Parliament could repeal the human rights act, but we'd still be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Don't forget that the point of the HRA was to avoid the unedifying spectacle of the UK constantly losing human rights cases in the European Court. Much better to wash your dirty linen in domestic courts [the fact that the wife of the PM at the time is a human rights lawyer whose chambers have profited immensely from this is entirely coincidental. Honi soit qui mal y pense!]
More progressive countries have much stronger anti-discrimination laws than the US. I would like to point to Sweden for the best practice. Here nearly 80% of college graduates are female, and the dominance is rising. This is the future, little boy.
In the unlikely event that this is true, it's only a matter of time before Sweden introduces positive discrimination for men.
Err... Which England are you talking about, 'cause I'm pretty sure last time I was down Westminster way, the Houses of Parliament looked like they were still standing, and Downing street seemed pretty busy.
Oh, you're being pedantic. Fair enough, the UK has a national government, and all of the nations within it, except England, have some form of assembly. But as a reasonable first approximation, the Westminster government calls the shots.
They collaborated to fight the only chance of this generation seeing electoral reform.
Which, sad to say, was an awful compromise, and completely squandered the chance to make some positive changes.
And this one's a Lib Dem? Sounds like the U.K. has gone down the same road we have, where the Left is content to be a half-strength Right. Here's a better idea: as long as you're borrowing from conservatives, learn to Just Say No sometimes.
The left/right metaphor doesn't make any sense any more. The Labour party is strongly redistributive, so technically left on economics (although not as much as they used to be). The LibDems cover a wide spectrum, ranging from more economically redistributive than Labour, to slightly economically liberal. The conservatives are, frankly, on average still far too keen on taking your money and giving it too other people.
The important thing to remember in this context is the authoritarian/libertarian axis: Labour is incredibly authoritarian, in instinct and in practice. They brought in the RIP act, they extended detention without charge to 28 days (40 if they'd got away with it), they brought in control orders and house arrest. While simultaneously, oddly enough presiding over the collapse of the criminal justice system into a complete farce, as far as career criminals are concerned.
About half the Tory party have conservative libertarian leanings ("By Jove, an Englishman's home is his castle, and no one has a right to bloody snoop!"), the other half sadly tend towards the authoritarian.
The Lib Dems are supposed to be libertarian, but sadly entirely bereft of cochones.
If there was a party that was actually serious about a) not fucking with my money and b) not fucking with my life, I'd even swap my passport and swear allegiance to Liz. But there isn't one.
Surely that tweet history, together with publicity, should be enough to get him ostracised at University, and most likely out of gainful employment anywhere he'd want to work.
I'd rather my tax pounds were spent on actual criminals, rather than drunken idiots who've done no harm to anyone but themselves.
And if we are going to start locking people up for being offensive, I'd start with the shadow cabinet and work my way down.
Writing the system in Python and only the performance critical part of the system in C++ is going to be a lot easier, and a lot quicker, to do than writing the whole system in C++. And yes, I've done both.
You'll also find that Python is usually more than fast enough, and, and getting faster thanks to nice tools like pypy.
You have to balance that with the unbelievable incompetence in the UK public sector, though. If Germany or Switzerland proposed this, you'd be right to be worried. In the UK, you know they're just going to muddle it up completely, inconvenience lots of people, funnel tons of money from the taxpayer to a completely useless, but big, contractor, and finally scrap it all as ineffective when the government changes colour.
It'd be quite amusing to watch if it wasn't so bloody expensive!
Swapping the Queen for an elected president would change exactly diddly squat, apart from cutting down the tourist revenue and introducing yet more pointless political squabbling.
The same applies to all other European "monarchies".
There's quite a line in stealing plates from cars to fit on matching makes and models. Non-trivial to spot unless you're happy to keep pulling over the victim, or reissue registrations.
Apparently that's particularly prevalent for people trying to avoid the London congestion charge.
As an experienced driver with a long no claims discount I'm much less likely to have an accident than a spotty chav in his "souped up" supermini - you know, the one where the stereo cost more than the car, but with go-faster stripes and exhausts the size of cannons.
Under your proposal I'd be subsidising him even more than I already am.
I'd propose instead that we simply get people to obey the fairly sensible laws about vehicle insurance and licensing, and punish those who don't.
Pfft.... In Germany, you *have to* pay for something like 30 hours of lessons with an instructor - including a night drive and a motorway drive - before you're allowed to take your test (which includes theory and practice).
Costs a fortune. Part of me thinks it's sensible, and part of me think it's an example of extremely effective lobbying.
Actually, in the UK you do need proof of insurance (and MOT) to get your car tax disk.
But guess what, the people who don't bother with insurance don't usually worry about the tax disk either. Nor a driving license, quite frequently.
There's a simple solution: Use the ANPR for regular spot checks. Make an example of people who are uninsured - sell their car, fine them heavily, lock up repeat offenders or anyone driving while banned.
The 90% of people who are insured will benefit from less traffic, and fewer accidents.
No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act â" the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks.
That just goes to show how stupid and ill informed people are.
Glass-Steagall, and particularly the artificial split between retail and investment banking, would have done nothing to prevent the crisis. Bear Stearns went bust - pure investment bank. Lehmans went bust - pure investment bank. In the UK, Northern Rock went bust - pure retail bank - just too bloody stupid to secure long term funding. Ditto HBOS. In the US, Citi was in trouble due to the mortgages it sold - not because of it's investment banking and trading activities.
And don't talk to me about AIG. When you have people who get paid a lot of money to understand what they're buying, it's their fault if they don't.
This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No it wouldn't. But kale derivatives? Kale?? What on earth are you talking about?
And if we must discuss brassicas, wouldn't brussel sprouts be more seasonal?
Slashdot Mirror
Parliament could repeal the human rights act, but we'd still be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Don't forget that the point of the HRA was to avoid the unedifying spectacle of the UK constantly losing human rights cases in the European Court. Much better to wash your dirty linen in domestic courts [the fact that the wife of the PM at the time is a human rights lawyer whose chambers have profited immensely from this is entirely coincidental. Honi soit qui mal y pense!]
More progressive countries have much stronger anti-discrimination laws than the US. I would like to point to Sweden for the best practice. Here nearly 80% of college graduates are female, and the dominance is rising. This is the future, little boy.
In the unlikely event that this is true, it's only a matter of time before Sweden introduces positive discrimination for men.
Also, you have to bear in mind that if the military buys something, it usually pays at least 10 times what it's worth.
England doesn't have a national government
Err... Which England are you talking about, 'cause I'm pretty sure last time I was down Westminster way, the Houses of Parliament looked like they were still standing, and Downing street seemed pretty busy.
Oh, you're being pedantic. Fair enough, the UK has a national government, and all of the nations within it, except England, have some form of assembly. But as a reasonable first approximation, the Westminster government calls the shots.
They collaborated to fight the only chance of this generation seeing electoral reform.
Which, sad to say, was an awful compromise, and completely squandered the chance to make some positive changes.
And this one's a Lib Dem? Sounds like the U.K. has gone down the same road we have, where the Left is content to be a half-strength Right. Here's a better idea: as long as you're borrowing from conservatives, learn to Just Say No sometimes.
The left/right metaphor doesn't make any sense any more. The Labour party is strongly redistributive, so technically left on economics (although not as much as they used to be). The LibDems cover a wide spectrum, ranging from more economically redistributive than Labour, to slightly economically liberal. The conservatives are, frankly, on average still far too keen on taking your money and giving it too other people.
The important thing to remember in this context is the authoritarian/libertarian axis: Labour is incredibly authoritarian, in instinct and in practice. They brought in the RIP act, they extended detention without charge to 28 days (40 if they'd got away with it), they brought in control orders and house arrest. While simultaneously, oddly enough presiding over the collapse of the criminal justice system into a complete farce, as far as career criminals are concerned.
About half the Tory party have conservative libertarian leanings ("By Jove, an Englishman's home is his castle, and no one has a right to bloody snoop!"), the other half sadly tend towards the authoritarian.
The Lib Dems are supposed to be libertarian, but sadly entirely bereft of cochones.
If there was a party that was actually serious about a) not fucking with my money and b) not fucking with my life, I'd even swap my passport and swear allegiance to Liz. But there isn't one.
The Queen's Speech gives an overview of the legislative agenda of the government, though.
I'll tell you what was lost in the Cold War: Freedom
Don't blame the russians. far more freedom has been lost in the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror"
He sounds like a... charming.. fellow.
Surely that tweet history, together with publicity, should be enough to get him ostracised at University, and most likely out of gainful employment anywhere he'd want to work.
I'd rather my tax pounds were spent on actual criminals, rather than drunken idiots who've done no harm to anyone but themselves.
And if we are going to start locking people up for being offensive, I'd start with the shadow cabinet and work my way down.
How come only the bad US laws get applied globally?
Writing the system in Python and only the performance critical part of the system in C++ is going to be a lot easier, and a lot quicker, to do than writing the whole system in C++. And yes, I've done both.
You'll also find that Python is usually more than fast enough, and, and getting faster thanks to nice tools like pypy.
What gives you the idea that you have a right to privacy in a public place?
And why again, as a society, do you put up with that?
Why, indeed, do we put up with unlicensed,uninsured dangerous drivers?
Hanging's too good for them etc etc!
Drive up to Scotland and get your plates there?
True.
You have to balance that with the unbelievable incompetence in the UK public sector, though. If Germany or Switzerland proposed this, you'd be right to be worried. In the UK, you know they're just going to muddle it up completely, inconvenience lots of people, funnel tons of money from the taxpayer to a completely useless, but big, contractor, and finally scrap it all as ineffective when the government changes colour.
It'd be quite amusing to watch if it wasn't so bloody expensive!
The market needs proper competition.
To be fair, it's pretty terrible inside London as well.
You do wonder where exactly all the money is going..
Northern Ireland / Republic of Ireland.
Not sure whether Gibraltar / Spain would qualify as well, depends on which particular legal construct you're talking about.
Nomen est omen.
Swapping the Queen for an elected president would change exactly diddly squat, apart from cutting down the tourist revenue and introducing yet more pointless political squabbling.
The same applies to all other European "monarchies".
There's quite a line in stealing plates from cars to fit on matching makes and models. Non-trivial to spot unless you're happy to keep pulling over the victim, or reissue registrations.
Apparently that's particularly prevalent for people trying to avoid the London congestion charge.
If this does get introduced - unlikely, I know - I predict a rapid rise in the number of cars with foreign registrations ;)
It's not "business hostile", it's just unfair.
As an experienced driver with a long no claims discount I'm much less likely to have an accident than a spotty chav in his "souped up" supermini - you know, the one where the stereo cost more than the car, but with go-faster stripes and exhausts the size of cannons.
Under your proposal I'd be subsidising him even more than I already am.
I'd propose instead that we simply get people to obey the fairly sensible laws about vehicle insurance and licensing, and punish those who don't.
It's yet another example where the laws are there, but need to be enforced properly.
Every estimate I've heard says something like 10% of drivers are uninsured or unlicensed (or both). Clamping down on that should be easy.
Pfft.... In Germany, you *have to* pay for something like 30 hours of lessons with an instructor - including a night drive and a motorway drive - before you're allowed to take your test (which includes theory and practice).
Costs a fortune. Part of me thinks it's sensible, and part of me think it's an example of extremely effective lobbying.
Actually, in the UK you do need proof of insurance (and MOT) to get your car tax disk.
But guess what, the people who don't bother with insurance don't usually worry about the tax disk either. Nor a driving license, quite frequently.
There's a simple solution: Use the ANPR for regular spot checks. Make an example of people who are uninsured - sell their car, fine them heavily, lock up repeat offenders or anyone driving while banned.
The 90% of people who are insured will benefit from less traffic, and fewer accidents.
No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act â" the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks.
That just goes to show how stupid and ill informed people are.
Glass-Steagall, and particularly the artificial split between retail and investment banking, would have done nothing to prevent the crisis. Bear Stearns went bust - pure investment bank. Lehmans went bust - pure investment bank. In the UK, Northern Rock went bust - pure retail bank - just too bloody stupid to secure long term funding. Ditto HBOS. In the US, Citi was in trouble due to the mortgages it sold - not because of it's investment banking and trading activities.
And don't talk to me about AIG. When you have people who get paid a lot of money to understand what they're buying, it's their fault if they don't.
This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No it wouldn't. But kale derivatives? Kale? ? What on earth are you talking about?
And if we must discuss brassicas, wouldn't brussel sprouts be more seasonal?