|
Rakosi posted:Reparations would involve taking tax money off of people who were in no way involved in the decision making or the actioning of the offences against these nations, however. Many of said tax payers are not living in a life of "luxury" afforded them by the rapacious nature of their state's history. No, monetary reparations would involve the state transferring some of its accrued economic wealth to a group it has wronged in the past. The choice of exactly how to do that, and who the burden falls on, is up to the people controlling the state. I mean yeah, this country has a massively unequal distribution of wealth and the burden would ultimately be put on ordinary people and the services they rely on, but that's because the Tories are poo poo and elitist, but that's not an argument against reparations. You might as well argue that the state shouldn't be liable to pay compensation when someone takes the police to court for tasering their grandad quote:They certainly have a right to be angry at the nation, but to be angry at Britons is an anger misplaced. You (Spangly A, and co.) do not get to use words like "culpability" and "responsibility" without contention. If someone calls me out of being personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people on the other side of the planet, I have a right to reject that claim. But lets not stop there. If I am responsible for the the deaths of thousands of children in Filipino aluminium mines, then I am also responsible for the death of every person that died unjustly under Imperial British rule (even those that died before I was even loving born). But you're using two different definitions of the word "responsible" and you loving know it. If I actually was responsible I would be before the Hague. But I am not and I am not responsible for their deaths. I literally said you're not individually responsible, but Britain is, so as far as you're a part of Britain you're a part of what happened. Your life and circumstances are directly affected by what happened, because the past determines the present. Nobody can escape that. That doesn't mean you have a family inheritance of blood diamonds, but it does mean the nation as a whole has a past and spoils that it needs to account for. So we (as a collective, the current manifestation of 'Britain') should be ready to admit that 'we' did terrible things, and any reparations should be borne by the people who've benefitted the most from the economy and society that developed, as with all things. Taking it personally means you end up defending the wider system just because you're a small part of it. That's a good way to be on the wrong side of every issue!
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:It's an especially bold claim to make from a country where it is a) illegal and b) having massive child sex ring scandals so often we struggle to tell them apart. Julie Bindel posted:In researching my forthcoming book on the international sex trade, I
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Sounds like a problem with an individual doctor or clinic overestimating the kid's level of competence, and thus primarily a training issue, but it won't surprise me if someone suggests a legislative solution because that seems to be the answer to everything lately. This is going back a few pages, but who exactly says the doctor was in the wrong here? The Daily Mail? Gilick competency is written in to the law to protect kids who are deemed to be mature enough to understand their own medical conditions. The idea that her condition was close to 'life-threatening' or that she was in any danger from overdosing her anti-acid medication is bullshit invented by the paper. Part of treating Gilick competent children is encouraging them to tell their parents, and that's exactly what this girl did when she felt the time was right. And what did her mother do with this sensitive issue? Sold her story to the loving papers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I think you're getting him confused with other chronically bad poster The Saurus? oh yeah lol how embarrassing their posting style is quite similar I think
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Who is The Saurus and what are his best moments? I might like the guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:oh yeah lol The Sarus hasn't gone. He constantly posts in the GOP thread and is a huge Trump supporter. Still maintains that he is a socialist too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Who is The Saurus and what are his best moments? I might like the guy. He's like you only he pimps his wife out. Could've been you I guess if your girl didn't leave you for a gay guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Gonna have to contest the gay thing. You'll be happy to know that we got over that hurdle though, buddy
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
oh yeah you're the guy who didn't like his girlfriend staying in the same bed/room as her 'gay' friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Cabinet posted:The Sarus hasn't gone. He constantly posts in the GOP thread and is a huge Trump supporter. Still maintains that he is a socialist too. Yeah, but at least his low effort shitposting is confined mainly to threads that aren't UKMT. He'd have even less posts here if you mugs didn't insist on replying to his drivel...
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Rakosi's red text still makes me all fuzzy inside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Rakosi's red text still makes me all fuzzy inside. How much did it cost you? And who do you still pay tax to lol Rakosi fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Yeah, but at least his low effort shitposting is confined mainly to threads that aren't UKMT. He'd have even less posts here if you mugs didn't insist on replying to his drivel... For a while I thought he was basically a good lad who meant well but had perhaps been led astray, and then I read his posts in Europol and realised he's actually just a shithead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Brexit debate claims its first scalp - the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has been suspended for stating on air repeatedly that he wants to leave. FT paywall link. Most of his members (big business typically), are for remaining. He's been suspended ostensibly for breaching impartiality, but in reality it's for going against the wishes of the membership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:How much did it cost you? And who do you still pay tax to lol Oh that wasn't me, you managed to be irritating enough that some unknown observer decided to clarify your stance on things. I pay income tax and council tax, do I get to have a say in the running of where I bloody live?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Oh that wasn't me, you managed to be irritating enough that some unknown observer decided to clarify your stance on things. Not necessarily, no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Barclays latest annual report is pretty amusing for how not to consider optics [pdf]John McFarlane CEO, page 5 posted:We continue to be subject to very significant capital and conduct charges by regulators and governments that frankly are not sustainable. They arise understandably from the position that banks engendered in And the societal costs of misconduct and FX and LIBOR market rigging aren't? Also, you got slammed because you keep on getting caught doing co-ordinated misconduct. If repeated large fines lead to shrinking of the business due to you not being able to get a grip, then I'd say the fines are working well. Reduces the company to a manageable size, or shuts it entirely. Yeah, sucks for the typically blameless retail banking operation, but in future retail banking is going to be at arms length anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Barclays latest annual report is pretty amusing for how not to consider optics [pdf] Must have left it in my other coat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Barclays latest annual report is pretty amusing for how not to consider optics [pdf] I think mostly people thinking they're being giant unethical tossbags is what's doing it. It's certainly why we're trying to move our mortgage which we took out with ING shortly before Barclay's acquired them. gently caress Barclay's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Pork Pie: Question Time in Chelmsford on the 17th. Shall we?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Gonna have to contest the gay thing. You'll be happy to know that we got over that hurdle though, buddy Wait so he wasn't actually gay and she just wanted to sleep with another guy? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
As much as I hate the whole "Harridan Harpyperson worked for pedophiles" meme the right-wing love to bring out, I'm still loving the replies to this tweet: https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/705763905709150209
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
If you make it illegal for men to pay for sex they'll stop doing it, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I agree with Rachel Moran, abolish free market economics, introduce mincome on top of a socialist government structure, sex work only for the economically free Some justifications for mincome hold that the point of it is you're being paid to reduce stress in the world, and increase happiness. Therefore anything you do to increase net happiness which is enabled by this stipend is paid work. Therefore if mincome existed, I would automatically become a sex worker  Guavanaut posted:She should try a sports and tackle store instead of being passive aggressive on Twitter. Speaking of guns, how dumb would it be to start a discussion in here on the subject "I want to see a review of gun law because I'd quite like to try the olympic sport of pistol shooting without having to leave the country to do so"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Noxville posted:If you make it illegal for men to pay for sex they'll stop doing it, problem solved. This is exactly what I thought Corbyn meant to do. Not to make prostitution legal, but to make solicitation of prostitutes illegal. That said i've no idea if it's already illegal, I'm a good lad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
winegums posted:This is exactly what I thought Corbyn meant to do. Not to make prostitution legal, but to make solicitation of prostitutes illegal. Prostitution is already legal and solicitation is already illegal. Corbyn (and McDonnell) are veteran advocates for full decriminalisation of consensual sex work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
This is one of those issues I go back and forth on. Ideally it should be legal because in an ideal world it's a victimless transaction. However even if it's legal and regulated and cleaned up, there'd still be people trafficking and exploitation. I think decriminalising prostitution is a good idea because it places the burden of crime on the punters. The biggest problem with full legalisation is that in the darkest timeline IDS sends young women to be workfare prostitutes if they can't find work in shops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Speaking of guns, how dumb would it be to start a discussion in here on the subject "I want to see a review of gun law because I'd quite like to try the olympic sport of pistol shooting without having to leave the country to do so"? Nerf or archery not good enough for you? Personally I don't really care if it inconveniences people. I don't really trust the general public with guns. I don't trust most police officers with guns. If Olympians have to travel to France to train, welp, good thing it's a really nice country and there's the Eurostar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Some justifications for mincome hold that the point of it is you're being paid to reduce stress in the world, and increase happiness. but finding a pistol club is not that hard? 10m air pistols aren't really handguns as most people think of them
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Speaking of guns, how dumb would it be to start a discussion in here on the subject "I want to see a review of gun law because I'd quite like to try the olympic sport of pistol shooting without having to leave the country to do so"? Admittedly that may be largely because the person proposing it last year was grade A twat Nigel Farage, who probably does touch himself about standing his ground against the Mussulman hordes. Personally I don't really see any issue about having pistol target shooting galleries, and most of the street gun crime trends seems to react more to positive community led solutions and proper area funding than whether on not you're allowed a pistol in a gallery or on a farm. winegums posted:This is one of those issues I go back and forth on. Ideally it should be legal because in an ideal world it's a victimless transaction. However even if it's legal and regulated and cleaned up, there'd still be people trafficking and exploitation. I think decriminalising prostitution is a good idea because it places the burden of crime on the punters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:iirc the last time that someone suggested in a national newspaper that licensed gun owners should be able to own target pistols, kept in a safe at a shooting gallery, for the purpose of sport, everyone reacted as if they were proposing concealed carry a .44 magnum er'ry day stand your ground against the darkies. Yeah see I hate to bring up a slippery slope argument but that's where it was going to end up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Which part?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Our Nige's wet dream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
It's not just a slippery slope, it's also one of control and accountability over things which can harm people or kill them. The more guns you allow for recreational use by a group of people, the more likely that one will go missing or be misused. A pistol does not really have agricultural uses, which you could possibly make the case for over rifles / shotguns. People were talking about risk management with respect to rugby earlier. This is just another case of that. Society has decided that after 16 dead 5 and 6 year olds, if people want to get entertainment from shooting pistols, they can do it in another country. Or play nerf or archery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
I dunno, most of Europe seems to manage it in a sensible manner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Most of Europe isn't quite as wrapped around America's massive... barrel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Our entire legal policy towards ownership of weapons is rooted in the knowledge that our society is hosed and completely hateful, and the only thing stopping people lashing out and slaughtering each other en masse is their inability to lay hands on an automatic rifle. It's amazing to me that a country like America can have a multiple mass murders a year and all the press coverage and public debates seem (from my remote and inattentive vantage) to centre around the ready access to firearms, as if that's the real problem there. Not that they have a wretched and alienating society that produces spree-killers on a conveyor belt. Maybe there is some really earnest soul searching going on about what it is in their society that causes these outbursts. But I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I dunno, most of Europe seems to manage it in a sensible manner. It's just a matter of time. Gun massacres in western Europe are mostly long tail events. But do the benefits of allowing some form of pistol possession or usage among the general public outweigh the odd murder or massacre that would be enabled or made worse by allowing them? They're not like knives, or nails, or cars or fertiliser, or possibly even shotguns. They don't have any useful utility to society as a whole, beyond being able to pretend to be Revolver Ocelot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Our entire legal policy towards ownership of weapons is rooted in the knowledge that our society is hosed and completely hateful, and the only thing stopping people lashing out and slaughtering each other en masse is their inability to lay hands on an automatic rifle. I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was thinking similarly about the situation in some of the major cities in the 80s too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
FT is claiming Osborne has scrapped the biggest part of his planned changes for pension: FT paywall. No changes to tax relief in the budget. I'm pleased for two reasons, 1) I'm a selfish bastard and I would have likely been worse off, 2) it probably would have reduced pension savings - would you trust a future government not to also tax your pension when you use it as well as when you contributed towards it? I wouldn't, and I suspect a lot of people wouldn't. Certainly not amongst our generation, we're too used to the idea of being stuffed over in order to prop up the previous generation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:03
|
|