Slashdot Mirror
British PM Candidate Promises Social Media Crackdown (politico.eu)
Theresa May's party "is expected to win a majority at the June 8 election," reports Reuters -- and she's promising they'll pass new social media laws. An anonymous reader quotes Politico:
They want to introduce a new measure that could fine or punish internet firms which fail to adequately flag and take down content harmful to minors or "direct users unintentionally to hate speech, pornography or other sources of harm," according to a press release. "The internet has brought a wealth of opportunity but also significant new risks which have evolved faster than society's response to them," May said. "We want social media companies to do more to help redress the balance and will take action to make sure they do"... The Conservative digital platform also promises to better protect Brits' personal information, compelling social media companies to trash user records from before the age of 18. The party plans to encourage the development of digital by default government and business services, as well.
British PM Candidate Explains, "I don't understand how the Internet works!"
There seems to be an awful lot of politicians that don't understand how powerless they are to control what happens outside of their country.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
In the EU, the GDPR will give EU citizens roughly the same powers. The UK is leaving the EU, so this law will be a replacement for it.
Quantum hacker.
Good luck defining "hate speech, pornography or other sources of harm," or what it means to direct users towards them. Sounds like a full employment plan for politicians.
Let's ban kitchen knifes, smartphones with cameras (because they could be used to make an explicit pictures of teens we love so much) and computers with keyboards on which most of hate speech (including this one) has been written.
"direct users unintentionally to"
So if it's unintentional that means a bug or error has been found in software designed to define the content
Are we going to punish companies for bugs? Perhaps the measure should at least allow the companies to address it in a timely manner, or to prove that they were at least attempting to be stringent? A punishment for something unintentional seems a little extreme.
Twinstiq, game news
Nah, just anyone who disagrees with them.
Next Article: Britain is disconnected from the Internet to avoid all content they cannot control.
InterExit?
We don't directly elect our Prime Minister so Theresa May isn't a PM candidate. Wish people would get this right
This could go a long way toward persuading average Brits they should protect their privacy...and make it considerably more difficult for law enforcement to sort out the really bad stuff from relatively harmless things.
For example, if I were an ISP, I'd probably start offering discounts to customers based on the level of internet security they were willing to employ. If a customer was willing to make it impossible or incredibly difficult and expensive for me to determine what sites they were visiting, I'd be willing to knock quite a bit off their monthly internet bill.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Free speech dies when social justice is "enforced".
One persons hate speech is their political enemies voice. How convienient!!
Simply to deny use of any Social media to anyone who is considered a minor.
Problem solved.
Far cheaper and easier a solution than to try and mediate every post, image and video that can be found there.
It is basically a Victorian agenda with zero scientific evidence as a basis. The one thing it shows is the utterly evil nature of those that push this agenda, nothing else. And of course, this is just the preparation step for full censorship. The UK is already half a police-state, and that universally (if not stopped decisively) devolves into a full police state and ultimately full-blown fascism. The strange thing is that a lot of people in the UK seem to be cheering this process onwards, just like if it never happened in history.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And the funny thing is that when too young, children just do not care about porn (so no harm done), and when not too young anymore, they manage to get access to it anyways (with, as far as science can determine, no harm done). What is pushed here is a fundamental religious agenda, that is not based on actual facts. There is no scientific evidence that porn does harm to children. The only thing that is needed is for parents to put it into context, i.e. explain that these are models and athletes and that no, real people do not perform like that or have an anatomy like that and real sex works a bit differently. That done, any possible harm vanishes.
There really is something mentally broken in the people that want to ban porn.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
They really do live in a different universe than us, just like Juncker said, after that dinner with P.M. May.
They have many illusions and this is another one.
That's becoming less and less relevant as power is gradually removed from the states and given to the federal government. Not being enough for those in power, they seek to expand beyond the borders of their country and control other countries as well, currently through treaties, political meddling, and outright assassination of uncooperative foreign leaders.
The end goal is the "one world government", where they no longer need to balance control with freedom.
UK already has hate speech laws, which must've been fine with you. And they are not "obsolete", but actively prosecuted.
Which was so cool with the "anti Tories", their Illiberal American brethren would love such laws to come to the land of the First Amendment — to the annoyance of the earlier generation of Illiberals, flabbergasted at what their rhetoric lead to.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
ho for fucks sake, we never lost power to EU.
And we voted for MEPs, to represent us. unfortunately idiots voted in farage as one of MEPs, and instead of trying to change things, he just fucking whined and did fuck all...took a nice fat pay packet.
You have been told a massive pile of bullshit by the fuckers..
It's far better than taxes since it doesn't take money from citizens. It doesn't affect domestic internet companies since all the big social media outfits are american. In fact it is "free" cash.
There are plenty of cases of the US government fining foreign companies for contravening its laws. Many times they have to pay $$$$ billions. So if european governments can get some revenue by tapping american companies, it's just part fo the same game.
And since many american companies have huge stashes of money that they refuse to repatriate to the US, as they would get heavily taxed on it, it's not as if the home-country is losing anything, either.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I'm a French citizen living in the UK. I can live anywhere I want, I'm there by choice.
National citizenship rules should be changed. Instead of getting automatic citizenship based on where you are born, you should instead get provisional citizenship until your 21st birthday, and then you pick permanent citizenship in the country that best fits your political and economic views.
The age of 21 would be a horrible time to be making a decision of that gravity. Many people are hot-headed idiots at that stage of their life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Excerpt: "The country was listed among the "Enemies of the Internet" in 2014 by Reporters Without Borders,[6] a category of countries with the highest level of internet censorship and surveillance that "mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users".[7] Other major economies listed in this category include China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia."
It ends basically with internet related companies fleeing the country, a great firewall blocking external country access, and government level persecution of businesses and companies.
On the other hand, this goes directly against:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Excerpt: "It also enhanced existing defences, by introducing a defence for website operators hosting user-generated content (provided they comply with a procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned or otherwise remove it), and introducing new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and "publication on a matter of public interest" or privileged publications (including peer reviewed scientific journals), to replace the common law defences of justification, fair comment, and the Reynolds defence respectively. However, it did not quite codify defamation law into a single statute.[4][5]"
It goes one way or the other. Political speeches have no effect in matters that are already estabilished. The whole thing sounds reactionary and not well thought through. As if this was a new thing... but I guess congratulations for Theresa May's party for realizing something that has been going on over 20 years now.
The way things are going you might leave *before* you want.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, this issue always existed. Why didn't the Japanese who were interned move away to a state that would project them? Why didn't gay people just move to another state in the 50's that would properly protect them? Why couldn't people who are in prison for drug usage move to another state where drug usage was legal?
Because nobody ever stood up for them, hence there was no place to go. Blaming "the federal government" is a cop out; rather than admit that the multiple states approach didn't work, because conservative Americans held (and still hold) very little sympathy for people who lead lives different from themselves, it's much easier to blame something as large and abstract as the federal government. When we talk about outsourced jobs, is it the federal government's fault, or that of the companies for willingly and knowingly sacrificing quality and employee welfare for a better bottom line?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
You can take the daughter out of the vicarage, but you can't take the vicarage out of the daughter.
Not that anything will happen. It's just throwing a bone to Daily Mail readers which is pretty pointless as they're all dedicated Tory voters, especially now the BNP has imploded.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
[Brexiters will] fall all over themselves contorting into some explanation as to why they support a totalitarian wannabe like May, just because they'll get their precious withdrawal from the EU.
FYI, May was a Bremainer. http://www.euronews.com/2016/0...
May is merely implementing the result of the referendum. The Brexit-Bremain split is largely orthogonal to the Tory-Labour split. One of the strongest Brexit areas is the South Wales valleys, a working class, Labour supporting, former coal-mining area.
I am a Brexiter and I don't particularly support the Tories, not since that Thatcher bitch destroyed most of British manufacturing, nor Labour since that Blair bastard destroyed the rest. All the main parties are now Thatcherite. I vote for smaller parties, UKIP last time.
ho for fucks sake, we never lost power to EU.
Except having to conform to their numerous orders. Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales. They are taking big chunks of time out of my life.
What? That bastion of free speech, the Republic of Ireland?
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
The only thing that is needed is for parents to .... explain that these are models and athletes and that no, real people do not perform like that or have an anatomy like that and real sex works a bit differently.
Are you speaking for yourself or for all of us?
That done, any possible harm vanishes.
Wow, that's easy then. Any ideas how to solve world hunger while you are on a roll?
Unlikely. Firstly, i think the rights of EU citizens to stay in Britain will be guaranteed fairly early on, if for no reason other than that there are many British citizens living in the rest of the EU that we don't want back.
Secondly, I think, once Brexit kicks in, I don't think this will be a country that many people would live in by choice.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Theresa May's party might win and she might not actually get elected in her constituency - at that point she could NOT be Prime Minister.
Yes she could. It is not a PM's job requirement to be a member of parliament, either in the Commons or the Lords. In 1963 Alec Douglas-Home was PM for a time in that position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What would happen is that a Tory in a safe seat would resign, a by-election would ensue in which May would be the Tory candidate and win.
The British Prime Minister is actually chosen by the Queen. Don't worry, she won't choose you or me.
Will that be before or after they have to hand them over to the secret police under the new Snooper's Charter?
Says Theresa May:
"The internet has brought a wealth of opportunity but also significant new risks which have evolved faster than society's response to them."
And by "society" you mean... you? The government?
Government is not nor should it act on behalf of "society". Try understanding the difference, and we can all get along just fine.
Might makes right irrelevant.
Are you speaking for yourself or for all of us?
All of us. By the way, in case you're about to try it, claiming you have the anatomy of a pornstar, on the internet, while anonymous is super credible. So we'll all defo believe it.
Wow, that's easy then.
It really is in this case.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Cutting the nose to spite the face seems to be a very popular pastime for the Brits.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
She was so lukewarm that I'd class here as a Brfence-sitter, waiting to see which way the find blew.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Except having to conform to their numerous orders.
You do realise that we won't be able to do whatever the fuck we want after we leave, right? I mean, no one will agree to do a trade deal with us if re refuse to agree to any rules.
And you know, if we refuse to agree to the EU stuff on fisheries, we risk getting what the EU juust managed to prevent which is a full blown fish stock collapse. Once that happens, you can piss and moan however much you like but you still won't be able to get fish out of the sea.
Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal
Well then you're a right fucking numpty because you can still get creosote if you know where to look.
It also is terrible for the environment so selling it to every tom dick and harry to tip down the drain is a fantastically poor idea too. Creosote is really rather carcinogenic, so yeah, it's a pretty good idea to not have it for general sale on the grounds that not having people kill themselves for not have the right piece of obscure knowledge. But you can still get hold of it easily enough, though without your own pressure treating kit, you won't do nearly as well as if you simply buy pretreated fencing.
Now, you lazy, ill informed git, here's somewhere that'll actually sell you the stuff:
https://www.creosotesales.co.u...
for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales.
Well, I hear Tories love Wales, so I'm sure you won't be at all fucked now you've just handed them all the power.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Same here, but like Snowden I defected eastward.
Does Theresa May aspire to be elected to an office?
Yes, she does but only for Member of Parliament, NOT Prime Minister. The position of PM is not an elected one but an appointed one. The reigning monarch chooses the PM but by long-standing tradition always picks the leader of the party with a majority of seats in the commons. The PM remains in office until either they step down or they are fired by the monarch. They may also have to step down if they lose a confidence motion but I'm not sure whether that is legally binding or whether it just means that they have lost the ability to govern so they always do step down.
So she really is not a "candidate for PM" but just a leader of her party who is seeking re-election and, if her party gets enough seats, she will be appointed PM and command enough support in the commons to be able to hold the position.
Hmm. Fairly sure I could move to Ireland even post-Brexit, I'd easily get into Canada or Australia and if I had to I'd gamble on getting into most of Scandinavia, Iceland and New Zealand.
So basically even without looking at the Far East, the Middle East, Central or South America or the whole of Africa, I'm replete with choices.
But just upping and moving? for normal people without millions in cash? no.
I may not be normal but I don't have millions in cash, so... yes.
What if the country that best fits your views doesn't want you?
That is just a minor implementation detail.
Trudeau wants to let everyone and their dogs come here. And the less productive they are, and the more they cost Canadian tax payers, the more he seems to want them here.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
If the UK make themselves irrelevant by hamstringing their ability to adapt and work in 'high tech', some other country will take over for them. So the rest of the world will be OK. The UK will suffer for her policies, and eventually she'll be fired in another election. Unless of course the opposition parties keep running fucktard incompetents. It's up to Britains to figure out whether they like her policies or not and act accordingly.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Whine, whine, whine, Bluestrat fights against a strawman. In reality, you're a racist xenophobic monster who looks up to Hitler as a hero if you consider immigrants only a problem and uselessly and blindly rail for a wall that you believe those same immigrants will pay for.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
And for the most part, I agree. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that civilization isn't possible without rule of law, and rule of law isn't possible without having a jurisdiction. Hence, borders are necessary. And likewise you can't necessarily allow people to come and go as they please without some form of controls, international agreements, etc, otherwise borders don't serve any purpose.
National citizenship rules are up to the individual country, and with the exception of the Americas, very few countries actually have birthright citizenship. (Some countries allow you to just buy your way to citizenship; the US does this for example.)
That said, I doubt you'd get most countries to cooperate with the idea that somebody who has never been there before can just suddenly claim the rights to being a national just because they hit an arbitrary age number. Gaining citizenship in the US for example means that, among other things, the US will make diplomatic and military efforts to protect you if you're being wrongfully persecuted by a foreign government. It also means you get diplomatic guarantees that are honored by a large number of other countries, such as visa-free travel.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
And for the most part, I agree. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that civilization isn't possible without rule of law, and rule of law isn't possible without having a jurisdiction. Hence, borders are necessary. And likewise you can't necessarily allow people to come and go as they please without some form of controls, international agreements, etc, otherwise borders don't serve any purpose.
Exactly correct, thank you!
I advocate for civilization over anarchy. Border and immigration security & control are a necessary part. This is not rocket surgery.
My A/C stalker must hate civilization. Sad.
But, it seems I live rent-free in his head. Funny.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is already banned - that's why they call it illegal. The changes that people want to make are making legal immigration harder and enforcing laws against illegal immigration more strongly. The problem with these policies is twofold. The first is that the people who advocate them often benefit from low-priced labour as a result of illegal immigration. The second is that they're often using immigrants as a scapegoat for something else: For example in the UK, in the run up to the referendum, we saw that a lot of communities that were 1% or less immigrant were blaming immigrants for the lack of jobs: even if they deported all of the immigrants, it would make no meaningful difference to unemployment rates. But blaming the problems on immigrants is far easier for politicians than addressing the various root causes of inequality (in this case, that there's a huge amount of direct and indirect subsidy on companies in London, which pulls jobs away from the rest of the country).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
On the creosote ban, it was specifically because creosote was found to be significantly more carcinogenic than previously believed. Do you stain those hundreds of yards of fencing yourself? If so, that directive has significantly reduced your likelihood of dying of lung cancer. If not, then it's reduced your ability to employ someone else to work in unsafe conditions. Which of these do you object to?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
FYI, May was a Bremainer
Not exactly. She was in favour of remaining part of the information sharing agreements with spy agencies in the rest of the EU, but opposed to remaining bound by the decisions of any international courts. Basically, she wanted power without oversight. She's now decided that Brexit is a good way of achieving this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
but a big deal for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales. They are taking big chunks of time out of my life.
Well, why didn't you say so sooner? I mean, the Tories never stop talking about how much they care about fence-maintainers in Wales! I'm sure you're foremost in their minds when they're considering new policies, being such a large part of their core demographic.
I'm actually trying to decide whether or not your post is intended as parody. It's that ridiculous.
Except the USA. In the US you're a racist xenophobe monster worse than Hitler if you oppose an open border.
Yet they elected a guy who's main thing was a new, bigger, better, stronger, yuger, border wall?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
You realise you're fitting the brexiteer/UKIP stereotype wonderfully, right? In these very comments you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of what the EU is, and how you are adamantly against your own best interests if they are not packaged up in a bow of your choosing.
Classy stuff. And no, I'm not saying this because your opinion is different, but because your opinion is dangerous.
Except the USA. In the US you're a racist xenophobe monster worse than Hitler if you oppose an open border.
"My arguments are so painfully weak that I must exaggerate the other side's view grotesquely in order to make a facile point."
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Trudeau wants to let everyone and their dogs come here.
Don't worry, no-one wants to go there.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Secondly, I think, once Brexit kicks in, I don't think this will be a country that many people would live in by choice.
It'll be nice for the people running it, which is believe is the intention.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Everyone under 30 living in Russia wants to get out, for example, because Russia is appalling and they know it, but they can't, and so they keep paying the tax which funds the Russia military and Government who then launch cyber-attacks on the EU and USA.
Sounds like they should stop being pathetically servile cowards and remove Dear Leader Putin from his perpetual office.
How long was Russia a democracy for? A few years? Pathetic.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
An embarrassing law, yes. Doesn't get enforced. You forgot to link that the case was quickly dropped. I'll link it for you.
It was dropped six days ago because nobody gave a fuck.
Glad I could help you out there.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You should link them. UK has warrantless access to everybody's browsing history. What's the EU got coming that's worse?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
For example in the UK, in the run up to the referendum, we saw that a lot of communities that were 1% or less immigrant were blaming immigrants for the lack of jobs: even if they deported all of the immigrants, it would make no meaningful difference to unemployment rates.
Yeah, people often stumble after moaning they tuk ur jaaabs, when you say what jobs?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If you might recall, the USA had a revolution over being ruled by a foreign power. The UK managed to do it much more peacefully.
You think Brexit is like the american revolution? lol
You have a toddler's view of the world. Holy shit, what a fucking moron you have to be to think those situations are comparable.
LOL.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I was going to say something mean, but then I realised you live in the damp misty hills of Wales. You've enough to deal with.
Keep voting Tory I'm sure Wales will be a paradise soon once you're rid of all the forrins.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
ho for fucks sake, we never lost power to EU.
Except having to conform to their numerous orders. Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales. They are taking big chunks of time out of my life.
So you're prepared to fuck everyone over for your inconvenience and for the sake of several hundred yards of fence? Maybe you should give Trump a shout, I hear he's looking for people that know about fences. Is there any reason they banned this stuff or where they like ' yeah this nukenerd guy, fuck him and his fences'?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
He's correct, and you're a spastic.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
May is merely implementing the result of the referendum.
No, May is interpreting and implementing hers, and the tories vision for bexit. No other information was gathered about why people voted in or out. It was a binary choice, which was stated many time before to be advisory and non binding. Then it got a 52/48 split which is little better than a meh, yet she's ploughing ahead full steam for what's looking like a hard exit if we're lucky but the nuclear option is the one they're really gunning for. Is that why you voted for brexit? What exactly did you want from it?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If he's a Sun reader, he's their core demographic.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I vote for smaller parties, UKIP last time.
lol. I mean holy fuck. UKIP are getting smaller by the minute mate.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
She's a vicar's daughter. Enough said.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
She promised to make herself and her government more powerful. Expect her to follow through on that.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Fuck you May! does that count as hate speech? You are 1984 incarnate May!... I wonder, will she also require all history on the internet to be retroactively re-written... check back here to find out in 6 months! FUCK YOU MAY!!! wooo.
To "restrict" something you don't like for others is a typical Illiberal response. No, we should not have banned or restricted their rhetoric. We (more of us) should've foreseen, what it would lead to — and started ridiculing it — earlier.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Fairly sure I could move to Ireland even post-Brexit, I'd easily get into Canada or Australia and if I had to I'd gamble on getting into most of Scandinavia, Iceland and New Zealand.
It depends on your job. Canada and Australia are OK to let you in if you have certain in-demand skills, but Joe Average can't just up sticks and move there and start work flipping burgers or whatever, last I heard.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Why didn't the Japanese who were interned move away to a state that would project them?
Because that was an action carried out by... wait for it... the federal government?
Why didn't gay people just move to another state in the 50's that would properly protect them?
Primarily because there weren't any at the time. There are some now. And your next question has much the same answer, except that for a lot of drugs there's nowhere in the developed world you can go. States and countries are usually just too big to find something that *exactly* fits your needs. But you can prioritize your issues and look at what's available.
Liberal Americans are also usually pretty intolerant of people who lead different lives from themselves. Both groups can be pretty biased. Blaming the federal government isn't a cop out unless you say it's the only reason people don't have government that is responsive to them. It is a legitimate problem that the federal government is trying to force states to be homogeneous, because you never know what the next administration will do.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
It's "couldn't care less". If you're going to accuse someone of sounding like an idiot, you could at least make sure you don't sound like one also.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I was going to say something mean, but then I realised you live in the damp misty hills of Wales. You've enough to deal with.
The damp. The mist. All the pretty young sheep running away to that London to earn an easy living.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I vote for smaller parties, UKIP last time.
You were doing really well, then you dropped the ball just before the line.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Pacifically" is obvious enough. People use "could care less" sincerely all the time, for reasons that are beyond me.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is already banned - that's why they call it illegal. The changes that people want to make are making legal immigration harder and enforcing laws against illegal immigration more strongly. The problem with these policies is twofold. The first is that the people who advocate them often benefit from low-priced labour as a result of illegal immigration. The second is that they're often using immigrants as a scapegoat for something else: For example in the UK, in the run up to the referendum, we saw that a lot of communities that were 1% or less immigrant were blaming immigrants for the lack of jobs: even if they deported all of the immigrants, it would make no meaningful difference to unemployment rates. But blaming the problems on immigrants is far easier for politicians than addressing the various root causes of inequality (in this case, that there's a huge amount of direct and indirect subsidy on companies in London, which pulls jobs away from the rest of the country).
Neither of the two points you make is a satisfactory argument for not properly enforcing immigration laws. The first is a good reason to believe that it might be more difficult than it appears because of some peoples' vested interests, and the second seems to be saying that because some other people made a bad argument about something we should not be allowed to follow obviously good arguments through to their conclusion. So what if some Brits made some stupid arguments during the referendum campaign, what does that have to do with this argument that immigrations laws ought to be properly enforced?
Your third (parenthetical) point about the influence of London might well be a valid argument in itself (I live in East Sussex, in the ghastly south east, and I would tend to agree that London gets too much attention) but again, what has it got to do with the argument under discussion?
The reason is there stupid XD
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
President Kim Jong Trump? Is that you again?
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for