The absence of attacks isn't evidence of the absence of plots, it could also be evidence of the effectiveness of UK security services in preventing attacks, which of course includes all of the machinery associated with detection of said plots.
With respect to civil liberties, I would say that in this country you don't have to carry an ID card around with you, unlike every other country in Europe.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
So what do you morons really think? That the UK should have an open door immigration policy to 1,300m Indians? We're already one of the most densely populated countries on the planet. Jesus you people are thick.
And what's this about a bus? Almost nobody saw it. Who cares anyway? Look at Ashcroft's Polling on the referendum. Almost nobody voted for Brexit based on the fucking bus. It was about taking back control from Brussels to Westminster.
"demonetised" and flagged as "inappropriate", or likely to offend. A 60 year old philosophy professor with some gentle home-truths. I wonder who is going to police the thought police?
Stop moving the pea under the thimble. The solution to the problem for countries where it is a problem, is to increase excise on cigarettes until income approximately matches expense. That would probably be, I don't know, zero % if you take into account the approximately 5-6 years of extra pension someone who doesn't smoke will draw over someone who does. It just so happens that in the UK taxes are used to socially engineer the desirable outcome of nobody smoking. Personally I'm not a huge fan of health fascism but whatever - I'm in the minority (these days).
Case in point the idiocy of YouTube's demonetising efforts. Christina Hoff Sommers's videos, Factual Feminist, being modded away because they "offend". Advertising revenue is creating a kind of tyranny already.
I'm not sure the problem is adjusting your thinking (or not). It's that people tend to seek out and consume information that confirms their already strongly held opinions. Newspapers pander to their readers, for example. I don't even think this is a problem. It's just how people are.
There's a real problem with the word "truth" in your comment too. Given that most public policy is simply arbitrating competing interests and even scientific "truth" is far from it (I give experimental physics a pass here because it's highly competitive and has a 5 sigma standard - and they use error bars!), what will this "fact checking" actually entail? It can't search information that isn't in the public domain can it. Who decides what gets published and what doesn't?
No. Corporate fascists at google, facebook, etc. would love to have tighter control on information. It would be going down quite a dangerous path.
The problem is that this isn't about you but rather about smokers in general.
Smoking costs the NHS approximately £2 billion a year to treat. The tax raised on cigarettes is approximately £12.3 billion. That includes both excise and VAT. So even though I'm not counting the number of years lost in pension and care costs, smokers fund around 10% of the NHS budget spent treating illnesses other than those smoking related.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course they won't. There will be a vote in Parliament to invoke it. The usual suspects will try to attach wrecking amendments to it. They will all fail. Why? Because at least half of Labour MPs will vote in favour of invoking A50, almost certainly including their front bench. It may be OK for elected representatives to defy the will of the people in France, Holland and Ireland, but there's really not much of a history of it in the UK.
Did I compare the amount I paid in tax to the total cost of cancer medication? No. I compared the tax I paid to the total cost of cancer medicine minus the total cost of the extra years of life I would gain, mostly drawing pension payments. This is not including my biggest monthly bill which believe it or not isn't cigarette taxes but income and employment taxes. Tax on cigarettes is additional tax I pay.
I'm very good at watching the pea under the thimble, so don't try that one on me again.
Don't be silly. The EU has fewer trade treaties than fucking Singapore. What's hilarious about this entire situation is watching Remoaners, people most often found on the Left, defending a status quo that is essentially a corporatist protection racket run by France and Germany. Even applauding a High Court case brought by a Guyanan hedge fund manager who lives in France! Fucking ridiculous. Only 5 years ago they were all telling us hedge funds should be banned. Ahaha.
$2 per pack? Are you kidding me? It's £9.50 in the UK. Then there's the problem of the US healthcare system which is twice as expensive as any European healthcare system for no discernible reason (certainly not outcomes) and which in any case is optional - that is to say, if you can't afford the medication you don't get it. $300,000? How quickly will you burn through that with a pension + 2 years of nursing home care? 5 years? 3? Get out of here will you.
EU structural fund to Wales is a poxy £1.8bn a year. It's dwarfed by regional transfers to Wales, mostly from the South East of England - notwithstanding the fact that "EU funds" are UK funds in any case. The basic problem here is you're talking bollocks isn't it? Yes. I think so.
Speaking as someone with around 3,000 new mutations (I quit a few months ago), I can tell you I've paid in tax on cigarettes about 2 x the cost of any treatment I'll get for the problems it'll cause and of course I'll take out a lot less in pension assuming I make it to 68, which is quite unlikely. So you know, these "massive" costs are actually net benefits if you're going to start accounting.
I think 1.2m people is a clear enough majority. Especially given the entire establishment, media (mostly) and talking heads were for Remaining, including absolutely every Head of State, NGO and corporation the government could persuade to give its opinion on the matter (Obama, for example). Lots of favours were called in, lots of fear of disaster was spread, and we still won.
A referendum is never "needed". It's more a courtesy to the electorate. MPs tend to argue that the general election is when policy is broadly laid out so referendums aren't needed. The only problem with this is, for example, in 2005 Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in its manifesto. In 2007, after winning that election, it reneged on the promise and signed the Treaty in any case without holding one.
Well no, article 50 is a requirement of the treaty. If the government decides to leave the EU, it "shall" notify the EC. The treaty is law, so one can easily argue the government is bound to invoke the article. I think the Supreme Court will decide this. But it makes no difference really because Parliament will vote to invoke it in any case.
Slashdot Mirror
The absence of attacks isn't evidence of the absence of plots, it could also be evidence of the effectiveness of UK security services in preventing attacks, which of course includes all of the machinery associated with detection of said plots.
With respect to civil liberties, I would say that in this country you don't have to carry an ID card around with you, unlike every other country in Europe.
Brilliant, thus ensuring the actual government is as far away from the concerns of the people as possible without abolishing elections entirely. /sarc.
Trump wins the college so obviously we must abolish it! Get a grip will you.
So what do you morons really think? That the UK should have an open door immigration policy to 1,300m Indians? We're already one of the most densely populated countries on the planet. Jesus you people are thick.
And what's this about a bus? Almost nobody saw it. Who cares anyway? Look at Ashcroft's Polling on the referendum. Almost nobody voted for Brexit based on the fucking bus. It was about taking back control from Brussels to Westminster.
You cucks really need to grow some bollocks.
I don't think Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump. I really don't.
That's a good point. She'd be a shoe-in.
"demonetised" and flagged as "inappropriate", or likely to offend. A 60 year old philosophy professor with some gentle home-truths. I wonder who is going to police the thought police?
Stop moving the pea under the thimble. The solution to the problem for countries where it is a problem, is to increase excise on cigarettes until income approximately matches expense. That would probably be, I don't know, zero % if you take into account the approximately 5-6 years of extra pension someone who doesn't smoke will draw over someone who does. It just so happens that in the UK taxes are used to socially engineer the desirable outcome of nobody smoking. Personally I'm not a huge fan of health fascism but whatever - I'm in the minority (these days).
Case in point the idiocy of YouTube's demonetising efforts. Christina Hoff Sommers's videos, Factual Feminist, being modded away because they "offend". Advertising revenue is creating a kind of tyranny already.
I'm not sure the problem is adjusting your thinking (or not). It's that people tend to seek out and consume information that confirms their already strongly held opinions. Newspapers pander to their readers, for example. I don't even think this is a problem. It's just how people are.
There's a real problem with the word "truth" in your comment too. Given that most public policy is simply arbitrating competing interests and even scientific "truth" is far from it (I give experimental physics a pass here because it's highly competitive and has a 5 sigma standard - and they use error bars!), what will this "fact checking" actually entail? It can't search information that isn't in the public domain can it. Who decides what gets published and what doesn't?
No. Corporate fascists at google, facebook, etc. would love to have tighter control on information. It would be going down quite a dangerous path.
Smoking costs the NHS approximately £2 billion a year to treat. The tax raised on cigarettes is approximately £12.3 billion. That includes both excise and VAT. So even though I'm not counting the number of years lost in pension and care costs, smokers fund around 10% of the NHS budget spent treating illnesses other than those smoking related.
I'm glad this whole thing has been cleared up.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course they won't. There will be a vote in Parliament to invoke it. The usual suspects will try to attach wrecking amendments to it. They will all fail. Why? Because at least half of Labour MPs will vote in favour of invoking A50, almost certainly including their front bench. It may be OK for elected representatives to defy the will of the people in France, Holland and Ireland, but there's really not much of a history of it in the UK.
Did I compare the amount I paid in tax to the total cost of cancer medication? No. I compared the tax I paid to the total cost of cancer medicine minus the total cost of the extra years of life I would gain, mostly drawing pension payments. This is not including my biggest monthly bill which believe it or not isn't cigarette taxes but income and employment taxes. Tax on cigarettes is additional tax I pay.
I'm very good at watching the pea under the thimble, so don't try that one on me again.
Don't be silly. The EU has fewer trade treaties than fucking Singapore. What's hilarious about this entire situation is watching Remoaners, people most often found on the Left, defending a status quo that is essentially a corporatist protection racket run by France and Germany. Even applauding a High Court case brought by a Guyanan hedge fund manager who lives in France! Fucking ridiculous. Only 5 years ago they were all telling us hedge funds should be banned. Ahaha.
It doesn't matter. The High Court got it wrong in any case.
$2 per pack? Are you kidding me? It's £9.50 in the UK. Then there's the problem of the US healthcare system which is twice as expensive as any European healthcare system for no discernible reason (certainly not outcomes) and which in any case is optional - that is to say, if you can't afford the medication you don't get it. $300,000? How quickly will you burn through that with a pension + 2 years of nursing home care? 5 years? 3? Get out of here will you.
EU structural fund to Wales is a poxy £1.8bn a year. It's dwarfed by regional transfers to Wales, mostly from the South East of England - notwithstanding the fact that "EU funds" are UK funds in any case. The basic problem here is you're talking bollocks isn't it? Yes. I think so.
Yes, I vape now too.
Speaking as someone with around 3,000 new mutations (I quit a few months ago), I can tell you I've paid in tax on cigarettes about 2 x the cost of any treatment I'll get for the problems it'll cause and of course I'll take out a lot less in pension assuming I make it to 68, which is quite unlikely. So you know, these "massive" costs are actually net benefits if you're going to start accounting.
I think 1.2m people is a clear enough majority. Especially given the entire establishment, media (mostly) and talking heads were for Remaining, including absolutely every Head of State, NGO and corporation the government could persuade to give its opinion on the matter (Obama, for example). Lots of favours were called in, lots of fear of disaster was spread, and we still won.
A referendum is never "needed". It's more a courtesy to the electorate. MPs tend to argue that the general election is when policy is broadly laid out so referendums aren't needed. The only problem with this is, for example, in 2005 Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in its manifesto. In 2007, after winning that election, it reneged on the promise and signed the Treaty in any case without holding one.
Well no, article 50 is a requirement of the treaty. If the government decides to leave the EU, it "shall" notify the EC. The treaty is law, so one can easily argue the government is bound to invoke the article. I think the Supreme Court will decide this. But it makes no difference really because Parliament will vote to invoke it in any case.
Brexit is the UK leaving the European Union.
22% of the people agree with you, according to current opinion polls. Care to rephrase?