the snap general election thread

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

No to internet freedom.

How would you propose policing the dark side of the web then? For instance child pornography. The concept of the WWW was great in principle. As has happened with capitalism. Things have moved to far away from what people envisaged. The likes of Google and Facebook can influence what people read and how the wider world is viewed. As what matters is how much they get paid. Nothing is free anymore.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How would you propose policing the dark side of the web then? For instance child pornography. The concept of the WWW was great in principle. As has happened with capitalism. Things have moved to far away from what people envisaged. The likes of Google and Facebook can influence what people read and how the wider world is viewed. As what matters is how much they get paid. Nothing is free anymore.

I fully agree that anyone viewing child pornography should be fully dealt with according to the harshest laws. I also believe there should be an exemption in the EU privacy ruling to stop such people having the search results removed.

I do, however, believe that those who live their lives within the law (as I do, and I assume you do too) shouldn't have their personal data stored in such ways as potentially being proposed, however at the same time, I can see the need for ISPs to store the info, to be accessed only under a court order following an arrest, as a reasonable way to keep everyone happy.

michaels

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I mentioned nothing of the EU in that, except that I don't feel the current plan of 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a good one at all.



Please do let me explain.



Fracking relies on a loophole in the law, however it can affect drinking water, degrade infrastructure and cause serious damage to the environment.

I want to see increased use of renewable energy and biofuels, including in road vehicles and aircraft, so we are going completely against what I believe is right in this situation.



'We continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal' (top of page 8)

This gives the Conservatives full power to walk away at any time, which is a frankly scary thought given they seem to be ruled by the Daily Heil and Torygraph. Don't forget the job of an outgoing member and ex-Chancellor.

I also note they're scared to stand up to the press, as there is an express commitment to discontinue the Leveson inquiry.



Far more information is needed on exactly what the plans are, however from the wording in the manifesto it would seem the plan is to assume the public can't regulate their own usage of the internet, ensuring the Conservatives can.

I use some forms of communication that are encrypted partly due to cost, because I don't feel comfortable with any government being aware of absolutely everything I do, nor do I see the need for it. In the case of a genuine issue those messages are available for inspection, however I don't believe that such things can be routine.

I am happy to abide by the laws of the UK as they currently are, however I don't need to be wrapped in cotton wool, nor is it the responsibility of any government to do so with their citizens.



For the first part I was actually referring to taking from those that live on the breadline, be that some pensioners, unemployed, disabled etc. Nominally these groups have rights to access what is required, however in the case of things like ESA and PIP these rights aren't always guaranteed. I'm concerned at even pensioners having access to help required when living on nothing but a basic state pension, especially when their only asset is a house. I'm not referring to the residential care funding here, more things to stop it get to that stage.

For the second part, I don't believe in granting asylum to everyone that asks for it, however at the same time we need to ensure that we are doing our fair share, both in Europe and the world, and if we're not settling refugees in Europe ourselves, we should be doing our bit to help our European neighbours with processing, as it's the right thing to do. It also means that we can set a target (just as an example 50000) that makes the government look good, assist with the processing offshore, and then decide how to proceed.



For the reasons above, I believe I have been reasonable, even if the original post is crudely worded. I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on this one however.

In the future in history lessons they will look in incredulity that whilst some people in the world were starving others were using biofuels for personal transportation.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

What parts of the Labour Manifesto are communist? I can understand you not liking Corbyn and being a Conservative (many who benefit from generous public sector pensions are) but calling Labour policies Communist seems rather extreme to me.

Me, I not hard line anything. My dislike of Corbyn is a throw back to being a Union Rep for the ASTMS. Spent far far longer in the private sector than the public as well. Despite the pension benefits. I still actively contribute to improve the value for money the taxpayer receives. There's plenty that don't. Including the Union Reps one of whom regularly falls asleep at their desk. My reference is to his very obvious heroes of a past era. I'll use the term Marxist instead if you prefer. I'd suggest that these aren't really policies either. More a wish list of those currently holding the reins. Pretty much irrelevant anyway, which applies to all the main parties. As the outcome of Brexit will determine future policy. Simply too many unknowns currently.

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

In the future in history lessons they will look in incredulity that whilst some people in the world were starving others were using biofuels for personal transportation.

how will they look at those in rich countries that hindered and blocked those in poor countries from migrating to find and create a better life for themselves?

GreatApe

BobQ wrote: »

How much of the UK land area is more than 50 miles from a town?

If a foe targeted one of these land areas how lucky would that be?

How high is "higher long term cancer"?

How acceptable is this level "higher long term cancer"?

But yes I agree a small weapon would not be the end of the world.

As someone already pointed out Conrad was looking at the Americans testing small nukes in their back yard to learn and improve designs.

Conrad is crazy, do you recall the 2015 china chemical blast? That was estimated at just 20 tons of TNT.



That china blast killed almost 200 people and maimed 800 more.

A nuclear weapon can be 5 million x more powerful than that accidental blast in china.

Arklight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Yes.
It is because you are another devout pro-EU antagonist determined therefore to find fault with anything and everything which does not conform to your pro-EU stance.
This is admittedly no different in many ways to those who are so devoutly pro-Brexit that the opposite applies.

I do not necessarily agree with all the Tory manifesto says.
I do however at least attempt a more balanced and I hope reasonable stance.
Perhaps you could try the same?

"Yes to fracking.
No to renewable energy."
Not quite the full story, is it?
Increasing our own supply of energy (regardless of source) reduces both cost and dependence upon others, does it not?

"Yes to car crash Brexit."
Oh please!
Pull your head out of wherever it is and look at the real world.
It really won't end all of a sudden, you know.
The vast majority of evidence so far does not correspond to a "car crash" scenario despite your belief to the contrary.

"No to internet freedom."
Really?
So how will this affect you or I, in real terms and as law-abiding citizens?

"No to treating those that genuinely need our help with any compassion at all, in terms of those domestically and refugees."
Show us where in the manifesto that carp is suggested?
Methinks firstly you refer to elderly provisions - you disagree with means testing because?
Presumably then you think that funding from public funds is a right, regardless of circumstances?
Secondly I suggest you re-read regarding foreign aid and refugees.
Or is "Wherever possible, offer asylum and refuge to people in parts of the world affected by conflict and oppression, rather than to those who have made it to Britain." somehow offensive to you?

I reiterate:
"I do not necessarily agree with all the Tory manifesto says.
I do however at least attempt a more balanced and I hope reasonable stance.
Perhaps you could try the same?"

Maybe when you have to sign over your house to AXA to get a home help for ten hours a week it will sink in, Jock.

CKhalvashi

Arklight wrote: »

Maybe when you have to sign over your house to AXA to get a home help for ten hours a week it will sink in, Jock.

Or when care is so underfunded by the Local Authority there's no support to keep people out of care homes in the first place, so those with less than £100k are probably bed blocking the NHS due to 'Local government efficiencies', whilst being much more expensive in the long run.

There is no place for private companies in that situation, however I do agree in principal with an interest bearing loan to be repaid to the council on death, as long as this is ultimately most cost-bearing on the most wealthy, not those that aren't that wealthy.

posh*spice

From UK Polling Report - two polls this morning show a big drop in Tory support - down to 9 and 12 percent.

A coalition of chaos becoming a possibility?

How on earth did the Tories manage to throw a landslide away?

posh*spice

Arklight wrote: »

Maybe when you have to sign over your house to AXA to get a home help for ten hours a week it will sink in, Jock.

Why would you do that?

You could just organise your own help?

Personal responsibility....