Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is Donald Trump the electoral behemoth his congressional allies think he is? – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629
    UK positivity

    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629
    UK Hospitals

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    UK Local R

    NOTE: The scaling of the colours has been changed at the request of various people. Not sure if I like the result.

    image

    Remarkable how the island has steadily worked its way from almost bottom to almost top
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629
    UK deaths

    image
    image
    image
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    "the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium" is meaningless, because it is what always happens. If I put you out of business, your customers will obtain from others what they used to get from you, so what is your problem?
    If I go out of business that is bad for me, but the market continues, yes.
    So all you are saying is, life goes on, which it always does anyway. So it's meaningless.
    Not meaningless no, it is bad news for those who suffer the most and good news for those who benefit; overall life goes on, yes.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
  • Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
    Cabinet isn’t elected
    No it isn't, but the Cabinet does reflect the elected President. If something happens to the elected President and Veep simultaneously then someone else from the Cabinet ought to be able to continue with the elected President's agenda until the next election.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited January 2021
    Cicero said:

    BBC News - NHS Covid-19 jab letters 'confusing over 80s'
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55605149

    it is not confusing them... they are bloody furious and this patronising guff makes them even more annoyed. My folks- over 80 and long term conditions, cancer and arthritis- got their first jab on day two. on New Years Eve they were phoned up to be told second jab, scheduled on 4th Jan was cancelled and no new date given, then phoned again to be told a new date would come soon, but still not yet given.

    On the scale of tens of thousands of people, how much did this particular Tory screw up cost?
    It could be much worse.

    Your parents could live in Estonia (where thanks to the EU, vaccination only started on Dec 27th).

    Or they could live in the one part of the UK where the LibDems are partly in charge -- Wales.

    There, they'll still be waiting for Drakeford & Co to shift into first gear.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629
    UK R

    From case data

    image
    image
    image

    From hospital data

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629
    UK age related data

    image
    image
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Scott_xP said:
    Economically anxious working classes
  • I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
  • eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.

    I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
    So anyone who doesn't want to deal with paperwork changes their supply chain and life goes on yes.

    Or if people want to trade with the paperwork then they fill in the paperwork correctly and move on that way.

    Not the end of the world either way.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
    I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
    I wouldn't want to hear that from my granddad. I wouldn't tick him off or anything but I'd be moving things along to other topics. Or possibly I'd offer him a Werther's Original.
    I recall, back in the dim and distant remarking of a particularly obtuse and sickness-prone female member of staff that 'if she was an animal, you wouldn't breed from her!'
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629
    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
    I've been involved in KYC for alt-banks. Uploading an image of your passport photo page is taken (along with some other data) as proof of identify that meeting UK financial regulations standards. An Image of driving license (photo card version) counts as well.
  • Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
    Nowadays all these seem a bit sub-Benny Hill, and I'd not want to risk their use.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
    I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
    Yeah how old fashioned! Trans folk wear them too, and so what if Cisgender men do?!
    I'm sensing a bout of facetious reactionary mocking coming up. Is there a way I can stop it? Suppose not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_xP said:
    Soliciting money seems to be what Senators spend most of their time doing, so that is interesting.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.

    I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
    So anyone who doesn't want to deal with paperwork changes their supply chain and life goes on yes.

    Or if people want to trade with the paperwork then they fill in the paperwork correctly and move on that way.

    Not the end of the world either way.
    It is if you are in the UK and used to have significant EU customers who hate paperwork and have a competitor who doesn't require the same paperwork.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    If China is smart, they will wait until they get a Korean re-unification on the following terms -

    - United Korea is neutral and doesn't accept *any* foreign military presence
    - The Chinese, in return, give them a vast loan on easy terms to fund this.

    The result would be a Korea, without a US military presence, that would be in economic disarray for decades, but extremely friendly to China. And a massive buffer on their flank.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Taiwan is a good example of where it being nuclear armed would deter China.

    Otherwise, it can perhaps contest an air and sea assault for a month (at best) and possibly just a few days at worst. Its army can perhaps contest landing for a couple of months.

    After that its just guerrilla warfare and a hope it can drag out a nasty insurgent war for long enough (years) with high-enough casualties to cause big political problems for Xi and Beijing.
  • UK R

    From case data

    image
    image
    image

    From hospital data

    image

    Please, for pity's sake, move the 7-day average curves back 3 days so that they are averages about a date and match the underlying data. It hurts my eyes to look at those obviously mismatched graphs!

    Like they do at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases , for example.
  • I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    Verge? The US has been pulling itself apart all year.

    The likely thing is that Trump is ensuring the US pulls itself back together now. Even the likes of Moscow Mitch are repudiating him now.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
    This is very much a social media site and being not for profit does not change anything if the concern is what is being said. When politicians talk about legislation for social media what they really mean is they want to restrict people to saying only what they deem permissible and politicians around the world hate the fact that normal people can say what is on their mind and reach an audience. They dream wistfully of the days when all large scale communication was top down only.

    All the regulation needed is sites have to cooperate with a warrant to find a person and sites must take down a post within a certain time.
    Both of which we already have. If they regulate people will just move to sites that are unregulated and software that is unregulated, there is plenty around.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
    I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
    I wouldn't want to hear that from my granddad. I wouldn't tick him off or anything but I'd be moving things along to other topics. Or possibly I'd offer him a Werther's Original.
    I recall, back in the dim and distant remarking of a particularly obtuse and sickness-prone female member of staff that 'if she was an animal, you wouldn't breed from her!'
    That's a bit fruity, OKC. Makes the point though.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    Almost half time and Marine 0-4 down.

    Got to give it go, second half.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.

    I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
    So anyone who doesn't want to deal with paperwork changes their supply chain and life goes on yes.

    Or if people want to trade with the paperwork then they fill in the paperwork correctly and move on that way.

    Not the end of the world either way.
    It is if you are in the UK and used to have significant EU customers who hate paperwork and have a competitor who doesn't require the same paperwork.
    If you're in that position then you need to adjust and sink or swim.

    Give your EU customers a competitive reason to fill in that paperwork so they don't go to the competitor. Or look for other customers.

    The market finds a way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    If China is smart, they will wait until they get a Korean re-unification on the following terms -

    - United Korea is neutral and doesn't accept *any* foreign military presence
    - The Chinese, in return, give them a vast loan on easy terms to fund this.

    The result would be a Korea, without a US military presence, that would be in economic disarray for decades, but extremely friendly to China. And a massive buffer on their flank.
    Right now, we're staring down the barrel of Chinese domination of south-east Asia by 2050.

    That includes Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, the Philippines, and probably Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma and Singapore as well.

    Japan will probably be ok if only because it's so far, mountainous and populous from China to be too difficult and not worth the hassle - and it can also be fairly easily supported by the USA in its position.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,165

    Completely OT but a sad indictment of where we are heading if we don't reinsert some common sense into debates

    https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/12/30/odyssey-banned-for-violence-sexism-is-this-the-end-of-world-classics

    Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)

    Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.

    I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
    So anyone who doesn't want to deal with paperwork changes their supply chain and life goes on yes.

    Or if people want to trade with the paperwork then they fill in the paperwork correctly and move on that way.

    Not the end of the world either way.
    It is if you are in the UK and used to have significant EU customers who hate paperwork and have a competitor who doesn't require the same paperwork.
    If you're in that position then you need to adjust and sink or swim.

    Give your EU customers a competitive reason to fill in that paperwork so they don't go to the competitor. Or look for other customers.

    The market finds a way.
    Or go under.

    If you insist on tying weights around the ankles of your businesses, don't be surprised if they fall behind their unhindered competitors.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.

    I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
    So anyone who doesn't want to deal with paperwork changes their supply chain and life goes on yes.

    Or if people want to trade with the paperwork then they fill in the paperwork correctly and move on that way.

    Not the end of the world either way.
    It is if you are in the UK and used to have significant EU customers who hate paperwork and have a competitor who doesn't require the same paperwork.
    If you're in that position then you need to adjust and sink or swim.

    Give your EU customers a competitive reason to fill in that paperwork so they don't go to the competitor. Or look for other customers.

    The market finds a way.
    How? And don’t you think if there was other customers most companies would already have them..
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    Verge? The US has been pulling itself apart all year.

    The likely thing is that Trump is ensuring the US pulls itself back together now. Even the likes of Moscow Mitch are repudiating him now.
    I hope you're right, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism at present.

    It would require an unprecedented level of magnanimity from both sides and immense strength of leadership to make that happen.

    So far, I haven't seen evidence of that.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    kle4 said:

    Given how many House republicans, up for election so much sooner than most Senators, still pursued the nonsense EC objections, I wonder how many, or rather how few, will join in any impeachment vote.

    It doesn't matter
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    alex_ said:

    kle4 said:

    Given how many House republicans, up for election so much sooner than most Senators, still pursued the nonsense EC objections, I wonder how many, or rather how few, will join in any impeachment vote.

    It doesn't matter
    Most things don't matter but may still be interesting.
  • Almost half time and Marine 0-4 down.

    Got to give it go, second half.

    Has TSE suggested yet that they might be a good trading bet?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860
    Alistair said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Economically anxious working classes
    See this is why I don't totally buy the trad narrative. If the Trump appeal was to WWC economic interests how come he got so many votes from the well off? And related - if the WWC were attracted more by his economic message than his identity message why would they not go for a Sanders instead? It's like they need the visceral MAGA rhetoric more than they need actual policies to empower and enrich them.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Scott_xP said:
    The conservative and Unionist party in action.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    UK cases by specimen date

    NOTE: The scaling of the colours has been changed at the request of various people. Not sure if I like the result.

    image

    It's great - it makes the gradations much clearer.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited January 2021

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    Verge? The US has been pulling itself apart all year.

    The likely thing is that Trump is ensuring the US pulls itself back together now. Even the likes of Moscow Mitch are repudiating him now.
    I hope you're right, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism at present.

    It would require an unprecedented level of magnanimity from both sides and immense strength of leadership to make that happen.

    So far, I haven't seen evidence of that.
    On the right it will require an unprecedented level of repudiation of the evils of Trumpism, which is getting purged from the mainstream right like the cancer it is - that has already begun.

    On the left AOC and Sanders were repudiated by the Democrats in the primaries already, for the extremely uninteresting Biden as their candidate.

    In the Senate the obstructionist Moscow Mitch has lost his leadership and responded by distancing himself from the excesses of Trumpism. The key Senator now isn't going to be Mitch or Schumer.

    The House still has Pelosi and the SCOTUS still has ACB and 6 GOPers but three out of five isn't bad.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well

    https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1348228266784649216

    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.

    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    Uh? Your "new equilibrium" means EU customers who want to reduce new red tape hassle, disruption and associated costs will dispense with their old UK supplier and get their supplies from elsewhere. Indeed from somewhere from where they do not experience additional hassle disruption and cost.

    I suppose the "new equilibrium" upside is UK suppliers get the reflective benefit from UK customers...so long as we can supply domestically, which is not a given.
    So anyone who doesn't want to deal with paperwork changes their supply chain and life goes on yes.

    Or if people want to trade with the paperwork then they fill in the paperwork correctly and move on that way.

    Not the end of the world either way.
    It is if you are in the UK and used to have significant EU customers who hate paperwork and have a competitor who doesn't require the same paperwork.
    If you're in that position then you need to adjust and sink or swim.

    Give your EU customers a competitive reason to fill in that paperwork so they don't go to the competitor. Or look for other customers.

    The market finds a way.
    Or go under.

    If you insist on tying weights around the ankles of your businesses, don't be surprised if they fall behind their unhindered competitors.
    On the margins some might. That is a shame.

    On the margins others might do better. Because we will be able to cut away the weights we can't remove while in the EU. That will be better.

    The losers will notice it faster and more loudly than the winners will though.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    If China is smart, they will wait until they get a Korean re-unification on the following terms -

    - United Korea is neutral and doesn't accept *any* foreign military presence
    - The Chinese, in return, give them a vast loan on easy terms to fund this.

    The result would be a Korea, without a US military presence, that would be in economic disarray for decades, but extremely friendly to China. And a massive buffer on their flank.
    Extremely unlikely the SK and its citizens would ever accept such terms. I know a few people from SK through work and the prevailing opinion is that SK should not compromise it's own economy or politics for reunification, but this is among the under 40s who haven't really known anything other than democracy and civilisation. I expect among older voters there is more appetite for reunification that comes at a cost of lower living standards and a compromised political situation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    In Electoral College votes though the 304 EC votes Trump got in 2016 was still the highest for the GOP since Bush Snr in 1988 and the 232 EC votes Trump got in 2020 was still the highest for the GOP since George W Bush in 2004.

    In 2020 Trump was also the first losing nominee to also win Ohio and Florida since Nixon in 1960
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    Scott_xP said:
    The conservative and Unionist party in action.
    Why haven't they just filled in the gaps with other products?

    (c) P Thompson.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    Scott_xP said:
    The conservative and Unionist party in action.
    Irish reunification before the 100th anniversary of the Treaty perhaps?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    If China is smart, they will wait until they get a Korean re-unification on the following terms -

    - United Korea is neutral and doesn't accept *any* foreign military presence
    - The Chinese, in return, give them a vast loan on easy terms to fund this.

    The result would be a Korea, without a US military presence, that would be in economic disarray for decades, but extremely friendly to China. And a massive buffer on their flank.
    Right now, we're staring down the barrel of Chinese domination of south-east Asia by 2050.

    That includes Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, the Philippines, and probably Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma and Singapore as well.

    Japan will probably be ok if only because it's so far, mountainous and populous from China to be too difficult and not worth the hassle - and it can also be fairly easily supported by the USA in its position.
    If China tried to invade all of those the US would respond and it would be WW3, which is why it probably won't
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Scott_xP said:
    Yet Trump did better with white voters earning $50-$99 999 where he got 62% than he did with white voters earning over $100 000 where he got 59%. Only with Black and Latino voters did Trump do best with voters earning over $100 000
    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/5
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/10/paris-approves-plan-to-turn-champs-elysees-into-extraordinary-garden-anne-hidalgo

    The mayor of Paris has said a €250m (£225m) makeover of the Champs-Élysées will go ahead, though the ambitious transformation will not happen before the French capital hosts the 2024 Summer Olympics.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    The problem is that:

    (1) The Republicans can't win with Trump: he (personally) is an electoral liability in the suburbs, and he really motivates the Democrats to come out and vote.

    (2) The Republicans can't win without Trump's supporters: simply, they are loyal and enthusiastic, and they want someone who puts them first in power, and they don't want to compromise.

    Now, normally this would be solved by someone articular, acceptable and presentable (i.e. not Ted Cruz) taking over the Trumpian mantle. (Tom Cotton is probably the Republicans best shot.)

    But that highlights the *next* problem for the Republicans. Trump isn't interested in changing America. He's interested in being President. He's not going to find and support any protégé that lacks that certain surname...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited January 2021
    Scott_xP said:
    I so totally believe that he doesn't 'support violence in any way', and that his boss is contrite.
  • Glad to see that leading business expert Mr Thompson is in fine form tonight.

    Customers have stopped buying your stuff due to stupidity imposed by your government? Why haven't you got other customers anyway? Exporting to mass markets on your doorstep? Stupid remoaner idiots - why didn't you find a customer in Honduras instead?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    The problem is that:

    (1) The Republicans can't win with Trump: he (personally) is an electoral liability in the suburbs, and he really motivates the Democrats to come out and vote.

    (2) The Republicans can't win without Trump's supporters: simply, they are loyal and enthusiastic, and they want someone who puts them first in power, and they don't want to compromise.

    Now, normally this would be solved by someone articular, acceptable and presentable (i.e. not Ted Cruz) taking over the Trumpian mantle. (Tom Cotton is probably the Republicans best shot.)

    But that highlights the *next* problem for the Republicans. Trump isn't interested in changing America. He's interested in being President. He's not going to find and support any protégé that lacks that certain surname...

    Which means most likely we are in for a long period of Democratic domination of the White House, much like the Reagan and Bush era of GOP domination of the Oval Office from 1980 to 1992 which came to power after the last time a party lost the Presidency after only 1 term.

    However the Democrats still held the House during that period, so while the Presidency may be beyond reach for the GOP for now, Congress likely is not, especially if the Biden and Harris administration has low ratings by the time of the 2022 midterms
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Glad to see that leading business expert Mr Thompson is in fine form tonight.

    Customers have stopped buying your stuff due to stupidity imposed by your government? Why haven't you got other customers anyway? Exporting to mass markets on your doorstep? Stupid remoaner idiots - why didn't you find a customer in Honduras instead?

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19000139.scottish-food-drinks-exporters-eu-face-losing-millions-brexit/

    Why don't the Scottish coastal fishermen export their live shellfish to Iceland and Singapore, as enabled by that nice Ms Truss and her deals? So much more buccaneering than mouldy old Boulogne.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Tom Cotton sounds like a late-night Radio 1 DJ.

    Maybe specialising in progressive house.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Scott_xP said:
    Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack).
    Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
    This is very much a social media site and being not for profit does not change anything if the concern is what is being said. When politicians talk about legislation for social media what they really mean is they want to restrict people to saying only what they deem permissible and politicians around the world hate the fact that normal people can say what is on their mind and reach an audience. They dream wistfully of the days when all large scale communication was top down only.

    All the regulation needed is sites have to cooperate with a warrant to find a person and sites must take down a post within a certain time.
    Both of which we already have. If they regulate people will just move to sites that are unregulated and software that is unregulated, there is plenty around.
    My concern is with impact, not what's being said. In the same way as I have no interest in people committing slander at their own private dinner tables - this forum doesn't have anything like enough reach to cause much damage. Whereas almost anything that goes on Twitter can wind up in newspapers within a few days, just because the "wrong" person retweeted it. So I don't think there's an issue with treating the two sites differently. Obviously there is a challenge with identifying which "class" every site should end up in, but I'm sure that can be worked out.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    HYUFD said:

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    If China is smart, they will wait until they get a Korean re-unification on the following terms -

    - United Korea is neutral and doesn't accept *any* foreign military presence
    - The Chinese, in return, give them a vast loan on easy terms to fund this.

    The result would be a Korea, without a US military presence, that would be in economic disarray for decades, but extremely friendly to China. And a massive buffer on their flank.
    Right now, we're staring down the barrel of Chinese domination of south-east Asia by 2050.

    That includes Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, the Philippines, and probably Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Burma and Singapore as well.

    Japan will probably be ok if only because it's so far, mountainous and populous from China to be too difficult and not worth the hassle - and it can also be fairly easily supported by the USA in its position.
    If China tried to invade all of those the US would respond and it would be WW3, which is why it probably won't
    I don't think anyone's concerned about full-on military invasion (for one thing, the Chinese are unlikely to fancy their chances of doing better against the Vietnamese than the Americans did). There are other ways to achieve domination.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Exporters - no need to worry!

    If anyone asks you to fill in extra forms, you can just phone the PM and he will tell you to throw them in the bin!

    https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1348252247277367297
  • Carnyx said:

    Glad to see that leading business expert Mr Thompson is in fine form tonight.

    Customers have stopped buying your stuff due to stupidity imposed by your government? Why haven't you got other customers anyway? Exporting to mass markets on your doorstep? Stupid remoaner idiots - why didn't you find a customer in Honduras instead?

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19000139.scottish-food-drinks-exporters-eu-face-losing-millions-brexit/

    Why don't the Scottish coastal fishermen export their live shellfish to Iceland and Singapore, as enabled by that nice Ms Truss and her deals? So much more buccaneering than mouldy old Boulogne.
    It's ominously like the Britannia Unchained "British workers are lazy" argument. British businesses have just sold into Europe, because it's easier. Take that away, and the idle pups will have to up their game and buccaneer globally to earn a living.

    In the event this goes pearshaped, it's going to be because Britain hasn't deserved Brexit- like Moses taking 40 years to lead his people into the Promised Land...
    Absolutely. What kind of stupid business takes orders and builds a customer base in a market that is wealthy and local? By far the patriotic option would have been to seek customers in far-flung parts of the world. Or, like so many of our leading Brexiteers in Business, simply bin the UK completely and go off somewhere else where the workforce is cheap.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Surely politicians in the US have to be seriously worried still about the reliability of the Department of Defence? The entire security of the Inauguration of Biden depends on this, but there are still many unanswered questions about their role in Jan 6th. Possibly the security "failures" were all down to the Capitol police (whether by incompetence or design) but it's all very suspicious.

    It's also a bit concerning that all the arrests so far seem to have been on basically what seem to be "joke" characters, who didn't really seem to be following any underlying plan other than to get some pictures in Congressional offices etc. I would worry that this is is a distraction from some big players who are going under the radar. In fact, the "jokers" getting themselves all the media attention could well be deliberate.

    Everyone is now focussing on the lucky escape, and exploring the truth of what happened. But the coup could very much be still underway.

    Apologies if this all sounds very "conspiracy theory", but so much incredible stuff has happened already.
  • Glad to see that leading business expert Mr Thompson is in fine form tonight.

    Customers have stopped buying your stuff due to stupidity imposed by your government? Why haven't you got other customers anyway? Exporting to mass markets on your doorstep? Stupid remoaner idiots - why didn't you find a customer in Honduras instead?

    I never said that.

    I'm happy enough to put my own thoughts out there, why do you feel the need to invent alternative ones?

    Whom did I call a "stupid remoaner idiot" - that isn't my language. Nor did I mention Honduras.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
    This is very much a social media site and being not for profit does not change anything if the concern is what is being said. When politicians talk about legislation for social media what they really mean is they want to restrict people to saying only what they deem permissible and politicians around the world hate the fact that normal people can say what is on their mind and reach an audience. They dream wistfully of the days when all large scale communication was top down only.

    All the regulation needed is sites have to cooperate with a warrant to find a person and sites must take down a post within a certain time.
    Both of which we already have. If they regulate people will just move to sites that are unregulated and software that is unregulated, there is plenty around.
    My concern is with impact, not what's being said. In the same way as I have no interest in people committing slander at their own private dinner tables - this forum doesn't have anything like enough reach to cause much damage. Whereas almost anything that goes on Twitter can wind up in newspapers within a few days, just because the "wrong" person retweeted it. So I don't think there's an issue with treating the two sites differently. Obviously there is a challenge with identifying which "class" every site should end up in, but I'm sure that can be worked out.
    If a tweet ends up in a newspaper there is only one person to blame for that .... the journalist. As to this site it has also been referenced in newspapers and articles lifted almost whole.

    Regulation is very much a case of "Be careful what you wish for". China is very tight on its regulation of social media and there are plenty of western politicians that look at them with envy.

    The key is teach people to think critically about what they read and not take it all as gospel truth, to use a variety of sources to form their world view than feeling relaxed in group think bubbles.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    Mortimer said:

    Thanks to @Sean_F for his mention of a film about a coup, yesterday. Power Play (1978) was most enjoyable!

    Any more political/military classics that have sunk without trace?

    As an aside, BritBox is really quite good. Have found several series there that I've been meaning to watch for ages - like Our Friends in the North

    Seven Days In May is brilliant, fantastic cast.

    You can rent/buy for £3.49/£7 on Amazon Prime or iTunes.
    Great suggestion.

    Free if you have Netflix are two series of the Korean ‘Chief of Staff’.
    Like a mashup of West Wing with a political thriller, it’s fun.

    Not as good as the utterly insane ‘Punch’ from 2014
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4329922/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_20
    but I don’t think that’s available anywhere at the moment.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Carnyx said:

    Glad to see that leading business expert Mr Thompson is in fine form tonight.

    Customers have stopped buying your stuff due to stupidity imposed by your government? Why haven't you got other customers anyway? Exporting to mass markets on your doorstep? Stupid remoaner idiots - why didn't you find a customer in Honduras instead?

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19000139.scottish-food-drinks-exporters-eu-face-losing-millions-brexit/

    Why don't the Scottish coastal fishermen export their live shellfish to Iceland and Singapore, as enabled by that nice Ms Truss and her deals? So much more buccaneering than mouldy old Boulogne.
    It's ominously like the Britannia Unchained "British workers are lazy" argument. British businesses have just sold into Europe, because it's easier. Take that away, and the idle pups will have to up their game and buccaneer globally to earn a living.

    In the event this goes pearshaped, it's going to be because Britain hasn't deserved Brexit- like Moses taking 40 years to lead his people into the Promised Land...
    Absolutely. What kind of stupid business takes orders and builds a customer base in a market that is wealthy and local? By far the patriotic option would have been to seek customers in far-flung parts of the world. Or, like so many of our leading Brexiteers in Business, simply bin the UK completely and go off somewhere else where the workforce is cheap.
    Didn’t you vote for Brexit?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    First hand report from a reporter inside the House chamber as it was under siege.

    The reference to protestors seen detained lying face down on the floor suggests more were arrested than so far reported?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/inside-house-chamber-capitol-was-overrun-angry-mob-n1253640
  • eek said:

    I think you are looking at the wrong issue here.

    Trump's Congressional Allies are all (except probably Cruz in Texas) all in safe Republican seats. They don't need Trump's supporters to win their seats, they need those supporters to ensure they are standing in as Republican candidate in the next election.

    There seats are NOT as safe as you are assuming. For example, being "primaried" is NOT a one-way street that can only benefit Putinists. That is, the wing-nuts have put themselves in jeopardy.

    Note that Gerald Ford was first elected to Congress, in 1948 from a safe Republican district, after defeating the incumbent GOP congressman. Who was a staunch isolationist. As was Ford himself UNTIL Pearl Harbor, after than he became an internationalist - similar progression to then Michigan US Senator Arthur Vandenburg.

    That was a sea change does - turns the orthodox of the recent past into the dustbin of history.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
    This is very much a social media site and being not for profit does not change anything if the concern is what is being said. When politicians talk about legislation for social media what they really mean is they want to restrict people to saying only what they deem permissible and politicians around the world hate the fact that normal people can say what is on their mind and reach an audience. They dream wistfully of the days when all large scale communication was top down only.

    All the regulation needed is sites have to cooperate with a warrant to find a person and sites must take down a post within a certain time.
    Both of which we already have. If they regulate people will just move to sites that are unregulated and software that is unregulated, there is plenty around.
    My concern is with impact, not what's being said. In the same way as I have no interest in people committing slander at their own private dinner tables - this forum doesn't have anything like enough reach to cause much damage. Whereas almost anything that goes on Twitter can wind up in newspapers within a few days, just because the "wrong" person retweeted it. So I don't think there's an issue with treating the two sites differently. Obviously there is a challenge with identifying which "class" every site should end up in, but I'm sure that can be worked out.
    If a tweet ends up in a newspaper there is only one person to blame for that .... the journalist. As to this site it has also been referenced in newspapers and articles lifted almost whole.

    Regulation is very much a case of "Be careful what you wish for". China is very tight on its regulation of social media and there are plenty of western politicians that look at them with envy.

    The key is teach people to think critically about what they read and not take it all as gospel truth, to use a variety of sources to form their world view than feeling relaxed in group think bubbles.
    The problem is that it's (for example) legal for the media to report that people are making false accusations against someone and that the individual concerned is suing over it, even if the accusations themselves were illegal. Also I suspect most of what gets reposted from this site is above the line, rather than below.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited January 2021
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack).
    Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
    Here’s a question.

    If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?

    Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    There seats are NOT as safe as you are assuming. For example, being "primaried" is NOT a one-way street that can only benefit Putinists. That is, the wing-nuts have put themselves in jeopardy.

    Georgia has shown that Trump stumping for you can lose a seat
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,602

    Scott_xP said:
    The conservative and Unionist party in action.
    Boris' cunning plan to offload NornIron to the South begins to take shape.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    Completely OT but a sad indictment of where we are heading if we don't reinsert some common sense into debates

    https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/12/30/odyssey-banned-for-violence-sexism-is-this-the-end-of-world-classics

    Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)

    Perhaps if these simple souls tried reading the Odyssey, they might find some passages relevant to their purported concerns around violence, sexism, slavery, and gender roles. Such as the famous simile in Book 8, where Odysseus listens to the song of his greatest heroic achievement, the day of the sack of Troy, and in response he wordlessly breaks down and weeps like a woman, the wife of one of the many men he killed that day...

    ἤειδεν δ᾽ ὡς ἄστυ διέπραθον υἷες Ἀχαιῶν
    ἱππόθεν ἐκχύμενοι, κοῖλον λόχον ἐκπρολιπόντες.
    ἄλλον δ᾽ ἄλλῃ ἄειδε πόλιν κεραϊζέμεν αἰπήν,
    αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσῆα προτὶ δώματα Δηιφόβοιο
    βήμεναι, ἠύτ᾽ Ἄρηα σὺν ἀντιθέῳ Μενελάῳ.
    κεῖθι δὴ αἰνότατον πόλεμον φάτο τολμήσαντα
    νικῆσαι καὶ ἔπειτα διὰ μεγάθυμον Ἀθήνην.
    ταῦτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀοιδὸς ἄειδε περικλυτός: αὐτὰρ Ὀδυσσεὺς
    τήκετο, δάκρυ δ᾽ ἔδευεν ὑπὸ βλεφάροισι παρειάς.
    ὡς δὲ γυνὴ κλαίῃσι φίλον πόσιν ἀμφιπεσοῦσα,
    ὅς τε ἑῆς πρόσθεν πόλιος λαῶν τε πέσῃσιν,
    ἄστεϊ καὶ τεκέεσσιν ἀμύνων νηλεὲς ἦμαρ:
    ἡ μὲν τὸν θνήσκοντα καὶ ἀσπαίροντα ἰδοῦσα
    ἀμφ᾽ αὐτῷ χυμένη λίγα κωκύει: οἱ δέ τ᾽ ὄπισθε
    κόπτοντες δούρεσσι μετάφρενον ἠδὲ καὶ ὤμους
    εἴρερον εἰσανάγουσι, πόνον τ᾽ ἐχέμεν καὶ ὀιζύν:
    τῆς δ᾽ ἐλεεινοτάτῳ ἄχεϊ φθινύθουσι παρειαί:
    ὣς Ὀδυσεὺς ἐλεεινὸν ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύσι δάκρυον εἶβεν...

    Od.8.514-531

    And [Demodocus] sang how the sons of the Achaeans wasted the city,
    flooding forth from the Horse and abandoning their hollow ambuscade.
    And he sang how they ravaged the lofty citadel, one man here, another there,
    while Odysseus went to the halls of Deiphobus
    like Ares himself, together with godlike Menelaus.
    There it was, he said, that Odysseus endured the most terrible feat of war,
    then was at last victorious with the aid of great-hearted Athena.
    Such then was the illustrious singer’s song. But Odysseus
    melted, and a tear wet the cheeks beneath his brow.
    And just as a woman wails, embracing her beloved husband,
    who has fallen before his city and his people,
    trying to ward off the merciless day from his city and his children;
    as she sees him gasping and dying,
    she pours herself over him and shrieks aloud; while behind her
    men strike her back and shoulders with their spear-butts
    and lead her off into slavery, to a life of toil and sorrow,
    and in the most piteous of grief her cheeks are torn;
    just so did Odysseus let a pitiful tear fall from beneath his brows...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,602
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack).
    Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
    Here’s a question.

    If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?

    Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
    I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ydoethur said:

    Here’s a question.

    If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?

    Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.

    It has been reported he will stick with Rudy

    Note also that the real lawyers who did join in have quit or been fired IIRC
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Endillion said:

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
    KYC is all very well but we already see people lose their jobs for things they post under their own names that is not illegal. How do you think things would be here on PB if everyone had to post under their own names? I know I wouldn't post because my employer would see some of my comments on the NHS and suppliers to the NHS as possibly bringing them into disrepute.

    There is also the libel problem. It is one thing to post for example "Endillion has sex with bicycles". That is not libellious because endillion is not connected to your real person. I am not merely however talking about gratuitous insults but there have been for example plenty of people here being called racist. If it was being called to their real name they would be more likely to defend themselves in the court.

    The discussion here would be much poorer if people weren't allowed anonymity.
    Yes, I agree completely. Hence the compromise of requiring KYC: people can still post anonymously if they choose (to create a distinction between their professional and personal personas, and also in case they don't want their family associated with whatever they're saying), but if they say something potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, then it's possible for the person on the other end to take recourse by requiring the provider to disclose the poster's identity.

    I know in theory this should already be possible by tracing IP addresses, and there are some issues to be resolved due to VPNs and the like (figuring out who's in what country and therefore subject to which regulations is non-trivial), but it seems mad to me that people can just issue death threats to people they don't like and there is almost never any action taken.
    Police in most countries already have that power, indeed the news often have stories of police in the UK going round to someones house after they have posted something.

    IP Address is a dodgy thing to use as evidence as several people may be using the same ip address so going after the billpayer doesn't work. In addition its not entirely unknown for people to remote into other peoples computers to post things if they might get into trouble for it.

    These laws you are demanding already exist in most western countries. Perhaps what you should be asking is why they don't get used more. But then a lot of us would also be wanting to know why the police don't bother investigating burglaries or cars being broken into a lot of the time too.
    That's fair. I agree that a large part of the problem may well be police prioritisation. It just might make people think a bit harder before posting if there are a few high profile cases of individuals going after people for stuff they posted online, and everyone knows the platform has their real-world address and will be required to hand it over if called on.

    Going after IP addresses doesn't produce evidence usable in a court of law, but it certainly narrows the field for the police. KYC resolves this, and also makes a big inroad into the bot problem.
    So I have to provide address details...how do you propose I prove that to Roberts satisfaction? Many social media sites like facebook would absolutely love this getting even more verified data on you as that is their business model.

    KYC already causes real world problems. An example I experienced about 8 years ago. New MD came in and wanted to trim some staff and we were all offered agreements to leave as he couldn't make us redundant. Law says we have to have it reviewed by a solicitor and the company has to pay. I went down to a nearby solicitor....you need photo id. Well my driving license isn't a photo one I still have the old paper one. My passport was a year out of date so not valid either. Sort of stuck at that point. Luckily she decided to accept the out of date passport. If I had no passport though I would have been stymied. Plenty of people as we are always told when voter ID comes up would have trouble proving identity
    This isn't a "social media" site in the traditional sense (for one thing, it's not for profit) so I don't see a problem in applying the requirements in a way that catches Facebook/Twitter/Instagram etc and leaves smaller messageboards and pure discussion forums in peace. It doesn't detract much from the goal of the legislation either, since posts on the smaller sites are much less likely to have repercussions in public.

    On KYC... I'm sure there are practical problems, but it's a requirement to open a bank account already and arguably we are getting to the stage where social media profiles are almost as important. I'm not remotely convinced by the arguments around voter ID - in any case, this is a problem that is slowly going away as younger people are much more likely to have photo ID.
    This is very much a social media site and being not for profit does not change anything if the concern is what is being said. When politicians talk about legislation for social media what they really mean is they want to restrict people to saying only what they deem permissible and politicians around the world hate the fact that normal people can say what is on their mind and reach an audience. They dream wistfully of the days when all large scale communication was top down only.

    All the regulation needed is sites have to cooperate with a warrant to find a person and sites must take down a post within a certain time.
    Both of which we already have. If they regulate people will just move to sites that are unregulated and software that is unregulated, there is plenty around.
    My concern is with impact, not what's being said. In the same way as I have no interest in people committing slander at their own private dinner tables - this forum doesn't have anything like enough reach to cause much damage. Whereas almost anything that goes on Twitter can wind up in newspapers within a few days, just because the "wrong" person retweeted it. So I don't think there's an issue with treating the two sites differently. Obviously there is a challenge with identifying which "class" every site should end up in, but I'm sure that can be worked out.
    If a tweet ends up in a newspaper there is only one person to blame for that .... the journalist. As to this site it has also been referenced in newspapers and articles lifted almost whole.

    Regulation is very much a case of "Be careful what you wish for". China is very tight on its regulation of social media and there are plenty of western politicians that look at them with envy.

    The key is teach people to think critically about what they read and not take it all as gospel truth, to use a variety of sources to form their world view than feeling relaxed in group think bubbles.
    The problem is that it's (for example) legal for the media to report that people are making false accusations against someone and that the individual concerned is suing over it, even if the accusations themselves were illegal. Also I suspect most of what gets reposted from this site is above the line, rather than below.
    See this is rather telling quote from you "even if the accusations themselves were illegal" . The accusation person x is y is not illegal until it has gone to court and been judged libellious. Before social media the old style media were publishing things that were judged libellious as well. I also believe under law that reposting something judged libellious leaves you open to being sued for it.

    What you are advocating by the sound of it sounds to me like you want from regulation is it made impossible to post person x is y in the first place even if it turns out not to be libellious. We witness all the time here the mods stepping in and telling people not to speculate about some topic in case it gets Mike into legal trouble so sounds to me like the current law is working. Making it impossible to make an accusation does more to protect the ones like Saville than anything.

    Personally my view is that the harm done by people posting falsehoods on social media is far less than the harm done by giving someone like Matt Hancock to decide what its permissible to post.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,602

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack).
    Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
    Here’s a question.

    If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?

    Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
    I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
    ...to the point where I had to change his name to Giuliano!
  • Glad to see that leading business expert Mr Thompson is in fine form tonight.

    Customers have stopped buying your stuff due to stupidity imposed by your government? Why haven't you got other customers anyway? Exporting to mass markets on your doorstep? Stupid remoaner idiots - why didn't you find a customer in Honduras instead?

    I never said that.

    I'm happy enough to put my own thoughts out there, why do you feel the need to invent alternative ones?

    Whom did I call a "stupid remoaner idiot" - that isn't my language. Nor did I mention Honduras.
    You don't understand humour do you?
  • ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack).
    Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
    Here’s a question.

    If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?

    Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
    I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that a competent lawyer would advise Don to say sorry then shut up, going into government-sponsored hiding. Become a realtor in Hicksville, Tennessee.

    Basically, any competent lawyer will be sacked within 10 minutes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    MaxPB said:

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"

    I doubt formal impeachment will happen but for the next 10 days I suspect the federal wing of the US Government will effectively take instruction from Pence, where they cannot from the shadow Biden adminstration, not Trump.

    It will find a way to marginalise him just as social media have now cut off his oxygen supply.

    It creates a very interesting and difficult position if Iran or whoever decide to create a crisis.

    For most of the work of Government, it's irrelevant. US government departments don't have the White House on the blower on a day to day basis anyway. But if Trump (or indeed Pence) did decide to place a call, we're now at the stage (regardless of last week) where the response is "We'll get right onto that but will probably need to work up some details - how does Thursday week sound in terms of having an executive order drafted and on your desk?"
    Let's just hope China doesn't decide to invade Taiwan.
    That will come in the next 10-15 years.

    He needs a divided West first. He's got a good start with the craven EU deal and a US on the verge of pulling itself apart.
    If China is smart, they will wait until they get a Korean re-unification on the following terms -

    - United Korea is neutral and doesn't accept *any* foreign military presence
    - The Chinese, in return, give them a vast loan on easy terms to fund this.

    The result would be a Korea, without a US military presence, that would be in economic disarray for decades, but extremely friendly to China. And a massive buffer on their flank.
    Extremely unlikely the SK and its citizens would ever accept such terms. I know a few people from SK through work and the prevailing opinion is that SK should not compromise it's own economy or politics for reunification, but this is among the under 40s who haven't really known anything other than democracy and civilisation. I expect among older voters there is more appetite for reunification that comes at a cost of lower living standards and a compromised political situation.
    SK has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. It needs reunification to keep its economy growing. Of course after reunification, the justification for American bases in Korea becomes obsolete.

    Its not such a bad deal for SK, who have no real beef with China.

    I don't see China wanting to expand its boundaries. That is so 19th Century. Economic domination of the region is plenty. No point in fighting peoples like Vietnam or Korea.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that a competent lawyer would advise Don to say sorry then shut up, going into government-sponsored hiding. Become a realtor in Hicksville, Tennessee.

    Basically, any competent lawyer will be sacked within 10 minutes.

    https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1347778514888642561
  • Charles said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
    Cabinet isn’t elected
    Presidential succession USED to go via Cabinet, but that was changed. Something that Alexander Hague, that great constitutional scholar did NOT realize when he made his infamous "I am in charge" statement to the press just after Ronald Reagan was shot.

    THAT was the scariest moment of the whole business; I remember seeing him spout this nonsense on TV. General reaction was, who IS this guy? Some even thought he was part of a coup.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Vaccine Watch.

    Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.

    Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.

    Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
  • Scott_xP said:

    I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that a competent lawyer would advise Don to say sorry then shut up, going into government-sponsored hiding. Become a realtor in Hicksville, Tennessee.

    Basically, any competent lawyer will be sacked within 10 minutes.

    https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1347778514888642561
    Funnily enough, I went onto a Russian Town Name Generator (https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/russian-town-names.php) to find a Russian equivalent to "Hicksville", and what should come up?

    Magazovsky

    It's written in the stars, I tell you.
This discussion has been closed.