World War Two the there has been more time under a Tory government than Labour. 

I'll have you know that bit isnt true, they have been and continue to want to give them away for free to businesses and their pals to plunder, just google the amount of school property that has been transfered from piblic ownership into the shams that are academies

You forgot the privatisation of the prison service that they propose to do via a similar system to how they are pushing through school privatisation, well why make your pals buy stuff that doesn't belong to you when you can give it to them., which hence would create a market and incentives to push to lock more people up, now can any one see where this could go wrong? But then the Torys have never cared for the consequences of their selfish actions, mainly because they don't effect them or their buddies in a negative way, only the plebs and they don't matter, 

Oh and as for why people vote for them, if you want an example that may give you some insight as to why, I once questioned a relative why? and their answer, "because I'm a posh lady" but this is the same idiot relative who claimed she welcomed privatisation of the NHS as she'd be alright as she'd get (buy) "health insurance like everyone else in the world does to pay for it", After pointing out the inaccuracy of the bold itallic bit, when i asked her if she's done any research on lets say the cost and pitfalls of the American health provision model she seemed to be alluding to, what sort of premium she would pay and if she could afford it on what she earned working part time at the bookies, funny enough she hadn't. pesonally I think she got all her info to form her opinions from a combination watching hollywood movies and the scum media.

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

once questioned a relative why? and their answer, "because I'm a posh lady"

If I'd have known a sample size of one was enough to make a decision I could have saved my clients thousands over the years

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I should vote Conservative because I'm sure I'm better off under a neoliberalist government than socialist. I do alright so I shouldn't want socialism. But I couldn't live with myself if I was a Tory.

My wife works for the NHS and voted Conservative at the last election. Her reasoning? She didn't think any of the others had any chance so just voted Tory to vote rather than not.

I stop short of calling her **** stupid as I'd be in the doghouse but she knows I think it.

I think that beats my "posh lady working at the bookies"

I'm probably better off under the neoliberal radical right party we have in government now, but it wouldn't take much to change that, a serious accident or illness, the German company i work for deciding to relocate my job to somewhere remaining in the EU, It's marginal, i'm probably not an amount better off that makes enough of a difference to anywhere near justify the risks, and definitely not to justify what they inflict on those less lucky than I've been, born with reasonable health with a upper percentile IQ to a stable family background in a decent area and with an aptitude to do well enough academically and in the work environment to earn above average salary. not saying i havn't woked very hard, but plenty of people have worked just as hard to end up living in poverty,but personally i'm a libertarian verging on anarchist, However being practicle, if a hierarchical power system is going to exsist and be forced on me, it should look after the the interests of the most vulnerable and the majority, not the interests of a select few

[tonyh29]

43 minutes ago, darrenm said:

 But I couldn't live with myself if I was a Tory.

No offence Darren , but what a load  of bollocks 

i can kinda understand someone saying I don't eat meat as I couldn't live with myself if I ate an animal  but Tory  , nah , 

And shame on you , it's 2016 , your wife should be free to vote however she wants without any recriminations from you  

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

If I'd have known a sample size of one was enough to make a decision I could have saved my clients thousands over the years

 

well if i didn't know better, i could assume this is a deliberate ignoring of everything else being posted by me and others and mis-represention of the example as something it quite clearly wasn't presented as to totally avoid dealing with all the genuine negative points about the radical right wing government we have in power. I'm surprised someone working in an information based industry has such poor ability to comprehend and process information and at the same time ignore any unfortunate information, well maybe not the ignore bit, i thought ignoring unfortunate facts and information was one of the few thing Tory's did very well . oh sorry forgot, a smiley makes it humour,

but then it's hard to defend the indefensible that constitutes the majority of our radical right wing governments decisions, so i guess it's both easier and better to ignore any valid criticism or at best use obfuscation or deflection,

thought i'd add a few insurance emojies for good measure. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

And shame on you , it's 2016 , your wife should be free to vote however she wants without any recriminations from you  

 

That wasn't the point though was it?

Anyone who votes for a certain party because "She didn't think any of the others had any chance so just voted Tory to vote rather than not" then that's silly.

[darrenm]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

No offence Darren , but what a load  of bollocks 

i can kinda understand someone saying I don't eat meat as I couldn't live with myself if I ate an animal  but Tory  , nah , 

And shame on you , it's 2016 , your wife should be free to vote however she wants without any recriminations from you  

 

Shame on me? For what? Me thinking she's stupid for voting against her own interests?

Does the fact that she did vote however she wants not completely invalidate your point?

She gets more recriminations when she thinks the currency of the USA is euros.

And also without offence Tony, you're talking bollocks and just want something to pick on. :-)

See, a smiley makes it all OK.

[mockingbird_franklin]

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

No offence Darren , but what a load  of bollocks 

i can kinda understand someone saying I don't eat meat as I couldn't live with myself if I ate an animal  but Tory  , nah , 

And shame on you , it's 2016 , your wife should be free to vote however she wants without any recriminations from you  

 

Your so right Tony, we should try to help stupid people that vote Tory, not inflict recriminations on them for their stupidity especially if they are related or close friends.

We should embrace these things called community, society, togetherness, concentrate on helping your fellow man when he's not as fortunate as you, the things the Tory party stand for are so keen to protect promote and encourage 

Edited December 3, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

I should vote Conservative because I'm sure I'm better off under a neoliberalist government than socialist. I

There's a fairly straightforward line here - if you work for someone, or you take a wage from a business you own, then you're probably not better off under a neoliberal system - if on the other hand, your income is largely derived from investment dividend or land, you probably are. No one with a wage should believe that neoliberalism has them at heart.

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

Your so right Tony, we should try to help stupid people that vote Tory, not inflict recriminations on them for their stupidity especially if they are related or close friends.

We should embrace these things called community, society, togetherness, concentrate on helping your fellow man when he's not as fortunate as you, the things the Tory party stand for are so keen to protect promote and encourage 

She's still free to vote however  she pleases without recrimination  ... and did you just call Darren's wife  stupid

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

well if i didn't know better, i could assume this is a deliberate ignoring of everything else being posted by me and others and mis-represention of the example as something it quite clearly wasn't presented as to totally avoid dealing with all the genuine negative points about the radical right wing government we have in power. I'm surprised someone working in an information based industry has such poor ability to comprehend and process information and at the same time ignore any unfortunate information, well maybe not the ignore bit, i thought ignoring unfortunate facts and information was one of the few thing Tory's did very well . oh sorry forgot, a smiley makes it humour,

but then it's hard to defend the indefensible that constitutes the majority of our radical right wing governments decisions, so i guess it's both easier and better to ignore any valid criticism or at best use obfuscation or deflection,

thought i'd add a few insurance emojies for good measure. 

Wind your neck in

i didn't respond to the post because there would be no point , I've long given up trying counter argue ingrained thoughts and just accepted that I'm a thick baby eating racist with no moral compass or care for humanity because I once put an X in a box.

instead you know with it being a light hearted football forum I thought I'd make a light hearted post ... never mind , next time I'll keep my posts to rants about all Torys are evil stuff  and take my VT auto likes from the enlightened ones 

[markavfc40]

4 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

I'm probably better off under the neoliberal radical right party we have in government now, but it wouldn't take much to change that, a serious accident or illness, the German company i work for deciding to relocate my job to somewhere remaining in the EU, It's marginal,

A lot of people are sailing a little closer to the wind than something so dramatic as losing their job or having an accident leaving them up shit creak.

Interest rates are at ridiculously low levels and house prices at ridiculously high ones. The consequence of that is that we now have a lot of people with mortgages that are just about manageable whilst rates are so low. Should they rise by just 2 or 3% though, still below levels of relatively recent times, then many will be in serious financial trouble.

The Tories policies resulting in stagnation of wages has almost been masked by the fact interest rates have been so low over their time in Government resulting in many people not feeling as worse off as they might otherwise have done.

[Xann]

Quote

 

The United Nations has rejected a UK appeal against its previous ruling in favor of Julian Assange as "inadmissible," thus requiring both London and Stockholm to end the WikiLeaks founder’s "arbitrary detention."

Earlier this year, a case was concluded at the UN, in which the body instructed the UK and Sweden to take immediate steps to ensure the WikiLeaks founder's liberty, protection and enjoyment of fundamental human rights.

The UK has appealed the ruling twice, with the UN rejecting its second appeal on Wednesday by pronouncing it "not admissible," Justice for Assange reported, adding that the decision marks the end to London's "attempt to overturn the ruling."

"Now that all appeals are exhausted, I expect that the UK and Sweden will comply with their international obligations and set me free," a statement by Assange read, with the fugitive whistleblower calling his detention "an obvious and grotesque injustice."

 

RT

[Davkaus]

These guys will soon be retaining your web browsing for a full year, and trusted to keep it safe.

Now, in fairness, there's a world of difference between securing devices that are out in people's home, and securing data held in your own premises. So it's a good job that Talktalk have only fallen victim to 3 breaches in the last 2 years. ISPs will keep your data secure, don't worry.  

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38208958

Quote

 

TalkTalk customers' wi-fi passwords have been stolen following a malware attack that blocked their internet access last week, an expert has warned.

The researcher said other details had also been taken that would let attackers pinpoint where the equipment was being used, making more targeted hacks possible.

Pen Test Partners' Ken Munro wants thousands of routers to be replaced.

But a TalkTalk spokeswoman said it had not see evidence to confirm the thefts.

"As is widely known, the Mirai worm is affecting many ISPs [internet service providers] around the world and it has affected a small number of TalkTalk customers," she said.

"We continue to take steps to review any potential impacts and have deployed a variety of solutions to ensure customers' routers remain safe.

"We have also employed additional network-level controls to further protect our customers."

Image copyrightTALKTALK Image captionTalkTalk had advised users to reset their router but had not said to change its password

The BBC revealed last week that TalkTalk's D-Link DSL-3780 routers had been struck by malware causing connectivity issues for those customers using the model.

The firm subsequently published advice online telling affected users to reset the equipment - which forced it to install an update to protect itself against the attack - and then "use the wireless network name and password on the back of the router" to get back online.

Security researcher Mr Munro obtained one of the affected routers to study the attack.

He said his "honeypot" router was hit by the variant of Mirai, which is now being referred to as TR-06FAIL.

But in addition to the connectivity issue, Mr Munro detected that a follow-up attack involving the same malware caused the device to disclose its wi-fi password and Service Set Identifier (SSID) code.

An SSID code can be used to reveal where a machine is located via online tools such as Wigle.

As a consequence, he said, even after subscribers had restarted their routers they could remain at risk if they continued using the same password as before.

"Most consumers never change the wi-fi keys written on the back of their router, so the fix didn't actually fix the problem," Mr Munro explained.

"Once an attacker has got the wi-fi key, if they go near to the house they can get nearly everything from their home network.

"TalkTalk should seriously consider replacing customer routers immediately unless it can prove they haven't been compromised."

Encrypted communications - such as online banking records - would not be at risk. But emails might be and it would be possible to place malware on computers linked to an exposed network.

Mr Munro estimated that the recall would involve at least 55,000 routers.

TalkTalk's spokeswoman said it "firmly" disputed that number, saying the number of routers infected had been "nothing in that order of magnitude".

"Our security team does not believe there is any greater risk that a customer's wi-fi can be used or accessed without their permission as a result of this," she added.

But Mr Munro countered that some of the routers hit by the password-stealing attack might not have had their internet connectivity disrupted, despite the same vulnerability being exploited.

Password change

An independent researcher who checked the findings said Mr Munro had reason to be concerned, but added it was not clear who had scooped up the passwords.

Image copyrightPA Image captionOther ISPs affected by Mirai malware include the Post Office and Germany's Deutsche Telekom

"It's possible they are just security researchers, but also reasonably possible that they are actually criminals that intend to exploit this information," said Dr Steven Murdoch from University College London.

"Even if it's the latter, they would have to sit outside your house to do it."

Dr Murdoch said the risk was still high enough that TalkTalk needed to address it, but said there were alternatives to recalling the routers.

"The hardware is fine, what needs to be replaced is the wi-fi password.

"The problem is how to send a new password to all the affected customers.

"If TalkTalk does this online or over the phone, that leaves the customers open to phishing attacks, where a scammer says: 'As you heard on the news you need to change your password, please do these things...'"

TalkTalk's spokeswoman said some customers who had called in had been advised to change their wi-fi passwords, but the firm's security team now believed the step was unnecessary despite Mr Munro's warnings.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Davkaus

[Xann]

TalkTalk again? Ouch.

I've spiced up my browsing and started abusing the Tory FB site.

Theresa's watching anyway.

Semtex airport.

[Davkaus]

Preaching to the converted, essentially, as I don't think there's anyone on here actually in favourite of the IP Act, but this bit seems to have not got much coverage so far. No talking about state surveillance in court. And it's retrospective, obviously. I imagine there were some sighs of relief from people in Cheltenham who may or may not have been conducting illegal activities for several years, which are no longer legal to discuss in a courtroom. 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/06/parallel_construction_lies_in_english_courts/

 

Quote

 

The Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court

Enshrining parallel construction in English law

The freshly passed Investigatory Powers Act, better known as the Snoopers' Charter, is a dog's dinner of a law. It gives virtually unrestricted powers not only to State spy organisations but also to the police and a host of other government agencies.

The operation of the oversight and accountability mechanisms in the IPA are all kept firmly out of sight – and, so its authors hope, out of mind – of the public. It is up to the State to volunteer the truth to its victims if the State thinks it has abused its secret powers. "Marking your own homework" is a phrase which does not fully capture this.

However, despite the establishment of a parallel system of secret justice, the IPA's tentacles also enshrine parallel construction into law. That is, the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries – thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial because he cannot review or question the truth of the evidence against him.

Parallel construction

Parallel construction is a murky doctrine with not very much about it in the public domain because State agents go to great lengths to ensure that it is not brought to public attention.

A 2013 story from Reuters describes how the US National Security Agency, which is constitutionally forbidden from spying on American citizens on American turf (but do so anyway, because they can) effectively launder their illegally collected communications evidence so the Drug Enforcement Administration can use it to catch domestic drug dealers.

Describing how this works in practice, the story said: "A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD [Special Operations Division, a unit of the DEA] described the process. 'You'd be told only, "Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle." And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it,' the agent said."

The problem here is not that drug dealers are being caught, but that they are being caught in a way that subverts the legal system and unfairly skews what is supposed to be a level and honest playing field in court.

Section 56 of the act as passed sets out a number of matters that are now prohibited from being brought up in court. The exact wording of section 56(1) is as follows:

Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc.

(1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)—

(a) discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferred—

(i) any content of an intercepted communication, or

(ii) any secondary data obtained from a communication, or

(b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur.

This is subject to Schedule 3 (exceptions).

Schedule 3's list of exemptions is broadly confined to national security court hearings, tribunals and other judicial occasions when the great unwashed, usually including the defendant and his legal representatives, are excluded from part or all of the hearing. Out of sight, out of mind.

Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability – nay, duty – to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story.

Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications – lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds.

Moreover, as section 56(4) makes clear, this applies retrospectively, ensuring that it is very difficult for criminal offences committed by GCHQ employees and contractors over the years, using powers that were only made legal a fortnight ago, to be brought to light in a meaningful way. It might even be against the law for a solicitor or barrister to mention in court this Reg story by veteran investigative journalist Duncan Campbell about GCHQ's snooping station in Oman (covered by the section 56(1)(b) wording "interception-related conduct has occurred") – or large volumes of material published on Wikileaks.

The existence of section 56(4) makes a mockery of the "general privacy protections" in Part 1 of the IPA, which includes various criminal offences. Part 1 was introduced as a sop to privacy advocates horrified at the full extent of the act's legalisation of intrusive, disruptive and dangerous hacking powers for the State, including powers to force the co-operation of telcos and similar organisations. There is no point in having punishments for lawbreakers if it is illegal to talk about their law-breaking behaviour.

Like the rest of the Snoopers' Charter, section 56 has become law. Apart from Reg readers and a handful of Twitter slacktivists, nobody cares. The general public neither knows nor cares what abuses and perversions of the law take place in its name. Theresa May and the British government have utterly defeated advocates of privacy and security, completely ignoring those who correctly identify the zero-sum game between freedom and security in favour of those who feel the need to destroy liberty in order to "save" it.

The UK is now a measurably less free country in terms of technological security, permitted speech and ability to resist abuses of power and position by agents of the State, be those shadowy spys, police inspectors and above (ie, shift leaders in your local cop shop) and even food hygiene inspectors – no, really.

Sleep safely tonight, citizen. Trust us. ®

 

 

 

 

[darrenm]

Define 'corruption':

this ^

[HanoiVillan]

 

[snowychap]

I see that this lot are proposing another type of 'civil order' thing (this time to do with stalking).

Further and further down the slope.

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I see that this lot are proposing another type of 'civil order' thing (this time to do with stalking).

Further and further down the slope.

Yes one which requires no proof or even investigation apparently.