It's probably both. You're right that the economic system came first and then the politics were built on top. However, by the mid-19th century, that should have been ripe for replacement, yet the southern industrialists - who should under Marxist theory have been in the vanguard of a bourgeois revolution - were just as signed up to it as the plantation-owning aristocracy or the poor whites. At that point, the two flipped and it was the economic that became built on the politico-social.
The Marxists would argue that the Southern relations of production became fetters on the already developed productive forces. They had to be burst asunder. They were burst asunder.
That depends on whether you view the system as being the US as a whole, in which case it complies; or the South as a section, in which case it doesn't.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
In practice it has to be really flagrant to get you refused, and even more flagrant to get you in legal trouble.
But the fine isn't really the main point in such matter, since it'd put your licence in danger which'd be far more damaging.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
Unless the patron is being a complete twit, it is virtually impossible for the keeper to know. If you're a regular, you can easily get served without even having to speak / slur to the bar staff. They see you standing there holding a note and a pint magically appears in front of you. You can do the entire transaction and only have to say 'ta' at the end. This is one area where I know of what I speak
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
It's not just 'drunk', it's 'drunk and disorderly'.
Presumably, it's the 'disorderly' part which would attract the attention of the police in the first instance, and the 'drunk' part could be ascertained later after arrest.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
It's not just 'drunk', it's 'drunk and disorderly'.
Presumably, it's the 'disorderly' part which would attract the attention of the police in the first instance, and the 'drunk' part could be ascertained later after arrest.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
Since the first pint gets you drunk (the ones that follow getting you "more drunk") we would need a better definition. Breathalyzers at the bar? Perhaps noticeably drunk? Or comatose on the floor?
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
It's not just 'drunk', it's 'drunk and disorderly'.
Presumably, it's the 'disorderly' part which would attract the attention of the police in the first instance, and the 'drunk' part could be ascertained later after arrest.
No, Nick is referring to the 'selling drinks to a drunk person'. That is already a criminal offence which I find quite amazing given that I am sure every publican in the land does it regularly.
They could always - gasp - not break the speed limit.
Oh I agree, but there is this stupid notion that fines for speeding are just a government milch cow. It's not one I subscribe to, but there are roads where speed limits are inappropriate.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
It's not just 'drunk', it's 'drunk and disorderly'.
Presumably, it's the 'disorderly' part which would attract the attention of the police in the first instance, and the 'drunk' part could be ascertained later after arrest.
I always thought that the pub keeper was under the threat of it being illegal to serve 'a drunk' The individual customer was under the threat of being drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable. But as Sir Humphrey once said. 'Drunks can be very cunning'
Heading through some National speed limit country lanes is ludicrous, and then the pan flat straight motorway has a 50 even though the roadworks finished an age ago.
No, Nick is referring to the 'selling drinks to a drunk person'. That is already a criminal offence which I find quite amazing given that I am sure every publican in the land does it regularly.
The Tories used to oppose licensing laws in principle, and they were right to do so. Better England free than England sober.
Heading through some National speed limit country lanes is ludicrous, and then the pan flat straight motorway has a 50 even though the roadworks finished an age ago.
The only time I've nearly had an accident is on a country lane when rounding one of the innumerable bends to be faced with a yuppy in a Porsche overtaking a tractor. My language was most definitely Anglo-Saxon and not suitable for the presence of ladies.
Caught a smidgen of the EA conference ahead of E3. The Inquisitor* in a video ahead of it sounded quite like Bann Teagan in Origins. Saw a tiny bit of an Inquisition video live, and it had the Femquisitor [as she's already become known]. English, didn't recognise the voice though. Off-chance it's Gwendoline Christie, (aka Brienne of Tarth) who is confirmed to be in the game.
*There are 4 Inquisitor voices. 2 male, 2 female, one of each gender is English, one of each gender is American.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
Offences such as television licence evasion, selling of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place - known as “level three” offences - will rise from £1,000 to £4,000.
How is "drunk" defined, and how exactly is a pub keeper to determine it in a crowded room?
It's not just 'drunk', it's 'drunk and disorderly'.
Presumably, it's the 'disorderly' part which would attract the attention of the police in the first instance, and the 'drunk' part could be ascertained later after arrest.
It is just drunk.
Yes, apologies - I misunderstood what the proposal was.
Re higher penalties for disputing the case, I'm with those uneasy at the principle. I don't have an issue with those taking their case to court and not then having an arguable case being charged reasonable costs, even though where they're state rather than plaintiff (?) costs. However the idea of it being added to their sentence isn't one I'd support. A penalty should be based on the offence, not the administration of the justice process.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
I don't think there's a very clear divide between rational and irrational belief systems. Jean Bodin, who advocated death for witches, was the most rational political and economic thinker of his time. Marxists believe that their arguments are highly rational. So do radical feminists.
Not sure we can hope to eliminate irrational belief systems - some things which now seem to us commonplace - e.g. that slavery is wrong - will have seemed very eccentric in the past. What is perhaps more important is to fight belief systems which put all the money on their being right, with death the appropriate punishment for disagreement.
I think that we often say "irrational" when we mean "unpleasant". The belief that slavery is justified is unpleasant, but it's certainly not irrational, from the point of view of the slaveowner.
Slaveowning is a very interesting economic case study.
It's good for the slave-owners in the near term, but arguably it is a dreadful system medium term because by making low productivity / low-wage (ahem) labour relatively more attractive it discourages capital investment.
Consequently, over time those people with spare capital (i.e. slave owners) end up becoming increasingly less competitive and end up eroding their capital base.
Slave-owning was a rational economic system in a pre-industrial age, when technology was minimal and innovation near enough non-existent.
That said, a novel I started writing but have since put on the back-burner deals with slavery in an imagined early 20th century.
Not convinced - I think the weaknesses were still there (e.g. why invest in a watermill if you can just use slave labour instead) but accept that in a pre-industrial society the importance of capital was much diminished, so the effect is much more gradual
A diminished version of it lasted into the 1950s in the UK. At the same time that German textile mills were investing in new kit, the Lancashire and Yorkshire mills decided that a better way to compete was cheap labour from Pakistan and India. The Germans staved off collapse for perhaps another 30 years, the British created the blasted heath that are Blackburn and the like. It's interesting that UKIP hasn't made a more subtle argument about immigration on these lines: it would involve admitting that immigration isn't just about labour source substitution so is difficult.
No, Nick is referring to the 'selling drinks to a drunk person'. That is already a criminal offence which I find quite amazing given that I am sure every publican in the land does it regularly.
The Tories used to oppose licensing laws in principle, and they were right to do so. Better England free than England sober.
These days, the Tories are indistinguishable from New Labour, when it comes to micro-managing people.
Heading through some National speed limit country lanes is ludicrous, and then the pan flat straight motorway has a 50 even though the roadworks finished an age ago.
A speed limit is just that - a limit. It's not a target.
I agree with the other side of your post too. The only time I've fallen foul of the speed cameras was on a roadworks section on the M62 on a clear, dry summer Saturday evening. Still, I got to attend an interesting road safety course.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
Guns. When I was there a last week ago the news was all about the Briton who killed six at UCSB. He couldn't have got the firearm here (yes I know that some were knifed, but still).
No, Nick is referring to the 'selling drinks to a drunk person'. That is already a criminal offence which I find quite amazing given that I am sure every publican in the land does it regularly.
The Tories used to oppose licensing laws in principle, and they were right to do so. Better England free than England sober.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
If you believe in evolution then religious belief must be rational (or must have been rational in the past) or it wouldn't be so widespread.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
Well there was a lack of evidence to the contrary which explains why religious belief was widespread. It doesn't account for it's persistence now we know better, or the crackers creationists with their mental theme parks across the pond.
Guns. When I was there a last week ago the news was all about the Briton who killed six at UCSB. He couldn't have got the firearm here (yes I know that some were knifed, but still).
In which case why do other countries with equally high gun ownership figures not have the same problems?
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
I know a number of judges who abhor the types who opt for jury trial then plead guilty on day one simply as a delaying tactic.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
That is not for magistrates to decide. The effect of a conviction varies hugely from person to person and it is only right that if someones whole life and livelihood is on the line they should have the right to opt for jury trial.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
If you believe in evolution then religious belief must be rational (or must have been rational in the past) or it wouldn't be so widespread.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
Not rational as such, but merely have survival value. Your example is a good one - before germ theory, a belief in spiritual cleanliness is likely to lead to a small increase in physical cleanliness.
Mr. Tyndall, the figures are a decade old so they might have changed, but when I was at university I saw a comparison of mental disorders in the UK and US. To summarise, they had a far higher proportion (1% psychopaths compared to 0.25% in the UK) of almost all of them.
Might be due to the more individualistic nature of their society.
Cuts various ways, however. In the Far East there's a condition the number of which I forget which involves a yin/yang imbalance and leads to, er, testicular problems. Sounds a bit weird? It's no less culture bound (and less widespread, I believe) than anorexia.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
If you believe in evolution then religious belief must be rational (or must have been rational in the past) or it wouldn't be so widespread.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
Well there was a lack of evidence to the contrary which explains why religious belief was widespread. It doesn't account for it's persistence now we know better, or the crackers creationists with their mental theme parks across the pond.
Heading through some National speed limit country lanes is ludicrous, and then the pan flat straight motorway has a 50 even though the roadworks finished an age ago.
A speed limit is just that - a limit. It's not a target.
I agree with the other side of your post too. The only time I've fallen foul of the speed cameras was on a roadworks section on the M62 on a clear, dry summer Saturday evening. Still, I got to attend an interesting road safety course.
For me speeding in roadworks is an absolute no-no. Having been on the other side of those cones I know what it is like to have cars screaming past you just feet away.
I think there is much wrong with the speed camera and speeding enforcement culture in Britain but one area I do agree with entirely is the limits on roadworks.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
In Scotland it is the Crown which determines the court in which a case is tried and whether it will be solemn (jury) or summary (no jury). However he major difference is that our Sheriff Courts can try both summary and solemn cases and only the most serious ones go to the High Court with all the additional costs involved. The accused has no say in the matter and it works perfectly well.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
I know a number of judges who abhor the types who opt for jury trial then plead guilty on day one simply as a delaying tactic.
That is a different matter and I agree it is entirely unacceptable.
Heading through some National speed limit country lanes is ludicrous, and then the pan flat straight motorway has a 50 even though the roadworks finished an age ago.
You are supposed to drive according to the conditions. So on a country road you may never get anywhere near 60. The white circle with a black line through really means "end of all restrictions" or "you work it out for yourself". The 60/70 speed limits were only imposed when people started amusing themselves by driving D-Types over a ton on the M1.
The problem is we have indoctrinated a lot of people with the shibboleth of the speed limit, if you keep to it you are safe. So we have to put a 50 limit on an otherwise good single carriageway A road because there are a couple of blind summits, or a limit on a dual carriageway because of a particularly sharp bend, rather than expecting drivers to drive to the conditions and slow down. People do things like tailgating and lane-hogging (and -hopping) because as long as you are driving at the speed limit, you are safe, right?
You don't mean the section of the M3 around Junction 3 do you? I was a bit annoyed when the 50 limit didn't come off after the roadworks were complete, but I suspect that it gets rather congested around rush hour. What we could really do with is a simple way of imposing speed limits at particular times of day, without the signage getting too complicated.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
If you believe in evolution then religious belief must be rational (or must have been rational in the past) or it wouldn't be so widespread.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
Well there was a lack of evidence to the contrary which explains why religious belief was widespread. It doesn't account for it's persistence now we know better, or the crackers creationists with their mental theme parks across the pond.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
A piece in this months Standpoint says that trial by jury is being targeted by both Con and Labour.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
If you believe in evolution then religious belief must be rational (or must have been rational in the past) or it wouldn't be so widespread.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
Well there was a lack of evidence to the contrary which explains why religious belief was widespread. It doesn't account for it's persistence now we know better, or the crackers creationists with their mental theme parks across the pond.
Even leaving aside how evolution physically works i.e. genes that do stuff and/or make people behave in ways that made sense for their ancestors in the past (or they wouldn't be here in the present) the persistence is easily accounted for by the fact that most religious rules make perfect sense in a world without contraception and antibiotics and it's only been c. 50 ish years since there's been contraception and antibiotics.
Because the fine only applies if you dispute the case, I guess it'll just mean people don't argue. These seem to me quite controversial:
It seems to me to be quite contrary to the concept of justice to offer reduced penalties to those who don't contest the case, which surely you have a right to do.
I do tend to agree, although there is an argument that it reduces frivolous contesting of cases.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
I spent the weekend with a very senior magistrate (at national level). They were of the view - which I disagree with - that the biggest reform needed to the court system is removing the right of the defendant to opt for jury trial (i.e. Crown Court).
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
A piece in this months Standpoint says that trial by jury is being targeted by both Con and Labour.
Same could be said for proscriptions on eating pork, and shellfish. Without a means of keeping them cool, they go off very quickly. Of course, in northern latitudes, this was less of a problem, and the value of pigs in clearing open forest of beech mast and other things, meant that no religious proscription would take hold here. Most religious strictures come from sensible ideas, turned immutable by historical custom.
To an extent, ultimately the enlightenment is incomplete whilst irrational belief systems hold such dominance.
If you believe in evolution then religious belief must be rational (or must have been rational in the past) or it wouldn't be so widespread.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
Not rational as such, but merely have survival value. Your example is a good one - before germ theory, a belief in spiritual cleanliness is likely to lead to a small increase in physical cleanliness.
Yes. A behaviour can be rational even if the reason for doing it isn't rational.
Same could be said for proscriptions on eating pork, and shellfish. Without a means of keeping them cool, they go off very quickly. Of course, in northern latitudes, this was less of a problem, and the value of pigs in clearing open forest of beech mast and other things, meant that no religious proscription would take hold here. Most religious strictures come from sensible ideas, turned immutable by historical custom.
Yeah, some bright spark noticed the connection but couldn't get people to pay attention until he said the sky god would drop rocks on their head.
Same could be said for proscriptions on eating pork, and shellfish. Without a means of keeping them cool, they go off very quickly. Of course, in northern latitudes, this was less of a problem, and the value of pigs in clearing open forest of beech mast and other things, meant that no religious proscription would take hold here. Most religious strictures come from sensible ideas, turned immutable by historical custom.
Oh I agree that much of religious custom makes historic sense given the regions they were developed in. To that extent the imposition of an outside supreme arbiter to regulate adherence was a decent approach. However the persistence of such beliefs now that they are more clearly arrant nonsense is odd.
Same could be said for proscriptions on eating pork, and shellfish. Without a means of keeping them cool, they go off very quickly. Of course, in northern latitudes, this was less of a problem, and the value of pigs in clearing open forest of beech mast and other things, meant that no religious proscription would take hold here. Most religious strictures come from sensible ideas, turned immutable by historical custom.
Oh I agree that much of religious custom makes historic sense given the regions they were developed in. To that extent the imposition of an outside supreme arbiter to regulate adherence was a decent approach. However the persistence of such beliefs now that they are more clearly arrant nonsense is odd.
If various bright sparks in history got people to wash their hands before meals by telling them the sky god would drop rocks on their head if they didn't then that would create an evolutionary pressure in favour of people who were inclined to that kind of argument.
People with one kind of temperament would listen to the bright spark and as a result would have better survival chances while the people who didn't have that temperament would ignore him and have lower survival chances.
So as long as the rules of a religion provide more benefit than cost then religion will select for people who are inclined to be religious - or at least conservative in their beliefs.
Many thanks for that Sam. If it comes in, I will certainly owe you a pint at Dirty Dicks when I next see you there.
No probs, lets hope it cops!
I cant see why this seat is so much bigger than neighbouring Thurrock.. almost exactly the same in terms of demographic I reckon, with v similar results in Euros and locals
Maybe I have missed something, but at a nice price you can afford to take a chance
It's a fair criticism - though we do have a number of published strategies. For example I played a minor part in the creation of our cyber security strategy (2011).
For me, the issue is really whether we have the political, economic or military clout to execute and achieve any of the stated strategic outcomes. The answer is probably 'no'.
Defence is particularly problematic; we're the world #6 in current spending terms, but UK defence procurement is still a mess.
Comments
But the fine isn't really the main point in such matter, since it'd put your licence in danger which'd be far more damaging.
They see you standing there holding a note and a pint magically appears in front of you.
You can do the entire transaction and only have to say 'ta' at the end.
This is one area where I know of what I speak
Presumably, it's the 'disorderly' part which would attract the attention of the police in the first instance, and the 'drunk' part could be ascertained later after arrest.
Mr Pupgoer, if you didn't know whereof ye speak possessing a name such as yours I'd be shocked
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10887842/Married-Las-Vegas-street-performers-kill-two-police-in-bid-to-start-revolution.html
Caught a smidgen of the EA conference ahead of E3. The Inquisitor* in a video ahead of it sounded quite like Bann Teagan in Origins. Saw a tiny bit of an Inquisition video live, and it had the Femquisitor [as she's already become known]. English, didn't recognise the voice though. Off-chance it's Gwendoline Christie, (aka Brienne of Tarth) who is confirmed to be in the game.
*There are 4 Inquisitor voices. 2 male, 2 female, one of each gender is English, one of each gender is American.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10887372/William-Hague-the-David-Beckham-of-witty-toasts-says-Hillary-Clinton.html
UKIP...
(of course)
to win S Basildon and E Thurrock
7/10 Wards contested in the locals, UKIP 42%
45% Basildon in the Euros
46% Thurrock
12/1
fill yer boots
Re higher penalties for disputing the case, I'm with those uneasy at the principle. I don't have an issue with those taking their case to court and not then having an arguable case being charged reasonable costs, even though where they're state rather than plaintiff (?) costs. However the idea of it being added to their sentence isn't one I'd support. A penalty should be based on the offence, not the administration of the justice process.
A diminished version of it lasted into the 1950s in the UK. At the same time that German textile mills were investing in new kit, the Lancashire and Yorkshire mills decided that a better way to compete was cheap labour from Pakistan and India. The Germans staved off collapse for perhaps another 30 years, the British created the blasted heath that are Blackburn and the like. It's interesting that UKIP hasn't made a more subtle argument about immigration on these lines: it would involve admitting that immigration isn't just about labour source substitution so is difficult.
I agree with the other side of your post too. The only time I've fallen foul of the speed cameras was on a roadworks section on the M62 on a clear, dry summer Saturday evening. Still, I got to attend an interesting road safety course.
Cleanliness is next to godliness and also next to not having so many germs on your hands.
The cost of a magistrate's trial is c. £1,000, while Crown Court is £15,000 per day.
Argument was made that cutting back legal aid was a bigger injustice that restricting trial by jury for minor crimes and that in an era of limited resources the second option was the better choice.
I suspect these changes are aimed at reducing the number of cases in the court system rather than anything practical.
Your example is a good one - before germ theory, a belief in spiritual cleanliness is likely to lead to a small increase in physical cleanliness.
Might be due to the more individualistic nature of their society.
Cuts various ways, however. In the Far East there's a condition the number of which I forget which involves a yin/yang imbalance and leads to, er, testicular problems. Sounds a bit weird? It's no less culture bound (and less widespread, I believe) than anorexia.
I think there is much wrong with the speed camera and speeding enforcement culture in Britain but one area I do agree with entirely is the limits on roadworks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/09/what-hillary-clinton-hopes-to-have-in-common-with-martin-van-buren/
The problem is we have indoctrinated a lot of people with the shibboleth of the speed limit, if you keep to it you are safe. So we have to put a 50 limit on an otherwise good single carriageway A road because there are a couple of blind summits, or a limit on a dual carriageway because of a particularly sharp bend, rather than expecting drivers to drive to the conditions and slow down. People do things like tailgating and lane-hogging (and -hopping) because as long as you are driving at the speed limit, you are safe, right?
You don't mean the section of the M3 around Junction 3 do you? I was a bit annoyed when the 50 limit didn't come off after the roadworks were complete, but I suspect that it gets rather congested around rush hour. What we could really do with is a simple way of imposing speed limits at particular times of day, without the signage getting too complicated.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-june-14-war-on-firmest-bulwark-liberty-matthew-scott-jury-system
If they win they'll get rid of everything unique in the various countries except the weather and i expect they'll have a go at that too.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/09/sepp-blatter-fifa-qatar
Same could be said for proscriptions on eating pork, and shellfish.
Without a means of keeping them cool, they go off very quickly. Of course, in northern latitudes, this was less of a problem, and the value of pigs in clearing open forest of beech mast and other things, meant that no religious proscription would take hold here.
Most religious strictures come from sensible ideas, turned immutable by historical custom.
People with one kind of temperament would listen to the bright spark and as a result would have better survival chances while the people who didn't have that temperament would ignore him and have lower survival chances.
So as long as the rules of a religion provide more benefit than cost then religion will select for people who are inclined to be religious - or at least conservative in their beliefs.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100275622/britain-once-strutted-the-stage-but-now-it-prefers-the-quiet-life/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I cant see why this seat is so much bigger than neighbouring Thurrock.. almost exactly the same in terms of demographic I reckon, with v similar results in Euros and locals
Maybe I have missed something, but at a nice price you can afford to take a chance
For me, the issue is really whether we have the political, economic or military clout to execute and achieve any of the stated strategic outcomes. The answer is probably 'no'.
Defence is particularly problematic; we're the world #6 in current spending terms, but UK defence procurement is still a mess.