|
Rolled Cabbage posted:I am going to be the little gloomy cloud and say they absolutely don't give a poo poo. Unless you work at the kind of firm (bank, law) where it would ~reflect badly~ if you were reduced to nicking stuff to eat stuff, you will be very lucky if you are paid on time and in full regardless of the size of the company. Yeah, it's illegal, but you have to pay your rent and you'll be the one stuck paying off £10 a day of bank fees, not them. Even if you quit, you've still got to find a new job and good luck surviving in the meantime. No offence but you must work in a really lovely industry if that's how salaried people are treated.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Zombywuf posted:Communications data can be really useful, say seeing if your target phoned a particular guest house. The point being the disparity between what powers the police have, and what powers they appear to have used in following up claims of high ranking rape parties. That's a problem with the Police, not a problem with the powers though. Those powers do get used in actual criminal investigations and claiming that their not being used in some circumstance is a problem with the powers is ludicrous. Zombywuf posted:That entire framework is pretty much "some bloke looks at it once a year". With an implicit "who won't kick up too much of a fuss if he wants to do it again next year." Normal oversight of police processes involves these things well call courts. The courts are bypassed by the regulatory framework - this is a problem. In the case of communications data it's entirely on the say so of a police officer. It's much, much more stringent than that. And crucially it's considerably *more* stringent than the framework it replaced (see below) Zombywuf posted:And in my opinion the way you fix this is you have decisions going through established legal frameworks instead of making a bunch of new ones because it's different because it's on a computer. The existing legal framework for comms data requests was the Data Protection Act. safeguards under that are basically non-existent - any member of any organisation permitted to make a request can make request 9rather than forcing it through the SPOC framework and requiring an appopriate signoff) and it was entirely up to the CSP to refuse over-broad requests, with them in the invidious position of being liable if they fulfilled an overly-broad request and also liable if they refused to fulfill a request later ruled to be allowable. RIPA massively tightened this up, CSPs have the right to refuse any overly-broad request and face no liability if the agency is then able to get a court order requesting the data, only a very small number of people (who have specific legal responsibility to prevent abuse) are allowed to make requests, and (although this initiative is not part of RIPA) the SPOC framework has closed one of the main avenues previously used by dodgy types to obtain comms data illegally. If you're saying that requesters should have to obtain a warrant then you'll have to explain why this doesn't apply to other, similar situations (the aforementioned use of the DVLA database for parking tickets, Police use of private CCTV recordings, and all the other myriad DPA s29/s31 cases), which are just as ripe for abuse as RIPA requests but have far laxer frameworks around them. If nothing else the DPA needs to be completely overhauled in line with the principles laid out in RIPA. You should also put a number on how many comms data requests you think would be acceptable, because like I say 500k is actually a fairly low number put in context of how many requests may end up being made for a single case against a single person and the 25 million internet connections, 40 million land lines, and 55 million mobile phones in use in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Surely it depends on how much you eat? Is moderation in all things (except tobacco) not a sensible and reasonably healthy plan? "Moderation in all things" is probably the single most useless and downright harmful piece of nutritional advice available. Rolled Cabbage posted:I am going to be the little gloomy cloud and say they absolutely don't give a poo poo. Unless you work at the kind of firm (bank, law) where it would ~reflect badly~ if you were reduced to nicking stuff to eat stuff, you will be very lucky if you are paid on time and in full regardless of the size of the company. Yeah, it's illegal, but you have to pay your rent and you'll be the one stuck paying off £10 a day of bank fees, not them. Even if you quit, you've still got to find a new job and good luck surviving in the meantime. What kind of loving poo poo hole companies have you and your acquaintances been working for? I have never heard of anything like this, except for a few payments missed in some very rare and exceptional circumstances, which were corrected pretty much immediately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:It's going to be so funny when Scotland votes No and the Tories win with a majority next election. Funnier than Scotland voting yes and damning the poor of England and Wales with a permanent tory majority?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Why on earth would you stick around with an employer who regularly missed payroll, much less for three (!) years? Sorry that wasn't clear, the company took 3 years to pay them what they were owed, not that they didn't pay them for 3 years (just some of it!). Some jobs have rules against bankruptcy, so it's not just as simple as qutting when you're not paid. You can take some money, some of the time or no money and risk losing your chance at a job forever. glitchkrieg posted:No offence but you must work in a really lovely industry if that's how salaried people are treated. Marketing (& lol it's client side, so there's no excuses). However friends and family have had the same problems and done everything from sales to IT to making AC units, so I don't think its a uniquely marketing thing just a non-union thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:For fucks sake, how many times do I have to explain this? Communications data is not the same as tapping a phone. In any way. At all. Comms data is "Who is the owner of this phone number/IP address?" and "Which IP address accessed this mailbox?". It does not, and cannot, give any clues as to the content of the communications. They're absolutely not the same thing but you can definitely infer broad categories of content at least from comms data.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Funnier than Scotland voting yes and damning the poor of England and Wales with a permanent tory majority? It's been said 101 times but here goes. No election has ever hinged on Scotland. If Scotland was taken out of the picture then you'd still have all the same winners and losers. It is a bullshit myth. Besides, Labour have promised to be even worse than the Tories so who gives a gently caress ether way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Looks like the Home Office are continuing to support their attempt to make Travelling While Indian a crime http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/08/04/the-home-office-s-campaign-of-lies-and-intimidation-against Politics.co.uk posted:Radha Patel arrived at Heathrow on the 23rd of May 2011. It was her first trip out of India. The 32-year old mother of two had left her kids with her husband's parents to visit her family in Harrow. There's more but it's astonishing how UKBA have just gotten away with lying again and again and again in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Zephro posted:You can make some pretty solid inferences, though. If I call 020 7833 0022 multiple times within a month it's a pretty good bet that I'm an alcoholic. That's an example of the kind of collated data I was referring to and yes, it's underprotected at the moment. It was one of the things that the Comms Data Bill was going to address but welp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan In the midst of people saying privatisation of the railways is massively unpopular, the government is trying to speed through the privatisation of railways. quote:Anger is growing over the return of the east coast mainline to private hands after it emerged that it had generated £1bn for UK taxpayers since 2009. For Fucks sake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan Umm well obviously this government is all about cutting the deficit and having something that's made £1bn profit since 2009 is clearly no help when that money is going to waste paying for hospitals and schools when it could be lining their mates' pockets. e: also I stupidly posted that in the railway thread so now it's EVERYWHERE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:It's been said 101 times but here goes. No election has ever hinged on Scotland. If Scotland was taken out of the picture then you'd still have all the same winners and losers. It is a bullshit myth. I agree with you that the 'permanent Tory majority' line that is thrown around is annoying and wrong, but, what you've said is also quite wrong. Without Scotland, there would've been no Labour majority and they'd have lost ground on the Conservatives in October 1974, 1964, 1950 and would've fallen behind the Tories in February 1974. Perhaps in all these cases there still would've been a Labour PM, but a majority vs a minority/coalition hugely changes what a government goes on to do, and at least in February '64 it's 50/50 that the Conservatives would've retained power. Your whole line is also a little misleading in that before Thatcher Scotland didn't vote how it does now. In those elections there was a ~19 seat lead of Labour over the Tories in Scotland, whereas now it's consistently 40+. The absence of that sort of margin would've changed a whole lot of results, including most probably of the upcoming election. Obviously if Scotland leaves then Labour will just move to the right and/or majorly re-brand to pick up more southern votes. There will never be anything near a permanent majority for a UK party. It's also not really an independence issue imo; you're running a country not an electoral charity, do whatever's best for you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:The existing legal framework for comms data requests was the Data Protection Act. safeguards under that are basically non-existent - any member of any organisation permitted to make a request can make request 9rather than forcing it through the SPOC framework and requiring an appopriate signoff) and it was entirely up to the CSP to refuse over-broad requests, with them in the invidious position of being liable if they fulfilled an overly-broad request and also liable if they refused to fulfill a request later ruled to be allowable. quote:only a very small number of people (who have specific legal responsibility to prevent abuse) are allowed to make requests quote:If you're saying that requesters should have to obtain a warrant then you'll have to explain why this doesn't apply to other, similar situations (the aforementioned use of the DVLA database for parking tickets, Police use of private CCTV recordings, and all the other myriad DPA s29/s31 cases), which are just as ripe for abuse as RIPA requests but have far laxer frameworks around them. If nothing else the DPA needs to be completely overhauled in line with the principles laid out in RIPA. quote:You should also put a number on how many comms data requests you think would be acceptable, because like I say 500k is actually a fairly low number put in context of how many requests may end up being made for a single case against a single person and the 25 million internet connections, 40 million land lines, and 55 million mobile phones in use in the UK. Oversight that is described on a piece of paper with no ability for the public to examine it except through a single report issued by a government appointee is not oversight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Rolled Cabbage posted:Marketing (& lol it's client side, so there's no excuses). I guess I'm lucky then - worked in advertising/marketing in the past (and thank gently caress I don't any more) and not had any problems getting an advance on wages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Zephro posted:You can make some pretty solid inferences, though. If I call 020 7833 0022 multiple times within a month it's a pretty good bet that I'm an alcoholic. I like the EFF's examples, as American as they are. quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:That's not what the ICO says http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/SECTION_29_GPN_V1.ashx That says the police have no power to compel release of information under section 29 without a court order, unlike RIPA section 22 (6) which compels telcos to comply with the "requests" made under it. Case law exists that failure to comply in a timely manner where the data controller holds the data in question and has no reasonable excuse for not supplying it allows the requesting agency to recover costs of a court order. Zombywuf posted:The entire police force acting under the authorisation of anyone a secretary of state chooses to designate as being allowed to issue authorisation. That's literally the exact opposite of the situation (but describes the older DPA framework perfectly). I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation, or have been really badly misinformed by someone. For reference - in order to submit a RIPA request an officer must first present the request to his TIU or equivalent, who review it to ensure that a) the request is reasonable and b) the request is capable of being fulfilled (via a directory agreed between ACPO and the major CSPs for those large CSPs, by contacting the CSP in question for minor ones. The TIU return it to the officer with a yay or nay on those issues. The officer must then get authorisation from an officer of rank of Chief Inspector or higher (Inspector or higher for life-at-risk requests) or their equivalent in the relevant agency, who reviews it for proportionality. Once this authorisation is given the request is then handed to a SPOC (Single Point of Contact), a Home Office-trained and accredited specialist who gives a final review on all of the above issues. The SPOC then submits the request to the CSP via agreed channels and in an agreed format (this step is really important because under the old DPA system any copper - or anyone who even new what a DPA request form looked like - could submit a request and get it fulfilled because there was pretty much zero way for a given CSP to absolutely identify that a request was coming from an actual officer or just some chancer, this was a major way private investigations firms used to be able to obtain personal data). The CSP then reviews the request and may choose not to fulfill it if it is too vague, too broad, or requests data not held by the CSP (the TIU system mostly eliminates these problems of course, but they were rife in the early days of RIPA and endemic under the old DPA system). As an aside, I'm interested as to why you'd believe that a judge would in any way tighten any of these steps up. A given judge may be able to make a call on proportionality but are pretty much always going to ignore all the other issues checked for above, as they have no way of knowing if a given CSP has, for example, CGN records for a given date (or know or care what CGN is). As it is, much more straightforward issues that they have to approve like search warrants are literally rubberstamped after a phone conversation that may last as long as 60 seconds. Zombywuf posted:I think these only become relevant when you ignore the difference between "compelled" and "requested". The DPA makes no provision for compelling the disclosure of data except to the subject of said data. See above. CSPs lost lots and lots of money in the pre-RIPA days on both ends of the deal, something that was a major factor in the drafting of RIPA. Zombywuf posted:With the oversight framework in place: 0 Can you currently examine a given search warrant? Or a DPA request? no, you can't, unless they're issued specifically against you, and even then you can't see them (or even be aware of their presence) until the old bill kick your door down/you appear in court/the parking ticket drops through your door. Describe - in detail - what kind of regulatory framework you'd like to see, because so far your proposals have been "A judge should look at it" which won't change anything and "Use the former framework" which was far, far less protective of people's privacy. (If you want to go to pre-DPA days then you're talking about returning to the days when there was basically a single CSP - BT/GPO - who just handed data over with no oversight of any kind because they were under a blanket warrant to do so.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Case law exists that failure to comply in a timely manner where the data controller holds the data in question and has no reasonable excuse for not supplying it allows the requesting agency to recover costs of a court order. quote:For reference - in order to submit a RIPA request an officer must first present the request to his TIU or equivalent, who review it to ensure that a) the request is reasonable and b) the request is capable of being fulfilled (via a directory agreed between ACPO and the major CSPs for those large CSPs, by contacting the CSP in question for minor ones. The TIU return it to the officer with a yay or nay on those issues. The officer must then get authorisation from an officer of rank of Chief Inspector or higher (Inspector or higher for life-at-risk requests) or their equivalent in the relevant agency, who reviews it for proportionality. Once this authorisation is given the request is then handed to a SPOC (Single Point of Contact), a Home Office-trained and accredited specialist who gives a final review on all of the above issues. quote:The SPOC then submits the request to the CSP via agreed channels and in an agreed format (this step is really important because under the old DPA system any copper - or anyone who even new what a DPA request form looked like - could submit a request and get it fulfilled because there was pretty much zero way for a given CSP to absolutely identify that a request was coming from an actual officer or just some chancer, this was a major way private investigations firms used to be able to obtain personal data). quote:As an aside, I'm interested as to why you'd believe that a judge would in any way tighten any of these steps up. A given judge may be able to make a call on proportionality but are pretty much always going to ignore all the other issues checked for above, as they have no way of knowing if a given CSP has, for example, CGN records for a given date (or know or care what CGN is). As it is, much more straightforward issues that they have to approve like search warrants are literally rubberstamped after a phone conversation that may last as long as 60 seconds. quote:Can you currently examine a given search warrant? Or a DPA request? no, you can't, unless they're issued specifically against you, and even then you can't see them (or even be aware of their presence) until the old bill kick your door down/you appear in court/the parking ticket drops through your door.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:It has nothing to do with my ability to examine it before the fact. It has everything to do with the fact that if the police take the piss they are ultimately going to have to stand in front of a judge and tell them they took the piss out of the court when obtaining evidence. This is an important part of how our justice system works. And that same thing applies here. When it comes to court the judge makes a determination on whether the request was overly broad, exactly as he would with any other form of evidence-gathering. I've already pointed out that there are judges whose job it is to literally rubberstamp warrants knowing it'll come out in trial if the warrant was dodgy if only because it's impossible without tying up the entire judiciary forever for judges to make a before-the-fact determination on the proportionality of a warrant. There are lots of things that could be done a shitload better across our entire legal system (starting with returning the right to silence and the right to a proper jury trial) but you seem hell-bent on identifying an imperfect, but workable system for what is one of the more minor offences against privacy committed by all sorts of bodies all of the time as the number one issue that we've absolutely got to fix now even if that fix completely paralyses huge chunks of our legal and law enforcement systems. If you want to talk ideals then fine, let's do that. In your perfect system (no matter what the nuts and bolts of that system may be) how many comms data requests would you think is a reasonable amount for law enforcement to be making, per year? I'd say the number would be pretty similar to what we're seeing now. All sorts of crime, from the most trivial to the most serious, have some form of comms data dimension. For many crimes that comms data may be the best - or only - evidence that a given person committed that crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I've already pointed out that there are judges whose job it is to literally rubberstamp warrants knowing it'll come out in trial if the warrant was dodgy if only because it's impossible without tying up the entire judiciary forever for judges to make a before-the-fact determination on the proportionality of a warrant. quote:There are lots of things that could be done a shitload better across our entire legal system (starting with returning the right to silence and the right to a proper jury trial) but you seem hell-bent on identifying an imperfect, but workable system for what is one of the more minor offences against privacy committed by all sorts of bodies all of the time as the number one issue that we've absolutely got to fix now even if that fix completely paralyses huge chunks of our legal and law enforcement systems. quote:If you want to talk ideals then fine, let's do that. In your perfect system (no matter what the nuts and bolts of that system may be) how many comms data requests would you think is a reasonable amount for law enforcement to be making, per year? I'd say the number would be pretty similar to what we're seeing now. All sorts of crime, from the most trivial to the most serious, have some form of comms data dimension. For many crimes that comms data may be the best - or only - evidence that a given person committed that crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
So while the thread is talking about employment law, I finished a placement through an agency a few weeks back and was expecting my final payment to include untaken holiday pay but only received the money for the hours I'd worked that week. Tomorrow is the first chance I have to speak with them about it, so assuming I should have been paid for it and they don't agree to pay it when I speak to them is there any simple ways to deal with it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Feral Jesus posted:So while the thread is talking about employment law, I finished a placement through an agency a few weeks back and was expecting my final payment to include untaken holiday pay but only received the money for the hours I'd worked that week. Tomorrow is the first chance I have to speak with them about it, so assuming I should have been paid for it and they don't agree to pay it when I speak to them is there any simple ways to deal with it? This may help: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/work_e/work_time_off_work_e/holidays_and_holiday_pay.htm#h_leaving_your_job
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Feral Jesus posted:So while the thread is talking about employment law, I finished a placement through an agency a few weeks back and was expecting my final payment to include untaken holiday pay but only received the money for the hours I'd worked that week. Tomorrow is the first chance I have to speak with them about it, so assuming I should have been paid for it and they don't agree to pay it when I speak to them is there any simple ways to deal with it? The statutory holiday pay (@ 80p an hour) may have been included in your hourly rate. Lots of the fuckers do that to make the hourly rate look more attractive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Haha what the gently caress is this wanky poo poo with the candles? People are actually doing this horseshit?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I think that value might be for the minimum wage. It typically converts into about 12% of your actual hourly wage; some employers/agencies may just try and add the % to your wages to cover your holidays, but they shouldn't do so. However in practice it's the same as if you reach the end of your contract and elect to take your unused holiday pay as regular pay. But yeah they definitely have to pay you. A lot of HR departments are absolutely terrible (at everything) so it's more than likely a mistake. I think I've only had one job where HR hasn't ballsed up my first/final pay (thankfully, it's my current job plius the transition from temp to permanency).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:Haha what the gently caress is this wanky poo poo with the candles? People are actually doing this horseshit? Something a school friend posted on Facebook: quote:I wonder what millions of dead soldiers would say to people staying in on a Monday night burning candles for an hour. I can think of a few things: "Don't waste those candles.", "Why are you wasting your life burning those candles when you could be in the pub or climbing a hill?", "Life is wasted on the living, stop sitting around those candles, go to the pub and read some Sassoon on top of a table until the landlord throws you out for standing on his table and knocking over his candles."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
kim jong-illin posted:White supermarket bread is a good way to shorten your life. Short enjoyable life vs. extended suffering not a hard choice to make
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:Haha what the gently caress is this wanky poo poo with the candles? People are actually doing this horseshit? The lights are going out, except for the ones that aren't  Also did you know that soldiers in the Great War fought for FREEDOM?  I didn't, but a posh man on the radio said it so it must be true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:Haha what the gently caress is this wanky poo poo with the candles? People are actually doing this horseshit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Also did you know that soldiers in the Great War fought for FREEDOM? That made me angrier than words can say. The attempt to give a point to pointless deaths is something of a berserk button to me; it feels like the most disrespectful way you could possibly remember them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
vegetables posted:That made me angrier than words can say. The attempt to give a point to pointless deaths is something of a berserk button to me; it feels like the most disrespectful way you could possibly remember them. It's pretty weird, because until relatively recently (I guess since the last actual veterans went down to single-digit numbers and then passed away) I'd widely seen it touted as an excellent example of are boys' loyalty and devotion to duty, but most unequivocally A Bad Thing that tore apart a continent and a generation for no good reason whatsoever. It had usually been contrasted with WW2 which was portrayed as a far more just and worthwhile war, and the whole "a tragedy never to be repeated" angle was very often couched in the sheer bloody pointlessness of the whole enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I have no idea what you are talking about. Me either, I saw people posting on facebook about candles and assumed they'd had a power cut. Edit: Googled it and it's to mark the 100th anniversary of World War 1. I think we might be the only people in the street with the lights on - hope it's just coincidence. hookerbot 5000 fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
We Must Never Forget The Brave And Noble Sacrifice Of The Various Chumps And Suckers Who Fought And Died To Secure Three Feet Of Mud In The Name Of Some Kind Of Political Thing Nobody Really Understands Oh Or For Some Of Them It Was Because They Had To Do It Or Some Inbred oval office With A Double-Barrelled Name Would Shoot Them.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Seems like an appropriate time for this to make another appearance in the thread then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7peTBVprtY
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
In Mother Night Vonnegut has a bit of a rant about how Armistice Day, a day that celebrated the world not slaughtering each other anymore, has been made into Veteran's Day, an event worshipping and glorifying people who get paid to kill. I guess it's not surprising that World War One, a truly loving pointless waste of life, is being glorified now that there are very few, if any, people who will say that it was hell and not anything to be glorified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:Haha what the gently caress is this wanky poo poo with the candles? People are actually doing this horseshit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lamps_are_going_out
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
"The BBC posted:The parents of a murder victim have called for an explanation after hearing a judge say impact statements made by bereaved families made "no difference" to Parole Board judgements. Maybe I'm just very cynical, but is this actually a surprise to anyone other than the parents here? Given the wording of what the judge is supposed to have said, this actually sounds like a deliberate action on his part to get some sort of 'debate' going on. Unless he goes around making sure his off-the-cuff remarks can be easily understood by anyone who hears them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
The Tories must be pretty scared of Milliband to go on the attack over this pathetic wreath storm in a tea cup. A good sign for May
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:It's pretty weird, because until relatively recently (I guess since the last actual veterans went down to single-digit numbers and then passed away) I'd widely seen it touted as an excellent example of are boys' loyalty and devotion to duty, but most unequivocally A Bad Thing that tore apart a continent and a generation for no good reason whatsoever. It had usually been contrasted with WW2 which was portrayed as a far more just and worthwhile war, and the whole "a tragedy never to be repeated" angle was very often couched in the sheer bloody pointlessness of the whole enterprise. It's because Harry Patch is dead now, so they can say whatever the gently caress they like about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Good luck to anyone getting their results today from SQA.kingturnip posted:Maybe I'm just very cynical, but is this actually a surprise to anyone other than the parents here? I wouldn't be surprised if they laid it on thick with the families of victims that it was all about them and that their opinion was an integral part of the decision making process blah blah blah. Looking to be caring and compassionate without actually having to be so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:Good luck to anyone getting their results today from SQA. Note it's not that these statements never matter, it's just that in the context of RISK assessment it doesn't matter as much. Unfortunately it is sad for the family etc but an emotional plea isn't what they consider in a legal assessment of the risk an individual can pose on parole. Really stupid by the judge though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:06
|
|
