Support NeoGAF

[War Peaceman]

Don't complain when they do the right thing.

 

[7aged]

Frankly I don't give a damn. I've tried to influence government and judicial policy in the past and Prince Charles has no greater (and no less) standing than I have. (Probably has a bit more influence though).

So what?

Who the hell cares?

Provided whatever decisions were made stood up to whatever scrutiny was in place (parliamentary/judicial/select committees etc) it really doesn't matter if some geezer wrote a few letters about whatever it was.

It's not as if ministers wouldn't be acutely aware of the possible bias, what with the headed notepaper and all.

Just because ministers are not obliged to ahem.. take heed of his grace's counsel doesn't mean he's not exerting influence. That is why lobbying is controlled and scrutinised.

And let's be honest here, the level of scrutiny a decision faces varies. Something that was aggressively lobbied for would face greater scrutiny than an other that was passed quietly.
So in the absence of knowledge of said lobbying by Clarence house, what it's down to is whether the official reasoning is suspect.

 

[Clay Davis]

Don't complain when they do the right thing.

true, but what does everyone make of the claims of double standards? there was apparently a muslim man who also suffered from aspergers as well as suicidal but was extradited last week.

 

[Jackpot]

Did you know the Minister for Wildlife frequently goes on pheasant & grouse shoots, was charged for damaging a protected habitat on his own land and has just now refused to ban a chemical that is only used to poison protected birds of prey even though it's already been banned in Scotland?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...efusal-to-ban-deadly-bird-poison-8215803.html

Don't complain when they do the right thing.

even if they do it for the wrong reasons? Damn right I'll complain.

 

[Clay Davis]

Did you know the Minister for Wildlife frequently goes on pheasant & grouse shoots, was charged for damaging a protected habitat on his own land and has just now refused to ban a chemical that is only used to poison protected birds of prey even though it's already been banned in Scotland?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...efusal-to-ban-deadly-bird-poison-8215803.html

I would say shocking, but they put jeremy cunt in charge of the nhs so I nothing really shocks me any more about this government.

could you expand on your point about them doing it for the wrong reasons? or were you talking in general?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Let's try putting a different perspective on it shall we? My finances don't allow a full-time employee, or anywhere near half-time (not out -of-season like now anyway). But I'm up to the eyeballs with people who want to work here because it is a whole load of fun and also good experience. But there's legislation saying I can't sling them a couple of quid an hour to do so - so my workforce is restricted to me and the Missus and whoever can afford (because of relative "richness"( hah!) or because of being on benefits or on student loans) to do so for free.

That does not seem right to me. Of course I could get away with it through under-the-counter payments, but that ain't right either.

Paying people a wage insufficient to live on means that poor people cannot get experience whilst rich people can get loans to cover it. You create a class trap. It's illegal as it stands and companies still get away with it via internships.

Actually, you could probably offer a lunch-and-travel position and get away with it scott free. But that's wrong as it just rewards people for having lots of money to buy experience with.

 

[Walshicus]

So, is the consensus about Cameron's refusal to disclose emails and texts from Rebecca Brooks that they were "more than friends"?

 

[Psychotext]

Swingers parties. I know how these sorts roll.

 

[Clay Davis]

So, is the consensus about Cameron's refusal to disclose emails and texts from Rebecca Brooks that they were "more than friends"?

that's not an image anyone needs to imagine. good grief.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

that's not an image anyone needs to imagine. good grief.

Mind bleach...

 

[Jackpot]

could you expand on your point about them doing it for the wrong reasons? or were you talking in general?

You posted about how you thought May halted the extradition for cynical reasons rather than finding it morally (and legally) wrong, whilst vcassano posted that the right thing being done in the end should be enough. I think it still reflects poorly on the government if they made the right decision for the wrong reasons.

 

[War Peaceman]

Could you please explain why it was for the wrong reasons? That sounds more pointed than I intended; it is an earnest question.

I hope they use this as a springboard to overturn the awful, asymmetrical extradition treaty, though I am not optimistic.

 

[operon]

No Travis, we're talking perfectly ordinary normal people who I would like to employ but cannot do so at the current minimum wage, who would get good experience working here, but who I either (a) cannot currently afford to employ because of the minimum wage legislation (at least on terms that I am comfortable would be fair to them) or (b) cannot afford to do so because of the benefits trap or (c) even if either of us could find a way around it it would be by cheating the revenue, which I don't think is right either.

We're not talking the "fallen" as in the damned or anything like that.

And I'm not saying there's no work either. There's plenty of work, just not, currently, at the rate the legislation allows for, but there's no shortage of demand either.

But telling them to retrain is not a huge amount of help. Where would they retrain if not here? Nearest major employment is 20 miles away and costs a boatload to get to. Best training is work. Best work is right here. Ditto best boss. Now, I've got to maybe fill in a whole load of forms and get somebody's approval to make this work? Bullshit. That's not making it easy for people to get into employment or for small firms to employ people.

The only way anything like your suggesting could work, its for back to work schemes, where the employers pays say half the minimum wage and governments tops it up to meet the minimum wage. The government gets to save some money and get unemployed some training and the employer get some work done.

I could maybe try to wriggle out of this; but more-or-less, yes. That's pretty much what me and the mrs are earning out of the business, maybe a bit less.

Now I'm not saying by any means that I'd want (or need) that level of wages on a permanent basis, or that we can't plan for and achieve a decent level of growth without. But *if* we could employ someone at those wages, we'd probably employ them right now, bung our energy into business growth over the winter, hit the ground running next spring faster than we otherwise would, put that person on a proper (min-wage pus a bit) full-time in the shop and start two other people in the warehouse that we haven't got yet.

But short-term, yes. It would be good all round (and I'm insured for the downside anyhow).

We're probably three years off earning a "living wage" ourselves - why should a government force us to pay twice as much to somebody else?

(Yes, I know I'm pushing this a bit to make a point, but it is a point that needs to be made. And remember I'm not talking some crappy zero-hour contract here neither).

No matter how much you push this point, its not going to sound any better. You might as well come out and say that you would like to be able to pay as little as possible so you can get some cheap labour in to build up your business that you can live really well off and to help with your workforce who will have helped get you there.

 

[PJV3]

"They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."

Grieve continued: "In summary, my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales's preparation for becoming king. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king.

"It is a matter of the highest importance within our constitutional framework that the monarch is a politically neutral figure able to engage in confidence with the government of the day, whatever its political colour."

So in short, Charles is behaving like a cunt, and shouldn't be king. But he's acting like a tory cunt so they are keeping it quiet.

 

[Jackpot]

Could you please explain why it was for the wrong reasons? That sounds more pointed than I intended; it is an earnest question.

I hope they use this as a springboard to overturn the awful, asymmetrical extradition treaty, though I am not optimistic.

Well unless I'm misreading it Clay thought they only halted the extradition because it was a crowdpleaser, a cynical attempt to ingratiate themselves. Whilst I'm glad the extradition has been halted it still does not raise my estimation of the gov if this were true.

"potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."

letters showing he's not politically neutral would undermine the idea that he's supposed to be politically neutral? Reminds me of the US supreme court ruling no recount of the Bush election because not being voted president would have undermined his credibility as president.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The only way anything like your suggesting could work, its for back to work schemes, where the employers pays say half the minimum wage and governments tops it up to meet the minimum wage. The government gets to save some money and get unemployed some training and the employer get some work done.

And employers would never again raise wages.

 

[Yen]

Nick Griffin just tweeted the address of the gay couple who won the b&b case and told them they will experience some "British justice"


rob delaney ‏@robdelaney
I'm getting filthy DMs from @NickGriffinMEP? Offering to "lick my gasket" & "gag on my wand"?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Nick Griffin just tweeted the address of the gay couple who won the b&b case and told them they will experience some "British justice"

What a cunt.

 

[Lear]

Nick Griffin just tweeted the address of the gay couple who won the b&b case and told them they will experience some "British justice"

What the fuck? Christ, that's a new fucking low. What an absolute cunt. Bless him, he thinks 'heterophobia' is a thing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

He's absolutely pathetic. I'm actually in agreement that a B&B owner should be allowed to withhold their services from anyone they like (just as I think people should be allowed to withhold their services from Nick Griffin for being a cunt), but they won the case. The idea that 'British Justice' is delivered via 'drama' in the form of a presumable terrifying 'demo' outside ones house by people that hate them is not only bad in any case, but an awful example of the kind of 'Britain' they represent as a party.

 

[Clay Davis]

You posted about how you thought May halted the extradition for cynical reasons rather than finding it morally (and legally) wrong, whilst vcassano posted that the right thing being done in the end should be enough. I think it still reflects poorly on the government if they made the right decision for the wrong reasons.

thanks for the reply.

Well unless I'm misreading it Clay thought they only halted the extradition because it was a crowdpleaser, a cynical attempt to ingratiate themselves. Whilst I'm glad the extradition has been halted it still does not raise my estimation of the gov if this were true..

you're not misreading. I was cynical when I first heard the news but the feeling toward the decision was cemented when it came to light that a man with similar issues was deported not a week earlier.

this was a crowdpleaser. it's nothing more in my opinion and I don't believe any changes to the extradition treaty will come about. we'll be back here in a few months talking about some other poor soul whose about to be deported for allegedly committing a crime against the united states.

Nick Griffin just tweeted the address of the gay couple who won the b&b case and told them they will experience some "British justice"


rob delaney ‏@robdelaney
I'm getting filthy DMs from @NickGriffinMEP? Offering to "lick my gasket" & "gag on my wand"?

what a cretinous little cunt. I had hoped he would have faded into obscurity by now.

 

[blahblah...blah]

He's absolutely pathetic. I'm actually in agreement that a B&B owner should be allowed to withhold their services from anyone they like

I think this depends on what the motive is. You should be able to withhold B&B services if you know that the person in question likes to stay up all night playing music loudly, or does a runner rather than paying their bill at the end of their stay, but if you're doing it based on gender, sexual orientation, etc. then you're on dodgy legal ground, and for good reason (I say this as someone who pretty much never gets discriminated against - the white, straight male)

 

[phisheep]

Paying people a wage insufficient to live on means that poor people cannot get experience whilst rich people can get loans to cover it. You create a class trap. It's illegal as it stands and companies still get away with it via internships.

Actually, you could probably offer a lunch-and-travel position and get away with it scott free. But that's wrong as it just rewards people for having lots of money to buy experience with.

Actually - aside from the benefit trap stuff, that's not at all true - at least not in the terms that I think you are implying - sorry if I got it wrong. Thing is if you've got, say, a six-person household the marginal benefit of getting one out to work is huge. Not only does it bring extra money in but also they are out of your hair for 8 hours a day.

They live anyway.

I don't see a rationale for obliging all employers to pay a wage to allow each employee to live independently (which is quite a different thing) when they mostly don't (not around here anyway). There's a bunch of people here in easy walking distance of the shop who could and would work for us for £2 (ok, maybe plus a bit) an hour were it not for the benefit traps and the minimum wage legislation.

I hope I've made it clear through previous posts (and if I haven't, then let's do it now) that what I'm most interested in is giving sensible employment from a zero starting point. I've no interest whatsoever in freebie tenancies for rich kids.

For example: I've a lad in mind to run our warehouse operation - young kid, no permanent jobs, a bit obsessive but hugely perceptive about what needs to be done - who I came across entirely by accident. It's a bit of a stretch(!), as we don't actually have a warehouse yet, and don't have the finance for one either. But come Friday we should have enough finance to earn enough revenue to get a warehouse in about a year, and hell, I would like to take this lad on - who is pretty well median GAF-age right at the start. But I can't afford to and he can't afford to - both because of legislation. That's crap. Unless he has savings (no) or I have spare capital (no).

The only way anything like your suggesting could work, its for back to work schemes, where the employers pays say half the minimum wage and governments tops it up to meet the minimum wage. The government gets to save some money and get unemployed some training and the employer get some work done.


No matter how much you push this point, its not going to sound any better. You might as well come out and say that you would like to be able to pay as little as possible so you can get some cheap labour in to build up your business that you can live really well off and to help with your workforce who will have helped get you there.

I think maybe you read me wrong somewhere there.

Sure I'd like to grow the business fast, and I'd like to earn a comfortable living out of it, but I'm not a rapacious capitalist by any means.

But also, I'd like to be able to take people on *before* the business can make a rock-solid case for it on min-wage legislation.

For example again, guy X who I mentioned above. If I take him on now, he learns the trade, does time in the shop, helps plan the warehouse stuff, work out where it goes, takes over the stock system and so on over the next couple of years, then he's going to be one hell of a warehouse manager and do good for himself.

If I can't take him on now then in 2 years time (a) I'm knackered through having to do all the groundwork myself and (b) looking for an experienced warehouse manager because there's nobody else who will do.

Only the first option is good for social mobility. Or whatever else sort of fucking mobility is flavour of the month right now.

 

[Dambrosi]

So nobody here watches Channel 4 News at all?

David Cameron has insisted energy firms will be compelled to give customers "the lowest tariff" as he sought to clear up confusion over energy policy.

The exact details of how this will be achieved, in next month's Energy Bill, have yet to be decided.

But Downing Street claims consumer groups and energy firms SSE and Ovo support the policy.

Some business groups warn it could damage competition and even lead to higher prices.

It comes after 24 hours of apparent confusion over where the government stands, with Labour accusing ministers of throwing energy policy into "chaos".

During Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Mr Cameron made a surprise announcement promising to legislate "so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers".

The main energy firms said they knew nothing of the plan - or of the government's intention to put it into legislation.

Energy Secretary Ed Davey appeared to distance himself from the proposal and Downing Street said energy firms would be obliged only to "offer" the cheapest tariffs.

Energy minister John Hayes, summoned to the Commons to clear up the confusion, said a number of options were being considered.

These included an evaluation of whether voluntary agreements made by the energy companies in April should be "made binding" through legislation.

"This is a complicated area and we will discuss with the industry, consumer groups and the regulator in order to work through the detail," Mr Hayes said.

But arriving for an EU summit in Brussels, Mr Cameron stood by his remarks, telling reporters: "I want to be on the side of hard-pressed hard-working families who often struggle to pay energy bills.

"That's why I said in the House of Commons yesterday we're going to use the forthcoming legislation - the Energy Bill coming up this year - so that we ensure that customers get the lowest tariffs."

In his statement to MPs, Mr Hayes said the government needed a "robust" relationship with the six big energy firms and would take the "necessary steps to ensure people get the best possible deal".

Shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint said Mr Cameron had thrown energy policy into "confusion", causing "chaos" in the energy industry.

There has been a lot of uncertainty after the prime minister's statement in the Commons yesterday.

Officials in Whitehall were saying this policy is very much in development, and the prime minister had spoken a little bit early on this.

What we've seen today is a government that is so desperate to try and say that it is on the side of people who are feeling the pinch in a time of austerity, particularly when energy prices are rising, that they announced a policy before all their ducks were in a row.

This bloody government. smh

 

[Psychotext]

Nick Griffin just tweeted the address of the gay couple who won the b&b case and told them they will experience some "British justice"

Jesus fucking christ. If we can sent people to jail for poor taste jokes then surely we can jail people for inciting people to commit hate crimes?

Edit... hmm, apparently we could get the ball rolling: http://report-it.org.uk/your_police_force

Oh... and that energy tariff thing is utterly meaningless. What good is getting the lowest tariff when they can price the lowest tariff as highly as they like? Soundbite central.

 

[phisheep]

announced their policy before all their ducks were in a row

This bloody government. smh

Not all that unusual. Tell me government that didn't.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Griffin's Twatter account suspended.

 

[Joel Was Right]

He's absolutely pathetic. I'm actually in agreement that a B&B owner should be allowed to withhold their services from anyone they like (just as I think people should be allowed to withhold their services from Nick Griffin for being a cunt), but they won the case. The idea that 'British Justice' is delivered via 'drama' in the form of a presumable terrifying 'demo' outside ones house by people that hate them is not only bad in any case, but an awful example of the kind of 'Britain' they represent as a party.

Would you feel the same if the couple who wanted to stay the night were black? Whilst I do sympathise with the couple, religious freedom is outweighed by equality in any democracy. If they have a business open to the public, and we allow them to ban people based on their beliefs, then they have to observe the law of the land, whilst not to their liking, is there for the benefit of all in this nation. No B&B owner should deny entry to anyone based on their sexual orientation, gender, race or religious beliefs.*

*I don't know how Griffin managed to get a dig at Muslims in his response to the criticism

 

[CyclopsRock]

Would you feel the same if the couple who wanted to stay the night were black?

Yup. I don't think they should do it, but I think they should be allowed, for precisely the same reason they should be allowed to ban Nick Griffin if they don't like his views. I don't think anyone has a right to be a customer, just like a business has no right to force someone to be a customer. It should be a mutual thing, and if either the business or the customers doesn't wish to do the trade, neither party should be forced to.

 

[Psychotext]

There's nothing stopping you discriminating against arseholes (you don't have to do business with them). But it's right that you can't discriminate based on sex, race, etc.

 

[CyclopsRock]

There's nothing stopping you discriminating against arseholes. But it's right that you can't discriminate based on sex, race, etc.

I don't really see the distinction. You're saying that as if racist people don't dislike people of other races, merely that they're simply racist. That is to say, racist people generally think that their beliefs are entirely justified. Ditto sexists etc. The distinction between "arsehole" and "person I don't like" isn't always that clear.

(I wish to make it clear that I am in no way racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I just don't think one has a right to another person's service or property, and therefore a service or product provider should be able to choose their customers as they see fit, not as someone else sees fit.)

 

[War Peaceman]

Yes but you can choose to be racist (or express racist views) or an asshole. You can't say the same for being homosexual or black or whatever.

 

[mclem]

Who wants a nice cheery story on which to end the week?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20008342

George Osborne has been caught travelling in a first class train carriage with a standard class ticket, Virgin Trains have said.

 

[PJV3]

Who wants a nice cheery story on which to end the week?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20008342

Dodgy bastard. Cameron will be done for shoplifting next.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yes but you can choose to be racist (or express racist views) or an asshole. You can't say the same for being homosexual or black or whatever.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, though.

 

[Visualante2]

Got my police commissioner voting thing in today. Expecting something like what Prescott said. B grade politicians to be running policing, out of touch with communities and managing budgets badly. Oh well, better vote than let some other idiot decide for me. Turnout will be shockingly bad. I only just saw posters for it today.

 

[Yen]

Mitchell resigns.

 

[PJV3]

Yobbo and hooligan Andrew Mitchell has quit. Good.

 

[Omikaru]

Good riddance.

 

[King_Moc]

Maybe now that pleb Andrew Mitchell will get to know his rightful place?

Still, he's timed his resignation well to take flak away from Gideon, who wouldn't be seen dead with commoners like us.

 

[Wes]

Wowweee. This weekend is going to be entertaining.

 

[Yen]

George Osborne refuses to sit in standard class despite NOT having First Class ticket

 

[Clay Davis]

So nobody here watches Channel 4 News at all?

This bloody government. smh

won't doing this result in the energy companies having one flat tariff? what's to stop them from removing their cheaper tariffs and implementing one higher cost one before any legislation takes effects?

good news about andrew mitchell resigning. I thought the lack of public interest in the story might see him get away with lying and being abusive.

George Osborne refuses to sit in standard class despite NOT having First Class ticket

how much did the the boos at the olympics play in his refusal to sit in standard?

"The guard said no. The aide said Osborne couldn't possibly sit in standard class. The guard replied saying if he wants to stay it's £160.

 

[radioheadrule83]

The Osborne story has hilarious traction on Twitter, they're calling it #GreatTrainSnobbery!

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Noted dipshit Nick Griffin on BBC Radio talking about his Twitter silliness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zz8xd

 

[TCRS]

This is hilarious. George Osborne gets caught being all haughty on the same day as Andrew Mitchell resigns for being exactly that. You couldn't make this up.

 

[SteveWD40]

George Osborne refuses to sit in standard class despite NOT having First Class ticket

What a cunt. Sadly he paid the ticket in the end so will just laugh it off if questioned. The guy really can't stand the "public" can he?

 

[kitch9]

George Osborne refuses to sit in standard class despite NOT having First Class ticket

Total non story, the journalist who was on the train who supposedly heard his aide negotiating the ticket was on the TV... She sounded like a desperate hack who was gagging for a story....

 

[Clay Davis]

this always raises a smile for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0nMtSJDrGc

 

[killer_clank]

This government is truly mindbogglingly shit and incompetent. It's more than me disagreeing with their policies at this point - they're totally amateurish.