tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 58 minutes ago, snowychap said: It isn't only Israel, though, is it? the BDS who OBE quoted is solely about Israel and I think it was him that moved the conversation in that direction so maybe that's the red herring with regards Israel .. though tbf I'm fairly sure all the articles on the web have gone down the Israel route as well the Indie for example The Government says it is banning public boycotts of Israeli goods because the practice undermines “community cohesion” and Britain’s “international security”. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, blandy said: Firstly, if your "narrow view of ethics" point is valid, then it surely applies as much to national as to local politicians? It's not quite about whether "political parties with ethics we totally disagree with should be given the autonomy" but actually about whether autonomy they already have should be taken away (made illegal, in fact). And I'm not sure who you mean by "we" - people who elect councillors elect them to use their judgement and abilities on their behalf. If they feel the judgement is poorly used, they can boot them out. More easily than is the case for MPs at national level, too. So yes if a hypothetical BNP council existed and it chose to boycott (say) Google or Apple (for not paying nuff tax) then fine. If they chose to boycott something out of racial discrimination, then that would be illegal under race law and is a different subject. There's not going to be a BNP council, though. Dunno about that tower hamlet thing - sounds like it would be against race law, if true. - what it's got to do with boycotts beats me anyway. Being called a liar is a bit unparliamentary but I assure you that the information came directly from a book called The New East End: Kinship, Race and Conflict, By Dench, Davron and Young (ISBN-10 186197 928 2). The council's interpretation was not judged illegal by the High Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Presumably race law was a bit different in 1977 to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 From a half listened to debate on Radio 4 yesterday evening: Are we all agreed that if there was an effective cancer treatment or a miracle drug for stroke victims that came out of Israel that we'd boycott that as well as olives and satsumas, yeah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: From a half listened to debate on Radio 4 yesterday evening: Are we all agreed that if there was an effective cancer treatment or a miracle drug for stroke victims that came out of Israel that we'd boycott that as well as olives and satsumas, yeah? A bit of a straw man there. Nobody is talking about an NHS boycott of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Just now, HanoiVillan said: A bit of a straw man there. Nobody is talking about an NHS boycott of anything. no, no. not a straw man, not an NHS boycott If you don't want an Israeli olive, would you personally accept an Israeli health product. Israel discovers some extract in an orange that helps stroke victims to a remarkable recovery - now what? That really isn't a straw man. It's finding out if it's a point of deep principle, bendable principle, or a fashion statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 57 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Being called a liar is a bit unparliamentary Woah! I don't and didn't question your honesty. it's like e.g. "ITV is reporting that Cameron has resigned" "blimey, that's a shock, if true" "calling ITN liars is a bit heavy.". No, just saying that a complicated story relayed in good faith might not always turn out to be exactly as it first seemed. That's all. No offence intended. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 53 minutes ago, Risso said: Presumably race law was a bit different in 1977 to now. Yeah it was more black and white in those days 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Risso said: Presumably race law was a bit different in 1977 to now. The 1977 Act stipulated that councils were not required to house people who had "intentionally" made themselves homeless. What the Lib-Dem council did in 1988 was to define anyone who had emigrated to Britain as having intentionally made themselves homeless. So it could claim that it had nothing to do with race and the court upheld that claim. These days I am sure it would be classified as secondary discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I have recently taken an active interest in politics. It was the HOT topic of the use of vellum to write all our laws on that tipped me over the edge. There is an article on the guardian website: We should not abandon vellum – it tells us that our laws are serious Quote There is a natural tendency when looking for savings to decide upon something that is noticeable but unimportant – the decision by the House of Lords to abandon vellum is a case in point. It stirred me to write an email back to Jakey boy. What with him being a true blue Tory free marketeer I figured this is the place to put it. Would be interested to hear if any of the rest of you have a more sympathetic ear for the pro vellum camp. For those of you that are not aware, all our laws are currently hand written on paper that is made of goat skin (vellum). They are then stored in a big old vault with all the other laws. Dear Jacob I read with interest your article on Vellum in the Guardian. I have a couple of points I would like to make in response. My understanding of your argument is as follows: £80k is a small amount in the scheme of things. The symbolic value of Vellum outweighs the financial cost To the first point of it just being £80k. It is the age of austerity. If we truly are all in it together then the cuts need to come from everywhere. There are bigger savings to be made, but there have already been smaller cuts delivered. A saving is a saving however small and one that is so easily delivered should hardly be mocked for its size. Equally £80k is more than most of us earn in a year. Whilst in the big picture £80k is not a lot, I can’t help but think how long and hard I have to work before all my contributions add up to that much money. Every pound is hard earned, and is not to be squandered lightly. Now onto the symbolic value of writing laws on vellum. If writing the laws on vellum was ever truly symbolic that time has long since passed. I have a history degree and hadn’t come across this practice until now. It is certainly not the basis of why I take the law seriously, that has much more to do with my education, upbringing and the police. A symbol that is unknown is little more than an archaic practice. A dead symbol. If you want to impress me with the permanence of the data then why not read “5D Data Storage by Ultrafast Laser Writing in Glass” and get the laws written by lasers and stored in nano-structured fused quartz glass for 13.8 billion years. If vellum has us taking the law more seriously than paper, we can surely bring an end to all crime by writing them in this fashion. Just think of the savings that can be made by disbanding the police force!Frankly I’m surprised we have paper copies at all. Just send the newly crafted laws in a private email to a family member and you can store them in perpetuity in the servers at GCHQ. In conclusion I find your arguments to be lacking any merit in the content. I will give you credit for putting them eloquently though. Kind regards 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, chrisp65 said: no, no. not a straw man, not an NHS boycott If you don't want an Israeli olive, would you personally accept an Israeli health product. Israel discovers some extract in an orange that helps stroke victims to a remarkable recovery - now what? That really isn't a straw man. It's finding out if it's a point of deep principle, bendable principle, or a fashion statement. I confess I don't really understand. At issue is the criminalisation of local governments and other bodies, such as student unions, boycotting certain products, mostly agricultural produce grown in illegal settlements. Nobody, to my understanding, has actually proposed boycotting all Israeli products. However, even if they did, the types of organisation that are under discussion are not able to dictate which medicines are available on the NHS. As to whether any individual feels strongly enough about boycotting Israeli products to not use a drug that could save their lives, well, that's up to them and their consciences I guess. But that's not relevant to the legislation? I'm sure I'm just being dumb, and missing the point here somehow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, tonyh29 said: the BDS who OBE quoted is solely about Israel and I think it was him that moved the conversation in that direction so maybe that's the red herring with regards Israel .. though tbf I'm fairly sure all the articles on the web have gone down the Israel route as well the Indie for example Actually, subsequent to the original article (that was an article also from The Independent as clearly indicated by Xann), Blandy happened to bring it up first on here as it was mentioned in that article (Hancock being due to make some sort of announcement when in Israel). All of that's beside the actual point in that what was being trailed in that original article (but which may well be a bit watered down as per the BDS article) was about removing the autonomy on making decisions on purchasing goods and services from anyone (not just denying them the ability to boycott Israeli produce). It's not a red herring in as much as it's clearly the thing driving the government's desire to change guidance/law but as with anything that tries to cater for specifically narrow vested interests it has consequences well beyond the original intent. Beyond all that we have some of the things already mentioned like issues of compatability with other policies and that the government appeared to be just throwing its weight about on the issue (probably as a result of sufficient lobbying from Israel). Edited February 18, 2016 by snowychap Too many buts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, snowychap said: as with anything that tries to cater for specifically narrow vested interests it has consequences well beyond the original intent. That's this Gov't summed up in a few words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 42 minutes ago, Straggler said: Would be interested to hear if any of the rest of you have a more sympathetic ear for the pro vellum camp. I'm rather in favour of them continuing to use vellum. Save our vellum producing industry (all one firm of it)! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 Who will speak for the Goats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Just now, blandy said: Who will speak for the Goats? I was going to attempt a joke about trolls but thought better of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, snowychap said: I was going to attempt a joke about trolls but thought better of it. Yes, that would have been a bridge too far. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Unbelievable The phone line to claim Iain Duncan Smith’s new benefits system will cost callers trying to get assistance as much as 45p a minute, it has been confirmed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2016 It's not unbelievable, sadly. It's pretty much par for the course with that tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts