Well clearly my A Level in English language is insufficient to tell any difference between "are held" and "are being held" , a comprehensive explanation of the difference would be welcomed .
Clearly you are right and your English A level teaching was severely lacking if you cannot tell the difference between 'are held' (which can indicate a series of repetitive non current events) and 'are being held' (which indicates a current state of affairs).
And given the fact that we can see from the data what the UKIP quote was referring to and that the fact-check backed up their numbers clearly you are being at the very best extremely misleading. Something we have of course come to expect from Lib Dem spinners down the years - although perhaps with more competence than you are currently showing.
Are held and are being held are both present tense . If you wished to correctly describe something that occurred as a sequence of events in the past rather than distort the facts then you would have used a form of the past tense for example "were held" . You are struggling to justify something which you know to have been presented in a deliberately misleading manner .
Incorrect. It is grammatically correct to say 'World Cup tournaments are held every 4 years'. It is equally correct to say that several thousand Romanians 'are held [for questioning]' every year. Neither of these indicate the event is ongoing in the present tense at the moment when the statement is made.
You have been caught out and now are thrashing around to try and justify your position. It is not working and you are just making yourself look rather silly.
There are lots of reasons for criticising the UKIP campaign (although that doesn't mean it won't work) but you had to try and be clever and have fallen flat on your face.
It would be equally correct to say that World Cup tounaments are held every 4 years as it would be to say they are being held every 4 years as the meaning and fact is the same . They both indicate the present tense .
But neither indicate they are being held at this moment - which is the meaning you tried to imply for the UKIP quote. Try again Mark.
I assume you feel the same about people purchasing narcotics?
For narcotics which aren't excessively addictive, yes. When addiction is overwhelming, however, the question of "consent" becomes more cloudy.
How about selling organs?
An interesting question. I haven't considered the issue in depth before, so I'd have to hear the arguments from each side and think about it.
The basic arguments involve exploitation of the poor vs a person's liberty.
Or from a philosophical point of view some like to make the distinction between personal property and one's own person (although the counter to that involves things like donating hair, and if I'm free to have my appendix removed why can't I have my kidney removed and then sell it).
Edit: Oh and I am already competing with Romanians for my job. I just do it better than they do at the moment which is the only reason I get the work.
Of course, 15 million or so people - those who work in export industries, or one where there can be foreign competition, those in IT, in oil & gas, in finance, in professional services, in manufacturing, etc. - already compete with 5 billion people around the world.
It has always seemed strange that we say "OK, you 15 million people, you must compete on the open market with people around the world. And you other 15 million, well, you must be protected from foreign competition." What is it about the hairdresser that means they deserve special governmental protection?
1. UKIP launched its first salvo of the EU campaign, in a national poster spread on boards and on Twitter. 2. The above development has sent the Lab/Lib/Con in a frenzy of abuse. 3. Its mortified the PBers who support the Lab/Lib/Con into denial mode; e,g. All this will pass, etcetera. 4. The surprise poster launch on Easter Monday has caught the other parties on the hop. 5. It's pleased me no end.
Well clearly my A Level in English language is insufficient to tell any difference between "are held" and "are being held" , a comprehensive explanation of the difference would be welcomed .
Clearly you are right and your English A level teaching was severely lacking if you cannot tell the difference between 'are held' (which can indicate a series of repetitive non current events) and 'are being held' (which indicates a current state of affairs).
And given the fact that we can see from the data what the UKIP quote was referring to and that the fact-check backed up their numbers clearly you are being at the very best extremely misleading. Something we have of course come to expect from Lib Dem spinners down the years - although perhaps with more competence than you are currently showing.
Are held and are being held are both present tense . If you wished to correctly describe something that occurred as a sequence of events in the past rather than distort the facts then you would have used a form of the past tense for example "were held" . You are struggling to justify something which you know to have been presented in a deliberately misleading manner .
Incorrect. It is grammatically correct to say 'World Cup tournaments are held every 4 years'. It is equally correct to say that several thousand Romanians 'are held [for questioning]' every year. Neither of these indicate the event is ongoing in the present tense at the moment when the statement is made.
You have been caught out and now are thrashing around to try and justify your position. It is not working and you are just making yourself look rather silly.
There are lots of reasons for criticising the UKIP campaign (although that doesn't mean it won't work) but you had to try and be clever and have fallen flat on your face.
It would be equally correct to say that World Cup tounaments are held every 4 years as it would be to say they are being held every 4 years as the meaning and fact is the same . They both indicate the present tense .
But neither indicate they are being held at this moment - which is the meaning you tried to imply for the UKIP quote. Try again Mark.
It would and they are .
As I said before therefore, your English comprehension is clearly severely lacking. You have comprehensively lost this one.
All that remains to be seen is whether your poor education is an indictment of the comprehensive or grammar school system (assuming you didn't go private which, if you did, might explain a lot)..
"The minutiae will be a pain to transfer and take some time. From tax returns to moving pensions SOTB. It can of course all be sorted out but the law of unintended consequences will kick in on both sides leaving a lot of hassle for all and probably lighter pockets."
I would expect the private stuff to be seamless as far as the investor is concerned, though the capital flight south might cause some consternation North of the border. No, it is the government stuff where it is going to get messy, especially if different rates/rules apply because I am not sure the computer systems are agile enough to cope. The politicians maybe able to negotiate a deal but will the techies be able to make it work?
Hurst , FPT re tax collection in Scotland. There are at least 2 tax centres in Scotland and the main one was always Tax Centre 1 in East Kilbride. They also collect tax for large parts of England as well. Depends who you work for, my tax centre is south of England.
Thanks for that, Mr. G., my main interest though was where the computers are not where the data is processed. In sorting out the post independence mess, where the data is matters more than where the clerks are.
They have multiple data centres, it is all outsourced mainly to Fujitsu and Cap Gemini. I am not sure of all the locations.
Thanks, Mr. G.. I have a feeling that mundane issues such as these are going to where the real stumbling blocks will lie in any post independence vote negotiations. The big stuff that everyone gets excited about (currency and Faslane/Coulport) are pretty easy to resolve by comparison to such issues as where and how Mr. Brooke's tax returns get processed and the money remitted to the correct account. Then there is National Insurance, all processed through Newcastle as I understand it, and driver and vehicle licensing records held at Swansea.
One last question, will iScotland have a written constitution? I don't recall seeing anything about it, but it may be quit important for an independent state to have some formal constitution arrangements.
The minutiae will be a pain to transfer and take some time. From tax returns to moving pensions SOTB. It can of course all be sorted out but the law of unintended consequences will kick in on both sides leaving a lot of hassle for all and probably lighter pockets.
Edit: quoting muddled - my bit starts here:
On the constitution: as always, see White Paper, but essentially plans are for temporary one to keep the country going pending an all-party and cross-civic society panel to develop the permanent one. Sensible enough.
The posters are failures on the basic level of truth. You don't see builders begging. No one, not even the most fervent Kipper, believes that the 26 million unemployed of the EU all want their job. The public may sympathise with the message, but will also recognise that it is way over the top.
When voters vote seriously (which they won't in the EU elections), they will remember that UKIP is not a serious party. If UKIP's aim is to top the poll in May by tapping into a mood of discontent, these posters may help them. But these will hinder their cause in May 2015, not help them.
People who don't like UKIP will hate the posters and love almost any parody. Those who don't like UKIP (including not a few Conservatives) will also throw the racist card at them.
Both play into UKIP's hands.
A few comments here on the accuracy of the posters. The point here is that 26 million people across the EU may be looking for work and have the *right* to come to Britain to seek a job; they are therefore in nominal competition for UK jobs with British workers. The fact that only a couple of million might do so over 5-6 years isn't the point. It's a political advert.
No hard-hitting political advert - of any party - has ever chosen unambiguous scientific accuracy over an emotional message. UKIP is not alone in this respect. 'Economic Disaster II' (Labour), '3 million reasons' (to vote Labour) *Pigs might fly* 'The Day the Tory sums add up' (Labour) 'Labour's Double Whammy' (Tory) 'If you thought Charles Kennedy's Lib Dems could win here,this is how you'd vote' (Lib Dem) 'Labour isn't working' (Tory) were all gross simplifications and exaggerations, but arguably all very effective.
What the reaction across the media and twittersphere is really saying is that some people really don't like UKIP very much and do not want them to be successful.
There are several foolish things about the Scandinavian model on prostitution:
1. As the punters will know it's illegal to buy, the whole market has to get forced underground where it is unregulated, dangerous for the women, and likely to involve more trafficked girls.
2. It is a recipe for extortion and blackmail if two people can carry out an act together, and only one person is legally responsible. The prostitute can then threaten to screw over the punter's entire life unless they are paid handsomely.
3. While I personally thing prostitution is immoral and a mistake for both buyer and seller, it is not for me, or anyone else, to enforce our morality on grown adults making a consensual transaction.
The whole model isn't about improving the welfare of the women involved. It's about using the force of government to say how awful men are.
Pretty much agree with that. As usual, I ask what problems any laws on prostitution are meant to fix: 1) Protect prostitutes (either female or male) from danger and exploitation 2) Protect society (e.g. children) 3) Decrease sexual health risks for both prostitute and client 4) Decrease a nebulous moral 'problem' to do with sex outside marriage and relationships.
It seems to me that our current laws, and the Scandinavian model, do not really address any of these. But neither are there easy alternatives, given the wide range of prostitution out there. From well-paid high-class escorts, to trafficked women: it is hard to find a model that fulfils all the objectives.
Would a 75 year old man giving a £1 million engagement ring to a 20 year old woman be considered prostitution if they went to a bedroom where she showed her appreciation ?
What if it was 25 year old man and instead of a £1m ring it was a good night out? What goes on between two consenting adults in private is surely no concern of the state, for other events we have laws a plenty.
1. UKIP launched its first salvo of the EU campaign, in a national poster spread on boards and on Twitter. 2. The above development has sent the Lab/Lib/Con in a frenzy of abuse. 3. Its mortified the PBers who support the Lab/Lib/Con into denial mode; e,g. All this will pass, etcetera. 4. The surprise poster launch on Easter Monday has caught the other parties on the hop. 5. It's pleased me no end.
Well clearly my A Level in English language is insufficient to tell any difference between "are held" and "are being held" , a comprehensive explanation of the difference would be welcomed .
Are held and are being held are both present tense . If you wished to correctly describe something that occurred as a sequence of events in the past rather than distort the facts then you would have used a form of the past tense for example "were held" . You are struggling to justify something which you know to have been presented in a deliberately misleading manner .
Incorrect. It is grammatically correct to say 'World Cup tournaments are held every 4 years'. It is equally correct to say that several thousand Romanians 'are held [for questioning]' every year. Neither of these indicate the event is ongoing in the present tense at the moment when the statement is made.
You have been caught out and now are thrashing around to try and justify your position. It is not working and you are just making yourself look rather silly.
There are lots of reasons for criticising the UKIP campaign (although that doesn't mean it won't work) but you had to try and be clever and have fallen flat on your face.
It would be equally correct to say that World Cup tounaments are held every 4 years as it would be to say they are being held every 4 years as the meaning and fact is the same . They both indicate the present tense .
But neither indicate they are being held at this moment - which is the meaning you tried to imply for the UKIP quote. Try again Mark.
It would and they are .
As I said before therefore, your English comprehension is clearly severely lacking. You have comprehensively lost this one.
All that remains to be seen is whether your poor education is an indictment of the comprehensive or grammar school system (assuming you didn't go private which, if you did, might explain a lot)..
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
The posters are failures on the basic level of truth. You don't see builders begging. No one, not even the most fervent Kipper, believes that the 26 million unemployed of the EU all want their job. The public may sympathise with the message, but will also recognise that it is way over the top.
When voters vote seriously (which they won't in the EU elections), they will remember that UKIP is not a serious party. If UKIP's aim is to top the poll in May by tapping into a mood of discontent, these posters may help them. But these will hinder their cause in May 2015, not help them.
People who don't like UKIP will hate the posters and love almost any parody. Those who don't like UKIP (including not a few Conservatives) will also throw the racist card at them.
Both play into UKIP's hands.
A few comments here on the accuracy of the posters. The point here is that 26 million people across the EU may be looking for work and have the *right* to come to Britain to seek a job; they are therefore in nominal competition for UK jobs with British workers. The fact that only a couple of million might do so over 5-6 years isn't the point. It's a political advert.
No hard-hitting political advert - of any party - has ever chosen ambiguous scientific accuracy over an emotional message. UKIP is not alone in this respect. 'Economic Disaster II' (Labour), '3 million reasons' (to vote Labour) *Pigs might fly* 'The Day the Tory sums add up' (Labour) 'Labour's Double Whammy' (Tory) 'If you thought Charles Kennedy's Lib Dems could win here,this is how you'd vote' (Lib Dem) 'Labour isn't working' (Tory) were all gross simplifications and exaggerations, but arguably all very effective.
What the reaction across the media and twittersphere is really saying is that some people really don't like UKIP very much and do not want them to be successful.
These are not simplifications. These are lies. They speak to a widely held opinion, but when even Richard Tyndall is casting around for brickies with begging bowls, you know they're unsustainable. UKIP operate on the basis that facts are free but opinion is sacred. It will do them long term harm.
O/T - I have no problem with two consenting adults choosing to make sex a transaction. Prohibition is ludicrous. I don't much care for the reasons; sex is a basic human need just like any other. Do I think it's a good idea for either party in the long-run? No. Do I accept that it might be in the short-term on occasion? Perhaps.
This has been debated throughout history, and always will be, and it will always be with us.
There are several foolish things about the Scandinavian model on prostitution:
1. As the punters will know it's illegal to buy, the whole market has to get forced underground where it is unregulated, dangerous for the women, and likely to involve more trafficked girls.
2. It is a recipe for extortion and blackmail if two people can carry out an act together, and only one person is legally responsible. The prostitute can then threaten to screw over the punter's entire life unless they are paid handsomely.
3. While I personally thing prostitution is immoral and a mistake for both buyer and seller, it is not for me, or anyone else, to enforce our morality on grown adults making a consensual transaction.
The whole model isn't about improving the welfare of the women involved. It's about using the force of government to say how awful men are.
Pretty much agree with that. As usual, I ask what problems any laws on prostitution are meant to fix: 1) Protect prostitutes (either female or male) from danger and exploitation 2) Protect society (e.g. children) 3) Decrease sexual health risks for both prostitute and client 4) Decrease a nebulous moral 'problem' to do with sex outside marriage and relationships.
It seems to me that our current laws, and the Scandinavian model, do not really address any of these. But neither are there easy alternatives, given the wide range of prostitution out there. From well-paid high-class escorts, to trafficked women: it is hard to find a model that fulfils all the objectives.
Would a 75 year old man giving a £1 million engagement ring to a 20 year old woman be considered prostitution if they went to a bedroom where she showed her appreciation ?
What if it was 25 year old man and instead of a £1m ring it was a good night out? What goes on between two consenting adults in private is surely no concern of the state, for other events we have laws a plenty.
"The minutiae will be a pain to transfer and take some time. From tax returns to moving pensions SOTB. It can of course all be sorted out but the law of unintended consequences will kick in on both sides leaving a lot of hassle for all and probably lighter pockets."
I would expect the private stuff to be seamless as far as the investor is concerned, though the capital flight south might cause some consternation North of the border. No, it is the government stuff where it is going to get messy, especially if different rates/rules apply because I am not sure the computer systems are agile enough to cope. The politicians maybe able to negotiate a deal but will the techies be able to make it work?
I think the capital flight will be a big enough and real problem. The pension companies will get swamped with brits looking to move their cash if there's a yes vote. It will be Northern McRock and both governments will have to step in to provide security for investors.
Likewise for employees all those people processing tax returns, which government now employs them and who has to pay the redundancies associated with restructuring ?
Edit: Oh and I am already competing with Romanians for my job. I just do it better than they do at the moment which is the only reason I get the work.
Of course, 15 million or so people - those who work in export industries, or one where there can be foreign competition, those in IT, in oil & gas, in finance, in professional services, in manufacturing, etc. - already compete with 5 billion people around the world.
It has always seemed strange that we say "OK, you 15 million people, you must compete on the open market with people around the world. And you other 15 million, well, you must be protected from foreign competition." What is it about the hairdresser that means they deserve special governmental protection?
Whilst I am happy to compete (and basically agree with your point) I would suspect that the reason there is resistance to an entirely open market in jobs is because for many people it removes the possibility of employment.
I am in an extremely privileged position where I earn enough through my own company and have done a job for long enough (and well enough) that if I lose work for several months I have a good chance of surviving without calling upon the government for assistance and also of getting another contract either here or overseas. But I have to recognise that that is not an option for most people. I should not judge the way the labour market should work based upon my own privileged position.
The job of any government is to ensure the well being and hopefully continued prosperity of their own citizens, not of the citizens of other countries. As such if the open market in labour means that large numbers of Britons end up out of work then it is incumbent upon the government to put in place such measures as will prevent or mitigate against that development.
"On the constitution: as always, see White Paper, but essentially plans are for temporary one to keep the country going pending an all-party and cross-civic society panel to develop the permanent one. Sensible enough."
Thanks, Carnyx. I knew someone would know and I would not be forced back to reading White Paper. The point from my perspective is that the constitution will be sorted out post actual independence and therefore have no impact on negotiations*.
Always assuming there is a Yes vote of course, which, while I am hopeful, cannot be taken for granted.
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
Says the man who believes the world cup is being held at the moment. Which match is being played and who is winning now Mark? Oh and how are we doing in the Olympics since they are 'held every four years' so according to you must be going on at the moment?
Just seen the first episode of Farscape, a mere 15 years after it first aired. I hope Ben Browder doesn't get a role in Dragon Age: Inquisition. It was weird enough watching the last two seasons of Stargate: SG-1.
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
Says the man who believes the world cup is being held at the moment. Which match is being played and who is winning now Mark? Oh and how are we doing in the Olympics since they are 'held every four years' so according to you must be going on at the moment?
The World Cup has been ongoing since the last one was completed . The finals are being held in a few weeks time but they are the climax of the past few years' competition ..
The posters are failures on the basic level of truth. You don't see builders begging. No one, not even the most fervent Kipper, believes that the 26 million unemployed of the EU all want their job. The public may sympathise with the message, but will also recognise that it is way over the top.
When voters vote seriously (which they won't in the EU elections), they will remember that UKIP is not a serious party. If UKIP's aim is to top the poll in May by tapping into a mood of discontent, these posters may help them. But these will hinder their cause in May 2015, not help them.
No hard-hitting political advert - of any party - has ever chosen ambiguous scientific accuracy over an emotional message. UKIP is not alone in this respect. 'Economic Disaster II' (Labour), '3 million reasons' (to vote Labour) *Pigs might fly* 'The Day the Tory sums add up' (Labour) 'Labour's Double Whammy' (Tory) 'If you thought Charles Kennedy's Lib Dems could win here,this is how you'd vote' (Lib Dem) 'Labour isn't working' (Tory) were all gross simplifications and exaggerations, but arguably all very effective.
What the reaction across the media and twittersphere is really saying is that some people really don't like UKIP very much and do not want them to be successful.
These are not simplifications. These are lies. They speak to a widely held opinion, but when even Richard Tyndall is casting around for brickies with begging bowls, you know they're unsustainable. UKIP operate on the basis that facts are free but opinion is sacred. It will do them long term harm.
They are no more lies than any other political poster. It was rubbish for Labour to claim that Hague/Portillo would cause "Economic Disaster II" in 2001 (although rather prophetic about themselves) and was even more laughable to claim in 2005 that the day the Tory sums added up would be when pigs flew (it's hard not to laugh now, but I recall that caused a little short-lived offence over perceptions of anti-Semitism at the time)
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
Just seen the first episode of Farscape, a mere 15 years after it first aired. I hope Ben Browder doesn't get a role in Dragon Age: Inquisition. It was weird enough watching the last two seasons of Stargate: SG-1.
There are several foolish things about the Scandinavian model on prostitution:
1. As the punters will know it's illegal to buy, the whole market has to get forced underground where it is unregulated, dangerous for the women, and likely to involve more trafficked girls.
2. It is a recipe for extortion and blackmail if two people can carry out an act together, and only one person is legally responsible. The prostitute can then threaten to screw over the punter's entire life unless they are paid handsomely.
3. While I personally thing prostitution is immoral and a mistake for both buyer and seller, it is not for me, or anyone else, to enforce our morality on grown adults making a consensual transaction.
The whole model isn't about improving the welfare of the women involved. It's about using the force of government to say how awful men are.
Pretty much agree with that. As usual, I ask what problems any laws on prostitution are meant to fix: 1) Protect prostitutes (either female or male) from danger and exploitation 2) Protect society (e.g. children) 3) Decrease sexual health risks for both prostitute and client 4) Decrease a nebulous moral 'problem' to do with sex outside marriage and relationships.
It seems to me that our current laws, and the Scandinavian model, do not really address any of these. But neither are there easy alternatives, given the wide range of prostitution out there. From well-paid high-class escorts, to trafficked women: it is hard to find a model that fulfils all the objectives.
Would a 75 year old man giving a £1 million engagement ring to a 20 year old woman be considered prostitution if they went to a bedroom where she showed her appreciation ?
If there's no compulsion, no. It's none of my, or your, business.
Leaving aside any moral issues (and we should), the biggest problems with prostitution have to be exploitation and physical and sexual danger. In the case above, they would not count.
The only people who *may* have any reason to complain are the 75-year old man's family, who lose a bit of their inheritance ...
The posters are failures on the basic level of truth. You don't see builders begging. No one, not even the most fervent Kipper, believes that the 26 million unemployed of the EU all want their job. The public may sympathise with the message, but will also recognise that it is way over the top.
When voters vote seriously (which they won't in the EU elections), they will remember that UKIP is not a serious party. If UKIP's aim is to top the poll in May by tapping into a mood of discontent, these posters may help them. But these will hinder their cause in May 2015, not help them.
People who don't like UKIP will hate the posters and love almost any parody. Those who don't like UKIP (including not a few Conservatives) will also throw the racist card at them.
Both play into UKIP's hands.
A few comments here on the accuracy of the posters. The point here is that 26 million people across the EU may be looking for work and have the *right* to come to Britain to seek a job; they are therefore in nominal competition for UK jobs with British workers. The fact that only a couple of million might do so over 5-6 years isn't the point. It's a political advert.
No hard-hitting political advert - of any party - has ever chosen ambiguous scientific accuracy over an emotional message. UKIP is not alone in this respect. 'Economic Disaster II' (Labour), '3 million reasons' (to vote Labour) *Pigs might fly* 'The Day the Tory sums add up' (Labour) 'Labour's Double Whammy' (Tory) 'If you thought Charles Kennedy's Lib Dems could win here,this is how you'd vote' (Lib Dem) 'Labour isn't working' (Tory) were all gross simplifications and exaggerations, but arguably all very effective.
What the reaction across the media and twittersphere is really saying is that some people really don't like UKIP very much and do not want them to be successful.
These are not simplifications. These are lies. They speak to a widely held opinion, but when even Richard Tyndall is casting around for brickies with begging bowls, you know they're unsustainable. UKIP operate on the basis that facts are free but opinion is sacred. It will do them long term harm.
Really, it won't. Any more than "24 hours to save the NHS " harmed Labour.
"As such if the open market in labour means that large numbers of Britons end up out of work then it is incumbent upon the government to put in place such measures as will prevent or mitigate against that development."
Very true, but the real evil (and I use the word carefully) is that many young Briton's never get the chance to experience work, or at least to train for meaningful posts, in the first place. At some point Goldman Sachs' (and its hangers on) version of a Global workforce is going to have to come in contact with political reality in the UK. Best for both sides if that happens sooner rather than later.
Mr. F, I'd be willing to entertain a Nordic model. Ahem.
Yeah, there's a very special application of 'equality' which asserts the genders are basically equal, except in instances of sex-related things where men are lusty horndogs and women are the Virgin Mary reborn. It irks me, somewhat. The Agents of SHIELD episode with this idea was a bit disappointing. Either keep chivalry and damsels in distress, and the weakness of men, or ditch the lot. It's inconsistent to proclaim equality for good things (such as May being the biggest kicker of arse on the bus) but leave men with their negatives.
They are no more lies than any other political poster. It was rubbish for Labour to claim that Hague/Portillo would cause "Economic Disaster II" in 2001 (although rather prophetic about themselves) and was even more laughable to claim in 2005 that the day the Tory sums added up would be when pigs flew (it's hard not to laugh now, but I recall that caused a little short-lived offence over perceptions of anti-Semitism at the time)
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
No. I'm saying that builders do not beg and 26 million workers are not heading here. When UKIP can start getting basic facts right, it can be taken seriously. Till then, it can be laughed at as a joke party.
They are no more lies than any other political poster. It was rubbish for Labour to claim that Hague/Portillo would cause "Economic Disaster II" in 2001 (although rather prophetic about themselves) and was even more laughable to claim in 2005 that the day the Tory sums added up would be when pigs flew (it's hard not to laugh now, but I recall that caused a little short-lived offence over perceptions of anti-Semitism at the time)
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
No. I'm saying that builders do not beg and 26 million workers are not heading here. When UKIP can start getting basic facts right, it can be taken seriously. Till then, it can be laughed at as a joke party.
You carry on laughing then, Mr, Antifrank. If it is a joke party then it doesn't matter, no need for you to pay any attention to the fact that it seems to be hitting the spot with a substantial number of people. Its just a joke party, concentrate on your swimming pool (summer is coming) and forget about it.
There are several foolish things about the Scandinavian model on prostitution:
1. As the punters will know it's illegal to buy, the whole market has to get forced underground where it is unregulated, dangerous for the women, and likely to involve more trafficked girls.
2. It is a recipe for extortion and blackmail if two people can carry out an act together, and only one person is legally responsible. The prostitute can then threaten to screw over the punter's entire life unless they are paid handsomely.
3. While I personally thing prostitution is immoral and a mistake for both buyer and seller, it is not for me, or anyone else, to enforce our morality on grown adults making a consensual transaction.
The whole model isn't about improving the welfare of the women involved. It's about using the force of government to say how awful men are.
Pretty much agree with that. As usual, I ask what problems any laws on prostitution are meant to fix: 1) Protect prostitutes (either female or male) from danger and exploitation 2) Protect society (e.g. children) 3) Decrease sexual health risks for both prostitute and client 4) Decrease a nebulous moral 'problem' to do with sex outside marriage and relationships.
It seems to me that our current laws, and the Scandinavian model, do not really address any of these. But neither are there easy alternatives, given the wide range of prostitution out there. From well-paid high-class escorts, to trafficked women: it is hard to find a model that fulfils all the objectives.
Would a 75 year old man giving a £1 million engagement ring to a 20 year old woman be considered prostitution if they went to a bedroom where she showed her appreciation ?
If there's no compulsion, no. It's none of my, or your, business.
Leaving aside any moral issues (and we should), the biggest problems with prostitution have to be exploitation and physical and sexual danger. In the case above, they would not count.
The only people who *may* have any reason to complain are the 75-year old man's family, who lose a bit of their inheritance ...
I agree but the argument of some is that it should be illegal if money changes hands irrespective of whether there is compulsion or not .
They are no more lies than any other political poster. It was rubbish for Labour to claim that Hague/Portillo would cause "Economic Disaster II" in 2001 (although rather prophetic about themselves) and was even more laughable to claim in 2005 that the day the Tory sums added up would be when pigs flew (it's hard not to laugh now, but I recall that caused a little short-lived offence over perceptions of anti-Semitism at the time)
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
No. I'm saying that builders do not beg and 26 million workers are not heading here. When UKIP can start getting basic facts right, it can be taken seriously. Till then, it can be laughed at as a joke party.
You might find it a joke party but people living in areas where mass immigration of poor unskilled Eastern Europeans are coming,find them the only party of protest to the 3 main parties who support free movement of people.
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
Says the man who believes the world cup is being held at the moment. Which match is being played and who is winning now Mark? Oh and how are we doing in the Olympics since they are 'held every four years' so according to you must be going on at the moment?
The World Cup has been ongoing since the last one was completed . The finals are being held in a few weeks time but they are the climax of the past few years' competition ..
Now you are getting really desperate. Qualification is not the World cup itself. Indeed FIFA refer to qualification 'for' the event which 'is held' every 4 years.
Face it Mark, you are out of your depth and are now drowning.
If you want I can throw you a few more bricks to help you on your way to the bottom. Meanwhile you can pretend you are still waving.
Mr. F, I'd be willing to entertain a Nordic model. Ahem.
Yeah, there's a very special application of 'equality' which asserts the genders are basically equal, except in instances of sex-related things where men are lusty horndogs and women are the Virgin Mary reborn. It irks me, somewhat. The Agents of SHIELD episode with this idea was a bit disappointing. Either keep chivalry and damsels in distress, and the weakness of men, or ditch the lot. It's inconsistent to proclaim equality for good things (such as May being the biggest kicker of arse on the bus) but leave men with their negatives.
Mr Dancer, you're conflating different things.
That is what men/women naturally are vs what is down to societal influence, and also between individuals (I have no direct knowledge of May's arse kicking abilities) and the general population (the greater tendency of men to be 'lusty horndogs' is I believe borne out by research), and many feminists would agree with you in disliking the greater stigma around women having/desiring sex, and would characterise it as caused by societal pressure and a hangover from previous eras.
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
Says the man who believes the world cup is being held at the moment. Which match is being played and who is winning now Mark? Oh and how are we doing in the Olympics since they are 'held every four years' so according to you must be going on at the moment?
The World Cup has been ongoing since the last one was completed . The finals are being held in a few weeks time but they are the climax of the past few years' competition ..
Now you are getting really desperate. Qualification is not the World cup itself. Indeed FIFA refer to qualification 'for' the event which 'is held' every 4 years.
Face it Mark, you are out of your depth and are now drowning.
If you want I can throw you a few more bricks to help you on your way to the bottom. Meanwhile you can pretend you are still waving.
Out of curiosity Richard, is there any limit on are? I mean reading down thread it seems that those figures are aggregated over 5 years correct?
Can I use are to refer to figures aggregated over any amount of history without being misleading?
They are no more lies than any other political poster. It was rubbish for Labour to claim that Hague/Portillo would cause "Economic Disaster II" in 2001 (although rather prophetic about themselves) and was even more laughable to claim in 2005 that the day the Tory sums added up would be when pigs flew (it's hard not to laugh now, but I recall that caused a little short-lived offence over perceptions of anti-Semitism at the time)
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
No. I'm saying that builders do not beg and 26 million workers are not heading here. When UKIP can start getting basic facts right, it can be taken seriously. Till then, it can be laughed at as a joke party.
You carry on laughing then, Mr, Antifrank. If it is a joke party then it doesn't matter, no need for you to pay any attention to the fact that it seems to be hitting the spot with a substantial number of people. Its just a joke party, concentrate on your swimming pool (summer is coming) and forget about it.
UKIP will do well next month. There's no doubt about that. The EU elections aren't serious elections. But if UKIP do much worse next year than you'd expect now, there will be much scratching of heads. And posters like these will be symptomatic of the underlying cause. It's fine having these opinions. But if you're going to say something controversial like "Labour isn't working", you need to have a backing fact like the unemployment level. Not a backing lie.
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
Says the man who believes the world cup is being held at the moment. Which match is being played and who is winning now Mark? Oh and how are we doing in the Olympics since they are 'held every four years' so according to you must be going on at the moment?
The World Cup has been ongoing since the last one was completed . The finals are being held in a few weeks time but they are the climax of the past few years' competition ..
Now you are getting really desperate. Qualification is not the World cup itself. Indeed FIFA refer to qualification 'for' the event which 'is held' every 4 years.
Face it Mark, you are out of your depth and are now drowning.
If you want I can throw you a few more bricks to help you on your way to the bottom. Meanwhile you can pretend you are still waving.
You can try but you will find it impossible to throw bricks up from the bottom of the sea bed .
"The cluster effect - and why Labour cannot count on ethnic minority voters any more By Trevor Phillips and Richard Webber
Amongst the many surprises awaiting Ed Miliband’s new American strategist, David Axelrod, will be the discovery that the British political class knows almost nothing about the ethnic and cultural composition of their electors, and generally speaking cares even less. The consensus is that minority voters lean to Labour and undue attention to them will simply send white voters galloping off to UKIP."
I went to a private grammar school under the assisted places scheme in place at the time whereby the top 30 11 year olds in Blackpool were given public funding to attend that school rather than comprehensive or Blackpool Grammar . Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
Says the man who believes the world cup is being held at the moment. Which match is being played and who is winning now Mark? Oh and how are we doing in the Olympics since they are 'held every four years' so according to you must be going on at the moment?
The World Cup has been ongoing since the last one was completed . The finals are being held in a few weeks time but they are the climax of the past few years' competition ..
Now you are getting really desperate. Qualification is not the World cup itself. Indeed FIFA refer to qualification 'for' the event which 'is held' every 4 years.
Face it Mark, you are out of your depth and are now drowning.
If you want I can throw you a few more bricks to help you on your way to the bottom. Meanwhile you can pretend you are still waving.
Out of curiosity Richard, is there any limit on are? I mean reading down thread it seems that those figures are aggregated over 5 years correct?
Can I use are to refer to figures aggregated over any amount of history without being misleading?
If you look way back you will see I said the figures were misleading for the very reason you mention.
I also personally believe there is a complete logic failure in the idea that because a particular portion of a group in society commit more crime we should use that as an excuse to ban or limit the whole group. On that basis we would have to look at keeping all men on a permanent curfew because they commit most rapes. It is a stupid way to look at these issues.
But that is separate from my Mark baiting which is based entirely on him having made a stupid and unsupportable statement (that the UKIP numbers indicated there were 28,000 Romanians currently in detention) and then desperately trying to defend it on false grammatical grounds.
Basically I am having fun at his expense because he is so far up his own backside he can't bring himself to admit he made a mistake.
They are no more lies than any other political poster. It was rubbish for Labour to claim that Hague/Portillo would cause "Economic Disaster II" in 2001 (although rather prophetic about themselves) and was even more laughable to claim in 2005 that the day the Tory sums added up would be when pigs flew (it's hard not to laugh now, but I recall that caused a little short-lived offence over perceptions of anti-Semitism at the time)
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
No. I'm saying that builders do not beg and 26 million workers are not heading here. When UKIP can start getting basic facts right, it can be taken seriously. Till then, it can be laughed at as a joke party.
You carry on laughing then, Mr, Antifrank. If it is a joke party then it doesn't matter, no need for you to pay any attention to the fact that it seems to be hitting the spot with a substantial number of people. Its just a joke party, concentrate on your swimming pool (summer is coming) and forget about it.
UKIP will do well next month. There's no doubt about that. The EU elections aren't serious elections. But if UKIP do much worse next year than you'd expect now, there will be much scratching of heads. And posters like these will be symptomatic of the underlying cause. It's fine having these opinions. But if you're going to say something controversial like "Labour isn't working", you need to have a backing fact like the unemployment level. Not a backing lie.
Could be, Mr. AntiFrank, could well be. I carry no torch for UKIP and if they have no facts to back up their posters then there isn't a problem - you can just laugh at them as a joke party and carry on.
F1: I'll do a proper check of this (and maybe write a piece on it) later, but I've just totted up some races (in 2013) in terms of whether Hamilton or Rosberg did better.
Discounting those with one of them retiring, I get Rosberg 7 to Hamilton 4 (these are post-flyaway races, of course). Rosberg's includes Abu Dhabi, which is double points this year.
If that recurs, Rosberg will not only win, he'll win by around 30 points [assuming Mercedes wins and 1-2s]. However, we have two new circuits (one properly new, Russia, and one sort of new, with the returning A1 ring of Austria) and the two drivers retired four times last year (Hamilton once, Rosberg thrice).
It may be coincidence, but in the four qualifying and three relevant races (Hamilton had a reliability-related DNF in Australia) the results have been identical to last year between the two men.
There are several foolish things about the Scandinavian model on prostitution:
1. As the punters will know it's illegal to buy, the whole market has to get forced underground where it is unregulated, dangerous for the women, and likely to involve more trafficked girls.
2. It is a recipe for extortion and blackmail if two people can carry out an act together, and only one person is legally responsible. The prostitute can then threaten to screw over the punter's entire life unless they are paid handsomely.
3. While I personally thing prostitution is immoral and a mistake for both buyer and seller, it is not for me, or anyone else, to enforce our morality on grown adults making a consensual transaction.
The whole model isn't about improving the welfare of the women involved. It's about using the force of government to say how awful men are.
Pretty much agree with that. As usual, I ask what problems any laws on prostitution are meant to fix: 1) Protect prostitutes (either female or male) from danger and exploitation 2) Protect society (e.g. children) 3) Decrease sexual health risks for both prostitute and client 4) Decrease a nebulous moral 'problem' to do with sex outside marriage and relationships.
It seems to me that our current laws, and the Scandinavian model, do not really address any of these. But neither are there easy alternatives, given the wide range of prostitution out there. From well-paid high-class escorts, to trafficked women: it is hard to find a model that fulfils all the objectives.
Would a 75 year old man giving a £1 million engagement ring to a 20 year old woman be considered prostitution if they went to a bedroom where she showed her appreciation ?
If there's no compulsion, no. It's none of my, or your, business.
Leaving aside any moral issues (and we should), the biggest problems with prostitution have to be exploitation and physical and sexual danger. In the case above, they would not count.
The only people who *may* have any reason to complain are the 75-year old man's family, who lose a bit of their inheritance ...
Many years ago, when I was working in a very exclusive Jewelers, an elderly gentleman with a very attractive young lady came in late one Friday afternoon. A very expensive engagement ring was bought and paid for by cheque. As the ring needed to be sized to fit the young lady's finger which could only be completed the following Monday I wasn't too worried about the cheque bouncing. However, on the Monday I had to phone the gentleman to advise him that there seemed to be insufficient funds in his bank account. I was told "I know son, but I've had a wonderful weekend"
The suggestion by Caroline Spelman that the purchase of sex should be unlawful, but not the selling thereof, is arbitrary, capricious and illiberal, and demonstrates why those who support the liberty of the subject cannot in all good conscience vote Conservative. If the purchase of sex is an offence, why should not someone who sells it be guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of that offence? Furthermore, if enacted, the earnings of prostitutes could be considered to be liable to confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and possession of such criminal property would itself be an offence. Barking mad authoritarianism.
The Nordic model is awful because it tries to place a law between a buyer and seller, by criminalising the process, you invite criminal gangs into the process.
The New Zealand model is much better, it makes the industry legal, but sets restrictions on who can work in it; those aged over 18 being citizens or on permeant residence visas, and cracks down hard on those who traffic from 3rd world.
When consumers / providers have safe legal choices, they don't get put in places of risk,
Bad things happen in the dark; by making the process legal, you can bring proper health and safety standards (enforces mandatory condom use) make it better for everyone.
I quite agree, Mr. Johnstone. Trafficking and modern day slavery often involves prostitution. This would help to crack down on it.
I've always wondered why porn (two people paid to have sex with one another and filmed for others) is legal, but prostitution (one person being paid to have sex with someone else, in private) is not.
Paul Sykes: "...I view Ukip’s new advertising campaign – which I am funding to the tune of £1.5 million – as more of an essential public awareness campaign. Yes, it is hard-hitting, in order to capture attention. But its real purpose is to show the British people just how many of their democratic rights and powers successive governments have quietly smuggled away to Brussels."
I quite agree, Mr. Johnstone. Trafficking and modern day slavery often involves prostitution. This would help to crack down on it.
I've always wondered why porn (two people paid to have sex with one another and filmed for others) is legal, but prostitution (one person being paid to have sex with someone else, in private) is not.
There are those who are trying to use the fact that in some sectors the women are not entirely free in the transaction to bar it all. The vast bulk in the internet age are just women making money in a way that is more rewarding than tescos.
If you go crawling round the street im sure you will find a junkie desperate for her next fix, but that isnt an accurate representation of the people who take part.
Spelman, and those in the other parties that support the same notion, essentially argues that Prostitution is the act of a desperate individual. The thing is, if she's arguing that it's negative elastic, she's arguing to make these individuals even more desperate. You don't improve people's lives by taking options away from them.
As for the trafficking argument, it's not as if outlawing cannabis has stopped human trafficking in cannabis farms. These people are very silly.
It's interesting that the Guardian are complaining about "those on the right," arguing for this, when in the last Labour government, and from Scottish Labour as well, we had people arguing for exactly the same thing.
Paul Sykes: "...I view Ukip’s new advertising campaign – which I am funding to the tune of £1.5 million – as more of an essential public awareness campaign. Yes, it is hard-hitting, in order to capture attention. But its real purpose is to show the British people just how many of their democratic rights and powers successive governments have quietly smuggled away to Brussels."
Paul Sykes: "...I view Ukip’s new advertising campaign – which I am funding to the tune of £1.5 million – as more of an essential public awareness campaign. Yes, it is hard-hitting, in order to capture attention. But its real purpose is to show the British people just how many of their democratic rights and powers successive governments have quietly smuggled away to Brussels."
Isam, in my honest experience I think the cynicism about politics is over-done. The vast majority of people I've met in politics (of all parties) are genuinely passionate about it.
Oddschecker @Oddschecker From 80/1 earlier, David Moyes is now just 16/1 to be next Spurs manager. Would #THFC fans welcome the Moyesiah? http://bit.ly/1iS1PZh
No thanks. Matinez has proved Moyes was rubbish at Everton as well by doing better with what is essentially the same squad. Over rated. Would prefer a foreigner with a decent track record that can whip these under performers into shape.
Skybet now have him in to 6-1, I'm on at 40-1 with them...
Spelman, and those in the other parties that support the same notion, essentially argues that Prostitution is the act of a desperate individual. The thing is, if she's arguing that it's negative elastic, she's arguing to make these individuals even more desperate. You don't improve people's lives by taking options away from them.
As for the trafficking argument, it's not as if outlawing cannabis has stopped human trafficking in cannabis farms. These people are very silly.
It's interesting that the Guardian are complaining about "those on the right," arguing for this, when in the last Labour government, and from Scottish Labour as well, we had people arguing for exactly the same thing.
I'm sure some prostitutes are absolutely desperate - although I don't see how such a law would help them.
Others aren't, and see nothing bad about what they or their clients are doing.
I think that you do not understand. The current legal position is that certain aspects of working as a prostitute are illegal. In particular "controlling" prostitution. This may mean even a prostitute working alone can be prosecuted, but is a particular threat to prostitutes working where there is safety in numbers such as a shared house. Buying sex is not illegal.
The current situation is already asymetrical with the already often exploited and desperate prostitute the one who needs to fear the law. The proposal reverses this so it is the weaker person who can seek help from the law.
I see that I feel differently to others here. It may be because I have seen too much of the damage done by prostitution. The suicides, overdoses, broken bones, the physical and mental scars. I have seen too much of many things professionally, my profession not theirs.
Spelman, and those in the other parties that support the same notion, essentially argues that Prostitution is the act of a desperate individual. The thing is, if she's arguing that it's negative elastic, she's arguing to make these individuals even more desperate. You don't improve people's lives by taking options away from them.
As for the trafficking argument, it's not as if outlawing cannabis has stopped human trafficking in cannabis farms. These people are very silly.
It's interesting that the Guardian are complaining about "those on the right," arguing for this, when in the last Labour government, and from Scottish Labour as well, we had people arguing for exactly the same thing.
Paul Sykes: "...I view Ukip’s new advertising campaign – which I am funding to the tune of £1.5 million – as more of an essential public awareness campaign. Yes, it is hard-hitting, in order to capture attention. But its real purpose is to show the British people just how many of their democratic rights and powers successive governments have quietly smuggled away to Brussels."
Isam, in my honest experience I think the cynicism about politics is over-done. The vast majority of people I've met in politics (of all parties) are genuinely passionate about it.
"The minutiae will be a pain to transfer and take some time. From tax returns to moving pensions SOTB. It can of course all be sorted out but the law of unintended consequences will kick in on both sides leaving a lot of hassle for all and probably lighter pockets."
I would expect the private stuff to be seamless as far as the investor is concerned, though the capital flight south might cause some consternation North of the border. No, it is the government stuff where it is going to get messy, especially if different rates/rules apply because I am not sure the computer systems are agile enough to cope. The politicians maybe able to negotiate a deal but will the techies be able to make it work?
I think the capital flight will be a big enough and real problem. The pension companies will get swamped with brits looking to move their cash if there's a yes vote. It will be Northern McRock and both governments will have to step in to provide security for investors.
Likewise for employees all those people processing tax returns, which government now employs them and who has to pay the redundancies associated with restructuring ?
TUPE rules mean it follows the job, so whoever has the ongoing work has to take on the workers or pay their redundancy.
There won't be a vote on repealing the hunting ban this parliament.
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/458354968576012288
No pro-hunting volunteers helping the Conservatives next year.
Surely the promise of a Con majority government will be more promising. We dont have a Con gvt we have a coalition. Fox hunting legislation is so poor that enforcement is close to impossible.
"The minutiae will be a pain to transfer and take some time. From tax returns to moving pensions SOTB. It can of course all be sorted out but the law of unintended consequences will kick in on both sides leaving a lot of hassle for all and probably lighter pockets."
I would expect the private stuff to be seamless as far as the investor is concerned, though the capital flight south might cause some consternation North of the border. No, it is the government stuff where it is going to get messy, especially if different rates/rules apply because I am not sure the computer systems are agile enough to cope. The politicians maybe able to negotiate a deal but will the techies be able to make it work?
I think the capital flight will be a big enough and real problem. The pension companies will get swamped with brits looking to move their cash if there's a yes vote. It will be Northern McRock and both governments will have to step in to provide security for investors.
Likewise for employees all those people processing tax returns, which government now employs them and who has to pay the redundancies associated with restructuring ?
TUPE rules mean it follows the job, so whoever has the ongoing work has to take on the workers or pay their redundancy.
I think that you do not understand. The current legal position is that certain aspects of working as a prostitute are illegal. In particular "controlling" prostitution. This may mean even a prostitute working alone can be prosecuted, but is a particular threat to prostitutes working where there is safety in numbers such as a shared house. Buying sex is not illegal.
The current situation is already asymetrical with the already often exploited and desperate prostitute the one who needs to fear the law. The proposal reverses this so it is the weaker person who can seek help from the law.
I see that I feel differently to others here. It may be because I have seen too much of the damage done by prostitution. The suicides, overdoses, broken bones, the physical and mental scars. I have seen too much of many things professionally, my profession not theirs.
But surely (even in theory, never mind practice) the current situation would be improved by removing all the laws restricting prostitution so that the prostitutes can work in a safer environment with support, security etc?
Do you seriously think that this illiberal law would actually improve the lot of any prostitutes anywhere in the country? If they're desperate they'll still be desperate, but with more laws restricting what they can do.
Just out of interest, can you tell me which specialty you work in - been wondering for a while.
There won't be a vote on repealing the hunting ban this parliament.
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/458354968576012288
No pro-hunting volunteers helping the Conservatives next year.
Surely the promise of a Con majority government will be more promising. We dont have a Con gvt we have a coalition. Fox hunting legislation is so poor that enforcement is close to impossible.
There's an average of one prosecution a week, I believe, so not that impossible. But they'd need a substantial majority to get repeal hrough - there are around 15 Tory MPs openly committed to opposing it, and plenty more (including, I'll concede, my opponent) who are openly unenthusiastic.
There won't be a vote on repealing the hunting ban this parliament.
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/458354968576012288
No pro-hunting volunteers helping the Conservatives next year.
Surely the promise of a Con majority government will be more promising. We dont have a Con gvt we have a coalition. Fox hunting legislation is so poor that enforcement is close to impossible.
A vote on the hunting ban is in the coalition agreement.
"We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act."
I don't think you understood what I wrote. I am aware of what the current legal position is.
I agree that the prostitute shouldn't have to fear the law, but if we argue that the prostitute is desperate, this law does nothing to remove that. In fact, the desperate prostitute will still have to do something even more desperate, possibly still prostitution, but in a situation where the client is criminalised. I don't see why you think that works out positively for the prostitute.
The solution is to give them more options, not less.
I think that you do not understand. The current legal position is that certain aspects of working as a prostitute are illegal. In particular "controlling" prostitution. This may mean even a prostitute working alone can be prosecuted, but is a particular threat to prostitutes working where there is safety in numbers such as a shared house. Buying sex is not illegal.
The current situation is already asymetrical with the already often exploited and desperate prostitute the one who needs to fear the law. The proposal reverses this so it is the weaker person who can seek help from the law.
I see that I feel differently to others here. It may be because I have seen too much of the damage done by prostitution. The suicides, overdoses, broken bones, the physical and mental scars. I have seen too much of many things professionally, my profession not theirs.
Spelman, and those in the other parties that support the same notion, essentially argues that Prostitution is the act of a desperate individual. The thing is, if she's arguing that it's negative elastic, she's arguing to make these individuals even more desperate. You don't improve people's lives by taking options away from them.
As for the trafficking argument, it's not as if outlawing cannabis has stopped human trafficking in cannabis farms. These people are very silly.
It's interesting that the Guardian are complaining about "those on the right," arguing for this, when in the last Labour government, and from Scottish Labour as well, we had people arguing for exactly the same thing.
But I have seen nothing onTUPE that relates to countries outside the UK, which is what Scotland would be.
The law in Scotland wont change just because they voted for independence. The minimum wage will still apply, murder will still be illegal ... the status quo remains until the Scottish Parliament decides to change it.
The proposal reverses this so it is the weaker person who can seek help from the law.
Nonsense. There is no a priori reason why the person selling sex is necessarily the 'weaker person', whatever that may mean. In any event, someone who is looking to make money from selling sex is unlikely to want to 'seek help' from a law which criminalises their clients. No one is proposing legalising soliciting or running brothels. The proposal is therefore not a reversal of any kind, but simply the creation of a new and unnecessary criminal offence. It's reactionary authoritarianism, pure and simple.
Paul Sykes: "...I view Ukip’s new advertising campaign – which I am funding to the tune of £1.5 million – as more of an essential public awareness campaign. Yes, it is hard-hitting, in order to capture attention. But its real purpose is to show the British people just how many of their democratic rights and powers successive governments have quietly smuggled away to Brussels."
Isam, in my honest experience I think the cynicism about politics is over-done. The vast majority of people I've met in politics (of all parties) are genuinely passionate about it.
The cynicism seems to apply mostly about the trappings of politics, the periphery nonsense and the presentation of political discourse, particularly the high level arguments which are scripted, often bland and formulaic, but for all a broad strategy to galvanise a coalition of even a single party may be beyond most of the parties, at an individual level most seem to find one or several things they are truly passionate about and the belief they can have an impact on it.
Legal prostitution Is the case in NZ since 2003, it has not resolved the issues, indeed the industry has mushroomed and remains under the control of organized criminal gangs Indeed their parliament is now looking to adopt the Nordic model....
I think that you do not understand. The current legal position is that certain aspects of working as a prostitute are illegal. In particular "controlling" prostitution. This may mean even a prostitute working alone can be prosecuted, but is a particular threat to prostitutes working where there is safety in numbers such as a shared house. Buying sex is not illegal.
The current situation is already asymetrical with the already often exploited and desperate prostitute the one who needs to fear the law. The proposal reverses this so it is the weaker person who can seek help from the law.
I see that I feel differently to others here. It may be because I have seen too much of the damage done by prostitution. The suicides, overdoses, broken bones, the physical and mental scars. I have seen too much of many things professionally, my profession not theirs.
But surely (even in theory, never mind practice) the current situation would be improved by removing all the laws restricting prostitution so that the prostitutes can work in a safer environment with support, security etc?
Do you seriously think that this illiberal law would actually improve the lot of any prostitutes anywhere in the country? If they're desperate they'll still be desperate, but with more laws restricting what they can do.
Just out of interest, can you tell me which specialty you work in - been wondering for a while.
Re: hunting "Some 12,000 hunt supporters campaigned and leafleted for the Tories at the last election. They were the backbone of the party’s effort, pouring into marginal seats in an operation of military precision co-ordinated by a campaign group called Vote OK."
Huh, it doesn't really mention if those strikes achieved anything substantive. I mean it does later on state she is proud of the achivements of the union in her time as General Secretary, but nothing specific besides the non-strike based aspects, like increasing engagement. I guess showing fight by highlighting frequency of strike action is enough of a point on its own for the target audience?
Legal prostitution Is the case in NZ since 2003, it has not resolved the issues, indeed the industry has mushroomed and remains under the control of organized criminal gangs Indeed their parliament is now looking to adopt the Nordic model....
Surely the answer there is to prosecute the criminal gangs?
I know nothing about prostitution legislation in NZ, but that link is essentially a pressure group complaining (and complaining that life was bad before they legalised prostitution!)- there's nothing about the NZ parliament changing anything.
Syria: chemical warfare on the limits and on the cheap
In the early hours I posted a follow up to a post a few weeks back about the alleged chemical weapons attacks by Assad's forces on a number of rebel held areas using chlorine gas.
Yesterday the UK & French Foreign Ministries said they were looking into these stories. In reality they both have fairly comprehensive intelligence on it that was presented to Western countries by a regional party a few weeks ago.
The US has has the same information for the same period and now appears to be doing its usual play under the Obama administration of letting others lead the way before piping up themselves. Tonight a state department spokesman has stated that the US has indications of the use of chlorine gas.
In the last few weeks there have multiple attacks using the gas, counted at at least 4 and, it appears, statements from the French at least suggest a similar total. Unconfirmed stories suggest there have been many more. In short, Assad appears to be firing this stuff out every couple of days, right in the middle of the apparent disarmament of his chemical weapons stocks.
The chlorine is being shipped imported as a standard bulk chemical buy from a company already identified by Western intelligence and put into a weaponised format in Syria for free drops from the air.
For avoidance of doubt chlorine gas is prohibited under the Geneva Protocols.
Last night i suggested this was a slow burner with the West seeking to build a case and the US had ample reason to turn the thumbscrews now that relations with Russia are getting increasingly cold over the blindingly obvious happenings in Ukraine. Obama's reputation for being a ditherer may just may, be overcome.
Internal reorganizations of government departments are not recognized as TUPE eligible transfers according to the 2006 documentation online.
There is plenty of work for employment lawyers here, but nothing on transfers of government employees between countries. A transfer of the Cumbernauld tax office to Newcastle may reasonably be seen as an internal government reorganization, so excluded from TUPE.
It was presented in evidence to the NZ parliamentary body reconsidering the law. For most of this woman's life in prostitution (10/14 years) it was a legal trade.
Basically, whether legal or not, in all jurisdictions prostitution is controlled by criminal syndicates, who often also trade in drugs. It is not a career that you would wish on your daughter or son. So why would you wish it on another?
Legal prostitution Is the case in NZ since 2003, it has not resolved the issues, indeed the industry has mushroomed and remains under the control of organized criminal gangs Indeed their parliament is now looking to adopt the Nordic model....
Surely the answer there is to prosecute the criminal gangs?
I know nothing about prostitution legislation in NZ, but that link is essentially a pressure group complaining (and complaining that life was bad before they legalised prostitution!)- there's nothing about the NZ parliament changing anything.
For avoidance of doubt chlorine gas is prohibited under the Geneva Protocols.
For the avoidance of doubt, the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chlorine gas as a method of warfare. What is going on in Syria is not a war within the meaning of the protocol, but the suppression of an insurrection.
For avoidance of doubt chlorine gas is prohibited under the Geneva Protocols.
For the avoidance of doubt, the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chlorine gas as a method of warfare. What is going on in Syria is not a war within the meaning of the protocol, but the suppression of an insurrection.
You think something like that will make a difference if the West decides to do something?
Further to the comments of Easterross earlier today I do not necessarily think a narrow No win would lead to inevitable future referendums and independence. Quebec voted only 51-49 against independence in 1995 but is still in Canada and the PQ, the sister party of the SNP, has just been badly beaten in recent elections after pushing for another referendum
Comments
Or from a philosophical point of view some like to make the distinction between personal property and one's own person (although the counter to that involves things like donating hair, and if I'm free to have my appendix removed why can't I have my kidney removed and then sell it).
It has always seemed strange that we say "OK, you 15 million people, you must compete on the open market with people around the world. And you other 15 million, well, you must be protected from foreign competition." What is it about the hairdresser that means they deserve special governmental protection?
1. UKIP launched its first salvo of the EU campaign, in a national poster spread on boards and on Twitter.
2. The above development has sent the Lab/Lib/Con in a frenzy of abuse.
3. Its mortified the PBers who support the Lab/Lib/Con into denial mode; e,g. All this will pass, etcetera.
4. The surprise poster launch on Easter Monday has caught the other parties on the hop.
5. It's pleased me no end.
43%, 41%, 39%, 37%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Scottish_polls
All that remains to be seen is whether your poor education is an indictment of the comprehensive or grammar school system (assuming you didn't go private which, if you did, might explain a lot)..
I would expect the private stuff to be seamless as far as the investor is concerned, though the capital flight south might cause some consternation North of the border. No, it is the government stuff where it is going to get messy, especially if different rates/rules apply because I am not sure the computer systems are agile enough to cope. The politicians maybe able to negotiate a deal but will the techies be able to make it work?
stumbling blocks will lie in any post independence vote negotiations. The big stuff that everyone gets excited about (currency and Faslane/Coulport) are pretty easy to resolve by comparison to such issues as where and how Mr. Brooke's tax returns get processed and the money remitted to the correct account. Then there is National Insurance, all processed through Newcastle as I understand it, and driver and vehicle licensing records held at Swansea.
One last question, will iScotland have a written constitution? I don't recall seeing anything about it, but it may be quit important for an independent state to have some formal constitution arrangements.
The minutiae will be a pain to transfer and take some time. From tax returns to moving pensions SOTB. It can of course all be sorted out but the law of unintended consequences will kick in on both sides leaving a lot of hassle for all and probably lighter pockets.
Edit: quoting muddled - my bit starts here:
On the constitution: as always, see White Paper, but essentially plans are for temporary one to keep the country going pending an all-party and cross-civic society panel to develop the permanent one. Sensible enough.
Both play into UKIP's hands.
A few comments here on the accuracy of the posters. The point here is that 26 million
people across the EU may be looking for work and have the *right* to come to Britain to seek a job; they are therefore in nominal competition for UK jobs with British workers. The fact that only a couple of million might do so over 5-6 years isn't the point. It's a political advert.
No hard-hitting political advert - of any party - has ever chosen unambiguous scientific accuracy over an emotional message. UKIP is not alone in this respect. 'Economic Disaster II' (Labour), '3 million reasons' (to vote Labour) *Pigs might fly* 'The Day the Tory sums add up' (Labour) 'Labour's Double Whammy' (Tory) 'If you thought Charles Kennedy's Lib Dems could win here,this is how you'd vote' (Lib Dem) 'Labour isn't working' (Tory) were all gross simplifications and exaggerations, but arguably all very effective.
What the reaction across the media and twittersphere is really saying is that some people really don't like UKIP very much and do not want them to be successful.
6.UKIP ,membership gone up again.
Your attempts to attack my education is simply the thrashing around of someone trying to defend what is clearly false and misleading .
This has been debated throughout history, and always will be, and it will always be with us.
Likewise for employees all those people processing tax returns, which government now employs them and who has to pay the redundancies associated with restructuring ?
UKIP's numbers only improved in the most recent poll: 7%, 6%, 7%, 10%. (But they're up on their 2009 5.2%.)
I am in an extremely privileged position where I earn enough through my own company and have done a job for long enough (and well enough) that if I lose work for several months I have a good chance of surviving without calling upon the government for assistance and also of getting another contract either here or overseas. But I have to recognise that that is not an option for most people. I should not judge the way the labour market should work based upon my own privileged position.
The job of any government is to ensure the well being and hopefully continued prosperity of their own citizens, not of the citizens of other countries. As such if the open market in labour means that large numbers of Britons end up out of work then it is incumbent upon the government to put in place such measures as will prevent or mitigate against that development.
Thanks, Carnyx. I knew someone would know and I would not be forced back to reading White Paper. The point from my perspective is that the constitution will be sorted out post actual independence and therefore have no impact on negotiations*.
Always assuming there is a Yes vote of course, which, while I am hopeful, cannot be taken for granted.
Just seen the first episode of Farscape, a mere 15 years after it first aired. I hope Ben Browder doesn't get a role in Dragon Age: Inquisition. It was weird enough watching the last two seasons of Stargate: SG-1.
The motivation behind this is that mens' lusts need to be policed, while women are angels above them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609624/Meet-Mr-Poo-UNICEFs-new-anti-public-defection-mascot-mission-encourage-children-use-loo.html
Eurostat estimates 25.92 million mena and women in the EU were unemployed in February 2014. They all have the right to come to the UK and look for work: http://www.ibtimes.com/europe-unemployment-dips-lowest-rates-recorded-austria-germany-luxembourg-highest-greece-spain
Can you also prove there are zero UK construction workers out-of-work who would like not to be?
What you're really saying is that you vehemently disagree with UKIP's arguments, you don't want them to win and are angered that they might gain votes from these posters. If you really think they are that misleading, try complaining to the advertising standards authority and see how far you get.
Top show. Good choice. :-)
Leaving aside any moral issues (and we should), the biggest problems with prostitution have to be exploitation and physical and sexual danger. In the case above, they would not count.
The only people who *may* have any reason to complain are the 75-year old man's family, who lose a bit of their inheritance ...
Very true, but the real evil (and I use the word carefully) is that many young Briton's never get the chance to experience work, or at least to train for meaningful posts, in the first place. At some point Goldman Sachs' (and its hangers on) version of a Global workforce is going to have to come in contact with political reality in the UK. Best for both sides if that happens sooner rather than later.
Yeah, there's a very special application of 'equality' which asserts the genders are basically equal, except in instances of sex-related things where men are lusty horndogs and women are the Virgin Mary reborn. It irks me, somewhat. The Agents of SHIELD episode with this idea was a bit disappointing. Either keep chivalry and damsels in distress, and the weakness of men, or ditch the lot. It's inconsistent to proclaim equality for good things (such as May being the biggest kicker of arse on the bus) but leave men with their negatives.
The 3 main parties are the joke..
Face it Mark, you are out of your depth and are now drowning.
If you want I can throw you a few more bricks to help you on your way to the bottom. Meanwhile you can pretend you are still waving.
That is what men/women naturally are vs what is down to societal influence, and also between individuals (I have no direct knowledge of May's arse kicking abilities) and the general population (the greater tendency of men to be 'lusty horndogs' is I believe borne out by research), and many feminists would agree with you in disliking the greater stigma around women having/desiring sex, and would characterise it as caused by societal pressure and a hangover from previous eras.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10777858/Racist-No-our-black-face-dance-is-a-proud-tradition.html
Can I use are to refer to figures aggregated over any amount of history without being misleading?
That would be like saying drug dealers/pushers are fine; it's the addicts that should be locked up.
By Trevor Phillips and Richard Webber
Amongst the many surprises awaiting Ed Miliband’s new American strategist, David Axelrod, will be the discovery that the British political class knows almost nothing about the ethnic and cultural composition of their electors, and generally speaking cares even less. The consensus is that minority voters lean to Labour and undue attention to them will simply send white voters galloping off to UKIP."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10778081/Middle-class-ethnic-minority-voters-could-help-Tories-win-election.html
I also personally believe there is a complete logic failure in the idea that because a particular portion of a group in society commit more crime we should use that as an excuse to ban or limit the whole group. On that basis we would have to look at keeping all men on a permanent curfew because they commit most rapes. It is a stupid way to look at these issues.
But that is separate from my Mark baiting which is based entirely on him having made a stupid and unsupportable statement (that the UKIP numbers indicated there were 28,000 Romanians currently in detention) and then desperately trying to defend it on false grammatical grounds.
Basically I am having fun at his expense because he is so far up his own backside he can't bring himself to admit he made a mistake.
Discounting those with one of them retiring, I get Rosberg 7 to Hamilton 4 (these are post-flyaway races, of course). Rosberg's includes Abu Dhabi, which is double points this year.
If that recurs, Rosberg will not only win, he'll win by around 30 points [assuming Mercedes wins and 1-2s]. However, we have two new circuits (one properly new, Russia, and one sort of new, with the returning A1 ring of Austria) and the two drivers retired four times last year (Hamilton once, Rosberg thrice).
It may be coincidence, but in the four qualifying and three relevant races (Hamilton had a reliability-related DNF in Australia) the results have been identical to last year between the two men.
However, on the Monday I had to phone the gentleman to advise him that there seemed to be insufficient funds in his bank account.
I was told "I know son, but I've had a wonderful weekend"
...
I may have to steal that for inclusion in a future comedy [if I ever write one where Sir Edric is old and doddery].
The New Zealand model is much better, it makes the industry legal, but sets restrictions on who can work in it; those aged over 18 being citizens or on permeant residence visas, and cracks down hard on those who traffic from 3rd world.
When consumers / providers have safe legal choices, they don't get put in places of risk,
Bad things happen in the dark; by making the process legal, you can bring proper health and safety standards (enforces mandatory condom use) make it better for everyone.
I've always wondered why porn (two people paid to have sex with one another and filmed for others) is legal, but prostitution (one person being paid to have sex with someone else, in private) is not.
"...I view Ukip’s new advertising campaign – which I am funding to the tune of £1.5 million – as more of an essential public awareness campaign. Yes, it is hard-hitting, in order to capture attention. But its real purpose is to show the British people just how many of their democratic rights and powers successive governments have quietly smuggled away to Brussels."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10778613/No-more-surrendering-to-EU-bureaucrats.html
------
@Edin Rokz
Super story! :-)
If you go crawling round the street im sure you will find a junkie desperate for her next fix, but that isnt an accurate representation of the people who take part.
As for the trafficking argument, it's not as if outlawing cannabis has stopped human trafficking in cannabis farms. These people are very silly.
It's interesting that the Guardian are complaining about "those on the right," arguing for this, when in the last Labour government, and from Scottish Labour as well, we had people arguing for exactly the same thing.
Others aren't, and see nothing bad about what they or their clients are doing.
The current situation is already asymetrical with the already often exploited and desperate prostitute the one who needs to fear the law. The proposal reverses this so it is the weaker person who can seek help from the law.
I see that I feel differently to others here. It may be because I have seen too much of the damage done by prostitution. The suicides, overdoses, broken bones, the physical and mental scars. I have seen too much of many things professionally, my profession not theirs.
Meanwhile, out in the real world...
There won't be a vote on repealing the hunting ban this parliament.
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/458354968576012288
No pro-hunting volunteers helping the Conservatives next year.
And would not a job South of the Border meet the requiremen?
Do you seriously think that this illiberal law would actually improve the lot of any prostitutes anywhere in the country? If they're desperate they'll still be desperate, but with more laws restricting what they can do.
Just out of interest, can you tell me which specialty you work in - been wondering for a while.
"We will bring forward a motion on a free vote enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf
I agree that the prostitute shouldn't have to fear the law, but if we argue that the prostitute is desperate, this law does nothing to remove that. In fact, the desperate prostitute will still have to do something even more desperate, possibly still prostitution, but in a situation where the client is criminalised. I don't see why you think that works out positively for the prostitute.
The solution is to give them more options, not less.
But I have seen nothing onTUPE that relates to countries outside the UK, which is what Scotland would be.
http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9428778/Ex-prostitutes-call-for-law-change
twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/458273523841388544/photo/1
"Some 12,000 hunt supporters campaigned and leafleted for the Tories at the last election. They were the backbone of the party’s effort, pouring into marginal seats in an operation of military precision co-ordinated by a campaign group called Vote OK."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9069211/rural-revolt/
I know nothing about prostitution legislation in NZ, but that link is essentially a pressure group complaining (and complaining that life was bad before they legalised prostitution!)- there's nothing about the NZ parliament changing anything.
In the early hours I posted a follow up to a post a few weeks back about the alleged chemical weapons attacks by Assad's forces on a number of rebel held areas using chlorine gas.
Yesterday the UK & French Foreign Ministries said they were looking into these stories. In reality they both have fairly comprehensive intelligence on it that was presented to Western countries by a regional party a few weeks ago.
The US has has the same information for the same period and now appears to be doing its usual play under the Obama administration of letting others lead the way before piping up themselves. Tonight a state department spokesman has stated that the US has indications of the use of chlorine gas.
In the last few weeks there have multiple attacks using the gas, counted at at least 4 and, it appears, statements from the French at least suggest a similar total. Unconfirmed stories suggest there have been many more. In short, Assad appears to be firing this stuff out every couple of days, right in the middle of the apparent disarmament of his chemical weapons stocks.
The chlorine is being shipped imported as a standard bulk chemical buy from a company already identified by Western intelligence and put into a weaponised format in Syria for free drops from the air.
For avoidance of doubt chlorine gas is prohibited under the Geneva Protocols.
Last night i suggested this was a slow burner with the West seeking to build a case and the US had ample reason to turn the thumbscrews now that relations with Russia are getting increasingly cold over the blindingly obvious happenings in Ukraine. Obama's reputation for being a ditherer may just may, be overcome.
Internal reorganizations of government departments are not recognized as TUPE eligible transfers according to the 2006 documentation online.
There is plenty of work for employment lawyers here, but nothing on transfers of government employees between countries. A transfer of the Cumbernauld tax office to Newcastle may reasonably be seen as an internal government reorganization, so excluded from TUPE.
Basically, whether legal or not, in all jurisdictions prostitution is controlled by criminal syndicates, who often also trade in drugs. It is not a career that you would wish on your daughter or son. So why would you wish it on another?
Nope.