So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
Fr.
And your alternative system is?
Well to start with I'd look into ending the block vote when it comes to executive remuneration and how about a law that means the executives of bankrupt companies get no more than statutory redundancy pay rather than Fred Goodwin style payoffs from the taxpayer.
I've even got a phrase to sum these ideas up - "We're all in this together".
Not really relevant to a socio-economic system, though, is it. Block vote on executive remuneration - so asking who? Each of the 1.3m (guessing) people who hold BAe through Fidelity? As for exec payoff I can't get too worked up about it; there is a reason that top execs reappear all over the shop (unless of course there is a witchhunt). Tell them that if their bold, innovative business strategy fails they won't get a penny? Guess what would happen. And the numbers are trivial.
Its the imagery.
Business is now widely believed to be run for the benefit of FatCats who take the profits and take the bailout money while workers / pensioners / taxpayers / shareholders take the losses.
Its the lack of fairness in society which is a big vote driver for Corbyn Labour.
And if something isn't done to change "Its one rule for them and another for us" into "We're all in this together" it will continue to drive votes to hard left ideas.
You might not get too worked up about executive earnings but they do have electoral consequences.
There are different rules for all sorts of things. It's not really the fault of eg. the execs if "the people" don't understand them. We are not all in it together. I don't know what your occupation is, or if you have one, but your situation will be different from everyone else on PB and we don't want one single rulebook for everyone on here, do we.
Oh but fairness you say. And indeed within the individual sets of rules, there is fairness everywhere. Even for Fred. Now of course you know that something is wrong when the sector re-rates 40% downwards and your bid remains at the same level, but that is simply 20:20 hindsight. Given another, equally likely set of circumstances and he would have been a hero.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country. Its the internet, its worldwide, you can make yourself appear as if located / from another country with one click of a button.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, has said that social media companies should stop letting people post abuse from anonymous accounts. Speaking at a Guardian fringe meeting, she said:
One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts, and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.
I don't know about insane, clueless is more accurate. There are rarely easy answers to difficult problems.
Oh, there are *always* easy answers to difficult problems. They're just bad answers. Unfortunately, they're also sometimes attractive answers to the gullible, the cynical and the angry.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
Yes in a world where Equifax can leak comprehensive information about 150 million people, it shouldn't prove to difficult for people to spoof accounts if they want to post abuse.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country. Its the internet, its worldwide, you can make yourself appear as if located / from another country with one click of a button.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
So you appear to be based in, say, Russia and then start commenting aggressively and more or less exclusively on UK accounts. A quick report to twitter should be able to get the account suspended. Why not?
As for the second point, that shows weakness in the verification process, not in the idea.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
Well it was a bloody stupid decision.
The problem is whether May is now the right person to tell the EU it cannot happen once CETA is on the table. She seems to be justifying her mistake by refusing to engage on CETA when the correct approach is simply to offer CETA, no backstop and dare the EU to go for no deal instead.
You really just don't get it do you?
The EU would have to go for no deal in that instance if only pour encourager les autres.
So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.
Fr.
And your alternative system is?
Well to start with I'd look into ending the block vote when it comes to executive remuneration and how about a law that means the executives of bankrupt companies get no more than statutory redundancy pay rather than Fred Goodwin style payoffs from the taxpayer.
I've even got a phrase to sum these ideas up - "We're all in this together".
Not really relevant to a socio-economic system, though, is it. Block vote on executive remuneration - so asking who? Each of the 1.3m (guessing) people who hold BAe through Fidelity? As for exec payoff I can't get too worked up about it; there is a reason that top execs reappear all over the shop (unless of course there is a witchhunt). Tell them that if their bold, innovative business strategy fails they won't get a penny? Guess what would happen. And the numbers are trivial.
Its the imagery.
Business is now widely believed to be run for the benefit of FatCats who take the profits and take the bailout money while workers / pensioners / taxpayers / shareholders take the losses.
Its the lack of fairness in society which is a big vote driver for Corbyn Labour.
And if something isn't done to change "Its one rule for them and another for us" into "We're all in this together" it will continue to drive votes to hard left ideas.
You might not get too worked up about executive earnings but they do have electoral consequences.
There are different rules for all sorts of things. It's not really the fault of eg. the execs if "the people" don't understand them. We are not all in it together. I don't know what your occupation is, or if you have one, but your situation will be different from everyone else on PB and we don't want one single rulebook for everyone on here, do we.
Oh but fairness you say. And indeed within the individual sets of rules, there is fairness everywhere. Even for Fred. Now of course you know that something is wrong when the sector re-rates 40% downwards and your bid remains at the same level, but that is simply 20:20 hindsight. Given another, equally likely set of circumstances and he would have been a hero.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
Well it was a bloody stupid decision.
The problem is whether May is now the right person to tell the EU it cannot happen once CETA is on the table. She seems to be justifying her mistake by refusing to engage on CETA when the correct approach is simply to offer CETA, no backstop and dare the EU to go for no deal instead.
You really just don't get it do you?
The EU would have to go for no deal in that instance if only pour encourager les autres.
It is; but I use it quite regularly and service is far more customer minded when it isn’t in public ownership.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
Bit of a cheap jibe there - the number of South Western Railways and GWR services where the catering is either not available or ends prematurely suggests it's less to do with who owns it but the quality of the management and the staff.
Perhaps Labour has a point - maybe giving workers a direct stake in the ownership of the company for which they work would provide an incentive to improve productivity.
After all, May wanted workers on the boards of companies - having said workers with a 10% stake would give them a bit of power instead of just being a gimmick.
OT. Just listened to the Tory messiah-ess Ruth Davidon. She's really not very good. She's articulate enough but no more clear speaking than any other politician and her obfuscations were pretty amateurish. Not in the same class as Nicola
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
Well it was a bloody stupid decision.
The problem is whether May is now the right person to tell the EU it cannot happen once CETA is on the table. She seems to be justifying her mistake by refusing to engage on CETA when the correct approach is simply to offer CETA, no backstop and dare the EU to go for no deal instead.
You really just don't get it do you?
The EU would have to go for no deal in that instance if only pour encourager les autres.
The others with an irish border?
No, the others who might want to leave the club, stop paying subscription fees, and yet still enjoy the benefits.
Or the others who might agree a principle and then reneg on it within 12 months.
I am not particularly condoning the EU's stance here, but realpolitik suggests they aren't likely to back down on this point IMO.
Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, has said that social media companies should stop letting people post abuse from anonymous accounts. Speaking at a Guardian fringe meeting, she said:
One of the first things they should do is stop anonymous accounts. Most people who send me abuse me do so from anonymous accounts, and wouldn’t dream of doing it in their own name.
Mentioned yesterday...Example #917437887 of politician doesn't get the internet.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
Because personal details are nothing without verification of those personal details. How you do know my name is Joe Bloggs, or John Smith, or AN Another without proof of identify?
Mr. Borough, is such a backbench amendment a credible possibility?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Slackbladder, and if your Twitter account gets hacked, you not only lose the account but they also have, for example, your passport details.
It is; but I use it quite regularly and service is far more customer minded when it isn’t in public ownership.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
Bit of a cheap jibe there - the number of South Western Railways and GWR services where the catering is either not available or ends prematurely suggests it's less to do with who owns it but the quality of the management and the staff.
Perhaps Labour has a point - maybe giving workers a direct stake in the ownership of the company for which they work would provide an incentive to improve productivity.
After all, May wanted workers on the boards of companies - having said workers with a 10% stake would give them a bit of power instead of just being a gimmick.
There's nothing wrong with workers being encouraged to own shares in the company they work for. Indeed, the Thatcher government introduced ShareSave, to enable them to do exactly that. The problem here is the element of compulsion and the potential for the scale of the policy to severely impact on how the businesses operate: how they invest, on their pay systems (salaries would almost certainly be cut to make up for a substantial benefit-in-kind), where they choose to operate and so on.
Some interesting ideas there, interested in the grouping of these movements worldwide. There was already some crossover from Sanders Corbyn which benefited Corbyn and has in turn helped spur the Sanders supporters. My ideal is for several lefties to win power at the same/similar time.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country. Its the internet, its worldwide, you can make yourself appear as if located / from another country with one click of a button.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
So you appear to be based in, say, Russia and then start commenting aggressively and more or less exclusively on UK accounts. A quick report to twitter should be able to get the account suspended. Why not?
As for the second point, that shows weakness in the verification process, not in the idea.
But that is already what happens....it makes no difference if they are anonymous or have a "name" to them. And the troll just gets another account and rinse and repeat. It also already happens with Facebook spammers, and they just continue.
Good luck trying to enforce worldwide official ID checks in order to get social media accounts.
It is; but I use it quite regularly and service is far more customer minded when it isn’t in public ownership.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
Bit of a cheap jibe there - the number of South Western Railways and GWR services where the catering is either not available or ends prematurely suggests it's less to do with who owns it but the quality of the management and the staff.
Perhaps Labour has a point - maybe giving workers a direct stake in the ownership of the company for which they work would provide an incentive to improve productivity.
After all, May wanted workers on the boards of companies - having said workers with a 10% stake would give them a bit of power instead of just being a gimmick.
There's nothing wrong with workers being encouraged to own shares in the company they work for. Indeed, the Thatcher government introduced ShareSave, to enable them to do exactly that. The problem here is the element of compulsion and the potential for the scale of the policy to severely impact on how the businesses operate: how they invest, on their pay systems (salaries would almost certainly be cut to make up for a substantial benefit-in-kind), where they choose to operate and so on.
Quite. There is a very big difference between owning shares in a company (whether you buy them or are given them as part of a package/scheme) and what is being proposed. You, as an individual, would own no shares at all. You would have no individual control over them. It would all be controlled by 'representatives'
It is nothing to do with broadening share ownership. Nothing at all.
OT. Just listened to the Tory messiah-ess Ruth Davidon. She's really not very good. She's articulate enough but no more clear speaking than any other politician and her obfuscations were pretty amateurish. Not in the same class as Nicola
Come back David Miliband. Please.....
Tbf it was one of the more rigorous examinations she's been given recently, though since Ruth has hardly given any interviews over the last 6 months that's not saying much.
Serendipitous that the following piece was about sexual consent. Someone in the Women's Hour team has a sense of humour.
It is; but I use it quite regularly and service is far more customer minded when it isn’t in public ownership.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
Bit of a cheap jibe there - the number of South Western Railways and GWR services where the catering is either not available or ends prematurely suggests it's less to do with who owns it but the quality of the management and the staff.
Perhaps Labour has a point - maybe giving workers a direct stake in the ownership of the company for which they work would provide an incentive to improve productivity.
After all, May wanted workers on the boards of companies - having said workers with a 10% stake would give them a bit of power instead of just being a gimmick.
If anything Labour’s plan would decrease productivity and capital investment, by capping the level of “profit” per employee before punitive taxes kicked in.
John McDonnell has a very good way of describing something in such a way that sounds plausible, maybe even likeable, when described in a sentence or two “Let’s give employees a stake in their company”, but in the practical reality of the real world it would have a lot of unintended consequences, most of them negative for the employees.
Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.
If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.
What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.
I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.
The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.
But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.
Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated
Madness. We’d lose.
Even if the Conservatives won, the make up of the Commons would probably not be much different from what itis today.
Its often cheaper than standard class when you book up front...
Advanced First Single booked several weeks ago was £36 for Kings Cross to Newcastle. If I’d bought it today it would be £244.
That’s bonkers, but thanks for the reminder of how f-ed up British train bookings are. I’m planning a trip over in December, so I’ll remember to buy all the train tickets online well beforehand!
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
It is; but I use it quite regularly and service is far more customer minded when it isn’t in public ownership.
Shortage of weekend sarnies, running out of weekday main courses and not serving hot drinks for 40 minutes after boarding - all whilst in public ownership.
I've never had less than excellent experience on East Coast first class be it in or out of Public Ownership. It is the only way to travel Edinburgh to London.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country. Its the internet, its worldwide, you can make yourself appear as if located / from another country with one click of a button.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
Thinking off the top of my head, and perhaps out of my backside, a potential way around this would be to have a central agency maintaining a list of 'verified' accounts.
People could then choose to set a flag: "I only want to receive comments from verified individuals." or "Only verified individuals can send me a comment."
That doesn't necessarily mean a poster would have to use their true ID on the site: I could still be 'Josias Jessop', but someone, somewhere, will have verified that there is a real person behind that pseudonym, and that someone can trace back from pseudonym to person.
If a pseudonym creates nasty comments, or lots of spam, then complaints can be made and it can be investigated whether the account is doing something naughty, or even whether the person still has control of that account.
There would be some privacy issues with this sort of thing, and a lot would depend on the 'central agency'. It'd also require money to do. Then again, there's generally f'all privacy on t'Internet as it is, and lots of anonymous cowards doing and saying dubious stuff.
As an example, such a system on email would automatically cut out a heck of a lot of spam mail along with the odd insulting comment.
Quite. There is a very big difference between owning shares in a company (whether you buy them or are given them as part of a package/scheme) and what is being proposed. You, as an individual, would own no shares at all. You would have no individual control over them. It would all be controlled by 'representatives'
It is nothing to do with broadening share ownership. Nothing at all.
So other than the voting rights what do the members of the fund actually get? It seems that they wouldn't be able to sell the shares, do they get the dividends?
OT. Just listened to the Tory messiah-ess Ruth Davidon. She's really not very good. She's articulate enough but no more clear speaking than any other politician and her obfuscations were pretty amateurish. Not in the same class as Nicola
Come back David Miliband. Please.....
David Miliband: Natural Tory Leader, since Cameron and Osborne took over the mantle of Blairism and took the Nu from the Labour Party and attached it to the Conservatives...
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
Anonymity is a good thing: It allows you to say things without fear of retribution from your boss, or coworker, or family, or anyone else who may have power over you.
In theory Twitter could require that you give *them* personally-identifying information, but not anyone else (except law enforcement) but this wouldn't stop people sending abuse to Angela Rayner, since the effect she's hoping for appears to rely on the shame of being required to post their names publicly. And since everything leaks, this information would ultimately risk getting published.
If Twitter were actually verifying the information they were sent, they'd need the kind of information that banks collect, like passports and social security numbers, which makes it worse when it leaks. And if they weren't, you're creating a new avenue for malicious users, because you can trivially use somebody else's identity to abuse Angela Rayner.
Meanwhile people who wanted anonymity for malicious reasons would buy hacked accounts. This would be simple and cheap because unless you're famous or a very dedicated tweeter you don't work very hard to secure your Twitter account. It would admittedly be less cheap to create an account than it is now, but that hurts normal users, because you increase the value of an attacker hacking *your* account.
Quite. There is a very big difference between owning shares in a company (whether you buy them or are given them as part of a package/scheme) and what is being proposed. You, as an individual, would own no shares at all. You would have no individual control over them. It would all be controlled by 'representatives'
It is nothing to do with broadening share ownership. Nothing at all.
So other than the voting rights what do the members of the fund actually get? It seems that they wouldn't be able to sell the shares, do they get the dividends?
I got the impression the individuals would not get voting rights either: they'd belong to the 'representatives'. Which is all fine and dandy until you disagree with the way they want to vote with 'your' shares.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country. Its the internet, its worldwide, you can make yourself appear as if located / from another country with one click of a button.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
Thinking off the top of my head, and perhaps out of my backside, a potential way around this would be to have a central agency maintaining a list of 'verified' accounts.
People could then choose to set a flag: "I only want to receive comments from verified individuals." or "Only verified individuals can send me a comment."
That doesn't necessarily mean a poster would have to use their true ID on the site: I could still be 'Josias Jessop', but someone, somewhere, will have verified that there is a real person behind that pseudonym, and that someone can trace back from pseudonym to person.
If a pseudonym creates nasty comments, or lots of spam, then complaints can be made and it can be investigated whether the account is doing something naughty, or even whether the person still has control of that account.
There would be some privacy issues with this sort of thing, and a lot would depend on the 'central agency'. It'd also require money to do. Then again, there's generally f'all privacy on t'Internet as it is, and lots of anonymous cowards doing and saying dubious stuff.
As an example, such a system on email would automatically cut out a heck of a lot of spam mail along with the odd insulting comment.
An agency across the whole world? And then there becomes a whole black market in verified by hacked accounts. It just isn't realistic. And we haven't even really started thinking particularly hard about how to circumvent it.
Adding spam filter type system, with different "folders", to social media platforms might be a better option, in the way email works. The big providers have got really good at that task now, I rarely get spam through into my main inbox in say gmail.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this.
The details of the alleged incident in the bedroom vary from account to account. There is no prospect of any physical evidence. There is no certainty as to the date, time or location of the incident.
The details of the second allegation seem very vague - due to the amount of alcohol involved.
This is being played by the Democrats for political advantage not to secure justice for any victims.
The Republicans are handling it badly.
It is a mess and Kavanaugh's personal reputation - whether you like his judicial positions or not - is now permanently tainted. His name will be forever associated with incidents that may or may not have involved him in the ways described.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
Anonymity is a good thing: It allows you to say things without fear of retribution from your boss, or coworker, or family, or anyone else who may have power over you.
In theory Twitter could require that you give *them* personally-identifying information, but not anyone else (except law enforcement) but this wouldn't stop people sending abuse to Angela Rayner, since the effect she's hoping for appears to rely on the shame of being required to post their names publicly. And since everything leaks, this information would ultimately risk getting published.
If Twitter were actually verifying the information they were sent, they'd need the kind of information that banks collect, like passports and social security numbers, which makes it worse when it leaks. And if they weren't, you're creating a new avenue for malicious users, because you can trivially use somebody else's identity to abuse Angela Rayner.
Meanwhile people who wanted anonymity for malicious reasons would buy hacked accounts. This would be simple and cheap because unless you're famous or a very dedicated tweeter you don't work very hard to secure your Twitter account. It would admittedly be less cheap to create an account than it is now, but that hurts normal users, because you increase the value of an attacker hacking *your* account.
Anonymity can be a good thing, but it can also be abused - and is being abused on a massive scale. The current situation is not healthy.
I reckon the proportion of that 8% that know what CETA is is very small.
There was an interview with an attendee at the leave rally and when it was explained how much chequers got us out of the EU the lady looked blank and just said we want out.
She had no clue about Chequers and to suggest she knows the difference with Canada is just ridiculous.
Hyufd does not seem to understand that the public at large have no idea about the details, those wanting out see the EU as something they do not want to be in and any threat to leaving is unacceptable no matter the consequences
The median voter according to every poll wants out of the EU but also a FTA with the EU and not no deal, only Canada delivers that
So you are happy for an Irish sea border. TM and Corbyn yesterday ruled that out comprehensively.
Please explain how you intend resolving that as no one so far has come up with the solution. Indeed that is the impasse
That is the whole point of the election, to get a mandate for CETA without need for DUP
Really - TM and Corbyn have stated no Prime Minister could ever agree to the Irish sea border
You also are blind to Norway ++ which has many fans
And if you think another GE will resolve Brexit you are in fairy land
May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.
She agreed to a backstop as a way of buying time beyond last December. Her position was never too allow it to actually happen
So she lied to the EU?
Well, yes. But she's in an impossible situation of her own making.
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this.
The details of the alleged incident in the bedroom vary from account to account. There is no prospect of any physical evidence. There is no certainty as to the date, time or location of the incident.
The details of the second allegation seem very vague - due to the amount of alcohol involved.
This is being played by the Democrats for political advantage not to secure justice for any victims.
The Republicans are handling it badly.
It is a mess and Kavanaugh's personal reputation - whether you like his judicial positions or not - is now permanently tainted. His name will be forever associated with incidents that may or may not have involved him in the ways described.
There should be a presumption of innocence but politics is a dirty game where most people ignore such things. Like with Salmond people's eyes light up when an opponent is concerned.
Whilst I wish neither of them electoral success if they are innocent then they really don't deserve what has happened to them.
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
So the UK government are going to stomp their feet and demand this...and the rest of the world doesn't. So you just create an account based in another country. Its the internet, its worldwide, you can make yourself appear as if located / from another country with one click of a button.
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
Thinking off the top of my head, and perhaps out of my backside, a potential way around this would be to have a central agency maintaining a list of 'verified' accounts.
People could then choose to set a flag: "I only want to receive comments from verified individuals." or "Only verified individuals can send me a comment."
That doesn't necessarily mean a poster would have to use their true ID on the site: I could still be 'Josias Jessop', but someone, somewhere, will have verified that there is a real person behind that pseudonym, and that someone can trace back from pseudonym to person.
If a pseudonym creates nasty comments, or lots of spam, then complaints can be made and it can be investigated whether the account is doing something naughty, or even whether the person still has control of that account.
There would be some privacy issues with this sort of thing, and a lot would depend on the 'central agency'. It'd also require money to do. Then again, there's generally f'all privacy on t'Internet as it is, and lots of anonymous cowards doing and saying dubious stuff.
As an example, such a system on email would automatically cut out a heck of a lot of spam mail along with the odd insulting comment.
It's fine if it's all opt-in, and identity and reputation are the kinds of thing that can be done in a decentralized way on Ethereum or a similar system. There a few projects working at this from various different angles.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
Across the whole world? And then there becomes a whole black market in verified by hacked accounts. It just isn't realistic. And we haven't even really started thinking particularly hard about how to circumvent it.
Adding spam filter type system to social media platforms might be a better option.
It would probably have to be done on a country-by-country company-by-company basis. For instance, Twitter could extend their blue-tick concept to all users, and people could choose only to receive messages from such verified users.
Yes, there would be a black market of hacked accounts; but they would become obvious rather quickly, and can be checked because they know who to check with.
Since there would be services that refused to take part in such a scheme, it would be an interesting factor in the market.
It's not stopping people being anonymous; just allowing verified people to be more prominent and important than anonymous cowards.
Spam filters are very poor IMO: people just work ways around them.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
It's fine if it's all opt-in, and identity and reputation are the kinds of thing that can be done in a decentralized way on Ethereum or a similar system. There a few projects working at this from various different angles.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
I don't think the current situation is useful or workable either: it's messy and causing whole worlds of problems. It's borken.
I was thinking more about an opt-out system: you can choose not to connect an account with a 'real' ID, but it should be clear you might not be able to do everything a 'verified' account can. Likewise, people can choose to let anyone message them.
As for pseudonyms: I'd have no problem with my main email accounts being 'connected' with me personally. But on some websites, I'd prefer to use pseudonyms - though even on PB, there's enough clues to my identity for anyone desperate and sad enough to want to know who I really am.
Across the whole world? And then there becomes a whole black market in verified by hacked accounts. It just isn't realistic. And we haven't even really started thinking particularly hard about how to circumvent it.
Adding spam filter type system to social media platforms might be a better option.
It would probably have to be done on a country-by-country company-by-company basis. For instance, Twitter could extend their blue-tick concept to all users, and people could choose only to receive messages from such verified users.
Yes, there would be a black market of hacked accounts; but they would become obvious rather quickly, and can be checked because they know who to check with.
Since there would be services that refused to take part in such a scheme, it would be an interesting factor in the market.
It's not stopping people being anonymous; just allowing verified people to be more prominent and important than anonymous cowards.
Spam filters are very poor IMO: people just work ways around them.
Interesting way forward, for twitter, extending the blue tick verified option to all users would make sense if it was on a country by country basis. So MP's for example could accept comments only from verified UK users, which would stop nearly all hacking of the blue ticks in it's tracks, as you'd expect the vast majority of fake blue ticks to be russian
It's fine if it's all opt-in, and identity and reputation are the kinds of thing that can be done in a decentralized way on Ethereum or a similar system. There a few projects working at this from various different angles.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
I don't think the current situation is useful or workable either: it's messy and causing whole worlds of problems. It's borken.
I was thinking more about an opt-out system: you can choose not to connect an account with a 'real' ID, but it should be clear you might not be able to do everything a 'verified' account can. Likewise, people can choose to let anyone message them.
As for pseudonyms: I'd have no problem with my main email accounts being 'connected' with me personally. But on some websites, I'd prefer to use pseudonyms - though even on PB, there's enough clues to my identity for anyone desperate and sad enough to want to know who I really am.
People should consider this in the context of "social credit" and various governments. There is an overriding reason for anonymity and a reason that governments like databases.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
"Community". What the hell is he going to do? Call a public meeting before the first Russian ICBM vaporises London?
Hold on, hold on, be realistic.....
He will never say it was Russia's fault for anything...more evidence required, still doubt, we should send our possible plan to the Russians for them to have a look as well...
I'll stick my hand up. Why couldn't twitter, for example, require each poster to provide their personal details?
Anonymity is a good thing: It allows you to say things without fear of retribution from your boss, or coworker, or family, or anyone else who may have power over you.
In theory Twitter could require that you give *them* personally-identifying information, but not anyone else (except law enforcement) but this wouldn't stop people sending abuse to Angela Rayner, since the effect she's hoping for appears to rely on the shame of being required to post their names publicly. And since everything leaks, this information would ultimately risk getting published.
If Twitter were actually verifying the information they were sent, they'd need the kind of information that banks collect, like passports and social security numbers, which makes it worse when it leaks. And if they weren't, you're creating a new avenue for malicious users, because you can trivially use somebody else's identity to abuse Angela Rayner.
Meanwhile people who wanted anonymity for malicious reasons would buy hacked accounts. This would be simple and cheap because unless you're famous or a very dedicated tweeter you don't work very hard to secure your Twitter account. It would admittedly be less cheap to create an account than it is now, but that hurts normal users, because you increase the value of an attacker hacking *your* account.
I was exploring the feasibility of the idea rather than whether it should be adopted.
I'm in two minds myself about the matter: having been both anonymous and posted under my own name I can see both sides. Right now twitter has far too many people who feel empowered to be far more aggressive than they might otherwise be because of their anonymity. Reining that back would make for a far more pleasant online experience for some posters.
Of course, some people like me are just obnoxious gits whether or not we're anonymous. But at least we're accountable.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
It's fine if it's all opt-in, and identity and reputation are the kinds of thing that can be done in a decentralized way on Ethereum or a similar system. There a few projects working at this from various different angles.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
I don't think the current situation is useful or workable either: it's messy and causing whole worlds of problems. It's borken.
I was thinking more about an opt-out system: you can choose not to connect an account with a 'real' ID, but it should be clear you might not be able to do everything a 'verified' account can. Likewise, people can choose to let anyone message them.
As for pseudonyms: I'd have no problem with my main email accounts being 'connected' with me personally. But on some websites, I'd prefer to use pseudonyms - though even on PB, there's enough clues to my identity for anyone desperate and sad enough to want to know who I really am.
People should consider this in the context of "social credit" and various governments. There is an overriding reason for anonymity and a reason that governments like databases.
And it wouldn't prevent anonymity: it would just give verified users more prominence if individual other users desire.
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous.
And that article is trying to make the case that he has to prove that he is not guilty.
"Though Kavanaugh has been careful not to slime Ford, his denial of the incident impugns her anyway, which is legitimate if his denial is accurate."
Wittes is coming at this from the wrong angle.
It's not a trial, there is a confirmation hearing at which Kavanaugh could be asked any possible question. The problem is that he appears to have a few things that he may prefer to be hidden - his courting style seems to be one of them, another one that no one seems to have mentioned here would be his sudden increases in savings when purchasing his houses....
I did particularly love the attack which stated no-one remembers what occurred 30 years ago where one response was the person attacked probably does....
Were I able to bet on Kavanaugh's appointment I would be laying the bet...
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
It's fine if it's all opt-in, and identity and reputation are the kinds of thing that can be done in a decentralized way on Ethereum or a similar system. There a few projects working at this from various different angles.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
I don't think the current situation is useful or workable either: it's messy and causing whole worlds of problems. It's borken.
I was thinking more about an opt-out system: you can choose not to connect an account with a 'real' ID, but it should be clear you might not be able to do everything a 'verified' account can. Likewise, people can choose to let anyone message them.
As for pseudonyms: I'd have no problem with my main email accounts being 'connected' with me personally. But on some websites, I'd prefer to use pseudonyms - though even on PB, there's enough clues to my identity for anyone desperate and sad enough to want to know who I really am.
That's the nature of all social media / online.. People will eventually reveal enough information drip by drip to reveal who they actually are...
And note the US has gone through this before, with Clarence Thomas. It is widely, and not unreasonably believed that he perjured himself repeatedly in his confirmation hearing.
If impeachment were possible, he would have been gone by now.
"Community". What the hell is he going to do? Call a public meeting before the first Russian ICBM vaporises London?
Hold on, hold on, be realistic.....
He will never say it was Russia's fault for anything...more evidence required, still doubt, we should send our possible plan to the Russians for them to have a look as well...
Good point, the gigantic fireball will be fake news.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
If I accuse someone of having committed a serious crime, the burden of proof is on me, even if it's outside of a criminal trial.
When did you last give evidence before the Senate Justice Committee ?
And in any event, you are wrong. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution, should one ever be brought. If it became a matter of civil litigation, any decision would be on the balance of probabilities.
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
He’s Borked isn’t he ?
I half expect him to end up being questioned for mortgage fraud or tax evasion...
"Community". What the hell is he going to do? Call a public meeting before the first Russian ICBM vaporises London?
Hold on, hold on, be realistic.....
He will never say it was Russia's fault for anything...more evidence required, still doubt, we should send our possible plan to the Russians for them to have a look as well...
Good point, the gigantic fireball will be fake news.
The few survivors will be stumping about in something out of the fall out universe and it will still be in doubt, just daily mail smear...
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous.
And that article is trying to make the case that he has to prove that he is not guilty.
"Though Kavanaugh has been careful not to slime Ford, his denial of the incident impugns her anyway, which is legitimate if his denial is accurate."
Wittes is coming at this from the wrong angle.
It's not a trial, there is a confirmation hearing at which Kavanaugh could be asked any possible question. The problem is that he appears to have a few things that he may prefer to be hidden - his courting style seems to be one of them, another one that no one seems to have mentioned here would be his sudden increases in savings when purchasing his houses....
I did particularly love the attack which stated no-one remembers what occurred 30 years ago where one response was the person attacked probably does....
Were I able to bet on Kavanaugh's appointment I would be laying the bet...
You are presuming he has something to hide with regards to 'courting'
It's fine if it's all opt-in, and identity and reputation are the kinds of thing that can be done in a decentralized way on Ethereum or a similar system. There a few projects working at this from various different angles.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
I don't think the current situation is useful or workable either: it's messy and causing whole worlds of problems. It's borken.
I was thinking more about an opt-out system: you can choose not to connect an account with a 'real' ID, but it should be clear you might not be able to do everything a 'verified' account can. Likewise, people can choose to let anyone message them.
As for pseudonyms: I'd have no problem with my main email accounts being 'connected' with me personally. But on some websites, I'd prefer to use pseudonyms - though even on PB, there's enough clues to my identity for anyone desperate and sad enough to want to know who I really am.
That's the nature of all social media / online.. People will eventually reveal enough information drip by drip to reveal who they actually are...
Exactly - if they're real people. Therefore 'anonymity' is a bit of a red herring.
The problem here is natural justice is conflicting with judicial process
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled or delayed until after the mid-terms, as the Democrats, want then he will *never* become a Justice
As a result he will have been severely punished regardless of whether he is found guilty or innocent of these allegations
Equally, the women in question have a right to a fair hearing (and Kavanaugh to the protections of a court not a political bear pit).
The “right” way to handle this would be for Kavanaugh to be appointed *subject to* being cleared of the allegations
But I doubt that is (a) possible or (b) that the two sides trust each other to make it a viable path forward
Nonsense, IMO. The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
If Kavanaugh is proven to be guilty of sexual assault, then clearly he is unfit to serve as a judge at any level.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this....
The presumption of innocence is not what confirming a Supreme Court Justice is about. There is no 'right' to a seat on the Court.
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous...
Which is precisely why they ought to have pulled the nomination.
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
I want any taint to be properly demonstrated not just alleged. I don't see that as unreasonable.
I want any taint to be properly demonstrated not just alleged. I don't see that as unreasonable.
Just as I don't see this standard as unreasonable: The injustice, in fact, is largely optical. The question before us, after all, is not whether to punish Kavanaugh or whether to assign liability to him. It’s whether to bestow on him an immense honor that comes with great power. Kavanaugh is applying for a much-coveted job. And the burden of convincing in such situations always lies with the applicant. The standard for elevation to the nation’s highest court is not that the nominee established a “reasonable doubt” that the serious allegations against him were true.
No doubt the US electorate will make their feelings clear in November. I don't see a huge number of women voters being swayed by your argument.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
The real problem with the nomination of Kavanaugh is that there is not the slightest pretence of an attempt to produce an impartial Supreme Court judge. This is about whether the Republicans can get their man on or whether the Democrats can stop him. His virtues and defects are entirely incidental.
That is true, and the downside of defeating the Kavanaugh nomination is that his likely replacements (Amy Coney Barrett, for example) are ideologically even more extreme.
Opposing his appointment is nonetheless right, IMO.
I want any taint to be properly demonstrated not just alleged. I don't see that as unreasonable.
Just as I don't see this standard as unreasonable: The injustice, in fact, is largely optical. The question before us, after all, is not whether to punish Kavanaugh or whether to assign liability to him. It’s whether to bestow on him an immense honor that comes with great power. Kavanaugh is applying for a much-coveted job. And the burden of convincing in such situations always lies with the applicant. The standard for elevation to the nation’s highest court is not that the nominee established a “reasonable doubt” that the serious allegations against him were true.
No doubt the US electorate will make their feelings clear in November. I don't see a huge number of women voters being swayed by your argument.
Given how polarised American politics are what's to prevent fictional allegations (not saying that's happening here) being introduced against all political opponents then?
Effectively this is no longer a confirmation hearing, it is a quasi-criminal trial. And that is very dangerous.
And that article is trying to make the case that he has to prove that he is not guilty.
"Though Kavanaugh has been careful not to slime Ford, his denial of the incident impugns her anyway, which is legitimate if his denial is accurate."
Wittes is coming at this from the wrong angle.
It's not a trial, there is a confirmation hearing at which Kavanaugh could be asked any possible question. The problem is that he appears to have a few things that he may prefer to be hidden - his courting style seems to be one of them, another one that no one seems to have mentioned here would be his sudden increases in savings when purchasing his houses....
I did particularly love the attack which stated no-one remembers what occurred 30 years ago where one response was the person attacked probably does....
Were I able to bet on Kavanaugh's appointment I would be laying the bet...
You are presuming he has something to hide with regards to 'courting'
That has not yet been established.
No, I'm stating that he's unlucky enough to be in a compromising position and then seems to have backed himself into a corner from which there is little to no escape.
And this is also about a promotion / honour rather than a criminal case so different rules apply. There clearly isn't enough evidence for him to go to jail, there is enough background details to suggest that there are probably better candidates for the supreme court...
Seeing as there are loads of legal minds here, why are judicial appointments in the UK not more of a political bun fight?
Parliamentary sovereignty. Irrespective of what the UK Supreme Court decides, parliament can override it with an appropriate Act.
This is fundamentally different from the position in United States (and potentially other countries with activist constitutional courts), where the Supreme Court can strike down legislation, and those decisions cannot be overriden by politicians other than via a constitutional amendment. in effect, in the US, it is the Supreme Court which is sovereign, so who sits on it matters a hell of a lot more.
"Community". What the hell is he going to do? Call a public meeting before the first Russian ICBM vaporises London?
You, then expect the Russians, Chinese, Israeli's, Indians, Pakistani's, North Koreans, USA, Spectre or Tom Cobbley to launch a surprise attack, without any pre-warning at all. Shades of Pearl Harbour! Anyone who launches a surprise ICBM strike can rest assured that they will be in a radioactive glass slag coffin within minutes. Mutually Assured Destruction! Apart from which, the nukes are already in place, smuggled in in diplomatic bags (crates, containers or whatever) or even brought in as cargo. All waiting for a signal from a deep cover spook, embassy or satellite passing overhead. Who knows who exploded it/them, safe from any retaliation.
"Community". What the hell is he going to do? Call a public meeting before the first Russian ICBM vaporises London?
Hold on, hold on, be realistic.....
He will never say it was Russia's fault for anything...more evidence required, still doubt, we should send our possible plan to the Russians for them to have a look as well...
Good point, the gigantic fireball will be fake news.
It'll be put down to a massive gas leak which never would have happened if the power companies had been nationalised.
Even a +2 lead with JC in charge is an incredible achievement. The tories need to supplicate themselves before their gods (mainly Cthulhu and Mammon I imagine) and pray that nothing happens to the old tosser. With any other Labour leader the tories are going to get two in the pink and one in the stink from the electorate.
I hope you're proud of wanting an anti-Semite as PM ...
As mentioned regularly these days, it has to be said Corbyn hasn't had the dubious honour of having his hand kissed by Europe's most influential anti-semite. As long as May happily counts Orban as her main European ally, any accusations coming at least from the Tory side will remain fairly preposterous. Accusations from within Labour, or the LDs, will still be more of an issue for Corbyn for a while.
You, then expect the Russians, Chinese, Israeli's, Indians, Pakistani's, North Koreans, USA, Spectre or Tom Cobbley to launch a surprise attack, without any pre-warning at all. Shades of Pearl Harbour!
Comments
Oh but fairness you say. And indeed within the individual sets of rules, there is fairness everywhere. Even for Fred. Now of course you know that something is wrong when the sector re-rates 40% downwards and your bid remains at the same level, but that is simply 20:20 hindsight. Given another, equally likely set of circumstances and he would have been a hero.
But I digress...
Also, it is already dead easy to create fake profiles on things like Facebook that already require some personal details, a phone number etc, there are whole businesses that sell fake profiles, and do fake likes, clicks, views etc on that basis.
Oh, there are *always* easy answers to difficult problems. They're just bad answers. Unfortunately, they're also sometimes attractive answers to the gullible, the cynical and the angry.
As for the second point, that shows weakness in the verification process, not in the idea.
The EU would have to go for no deal in that instance if only pour encourager les autres.
Perhaps Labour has a point - maybe giving workers a direct stake in the ownership of the company for which they work would provide an incentive to improve productivity.
After all, May wanted workers on the boards of companies - having said workers with a 10% stake would give them a bit of power instead of just being a gimmick.
Come back David Miliband. Please.....
LAB: 39% (+1)
CON: 37% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (+2)
UKIP: 8% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-1)
via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Sep
Chgs. w/ 17 Aug
Or the others who might agree a principle and then reneg on it within 12 months.
I am not particularly condoning the EU's stance here, but realpolitik suggests they aren't likely to back down on this point IMO.
Because personal details are nothing without verification of those personal details. How you do know my name is Joe Bloggs, or John Smith, or AN Another without proof of identify?
Edited extra bit: Mr. Slackbladder, and if your Twitter account gets hacked, you not only lose the account but they also have, for example, your passport details.
And there is no prospect of a government motion proposing a referendum on any terms as far as I can see.
Things may change - but for now, this is all hot air
Some interesting ideas there, interested in the grouping of these movements worldwide. There was already some crossover from Sanders Corbyn which benefited Corbyn and has in turn helped spur the Sanders supporters. My ideal is for several lefties to win power at the same/similar time.
Good luck trying to enforce worldwide official ID checks in order to get social media accounts.
It is nothing to do with broadening share ownership. Nothing at all.
Serendipitous that the following piece was about sexual consent. Someone in the Women's Hour team has a sense of humour.
John McDonnell has a very good way of describing something in such a way that sounds plausible, maybe even likeable, when described in a sentence or two “Let’s give employees a stake in their company”, but in the practical reality of the real world it would have a lot of unintended consequences, most of them negative for the employees.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1044122453222608897
If he thinks 50-100 Tories would vote for that, he really should be seeking alternative employment.
The 'right' way to handle this would be to pull his nomination and put someone else forward. This is an appointment for life to a position of extraordinary power, which is basically free from subsequent review.
And confirmation of a Justice is in any event not a judicial process.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044006928416825344
People could then choose to set a flag: "I only want to receive comments from verified individuals." or "Only verified individuals can send me a comment."
That doesn't necessarily mean a poster would have to use their true ID on the site: I could still be 'Josias Jessop', but someone, somewhere, will have verified that there is a real person behind that pseudonym, and that someone can trace back from pseudonym to person.
If a pseudonym creates nasty comments, or lots of spam, then complaints can be made and it can be investigated whether the account is doing something naughty, or even whether the person still has control of that account.
There would be some privacy issues with this sort of thing, and a lot would depend on the 'central agency'. It'd also require money to do. Then again, there's generally f'all privacy on t'Internet as it is, and lots of anonymous cowards doing and saying dubious stuff.
As an example, such a system on email would automatically cut out a heck of a lot of spam mail along with the odd insulting comment.
In theory Twitter could require that you give *them* personally-identifying information, but not anyone else (except law enforcement) but this wouldn't stop people sending abuse to Angela Rayner, since the effect she's hoping for appears to rely on the shame of being required to post their names publicly. And since everything leaks, this information would ultimately risk getting published.
If Twitter were actually verifying the information they were sent, they'd need the kind of information that banks collect, like passports and social security numbers, which makes it worse when it leaks. And if they weren't, you're creating a new avenue for malicious users, because you can trivially use somebody else's identity to abuse Angela Rayner.
Meanwhile people who wanted anonymity for malicious reasons would buy hacked accounts. This would be simple and cheap because unless you're famous or a very dedicated tweeter you don't work very hard to secure your Twitter account. It would admittedly be less cheap to create an account than it is now, but that hurts normal users, because you increase the value of an attacker hacking *your* account.
Adding spam filter type system, with different "folders", to social media platforms might be a better option, in the way email works. The big providers have got really good at that task now, I rarely get spam through into my main inbox in say gmail.
But the presumption of innocence is an important one to have in mind throughout this.
The details of the alleged incident in the bedroom vary from account to account. There is no prospect of any physical evidence. There is no certainty as to the date, time or location of the incident.
The details of the second allegation seem very vague - due to the amount of alcohol involved.
This is being played by the Democrats for political advantage not to secure justice for any victims.
The Republicans are handling it badly.
It is a mess and Kavanaugh's personal reputation - whether you like his judicial positions or not - is now permanently tainted. His name will be forever associated with incidents that may or may not have involved him in the ways described.
Whilst I wish neither of them electoral success if they are innocent then they really don't deserve what has happened to them.
But it's hard to make something useful and workable in practice, partly because people suck at protecting their credentials - especially for services that may not be very important to them - and partly because there's so much vagueness and subjectivity around concepts like "spam" and "nasty" and "abuse".
However, I doubt any useful system designed for social applications will be based on connecting accounts to someone's idea of a "real" person; If it works, it'll work with pseudonyms.
Yes, there would be a black market of hacked accounts; but they would become obvious rather quickly, and can be checked because they know who to check with.
Since there would be services that refused to take part in such a scheme, it would be an interesting factor in the market.
It's not stopping people being anonymous; just allowing verified people to be more prominent and important than anonymous cowards.
Spam filters are very poor IMO: people just work ways around them.
https://twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1044164183313584128
If you want a sound, conservative approach to this debacle, I suggest you start here :
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation/571021/
(And Wittes is about as Conservative as you can get.)
I'm no fan of Avenatti, but there is no denying his effectiveness as an advocate.
I was thinking more about an opt-out system: you can choose not to connect an account with a 'real' ID, but it should be clear you might not be able to do everything a 'verified' account can. Likewise, people can choose to let anyone message them.
As for pseudonyms: I'd have no problem with my main email accounts being 'connected' with me personally. But on some websites, I'd prefer to use pseudonyms - though even on PB, there's enough clues to my identity for anyone desperate and sad enough to want to know who I really am.
And that article is trying to make the case that he has to prove that he is not guilty.
"Though Kavanaugh has been careful not to slime Ford, his denial of the incident impugns her anyway, which is legitimate if his denial is accurate."
Wittes is coming at this from the wrong angle.
He will never say it was Russia's fault for anything...more evidence required, still doubt, we should send our possible plan to the Russians for them to have a look as well...
The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.
Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.
I'm in two minds myself about the matter: having been both anonymous and posted under my own name I can see both sides. Right now twitter has far too many people who feel empowered to be far more aggressive than they might otherwise be because of their anonymity. Reining that back would make for a far more pleasant online experience for some posters.
Of course, some people like me are just obnoxious gits whether or not we're anonymous. But at least we're accountable.
I did particularly love the attack which stated no-one remembers what occurred 30 years ago where one response was the person attacked probably does....
Were I able to bet on Kavanaugh's appointment I would be laying the bet...
You are effectively advocating putting on the court for the next three or four decades a tainted justice who will be deciding issues of similar import for the entire US.
If impeachment were possible, he would have been gone by now.
And in any event, you are wrong.
The burden of proof would be on the prosecution, should one ever be brought.
If it became a matter of civil litigation, any decision would be on the balance of probabilities.
That has not yet been established.
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/12469/Will-Brett-Kavanaugh-be-the-next-confirmed-Supreme-Court-justice#data
The injustice, in fact, is largely optical. The question before us, after all, is not whether to punish Kavanaugh or whether to assign liability to him. It’s whether to bestow on him an immense honor that comes with great power. Kavanaugh is applying for a much-coveted job. And the burden of convincing in such situations always lies with the applicant. The standard for elevation to the nation’s highest court is not that the nominee established a “reasonable doubt” that the serious allegations against him were true.
No doubt the US electorate will make their feelings clear in November.
I don't see a huge number of women voters being swayed by your argument.
Opposing his appointment is nonetheless right, IMO.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 39% (+1)
CON: 37% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (+2)
UKIP: 8% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-1)
via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Sep
Chgs. w/ 17 Aug
In America they are effectively appointed for life, unless they are impeached and convicted.
And this is also about a promotion / honour rather than a criminal case so different rules apply. There clearly isn't enough evidence for him to go to jail, there is enough background details to suggest that there are probably better candidates for the supreme court...
And isn't split on party lines.
(Though the Article 50 litigation was a hint that might not always be the case.)
This is fundamentally different from the position in United States (and potentially other countries with activist constitutional courts), where the Supreme Court can strike down legislation, and those decisions cannot be overriden by politicians other than via a constitutional amendment. in effect, in the US, it is the Supreme Court which is sovereign, so who sits on it matters a hell of a lot more.
Apart from which, the nukes are already in place, smuggled in in diplomatic bags (crates, containers or whatever) or even brought in as cargo. All waiting for a signal from a deep cover spook, embassy or satellite passing overhead. Who knows who exploded it/them, safe from any retaliation.
Even a +2 lead with JC in charge is an incredible achievement. The tories need to supplicate themselves before their gods (mainly Cthulhu and Mammon I imagine) and pray that nothing happens to the old tosser. With any other Labour leader the tories are going to get two in the pink and one in the stink from the electorate.
You have fallen for FAKE NEWS