|
winegums posted:Can't fathom the rationale for all the piss testing...unless the corporations which own business insurance companies also own piss-testing companies. It's a strange one, I think it's very unusual for companies in the UK to do this unless they have very specific reasons to. It seems that the majority of US based fortune 500 firms do it along with many many other smaller businesses as well. I don't quite understand it, if someone is doing their job in the land of the free, what does it matter if someone takes substances in their days off. Probably a host of reasons for it, just be glad it ain't a thing in the UK... for now. In fact... now I think about it, kinda surprising that passing drug tests isn't a pre-condition for claiming benefits...
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:According to this, turnout between the ages of 18-34 in 2010 was roughly 50%. That's not quite as bad as I had previously thought, but still worse than everybody older. There have been quite a few studies into the youth vote, particularly why students, who will campaign and be activists harder than anyone else, yet then fail to vote. They're not unengaged, some just simply don't bother to turn up to vote despite indicating in the weeks leading up to it that they will. No real over riding reason was worked out, which is why its kind of umbrella'd by the so called 'student apathy' which covers such things as 'Forgetting it was voting day/hungover and didnt get out of bed/slept in and then it was late so didnt bother etc etc. There is a very large percentage of young people that just don't care enough to actually go and vote on the day, whatever reason that may be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
At least in the upcoming election, we can say a not-insignificant part of the lack of youth turnout will be disaffection. A lot of people voted for the Lib Dems as the first time they voted. And look how that turned out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
 Could only find a Daily Mail link. I apologize Sleep well everyone. Pleasant dreams 
Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:There is a very large percentage of young people that just don't care enough to actually go and vote on the day, whatever reason that may be. A lot of the people on the course I finished last year were of the "I don't really follow politics" persuasion. When I could be bothered to follow up with "But do you pay attention to the news?" their answer was generally "nope". That's not to say they can't be mobilised to care about particular issues, I think they just find it harder to stay interested in the petty bullshit that seems to make up >95% of business in Westminster. Which is fair enough, given that most political reporting in the media seems to cover the "What does this mean for the Conservatives/Labour/LibDems?" angle, rather than what portion of the public are getting screwed over. the poor. again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's entirely fair to consign it all to "student apathy" when there's other issues like students being foreigners or being registered to vote in their parents area rather than where they study and it being more complicated to deal with or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I'm not sure it's entirely fair to consign it all to "student apathy" when there's other issues like students being foreigners or being registered to vote in their parents area rather than where they study and it being more complicated to deal with or something. What have foreign students got to do with eligible voters just deciding not to on the day?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:What have foreign students got to do with eligible voters just deciding not to on the day? You were talking about the discrepancy between students who campaign and students who don't vote. A lot of the ones campaigning might be foreign. At least that's the case up here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:You were talking about the discrepancy between students who campaign and students who don't vote. A lot of the ones campaigning might be foreign. At least that's the case up here. I suppose that could influence the impression of a large student activist block that doesnt correlate to the numbers that turn up. As I said, the studies I've read about found no over arching reason for it, just lots of little ones that added up to the weird situation where young people just don't turn up on the day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
I for one am disgusted at the thought of foreign students campaigning for a cause they cant vote for. Throw em out as Kramer once said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Generally young people are interested in politics and often have strong opinions about a lot of current affairs. Sometimes they're not quite developed because they lack the knowledge around the subject and not all political topics illicit strong responses, but the interest and beliefs are there and expressed by their mid teens. What they're generally not interested in is politicians or the political process. Source - my own experiences (I.e. Pulled from my arse)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:In fact... now I think about it, kinda surprising that passing drug tests isn't a pre-condition for claiming benefits... That's not even touching on what happens to people with drug problems who are reliant on benefits, but I suspect their suffering is a motivating factor for some of the people proposing it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
I would be all for drug testing people receiving benefits so long as MPs, senior civil servants and those earning over £500k were drug tested and faced immediate dismissal if they tested positive. If it is acceptable to deprive the weakest in society of food and shelter because of the awfulness of drugs those in control of the most important institutions in society absolutely in no way shape or form should be allowed to take drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:That one makes the rounds in bars and on social media now and again. Every time it has been tried it has been a complete waste of money, costing far more than the amount saved, and that in at least one case (Florida) there was a whole lot of nepotism between the testing company and the Governor going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:I'm sure there's a clever name for this sort of thinking but it escapes me at this hour. I think it's called being an arsehole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Baytor posted:I think it's called being an arsehole. "I was caned as a child and it never did me any harm" etc. But yeah, as Guavanaut pointed out it's a completely pointless exercise, that probably stems from some idea of the 'deserving poor'. Drug addicts = lazy leeches on society, benefit claimants = lazy leeches on society, therefore benefit claimants = drug addicts. If drug addicts cannot be benefit claimants (ugh) then the latter group will disappear completely 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Every single person in Network Rail has to do a pre-employment drugs and alcohol screening, may be subject to the random 1% testing throughout the year and will get DnA'ed following any incident they are involved in. The alcohol limit is 10mg per 100ml too (the lowest detectable), so far more strict than the 80mg allowed for driving a car. It used to just be safety critical roles that were subject to this but it was applied to everyone some years ago for a sense of fairness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:You see it a lot from americans as "if I have to be drug tested for my paycheque, they should have to be drug tested for their welfare" and it saddens me that they don't question why anybody should be tested at all. I'm sure there's a clever name for this sort of thinking but it escapes me at this hour. They perceive that it's easier to share the misery than cure it. So out of spite they support this sharing. This is basically how political consciousness currently works in England and why the English left is toothless. All the working class warriors are soulless husks who's only wish is that someone, anyone suffers a bit more than they are. So the disabled, the foreign, the other. You'll note that UKIP, the party in fashion, runs on a negative campaign. They promise to punish the criminal, the immigrant, the scrounger. There's very little about improving anyone's life. Because they know the game they're playing. If they improved peoples lives parties like UKIP wouldn't get votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Harry Roberts is a free man. Let the thread meltdown commence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
I wonder if he is rehabilitated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Harry Roberts is a free man. Let the thread meltdown commence. Dude is loving old and has served his minimum sentence. Not sure where the controversy is beyond "cops are pissed off" Pissflaps posted:I wonder if he is rehabilitated. Well he had a successful parole hearing so I imagine they think so
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
I am confident half a century in our prisons has done him a world of good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I am confident half a century in our prisons has done him a world of good. It's rehabilitated him so - yes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I wonder if he is rehabilitated. Well, it's going to be difficult for him to commit much crime at the ripe old age of 78 and I think the parole board will have taken that into account in its assessment. Rabble rousing aside, I think it's pretty important to support parole board decisions. A thoughtful article, as always, from the Prison UK blog, including a description of his likely conditions. Prince John fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
Baytor posted:I think it's called being an arsehole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Imagine if corporate manslaughter was treated half as badly as cop killing, it'd be crazy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
This is your daily "Labour is neo-liberal poo poo" update:quote:Labour received more than £600,000 from PwC to form tax policy
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:They perceive that it's easier to share the misery than cure it. So out of spite they support this sharing. This is basically how political consciousness currently works in England and why the English left is toothless. All the working class warriors are soulless husks who's only wish is that someone, anyone suffers a bit more than they are. So the disabled, the foreign, the other. You'll note that UKIP, the party in fashion, runs on a negative campaign. They promise to punish the criminal, the immigrant, the scrounger. There's very little about improving anyone's life. Because they know the game they're playing. If they improved peoples lives parties like UKIP wouldn't get votes. http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:This is your daily "Labour is neo-liberal poo poo" update: Would you prefer it if Labour was involved in debates on Finance Bills using their in-house tax expertise? (Hint: They have none). I get the point that it is all rather incestuous, but political parties need to have access to specialist support for what is a complex area of law in order to make informed contributions. I believe the Big 4 make their time available to all political parties. The alternative is to leave it to someone like Margaret Hodge whose commentary was so ill-informed that she was basically a figure of fun even within HMRC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Would you prefer it if Labour was involved in debates on Finance Bills using their in-house tax expertise? (Hint: They have none). No, you're right. Also they should totally consult Gary Glitter about childcare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
The problem is these accountancy firms are complicit in a system that is utterly corrupt and are sometimes utterly corrupt themselves: http://www.irs.gov/uac/KPMG-to-Pay-$456-Million-for-Criminal-Violations That TINA applies doesn't make it any better, if there was no alternative but to consult drug cartels on how best to deal with organised crime it would still be a very bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:This is your daily "Labour is neo-liberal poo poo" update: Not defending this but is there evidence that these bods are actually forming policy? I know it is inferred but that's not enough to prove anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
notaspy posted:Not defending this but is there evidence that these bods are actually forming policy? I know it is inferred but that's not enough to prove anything Of course not! Why the Big Four are just being characteristically Charitable lending staff to the government to help them see "The Consequences of their policy decisions" and of course their confidentiality agreement means it's impossible for there to be a conflict of interests. The Big Four are well noted for being moral and kind creatures who would never be found complicit in every major financial disaster of the last fifty years or illegal tax avoidance schemes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:No, you're right. Also they should totally consult Gary Glitter about childcare. I'm open to suggestions for alternatives - I'm just saying that if they don't understand the law, they're not going to be able to do a good job of fixing it. Sorry Rev, what does TINA mean? Google isn't helping... Edit: vv Thank you. There probably isn't a credible alternative for the fancy stuff though, GT and below don't really have the same global reach and sophistication. Prince John fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Prince John posted:
There Is No Alternative. Though there are alternative Accounting Firms, so it doesn't actually apply. Fans fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
We should, as a country, buy and nationalise one of the big four and absorb it into HMRC. Like when they get old burglars to show how to properly defend houses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Didnt 2 of the people responsible for some of the new corporate taxation laws leave and go and work for one of the big firms earlier this year? I remember a bit of a hoo ha about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
I'll form a tax policy for free: Eat the rich There we go
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:We should, as a country, buy and nationalise one of the big four and absorb it into HMRC. Or we could just hire the staff directly. We could hire them on a performance-based reward contract, maybe something like "you get a percentage of total tax take from corporations, especially accountancy firms" basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Prince John posted:I'm open to suggestions for alternatives - I'm just saying that if they don't understand the law, they're not going to be able to do a good job of fixing it. What sort of understanding of the law do you think they're going to get from talking to KPMG and PwC? I'm not sure that the things they think need fixing bear much resemblance to the things you or I might think need fixing. Also, the idea that only the biggest accounting firms really understand the issues involved is one they're keen to promote, but I've never seen much evidence for it. The absurdly convoluted schemes they come up with probably require a lot of expertise to create, but they're not usually that difficult to understand
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:34
|
|
