I'm not saying he's a nice guy or perfect - far from it. But the fact remains that he got a far larger share of the vote than most western leaders, and extremely popular with most of the population, has ploughed money into education and healthcare, and massively improved the lives of the poor.
Again, the US is on dodgy ground to criticise, with elections of presidents on less than half the votes with results determined by dodgy courts, detention without trial in Cuba, the ever-widening poverty gap, the denial of healthcare to the poor... one could go on. Neither system is perfect, but it seems that Chavez is at least helping the poor rather than the rich. And he's not starting wars responsible for the deaths of thousands. All else being equal, that's probably better.
"dictatorial, murdering thugs like Hugo Chavez", eh? I'm guessing you are American? Chavez actually has a considerably better reputation in most of the world than you might think. He certainly beats your last president on most scoring systems you may come up with.
I don't mean to have a pop at Bush - that's too easy - but you can't just say that about Chavez and and not expect to be called-up on it. Everything is relative, and from an outside point of view, Chavez is a 'better' leader than Bush ever was.
Oh yes, I'm aware that some police (and security guards) sometimes try to tell people that they can't take photos, but there's a big difference between that and an actual law, which the parent suggested was the case.
I'm not defending overzealous police, but let's not suggest that there is some sort of licencing legislation on the cards.
"Anyone who has been remotely connected with the British civil service..." Really? I work in it, and I disagree with you. People who generalise are always making this sort of mistake!
Yeah, because this is exactly what burglars have been waiting for! Except it isn't. Most people with stuff worth stealing have jobs, so burglars just have to go to your house in office hours. They're not going to be looking at Facebook.
Anyway, it's just your friends who can see this. If you are friends with people who will steal with you then you have other problems.
Firstly, as I have already pointed out, I am *not* a Labour supporter. I simply believe in the fairest, cheapest and most sensible health service.
People who think that privatisation on the NHS is not on the cards are fools. It's common knowledge (or at least it should be) that the Tory health minister Andrew Lansley has directly received £21,000 from Care UK, a private health company, just before the election. And of course they would - the Conservatives pledged to increase the use of private providers if elected. Now, given that they have announced the abolition of PCTs, and Care UK do exactly what PCTs do, can you really honestly claim that this Care UK won't find themselves some good business from the government? Also, the CEO of Care UK gave the Conservatives £60,000 last September. Do you think this is relevant?
Don't just think that I'm a bitter leftie. Even those bastions of the Right covered this: the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243579/Andrew-Lansley-embroiled-cash-influence-row-accepting-21-000-donation-Care-UK-chairman-John-Nash.html) and The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html).
Doctors don't want to manage health services. They are doctors - they want to treat patients. For people who moan about managers running the health service and suggests that doctors do it, so you really think that the best way to use people on large salaries who have to undergo long medical degrees is to get them using Excel and planning staff rotas all day? Really?
We *need* managers. Did you know that only 4% of the NHS is management? That's way less than almost every private organistion. And as I said in an earlier post, the NHS is the most efficient healthcare system in the world. Once the Tories privatise it we'll never get it back, and that's why we must fight them.
Well they are scrapping PCTs and replacing them with private companies, for one thing. It's just the thin end of the wedge. Once commissioning is in private hands, the government can shrug its shoulders to criticism and say there's nothing they can do about it.
Even assuming the best case (that the PCT replacements are *just* as efficient, it will cost millions over the next few years just to change everything over. Not that the new companies will be more efficient, of course. For all the fuss about 'beurocracy' now, can you imagine how much more there will be when one PCT is replaced by ten different organisations, all with their own chief executives, HR, etc etc? And of course, they will have to make profits, unlike the PCTs now.
No, what we're witnessing is the start of the destruction of the NHS, and organisation which, it should be remembered, is the most efficient healthcare system in the world (http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=15254). It was a disaster under the last Tory government, and they seem set to mess it up again.
By the way, I'm no fan of New Labour either, but at least they prioritised healthcare. It's nothing to do with handouts and benefits.
Well, if 'the best' is selling-off the NHS, destroying the BBC, and pretty much privatising everything else, I guess you're right. They have done a few good things (such as getting rid of some of Labour's mad illiberal laws), but they mostly seem to be a force of free-market greed so far. I guess we'll see in a few years. I'm disappointed by the Lib Dems, although of course it would have been a lot worse if the Tories had got a majority.
I wasn't being anti-American. I applaud this move, as I think our libel laws are stupid and should indeed be ignored.
I was merely pointing-out that most suggestions by British people on Slashdot that the US are out for blood when it comes to McKinnon are usually greeted by "He broke our rules!" sort of rants. You can't have it both ways - every country makes stupid laws, and when they start trying to force them to be applied in other countries, a line has been crossed. In our case it's our stupid libel laws, and in the case of the US it's their stupid 'McKinnon is a terrorist' nonsense.
Not every criticism of America is 'anti-American trolling', you know.
Well, *you* might say that, but your government wouldn't. The US doesn't let other countries judge its citizens nearly as easily. Take, for example, the refusal of the US to hand over Robert Seldon Lady, guilty of kidnap and torture (who was given 8 years in his absense). Or what about Captain Richard J. Ashby, who is one of four pilots responsible for the deaths of 20 people in Italy (and destroying the evidence)?
These are far worse crimes, and the US refused to hand them over to other countries for trial. They were also black-and-white crimes, whereas what McKinnon did was not even serious enough for prison time here, where he 'committed' it. That's what gets people - the double standards.
Well that's not so bad. The pro-ID card lobby here were saying that there was no point having ID cards if people didn't have to carry them, and that is a scary point of view. The system in Finland doesn't sound too bad - effectively it just means that you don't have to use your passport as ID. I don't object to an optional ID card, as long as it is truly optional.
Actually I *do* object to compulsory cards, and I despair of people who don't. Why should anyone be open to arrest simply for not carrying some identification? If a policeman asks me who I am I don't have to tell him unless I have committed a crime, and that's exactly the way it should be. If the rest of Europe wants to be compelled to carry such things then fair enough, but I value my freedom more than that.
Daniel Hannan is an xenophobic idiot and a truly hateful man. I wouldn't pay any attention to what he says - even the leader of his own party disowns him.
Would the average American have been happy if we (the British) had used these killer drones against the IRA? I only ask because they seem to be 'ok' terrorists for a lot of Americans, so they might object to the idea. Or maybe it's because Afghan terrorists aren't so white and similar looking to us?
And how about Microsoft? They are also worse than Apple. While people moan about iPhone development, can anyone tell me how I can develop and distribute XBox software for under 99 dollars, without MS having a number of rules about what my application does?
Hmm... thought not. People pick on Apple because it has become cool, but almost every other consumer device has similar (or worse) restrictions.
Check out "Snuff Box" - a BBC 3 programme that only lasted for one series, but it is excellent. There's a lot of rubbish on BBC 3, but hey, some people seem to like it. I fear telling them it shouldn't be made in case they demand an end to the offbeat comedies *I* like.
Sky actually bought the UK rights to Tivo and killed it. I guess he didn't want a competitor to Sky+. Having said that, Sky still supports the Tivo and does the listings updates for them (as far as I know - I sold my Tivo a year or two ago).
And what are the benefits of US citizenship compared to, say, gaining UK citizenship? You could then live and work anywhere in the EU, or hey, start a company in the EU country with the lowest taxes and contract in the US, paying your income into your EU account. Getting work permits for the US is easy as a UK national. As an additional benefit, you wouldn't have to pay for healthcare either.
Not saying that it's easy to change citizenship, but I know enough Americans that have. Just get a half-decent job here for a few years. Somone told me that you can't get joint US citizenship. That's a bit mad and it limits your options, but still...
Slashdot Mirror
So you are arguing that democracy isn't as good as the system where you happen to know what's best for everyone else?
Of course leaders are elected who are bad people, but when it's fairly clear it's what the people want, isn't that how it is meant to work?
I'm not saying he's a nice guy or perfect - far from it. But the fact remains that he got a far larger share of the vote than most western leaders, and extremely popular with most of the population, has ploughed money into education and healthcare, and massively improved the lives of the poor.
Again, the US is on dodgy ground to criticise, with elections of presidents on less than half the votes with results determined by dodgy courts, detention without trial in Cuba, the ever-widening poverty gap, the denial of healthcare to the poor... one could go on. Neither system is perfect, but it seems that Chavez is at least helping the poor rather than the rich. And he's not starting wars responsible for the deaths of thousands. All else being equal, that's probably better.
"dictatorial, murdering thugs like Hugo Chavez", eh? I'm guessing you are American? Chavez actually has a considerably better reputation in most of the world than you might think. He certainly beats your last president on most scoring systems you may come up with.
I don't mean to have a pop at Bush - that's too easy - but you can't just say that about Chavez and and not expect to be called-up on it. Everything is relative, and from an outside point of view, Chavez is a 'better' leader than Bush ever was.
This is nothing to do with the supposed licencing I responded to originally. Not saying it isn't a problem, but it's not the same thing at all.
Oh yes, I'm aware that some police (and security guards) sometimes try to tell people that they can't take photos, but there's a big difference between that and an actual law, which the parent suggested was the case.
I'm not defending overzealous police, but let's not suggest that there is some sort of licencing legislation on the cards.
Really? Not noticed this, and I'd have thought that I would, what with living there and everything.
And where is this place with no taxes? Is it full of your fellow sociopaths?
"Anyone who has been remotely connected with the British civil service..." Really? I work in it, and I disagree with you. People who generalise are always making this sort of mistake!
Yeah, because this is exactly what burglars have been waiting for! Except it isn't. Most people with stuff worth stealing have jobs, so burglars just have to go to your house in office hours. They're not going to be looking at Facebook.
Anyway, it's just your friends who can see this. If you are friends with people who will steal with you then you have other problems.
Firstly, as I have already pointed out, I am *not* a Labour supporter. I simply believe in the fairest, cheapest and most sensible health service.
People who think that privatisation on the NHS is not on the cards are fools. It's common knowledge (or at least it should be) that the Tory health minister Andrew Lansley has directly received £21,000 from Care UK, a private health company, just before the election. And of course they would - the Conservatives pledged to increase the use of private providers if elected. Now, given that they have announced the abolition of PCTs, and Care UK do exactly what PCTs do, can you really honestly claim that this Care UK won't find themselves some good business from the government? Also, the CEO of Care UK gave the Conservatives £60,000 last September. Do you think this is relevant?
Don't just think that I'm a bitter leftie. Even those bastions of the Right covered this: the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243579/Andrew-Lansley-embroiled-cash-influence-row-accepting-21-000-donation-Care-UK-chairman-John-Nash.html) and The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html).
Doctors don't want to manage health services. They are doctors - they want to treat patients. For people who moan about managers running the health service and suggests that doctors do it, so you really think that the best way to use people on large salaries who have to undergo long medical degrees is to get them using Excel and planning staff rotas all day? Really?
We *need* managers. Did you know that only 4% of the NHS is management? That's way less than almost every private organistion. And as I said in an earlier post, the NHS is the most efficient healthcare system in the world. Once the Tories privatise it we'll never get it back, and that's why we must fight them.
Well they are scrapping PCTs and replacing them with private companies, for one thing. It's just the thin end of the wedge. Once commissioning is in private hands, the government can shrug its shoulders to criticism and say there's nothing they can do about it.
Even assuming the best case (that the PCT replacements are *just* as efficient, it will cost millions over the next few years just to change everything over. Not that the new companies will be more efficient, of course. For all the fuss about 'beurocracy' now, can you imagine how much more there will be when one PCT is replaced by ten different organisations, all with their own chief executives, HR, etc etc? And of course, they will have to make profits, unlike the PCTs now.
No, what we're witnessing is the start of the destruction of the NHS, and organisation which, it should be remembered, is the most efficient healthcare system in the world (http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=15254). It was a disaster under the last Tory government, and they seem set to mess it up again.
By the way, I'm no fan of New Labour either, but at least they prioritised healthcare. It's nothing to do with handouts and benefits.
Well, if 'the best' is selling-off the NHS, destroying the BBC, and pretty much privatising everything else, I guess you're right. They have done a few good things (such as getting rid of some of Labour's mad illiberal laws), but they mostly seem to be a force of free-market greed so far. I guess we'll see in a few years. I'm disappointed by the Lib Dems, although of course it would have been a lot worse if the Tories had got a majority.
..which then let the men off, effectively. It was a scandal here - not sure how the US media covered it.
I wasn't being anti-American. I applaud this move, as I think our libel laws are stupid and should indeed be ignored.
I was merely pointing-out that most suggestions by British people on Slashdot that the US are out for blood when it comes to McKinnon are usually greeted by "He broke our rules!" sort of rants. You can't have it both ways - every country makes stupid laws, and when they start trying to force them to be applied in other countries, a line has been crossed. In our case it's our stupid libel laws, and in the case of the US it's their stupid 'McKinnon is a terrorist' nonsense.
Not every criticism of America is 'anti-American trolling', you know.
Well, *you* might say that, but your government wouldn't. The US doesn't let other countries judge its citizens nearly as easily. Take, for example, the refusal of the US to hand over Robert Seldon Lady, guilty of kidnap and torture (who was given 8 years in his absense). Or what about Captain Richard J. Ashby, who is one of four pilots responsible for the deaths of 20 people in Italy (and destroying the evidence)?
These are far worse crimes, and the US refused to hand them over to other countries for trial. They were also black-and-white crimes, whereas what McKinnon did was not even serious enough for prison time here, where he 'committed' it. That's what gets people - the double standards.
Good on you, Americans. So, now can you stop complaining if we try to stop our courts enforcing *your* mad decisions, like Gary McKinnon?
Well that's not so bad. The pro-ID card lobby here were saying that there was no point having ID cards if people didn't have to carry them, and that is a scary point of view. The system in Finland doesn't sound too bad - effectively it just means that you don't have to use your passport as ID. I don't object to an optional ID card, as long as it is truly optional.
Actually I *do* object to compulsory cards, and I despair of people who don't. Why should anyone be open to arrest simply for not carrying some identification? If a policeman asks me who I am I don't have to tell him unless I have committed a crime, and that's exactly the way it should be. If the rest of Europe wants to be compelled to carry such things then fair enough, but I value my freedom more than that.
Daniel Hannan is an xenophobic idiot and a truly hateful man. I wouldn't pay any attention to what he says - even the leader of his own party disowns him.
Would the average American have been happy if we (the British) had used these killer drones against the IRA? I only ask because they seem to be 'ok' terrorists for a lot of Americans, so they might object to the idea. Or maybe it's because Afghan terrorists aren't so white and similar looking to us?
And how about Microsoft? They are also worse than Apple. While people moan about iPhone development, can anyone tell me how I can develop and distribute XBox software for under 99 dollars, without MS having a number of rules about what my application does?
Hmm... thought not. People pick on Apple because it has become cool, but almost every other consumer device has similar (or worse) restrictions.
London != UK. Most people in the UK find Londoners extremely rude. It's why we will visit it but wouldn't ever want to actually live there.
Check out "Snuff Box" - a BBC 3 programme that only lasted for one series, but it is excellent. There's a lot of rubbish on BBC 3, but hey, some people seem to like it. I fear telling them it shouldn't be made in case they demand an end to the offbeat comedies *I* like.
Sky actually bought the UK rights to Tivo and killed it. I guess he didn't want a competitor to Sky+. Having said that, Sky still supports the Tivo and does the listings updates for them (as far as I know - I sold my Tivo a year or two ago).
And what are the benefits of US citizenship compared to, say, gaining UK citizenship? You could then live and work anywhere in the EU, or hey, start a company in the EU country with the lowest taxes and contract in the US, paying your income into your EU account. Getting work permits for the US is easy as a UK national. As an additional benefit, you wouldn't have to pay for healthcare either.
Not saying that it's easy to change citizenship, but I know enough Americans that have. Just get a half-decent job here for a few years. Somone told me that you can't get joint US citizenship. That's a bit mad and it limits your options, but still...