snowychap Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure whether it works properly: www.huntjeremy.co.uk It doesn't for me. I mean Hunt looks like a right plank/swivel-eyed loon (doesn't he always?) but the bugle thing isn't happening. Edited February 14, 2016 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 EU Exit Debate Farage and Galloway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 11 hours ago, snowychap said: I'm not sure whether it works properly: www.huntjeremy.co.uk It doesn't for me. I mean Hunt looks like a right plank/swivel-eyed loon (doesn't he always?) but the bugle thing isn't happening. works for me .... it wasn't really worth the effort though , it just plays a bugle charge and makes his face change to even more swivel eyed but how a junior doctor spends his 1 hour of the 24 in a day when he's not working is up to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 My take on the junior doctors' dispute: special pleading for special people. The media's support has been all about giving young, well-spoken, middle-class doctors plenty of air time to spout their slogans by telling us the NHS is in danger, while the Guardian offers us articles which uses analytics to rate every other nation's health service but declaring the NHS as the best in the world without providing any critical analysis whatsoever (the holy cow which needs protecting). The doctors insist that their only motive is to save the NHS but really they are saying that exactly the same arrangements will be fine if they are paid more money for working one Saturday in four. So basically the sticking point is that it is about money and self-interest by a group of workers who are being given privileged access and advocacy in the media, which is denied workers of a lower status. This is how the greed, entitlement and egotism of consultants, which leads to so much inefficiency in the NHS is created - we start them young. When low status workers have new contracts forced upon them, it is always emphasised that their employers need to make a profit, but when high status public employees make the same objection, the consequences for people seeking hospital treatment over weekends (long waits, pain and greater risk of death) are played down. It is fundamentally wrong that contracts are forced upon workers and it is just as wrong for low status workers as it is for high status workers but I can't help but noticing how the media treat one group of workers a lot better than others. As Bevan famously said: the doctors told me the NHS was unworkable but I filled their mouths with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 So the Tory charge against porn continues. First the opt-out parental filters, then they ban certain types of porn, now they want mandatory age checks through credit checks. I guess those opt out filters that Dave was so proud of didn't work, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 22 minutes ago, Davkaus said: So the Tory charge against porn continues. First the opt-out parental filters, then they ban certain types of porn, now they want mandatory age checks through credit checks. I guess those opt out filters that Dave was so proud of didn't work, huh? it's a strange stance when you think of the sexual deviances associated with the Tory party over the years it's a tough one though , I've got a 11 year old who by the very nature of going on a train to school with 16 year olds is picking up stuff that he doesn't fully understand but obviously curiosity is going to win over at some point .. would these controls prevent that ? and I should I even let them ? In my day we had no internet and we'd sneak off into the woods and find a little hidden stash of Playboy and look at pictures of some woman with a hairy bush and then that progressed to someone getting hold of a betamax with a very grainy film with tracking lines going up and down the screen ... and we aren't corrupted ( well too badly anyway) , but I guess that's far removed from watching full blown goat porn in full HD I guess really rather than banning stuff , the focus should be on better education , there is a reason we have higher teenage pregnancy rates than Holland where sex and porn is less of a taboo 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) There's two ways it could go, really. Either they enforce it for UK websites, and everyone, including the teenage boys, just uses sites based overseas, which the vast majority probably do anyway, most sites are American. Alternatively, they properly crack down and actually enforce a nationwide block on any sites which don't comply, even if they're out of UK jurisdiction, which seems likely considering governments' increasing fondness for internet censorship. If they do go down this route, if nothing else, they'll encourage a lot of teenagers to take up an interest in IT and learn about how to use proxies and VPN so they can get their end away, so some good will come of it. Blocking things online is absolutely futile. How many people have stopped watching football streams since they forced the major UK ISPs to ban some of the more popular streaming sites? It took about 30 seconds to find alternatives. It's not that I want children to be able to watch adult material, it's just that this will be completely ineffective, and gives parents a false sense of security. Edited February 16, 2016 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Tony's right (for once ) - education is the only possible answer. The genie's certainly not going back in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 17, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Quote Local councils, public bodies and even some university student unions are to be banned by law from boycotting “unethical” companies, as part of a controversial crackdown being announced by the Government. Under the plan all publicly funded institutions will lose the freedom to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Independent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, Xann said: Independent we should boycott things because they are crap ( French cars) , we should boycott things because they utilise slave labour (Nike Trainers) , I'm not sure we should ban things because some Ernesto Guevara t-shirt wearing person in authority doesn't agree with the policy of that company \ country .. so removing of a "law" is probably a good move in that regard History has shown us that the good guys change depending on which side we happen to be on at the time so such laws are usually pointless anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: we should boycott things because they are crap ( French cars) , we should boycott things because they utilise slave labour (Nike Trainers) , I'm not sure we should ban things because some Ernesto Guevara t-shirt wearing person in authority doesn't agree with the policy of that company \ country .. so removing of a "law" is probably a good move in that regard History has shown us that the good guys change depending on which side we happen to be on at the time so such laws are usually pointless anyway I thought the whole free market idea was that customers can spend their money on anything they like, for whatever reason they like? I get the argument about public bodies getting the best value for their ratepayers and all that, but I'd have thought they could make up some story about preferring - say - the quality of the product, in order to smokescreen their ethical reasons. If they want to, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 29 minutes ago, Xann said: Independent Quote Mr Hancock said the current position where local authorities had autonomy to make ethical purchasing decisions was “undermining” Britain’s national security. Yeah, sure - of course it does. Berk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted February 17, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted February 17, 2016 That's the worst excuse since Lescott's. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 17, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2016 On 17 February 2016 at 17:10, tonyh29 said: we should boycott things because they utilise slave labour (Nike Trainers) , I'm not sure we should ban things because .... authority doesn't agree with the policy of that company \ country So with Israel having illegally (UN) stolen Palestinian land, and then growing spuds and Olives n'that on it - why is boycotting those goods not OK, but Boycotting legal slave labour produced goods (Nikes) is? But even if you have a good argument, that's fine for you, to choose, but why should it be against UK law for public money not to be used (withdrawn) in a way that makes a stance against illegal land theft and occupation? Why should the Gov't propose banning boycotts of such things? What about all their promises to let local people and their representatives make decision? - you know - if locals don't want a win-turbine, then they should be able to block it (same argument doesn't apply from the Gov't for fossil fuels and fracking, obviously, as that would upset their backers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 1 minute ago, blandy said: a win-turbine Want. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 3 hours ago, blandy said: So with Israel having illegally (UN) stolen Palestinian land, and then growing spuds and Olives n'that on it - why is boycotting those goods not OK, but Boycotting legal slave labour produced goods? But even if you have a good argument, that's fine for you, to choose, but why should it be against UK law for public money not to be used (withdrawn) in a way that makes a stance against illegal land theft and occupation? Why should the Gov't propose banning boycotts of such things? What about all their promises to let local people and their representatives make decision? - you know - if locals don't want a win-turbine, then they should be able to block it (same argument doesn't apply from the Gov't for fossil fuels and fracking, obviously, as that would upset their backers). the point was that lets say you're the chief decision maker and you don't like Israel because of its land grab so you refuse to deal with any Israeli company ...that's your own view and it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent , so you are over stepping your authority in making such a stance however morally correct you feel it to be .... This law change as I saw it stops you from doing that , though as Mike correctly points out there are other ways to come up with the winning bid and still impose your will regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 17, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: the point was that lets say you're the chief decision maker and you don't like Israel because of its land grab so you refuse to deal with any Israeli company ...that's your own view and it doesn't necessarily reflect the view of the people you represent , so you are over stepping your authority in making such a stance however morally correct you feel it to be .... This law change as I saw it stops you from doing that , though as Mike correctly points out there are other ways to come up with the winning bid and still impose your will regardless But this law change in essence takes us even further away from representing those people - someone who was voted in by them to represent them, who deals with local people and local issues isn't permitted to take action on those issues on instruction from people who may struggle to find the area on a map. This is a product of lobbying by a nation practising apartheid; it's corporate bullying that will not only not accept democratic action, it is quite willing to apply pressure until it has made it illegal. If you represent a University, and you take a vote amongst your students, and as a result of that vote, 90% of them don't want to deal with a number of companies, you're not able to carry that out and use an alternative company, because doing so will result in you being cut off from public funding. The public in general are overwhelmingly in favour of sanction against Israel, the government are overwhelmingly in favour of increased trade with Israel, including the incredibly valuable Israeli arms market - the will of the people is not a factor in the action we end up with. That's not democracy - and the threat of democracy breaking out at a lower level can't be tolerated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) This is clearly a speech issue. People should be free to protest the Israeli government's actions if they want to, there's no good reason to stop them. If people don't like them doing so, that should be a matter for voters to debate and resolve through votes, not policemen and lawyers through courtrooms. It's always worth asking yourself, when the government proposes to throw somebody in jail for something - can we actually identify a victim here? Edited February 17, 2016 by HanoiVillan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I don't know about you but I've never been asked how I feel about boycotting Israeli goods ? Do you have a link to this overwhelming result ? I googled it and saw a result of 29% that's not even close to overwhelming imo but I'm guessing you've seen a different poll ? I'm sure you don't need me to give my thoughts on the opinion of 90% of students Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts