Support NeoGAF

[killer_clank]

There's still about a year to go before this referendum, so lots of time to change public opinion, though Clegg is going to have to work very hard at it.

Something I find interesting is that it's gonna be on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and (Northern Ireland?) elections. I'd guess that might mean a better turnout in those regions as opposed to England? I wonder if that will affect things.

 

[killer_clank]

The Dundee West MP just brought up video game industry tax breaks at PMQ's. Cameron basically dodged it.

 

[Chinner]

I reckon it won't pass and barely anybody will care until the run-up to the next election.

Political pessimism is my new hobby.

here is some political pessimism for you; obviously the election is way off, but not sure if i can be bothered voting for them.

 

[Mr. Sam]

The Dundee West MP just brought up video game industry tax breaks at PMQ's. Cameron basically dodged it.

I was watching that too.

We need jobs.

In the video game industry.

 

[SmokyDave]

here is some political pessimism for you; obviously the election is way off, but not sure if i can be bothered voting for them.

I see your voter apathy and raise you a "There will be no election in 2015". Exact details of paranoid conspiracy to follow. When I've made 'em up.

 

[blazinglord]

The Dundee West MP just brought up video game industry tax breaks at PMQ's. Cameron basically dodged it.

Clearly you didn't listen to the answer. Cameron said that the government has already lowered corporation tax, and that they plan to lower it further so that by 2015 it will be the lowest in the G20 and in the EU. Yes the government isn't going to give additional tax breaks just for the gaming industry like the last government planned to, but the last government didn't plan to lower corporation tax rate which will benefit the gaming industry along with other industries.

There is a massive structural deficit to plug in and therefore the government needs all the tax revenues it can get. Clearly the case hasn't been made for tax breaks for the gaming industry. Tax breaks would probably make negligible difference anyway when there are other countries, like Canada and Ireland, that already offer extremely favourable tax breaks that the UK couldn't afford to match even if it wanted to.

 

[Chinner]

I see your voter apathy and raise you a "There will be no election in 2015". Exact details of paranoid conspiracy to follow. When I've made 'em up.

dare i say it....but i'm actually hoping labour reform to be abit less authoritative, cause if they do then voting for them will be easier.

 

[brain_stew]

Well I'm going to campaigning hard for AV, I expect most of you lot to do the same. AV is far from a perfect system but anything that discourages tactical voting and gets us further away from the God awful, broken FPTP system is positive change.

A big factor is obviously going to be how much weight (if any) Labour put behind it, and that'll probably swing it.

 

[DECK'ARD]

So are Labour going to use the boundary changes as an excuse to vote against AV? It sort of sounded like that from their response in the Commons.

AV isn't in either Labour or the Tories interest, and in campaigning against AV Labour would play it as voting against coalitions as an easy shot at the Government.

With both main parties campaigning against it, I don't think it will stand much chance. AV is only a small step in the right direction, but it's badly needed to at least start the ball rolling in changing FPTP. And I don't think they'll be another shot at doing so for a long time.

 

[brain_stew]

So are Labour going to use the boundary changes as an excuse to vote against AV? It sort of sounded like that from their response in the Commons.

AV isn't in either Labour or the Tories interest, and in campaigning against AV Labour would play it as voting against coalitions as an easy shot at the Government.

With both main parties campaigning against it, I don't think it will stand much chance. AV is only a small step in the right direction, but it's badly needed to at least start the ball rolling in changing FPTP. And I don't think they'll be another shot at doing so for a long time.

AV was in Labour's manifesto it would be complete BS if they campaigned against it but this is politics, so, you know. Not securing AV is going to leave the Lib Dems looking like a bit of a joke and could seriously screw up the party long term imo. It all depends on who wins the Labour leadership really and what he decides to do. If he puts the party's full weight behind it then there's every chance it could pass a referendum, if he doesn't its dead in the water. The Lib Dems just don't have the funding or media influence to run a high profile enough campaign on their own.

 

[dr_octagon]

I drew something

 

[Mama Robotnik]

Go fuck yourselves, Daily Express.

 

[Mr. Sam]

No. No way. That must be a joke. Come on. Really? It's 2010. Seriously.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

No. No way. That must be a joke. Come on. Really? It's 2010. Seriously.

Its hate.

Its like they saw the word "homosexual" and the word "asylum" on a proper news source, and decided it was enough to invent a hate-filled archaic-strereotype-driven narrative.

I think its one of the worst front pages I've ever seen.

 

[Lear]

Go fuck yourselves, Daily Express.

Holy fucking shit. How the fuck is that allowed? They've completely misrepresented what Lord Rodger fucking said, the bastards.

I can't even get my head around it. I haven't had a chance to read the full judgments yet but I fail to see how anyone can see this decision as a bad one. Other than pure hatred of course. Fucking hell, it's like they saw the combo of asylum seekers and homosexuality and just went into a fit of right wing hatred.

I'm in full angry gay mode now. Who do I complain to?

 

[Mama Robotnik]

The full article is now on the Express website, I don't want to taint GAF and link to it, but its there.

Started reading it and had to stop, as my brain cells were forming a union and going on strike due to cruel and unusual treatment.

 

[killer_clank]

OH MY GOD.

 

[SmokyDave]

Woo-Hoo!

That's the final stimulus I needed. Sorry Ladies, Dave is going Fabulous!

Spoiler

How is that cover not the Daily Mail?

I drew something

Well aren't you a talented chap! I like it.

 

[Phantom]

As hate-filled, biased and bigoted as the Daily Express article/front page is it no more misrepresents the story than any normal newspaper headline.

The quote in full from the supreme court judgement is

To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as
male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and
talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy
themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and
talking about boys with their straight female mates.

So a case of selective quoting rather than full on stereotypical hatred, though there is enough of that in the rest of their article.

[edit] To clarify, I by no means condone the article or the sensational biased reporting that is so prevalent in the media today. [/edit]

 

[killer_clank]

The actual article omits the rather important 'trivial stereotypes' part from the quote though, so it's definitely the Express on dodgy ground there.

 

[blazinglord]

As selective and biased the quoting is, 'they must go to Kylie concerts and drink multi-cocktail drinks' is a good line. :lol

But you know, we do have some tough asylum laws in this country, so I don't know why The Express is getting their knickers in a twist. I read quite recently that the coalition is going to continue Labour's plans to return unaccompanied 'children' (although they are 16+) back to Afghanistan. I'm not against this policy, but even I can see that it is pretty tough and does send the message that Britain is not an asylum haven for those who don't follow the proper rules.

 

[345triangle]

Go fuck yourselves, Daily Express.

i...don't know what the "story" is here, but is the express suggesting a blanket ban on homosexual immigrants? that's the only other option i can think of!

 

[Salazar]

i...don't know what the "story" is here, but is the express suggesting a blanket ban on homosexual immigrants? that's the only other option i can think of!

:lol

NOWT 'SYLUM F' POOFS

 

[Mama Robotnik]

Fuck the Daily Star too.

NO ROOM FOR GAYS

OPENING the floodgates to gay asylum seekers is absolute madness.

The idea is bound to be abused. Every illegal desperate to get into Britain will try claiming they’re gay to ensure they stay here.


Some people will do whatever it takes if it means a cushy life in Britain.


This cannot be allowed to happen. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to send back anyone who fears they may suffer in their home country because they’re gay.


That’s admirable ideology. But it’s not practical in the real world.


Their ruling means millions more people will now be eligible to stay in Britain.


And the resulting flood of numbers could push our creaking infrastructure over the edge.


We simply cannot afford to keep taking the world’s outcasts.


Britain is struggling with record debt and millions out of work.


We must look after our own first.


This decision must be overturned.


We cannot solve the world’s problems on our own.

Not even checked the Daily Mail or The Sun either, probably scared of what I'll find.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I find it incredible that people who are intelligent enough to be literate actually write shit like that. It boggles my mind.

 

[Chinner]

Daily Mail is too smart to play that straight, and The Sun isn't sleazy enough.

 

[Lear]

Fuck the Daily Star too.



Not even checked the Daily Mail or The Sun either, probably scared of what I'll find.

Bloody hell, that's awful. Though I don't really class the Star as a newspaper in any sense of the word and nobody reads it for news. Still, shocking that they think that's an acceptable view to hold.

The Daily Mail's take on this is offensive, as per usual. They've gone with a nice misleading headline which totally misrepresents what Lord Rodger said. If you fancy losing yet more faith in your humanity, take a look at the comments. All of the worst rated comments are those which show a sensible, compassionate view while the top rated ones all basically of various ways of saying 'oh everyone's going to say they're gay and get asylum straight away' (because that's clearly how it'll work, you morons. They just take your word for it and let you saunter on into the country). The thing is, we don't even know if the two appellants in the case will be granted asylum - all the Supreme Court did was say that a person's homosexuality is a factor and then sent them back to have another asylum hearing. I think my favourite comment was the one proposing that we abolish the common law, because that would work so well. Idiot.

 

[Enosh]

wondering, what exactly is the criteria for "yes you are gay" vs "you are just faking it"

honestly I have no idea, would like to know

 

[Wes]

"Police forced to abandon power to stop and search the public without reasonable suspicion after European court rules it illegal"

Hurray for minor victories?

 

[Chinner]

wondering, what exactly is the criteria for "yes you are gay" vs "you are just faking it"

honestly I have no idea, would like to know

you got to make out with a guy in front of the judge for 10 minutes.

 

[Mr. Sam]

The Daily Mail's take on this is offensive, as per usual.

"Them new-fangled 'omosexuals just oughter not mince ahrand in their own blahdy cahntry! Then they'll be alright."

 

[louis89]

They're just writing what their readers want to read. That's the reality of privately owned news media.

Ignorant people exist anyway. I don't blame the papers for making money off of them wanting to read their own opinions in newspaper form.

 

[cntr]

oh this thread didn't actually die

nice

 

[Zenith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y77T0Yb9sc

when he closes the book it looks like he has claws or talons.

They're just writing what their readers want to read. That's the reality of privately owned news media.

The authors also believe what they write. Don't try and invalidate their arguments by pretending "they just playing it up as an act". Just reading any of the stuff tabloid journalists get up and the views they air in private to shows you what scum they are.

 

[speculawyer]

nm wrong poligaf thread.

 

[Chinner]

i wonder what having sex with mandy is like

 

[killer_clank]

i wonder what having sex with mandy is like

OH GOD

 

[Chinner]

this is kind of depressing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/food-standards-agency-abolished-health-secretary

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, will tomorrow announce the abolition of the Food Standards Agency – which has fought a running battle with industry over the introduction of colour-coded "traffic light" warnings for groceries, TV dinners and snacks – sparking accusations that the minister has "caved in to big business".

i've taken quite a big interest in health and fitness this last month, and stuff like this is just depressing because its blatantly bad for the population

 

[Sage00]

Certainly wasn't expecting that, but I suppose I should've been. Typical Tory move, Ofcom is next.

 

[Chinner]

it's going to be seriously depressing when ofcom goes.

 

[killer_clank]

this is kind of depressing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/food-standards-agency-abolished-health-secretary

i've taken quite a big interest in health and fitness this last month, and stuff like this is just depressing because its blatantly bad for the population

Well if the organisations they're spinning the responsibilities off to can do the job sufficiently I don't see a massive problem.

We definitely need a string voice on issues such as this however, and I hope it doesn't affect some of the measures taken to stop obesity and the likes.

Things like OFCOM definitely need to stay though, and I'll definitely be pissed if that is scrapped. I remember that before the election the tories said the would scrap it, but for some reason I recall it was saved in the coalition paper? Or was that the Financial one?

 

[Sage00]

Well if the organisations they're spinning the responsibilities off to can do the job sufficiently I don't see a massive problem.

They're not organisations, they're government departments. The reason FSA worked as hard as it could and pushed the industry is because it had its own independent agendas to work on. Now ministers who head those departments will be in charge, and they're not going to touch the big food business.

 

[UnblessedSoul]

Bad move to kill off the FSA, next election will be fun

 

[phisheep]

this is kind of depressing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/food-standards-agency-abolished-health-secretary

"The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, will tomorrow announce the abolition of the Food Standards Agency – which has fought a running battle with industry over the introduction of colour-coded "traffic light" warnings for groceries, TV dinners and snacks – sparking accusations that the minister has "caved in to big business".

i've taken quite a big interest in health and fitness this last month, and stuff like this is just depressing because its blatantly bad for the population

I take the opposite view.

This is the government. If they want to make a law about this, they can. If they don't want to, they need not. It's nice and simple.

Instead we have an expensive 'agency' spending our money to try to persuade people to do something that they are not required by law to do - which seems to be a singularly and perversely inefficient and ineffective way of achieving something that, if it is needed at all, could be done through the ordinary law.

 

[dalyr95]

Remember these traffic light systems were voluntary and not mandated by anyone.

 

[killer_clank]

Remember these traffic light systems were voluntary and not mandated by anyone.

I personally prefer the way it is on most food with the GDA's and values.

 

[phisheep]

Remember these traffic light systems were voluntary and not mandated by anyone.

Yep, and that is a problem. Maybe if they were to be mandatory they'd be better thought through. Everyone, including the FSA, knows that the whole diet is what is important rather than individual foodstuffs, and that - say - if you're getting your daily dose of food group A over there and your dose of Foodgroup/vitamin X from over THERE, then that's perfectly fine.

What the traffic lights try to do is label individual items as 'good' or 'bad' and that just isn't the way nutrition works.

Besides, there is that old adage "one man's meat is another man's poison" which is as true now as it was in the days of the emperor Claudius - for example, a traffic light system suitable for me would have scary red signals on everything containing nuts and red-and-amber on eggs. For most people both would be green (unless, I suppose, they are heavily-salted peanuts).

Now riddle me this - why are we paying for a Food Standards Agency to standardise something that can't sensibly be standardised because people are different?

Edit: and if you have a good answer to that, then explain why they are trying to do it by persuasion rather than through legislation (to which the answer is that if there were legislation it would be a restriction of trade under EU law and they couldn't do it ... so they really shouldn't be even trying to do it in the first place).

 

[brain_stew]

this is kind of depressing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/food-standards-agency-abolished-health-secretary

i've taken quite a big interest in health and fitness this last month, and stuff like this is just depressing because its blatantly bad for the population

Wtf!? How can this be jusitifed? It'll only end up costing us more in the long run through NHS bills

 

[phisheep]

Wtf!? How can this be jusitifed? It'll only end up costing us more in the long run through NHS bills

Um, unlikely, given that its functions (so far as they affect public health) are being reassigned to the department of health - which will have a pretty sharp eye on the costs.

 

[Salazar]

i wonder what having sex with mandy is like

You wouldn't even know it had happened. He'd send you a letter with photographs, an unkind assessment of your body and abilities, a suggestion to see your doctor, and a threat to sue.