-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
radioheadrule83
Banned
I'm glad he's in prison, but only because the BBC were so fucking stupid (or vindictive) that they published his actual street address online. The guy is probably not all that safe even when he gets out...
our law needs serious reform, judges should not be wasting police / HMP time incarcerating people for saying nasty things
our law needs serious reform, judges should not be wasting police / HMP time incarcerating people for saying nasty things
Absolutely right, which is why I called kitch9 out as an authoritarian. I chose my words very carefully there, btw; I could have called him much worse, but I want to keep my account, so thought better of it.
And yet, far too many people in this country either think like he does, or are too apathetic to care. Meanwhile this poor bloke gets to rot in a jail cell for 12 weeks and a nice shiny criminal record when he gets out, all over a dumb joke on his private FaceBook page.
This sort of thing reminds me why I stay the fuck away from social media.
He'll do 3-4 weeks tops by the way, and if he's in jail because of a FB post he will already have a record, (Probably a fairly decent one too.) there's no way it was his first offence.
But carry on crying a river over him if you must.
There needs to be a line, in some ways are laws are too soft, our children for instance who have danced around by the PC brigade for years now think they can say what the hell they like to people in authority and get away with it. That's because they can say what the hell they like and get away with it. Our police, teachers, and firemen etc have to put with being called all kinds of shit by our youth, because they think thats ok, and cool.
travisbickle
Member
Is this line of reasoning actually based on any evidence? and I mean more than the complaints page from the Daily Mail.
CyclopsRock
Member
You can't harass someone via your own facebook wall. If you went posting horrible jokes like that on the parents Facebook wall, I'd have some sympathy for charging him with harassment. But on your own? Fuck all that.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's kind of a common complaint, kitch, and probably has been since about forever. But in practice I find today's kids a load more polite than those I remember from the '80s and '90s - and yes, I do live about 200 yards from a notoriously "trouble" estate that, to me, is more-or-less the equivalent of strolling through your average Cotswold village before they got taken over by the gentry. All life is there and sure, some of it isn't all that pleasant, but what I don't see is any overall degeneration any more than I've seen before, or than my parents or grandparents did before me for that matter.
Some of this may be down to the attitude of the police etc. For example I - a more-or-less respectable old guy - got hauled over by the cops a couple of months ago for something I hadn't done, and got a bit of the third degree in the back of the cop car in particular regarding how I appeared to be 'not particularly concerned' about the thing it rapidly became clear I hadn't done, and the less concerned I was the more aggressive the cop got. In the event, no charge, no caution, no warning, no nothing - not even any apology (gosh that's a surprise). The guy, who was very significantly taller, wider and more wired-up than me, seemed to want me to submit immediately to his own interpretation of events and confess to a crime that (a) I hadn't done (b) nobody else had done and (c) isn't a criminal offence anyway. Now if that's the sort of attitude the police take with the youngsters I'm not especially astonished if they get a bit of lip back.
I don't have a particular problem with the police (mandatory addition of "one of my best friends is a retired police officer"), but if that is what they - or some of them - are bringing to the job then all power to the people who stand up to them.
That's why he wasn't charged with harassment. He was charged under s127 of the Communications Act of sending a grossly offensive message over a public communications network.
But I disagree with your premise too - you arguably could harass someone via your own facebook wall.
EDIT: Star turn by Boris at the conference, yeah?
show me your skeleton
Member
is his facebook wall/status (if that's where it was posted) classed as public though? i wouldn't be able to view it even if i had searched for him when it was posted, right? is that public?
It's safe to assume everything you do on social networks is public, except for private messaging.
I abhor X-Factor style politics, but it's unavoidable sadly in a country where the Sun is the best selling newspaper.
Boris is riding the Olympic wave, on top of coming across like a less odious posh tosser. He might hold just as many horrible opinions as Osborne and co but he just seems less cunty about it. I saw Osborne giving his speech and even with the sound muted I wanted to punch his face in. Having "work hard" and "austerity" preached to me by a man born into millions who has never had any real life experience? wonderful.
Boris might be the exact same way, but he gets away with it as he comes across as a goofy twit, his interview on Letterman before the Olympics he was actually pretty witty, pointing out he was just as viable to run for President as PM (he has dual nationality with the US).
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It was public enough for someone to find his post and re-post it, so yes. Besides, the test is not whether the post itself was public, but whether it was made over a "public telecommunications network", which it was. Not saying I agree with it, but that's what it apparently is.
But it isn't safe to assume that private messaging is immune from the law even if it is not public. If it's sent over a public telecommunications network then it is fair game for legal action under this section.
CyclopsRock
Member
Significantly less effectively, given that they have to click on it on the first place, and can click the X in the corner whenever they want to. It replaces the megaphone in this threads metaphor with a phone, where the harassee has to phone up the harasser for harassment. And I know he wasn't charged with harassment, but Coms Act is an utter joke.
CyclopsRock
Member
But what part of that is public? Facebook isn't publicly owned, and someone's PM box isn't publicly accessible. I mean, "the internet" is a 'public telecommunications network' I guess, but only in the same way phone networks and fax machines are, and I don't think my phoning my dad and telling him the same joke would be liable for being charged, even if they had an effective way of finding out and proving it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No, but your phoning somebody else and, say, threatening them with dismemberment would be - and that's precisely the sort of thing this Act was originally aimed at. It doesn't matter that it is privately owned, what matters is that it is publicly available.
CyclopsRock
Member
But someone's PM box isn't, which is what I responding to.
Edit: Sorry, my posting is predicated on the idea that the PM in question wasn't to the person who may be harassed, but to a friend or group who might enjoy such a joke, analogous to this guys wall post (wherein he posted it on his own wall).
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ditto someone's phone. The phone may not be publicly available, but the phone network is. The logic originally behind the Act (largely to prevent harrassment of/threats to individuals) arguably applies even more to PMs than it does to wall posts which may be directed at nobody in particular.
EDIT: just read your edit! See your point.
EDIT AGAIN: I suspect in that case, the guilty party would be not the originator of the message but the guy who passed it on to whoever got threatened/harrassed by it. So far as I know, this hasn't been tested by the courts (I think this last guy pleaded guilty didn't he? Maybe through not having a good enough lawyer). Good question. I think the current legal test is whether the message is grossly offensive in some absolute sense, which doesn't make a whole load of sense to me.
show me your skeleton
Member
fair enough. seems odd to consider that 'public' if it can't, in fact, be seen by the public. i'm sure i'm missing an important distinction though.
I work on social housing estates everyday and I get to hear and see what goes on with my own eyes.
Some of it is quite frankly unbelievable.
You could be describing labours front bench in this post by the way....
Your arguments would do better if you didn't try and turn everything into a Partisan position. I have made no support of Labour at any point here baring wondering if they have anyone decent left in the party that could actually lead it.
Never forget:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37854879&postcount=7451
That's the true face of Boris.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37854879&postcount=7451
That's the true face of Boris.
Yup, but people "as in most people" don't hear those things, they just see the bumbling posh bloke talking at the Olympics.
Ill post properly later, but did anybody pick up the new study suggesting that the economy's output gap is larger than was thought, and that as such the percentage of debt-GDP was not as high as was suggested? It would put another nail in the austerian coffin, if correct.
killer_clank
Member
The Tories really are the nasty party, it's basically a fact at this point:
only 12% of Scottish households "make a net contribution to the economy"
only 12% of Scottish households "make a net contribution to the economy"
It's a good job Scottish voters don't listen to the Tories then.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think it's worth mentioning again my view that the deficit/debt/austerity and growth are only tangentially related. I don't think anyone in their right mind really believes that simple lowering public spending is going to increase growth - because why would it? Public spending distorts markets and to that end, stifles growth, but that's a more long term measure. In the short term, less spending doesn't cause growth (though nor does spending more - it merely borrows tomorrow's growth and uses it today).
Growth is an increase in productive capacity or efficiency. Without this, you can't be reasonably said to be growing. The government borrowing a bunch of money and building houses, increasing welfare, improving motorways or expanding railways will cause GDP to grow, but it's not real growth, because all that money has to be paid back. Even if those infrastructural projects could be sold at "profit" (say, by selling the houses) that is still only a more efficient solution if we assume that the money would otherwise have been sitting there doing nothing - which is unlikely, as even when money is in bank accounts, it's "doing something".
But the point is that one can one can simultaneously support either pro-growth policies (such as lower taxation and regulation - A) or not (higher taxes and burden on business - B) AND austerity (lower public spending - C) or not (continue the pre-2007 levels of spending - D) - one from either column A Or B + C or D. Like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter', they're actually not mutually exclusive (nor inclusive). So I never understand it when people ask if Austerity isn't working by pointing to a lack of growth. Austerity isn't meant to improve growth, it's meant to claw back public spending from unsustainable levels, because the interest is so punishing.
The only way in which they are related is the degree to which you want austerity to pay for any pro-growth policies. The reason the deficit is a problem is that we currently spend more money every year on interest payments than we do on our military, by about £10bn. Almost every school in the country could run "for free" if we had no interest to pay. Or we could pay for the Department of Transport, The Home Office, Environment, Justice, CMS and Energy and Climate Change departments combined. The public spending that we do today that we cannot afford is not free, and it has huge impacts on our ability to spend money where it's really needed, both today but more important, in the future, as it is the UK citizens of the future who will have to go without because we refused to. BUT all of this is separate to the arguments for pro-growth policies - lowering tax, lowering red tape, lowering import duties from outside the EU, increasing aviation capacity etc. How you choose to stack up pro-growth policies, austerity, debt, etc - the combination of these is the real crux of the debate. Basically, I guess my point is this: We should stop using GDP growth as short hand for whether or not austerity is "working". It's like using petrol prices to decide if trains are "working".
Growth is an increase in productive capacity or efficiency. Without this, you can't be reasonably said to be growing. The government borrowing a bunch of money and building houses, increasing welfare, improving motorways or expanding railways will cause GDP to grow, but it's not real growth, because all that money has to be paid back. Even if those infrastructural projects could be sold at "profit" (say, by selling the houses) that is still only a more efficient solution if we assume that the money would otherwise have been sitting there doing nothing - which is unlikely, as even when money is in bank accounts, it's "doing something".
But the point is that one can one can simultaneously support either pro-growth policies (such as lower taxation and regulation - A) or not (higher taxes and burden on business - B) AND austerity (lower public spending - C) or not (continue the pre-2007 levels of spending - D) - one from either column A Or B + C or D. Like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter', they're actually not mutually exclusive (nor inclusive). So I never understand it when people ask if Austerity isn't working by pointing to a lack of growth. Austerity isn't meant to improve growth, it's meant to claw back public spending from unsustainable levels, because the interest is so punishing.
The only way in which they are related is the degree to which you want austerity to pay for any pro-growth policies. The reason the deficit is a problem is that we currently spend more money every year on interest payments than we do on our military, by about £10bn. Almost every school in the country could run "for free" if we had no interest to pay. Or we could pay for the Department of Transport, The Home Office, Environment, Justice, CMS and Energy and Climate Change departments combined. The public spending that we do today that we cannot afford is not free, and it has huge impacts on our ability to spend money where it's really needed, both today but more important, in the future, as it is the UK citizens of the future who will have to go without because we refused to. BUT all of this is separate to the arguments for pro-growth policies - lowering tax, lowering red tape, lowering import duties from outside the EU, increasing aviation capacity etc. How you choose to stack up pro-growth policies, austerity, debt, etc - the combination of these is the real crux of the debate. Basically, I guess my point is this: We should stop using GDP growth as short hand for whether or not austerity is "working". It's like using petrol prices to decide if trains are "working".
Visualante2
Member
They are literally so fascinated with the idea of turning us against each other
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, they all distort markets. They aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think even the most ardent of statists would argue that, merely that it's a price worth paying for whatever the benefit of that bit of spending is.
Clay Davis
Member
They are literally so fascinated with the idea of turning us against each other
it's worked well for them in England. just look at how little backlash there is to the 10 billion cuts.
anyway, what does everyone think of the IMF downgrade of our growth prospects?
Nothing, the same thing I make of all the constantly changing and usually wrong upward / downward revisions from the usual suspects.
No one has a clue, that much we do know.
Visualante2
Member
Boris wants the top tax rate cut to 40%. This guy can't become PM.
Brera, with all due respect - you're the last person I'd ask for financial advice
Joking aside, a top rate of 40% starting at 100k might be "fair" to you, but it wouldn't fill the coffers. 35% from 35k and then a maximum tax rate of 50% from 50k would be better IMO, just off the top of my head, though.
Or how about a linear scale, starting @ 10% from 10k, 11% from 11k, 12% from 12k, etc., all the way up to, say, 60% from 60k upwards (if the need arises)? Just as a mathematical exercise. Would it be feasible?
Love ya baby
Or how about a linear scale, starting @ 10% from 10k, 11% from 11k, 12% from 12k, etc., all the way up to, say, 60% from 60k upwards (if the need arises)? Just as a mathematical exercise. Would it be feasible?
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Ruth Davidson obviously knows the best way to get Scots on her side and get them to vote No at the referendum is to tell them they're worthless sacks of shit.
The Pro-Union parties need to realise that a campaign based completely on scaremongering isn't going to work, even if it worked for the Tories during the AV vote.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
And the number of Labour MPs will drop as well. But at the same time, supporting the break up of the Union probably won't go down well with much of the party, not to mention the panic it might cause among Unionist parties in Northern Ireland.
CyclopsRock
Member
Brera, with all due respect - you're the last person I'd ask for financial adviceJoking aside, a top rate of 40% starting at 100k might be "fair" to you, but it wouldn't fill the coffers. 35% from 35k and then a maximum tax rate of 50% from 50k would be better IMO, just off the top of my head, though.Love ya baby
Or how about a linear scale, starting @ 10% from 10k, 11% from 11k, 12% from 12k, etc., all the way up to, say, 60% from 60k upwards (if the need arises)? Just as a mathematical exercise. Would it be feasible?
Depends what you mean by "feasible", I guess.
I've just written a quick script (though it's for a 3D package - the only software I know how to script in! So alas, I can't share it.) that approximates how much tax you'd pay under your new system (it only deals in 1,000 increments). If you earned £31k, you'd pay the same amount of tax. Any less (down to £10k) and you'd pay less, any more and you'd pay more. If we assume that everyone would continue to declare the same earnings that they do now, that'd result in a total haul of approximately (after doing some very quick, rough maths based on averages of the data here) of £127bn.
Here's all the boring data:
http://pastebin.com/BbnNSzAe
And here's how I calculated the total income tax:
Now, this has a few inaccuracies. For starters, I assumed that everyone earning £1,000,000+ was earning exactly a million, which obviously they aren't. However, even someone earning £10m would "only" pay £6m in tax, and this data suggests there's only, at most, 6,000 of them, which is a total of £3.6bn. Even if we add that, we have a total of around £130bn. Which is fairly generous, as there's reason to think that a lot more tax avoidance might occur with a top effective tax rate of almost 60%, without even including national insurance and all that old shite.
Last year, income tax in the UK raised £158bn. That's a shortfall of, at least, £28bn. Which, as a point of reference, that's more than all of the departmental cuts in the last 2 years of this government. Or, to think of it another way, that massive shortfall is still only just over half of all the debt interest we pay because of over-spending, every single year. And people say austerity isn't important...
CyclopsRock
Member
This may challenge your preconceptions to breaking point, but there is an minutely small possibility that they actually do care about the population and those in need, and that it's their responses to the problem rather than their intentions that are different to yours. That doesn't mean they're horrible people or think Scotland are "so shit", it just means they think they have a different way of solving the problem.
Honestly, the volume of holier-than-thou boot stomping that goes on in here is really pathetic.
So, the BAE/EADS merger is off, and it sounds like it was the UK Government's fault.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19897699
Meanwhile, BBC News 24 blame the Germans for scuppering the deal. Get your message straight, Auntie. To make things more confusing, the French President just now released a statement saying that the scuppering was all "the companies' decision". Sounds like a good wholesome game of "Pass The Buck" to me.
What think ye of this, GAF?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19897699
Meanwhile, BBC News 24 blame the Germans for scuppering the deal. Get your message straight, Auntie. To make things more confusing, the French President just now released a statement saying that the scuppering was all "the companies' decision". Sounds like a good wholesome game of "Pass The Buck" to me.
What think ye of this, GAF?
Most outlets are reporting that the UK and France reached an agreement, but Germany was unwilling to accept the UK's demands of a maximum 9% stake with minimal government interference. I don't know how you can blame that on the UK, if true then only one party was unwilling to compromise, and it was Germany's fault the deal collapsed.
EDIT: Every source that I've read (from accross the political spectrum) has said that the Germans (specifically Merkel) simply did not like the look of this proposed merger and so they scuppered the deal. How you managed to blame the UK government is baffling me. There is nothing in the BBC article that you quoted that would suggest the UK government is to blame. Why are you trying to blame the UK government for absolutely everything? It looks kinda pathetic and desperate. I get the feeling that even if this deal had gone through, you would be posting about how the government had just effectively axed thousands of jobs. At least try and appear impartial.
EDIT: Every source that I've read (from accross the political spectrum) has said that the Germans (specifically Merkel) simply did not like the look of this proposed merger and so they scuppered the deal. How you managed to blame the UK government is baffling me. There is nothing in the BBC article that you quoted that would suggest the UK government is to blame. Why are you trying to blame the UK government for absolutely everything? It looks kinda pathetic and desperate. I get the feeling that even if this deal had gone through, you would be posting about how the government had just effectively axed thousands of jobs. At least try and appear impartial.
David Cameron's full speech to Conservative Party Conference 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZb2EGFIa4
I still have to watch Boris' speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZb2EGFIa4
I still have to watch Boris' speech.
My point was not clear, you could have been describing politicians from all parties.....
The Unionist parties are constantly in a state of disarray, panic and embarrassment.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Bollocks, it was the Germans. There is no reason for France and Germany to own so much of BAEADS, the French got on board pretty fast but the Germans were being obstinate cunts as usual and refused to reduce their stake below the 9% level the French agreed to. There is no reason for the German government to own any part of the combined company other than protectionism. There is no vital national infrastructure that EADS gives to Germany (or France, which is why they agreed to the 9% limit) other than masses of jobs. The market would force those jobs to move here as our factories are more efficient and our engineers more skilled, that is why this move died. This is all down to classic German protectionism, make no mistake.
BAE will just have to destroy them in the market and buy them for a song 10 years from now. BAE will probably go on an acquisition spree now to strengthen their market position, I think Thales is a good fit as they are present in areas where BAE are not so the revenue increase will be decent and it seems like the French government aren't too bothered by foreign acquisitions of defence companies.
Do we have any firm data on tax revenues v tax rates? Honest question, I'd like to see it.
I really think we need a simpler tax system with no loopholes, so everyone pays their fair share of tax rather than just hammering those who aren't inclined to go loophole jumping...