|
Assange is probably a rapist and certainly a prick by his own admissions, and should face charges, but his fears about being extradited to the US are pretty reasonable. That's literally all there is to this story, and I haven't seen anyone outright defending his actions. This isn't worthy of a multi-page argument.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm not sure what to make of that. What it probably means is that state schools are getting better at playing the system of targets which private schools have been doing for decades. For example schools now are deliberately classifying new pupils as low as possible so they can claim the biggest possible improvement in their skills.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
I wonder what will happen to UKIP after the referendum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Is it actually controversial to make a statement like "on average, a French person moving to the UK will integrate more easily and with less likelihood of cultural misunderstanding than a person from Namibia"? What exactly is a 'cultural misunderstanding'? There are a number of flawed premises going into arguments like this. Firstly, is it right that a perceived cultural similarity is seen as such a good thing that it overrides the characteristics of the person, like their skills or their family ties? Why is cultural diversity being seen as an automatic black mark against someone? Are commonwealth countries actually more different that European ones in the first place? Issues like this are why I am on the fence about the EU. On the one hand it stops the Tories from Tory-ing so hard they gently caress the whole country forever, and it potentially stops Scotland from leaving. On the other it provides endless ammunition for the right to fret about immigration while actually doing gently caress all to reduce numbers, aside from increasingly discriminatory and harsh policies that affect handfuls of people each. Incidentally Cameron has suggested that if we leave the EU then the Jungle camp will relocate to south east England, which is the best argument I have heard so far for leaving the EU.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Fans posted:I can't see how the Conservatives get re-elected if they actually kill the NHS. You could set fire to the queen and at least some people would be cheering. It's death by inches. Loads of stuff that the NHS used to do is now 'opened up' to a process of contract bidding, and private companies like Virgin Health are now running huge swathes of services. Meanwhile the actual NHS is forced to waste money unsuccessfully bidding for contracts on stuff it used to do perfectly well. With over a third of contracts to run health services now going to private companies, the intended end result is for the NHS to simply become a brand name used by various highly profitable businesses, and for the public not to notice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:David Cameron's mother signs petition against cuts by his local council http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/08/david-camerons-mother-signs-petition-against-cuts-to-childrens-services To be fair, David Cameron himself also protests the cuts he is making.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35531436 The first one seems ridiculous, but CPS say they had enough evidence to bring it to court. At least the dude was found not guilty. The second one, they couldn't prove who was driving so he was charged with the most serious offence available, which is failing to provide details of who was driving. What else could they do?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
About 30% of junior doctors are involved in providing emergency care so won't be involved in the strike. Then you have to add anyone on annual leave, study leave or sick leave. About 39% of juniors weren't directly involved in striking last time, this time it's 43%. The idea that turnout is 'much lower' is ridiculous. It's spin pure and simple, and if the BMA were ballsy enough to call a full strike you would see very different numbers. Hunt is taking advantage of the fact that we still want to cover emergency care to spin against us.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:This cannot be true. It is just way beyond parody, no self-respecting comedy writer would even go for this it's so laughable. After £10 million and six months, the leader of the inquiry presents Mr Hunt with a full length mirror.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Also he's never been mutilated by a Somalian. But they get definitely both get hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Namtab posted:It sucks when parents of patients criticise cuts and I have to be neutral. Why do you have to remain neutral? I mean yeah I wouldn't wear a giant badge saying 'vote labour' while working on the wards but if someone tells me they think the cuts suck I am definitely going to agree with them. I certainly wouldn't hedge and say anything that might be confused with supporting further NHS cuts. Plenty of doctors have worn badges supporting the BMA at work, and I think agreeing with a sentiment expressed by a patient is less divisive than that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Because they're wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on. Both sides should put aside the rhetoric, get around the negotiating table, and stop this happening again. Seriously? Edit: Oh its an Ed Miliband quote. jabby fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Are straight people not allowed to call Milo Yiannopolous a massive self-hating homophobic dickwad? You can, because there's a big difference between that and saying he is 'straight on the inside'. One is insulting his views, the other is insulting his identity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Are there figures on how many children have been tasered by police in the UK? The quoted article just mentions a 38% increase in their being aimed at children. I feel like it shouldn't be something that is allowed even in theory, but I'd be interested to know if it's a power that has actually seen much use, and under what circumstances. Arguably the problem is not the age of those involved, but the threat level. Tasers are supposed to be a 'less-lethal' form of incapacitation, pretty akin to hitting someone repeatedly with batons but requiring less training/physical involvement from the officer. The trouble is they are instead being used as a form of punishment or threat to make someone comply with what an officer wants, which is totally wrong. You wouldn't expect an officer to say 'get out of the car or I will beat you with this stick', so you should never hear 'get out of the car or you will be tasered'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
thehustler posted:People reacting rather than thinking once again. Even if they are good friends and it's some kind of inside joke, insulting a woman's clothes right after she just won a prestigious award is pretty tasteless and reinforces the narrative that female talent is worthless without also looking pretty. Especially since I don't think any of the male stars received anything similar, including the one who showed up looking equally casual. He also spelled her surname wrong in the tweet defending his joke and claiming they are good friends, so there's that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
As a general rule if someone famous uses their influence to get a private dispute published in a national newspaper so they can poo poo on their non-famous opponent without them having a right of reply, that's a dick move. It's certainly orders of magnitude worse than a pissy student union rep not wanting to share a platform with someone they find disagreeable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Christ there are a lot of whiny crybabies in this thread, it's no wonder left wing politics are seen as a joke. Go back to your loving hugbox echochambers. Do you think Nick Griffin should have been on question time? The problem with 'debating' right-wing opinions is that you legitimise them, and that's compounded by the fact that usually these opinions are not opinions at all, they are beliefs. You are never going to have a logical debate with a racist, or a homophobe, because they have their dogmatic view of the world and you aren't going to change it. You are just going to have soundbites like 'Britain is Full' shouted at you until that is what ends up sticking in the public imagination. Generally speaking the right do not need more platforms than they already have. They don't seem particularly keen to invite the left onto their turf, such as the mainstream media, so why should they be welcome on ours? Debate is not the only form of disseminating information, it's more than possible to lay out your own opinion without some Daily Mail journalist spouting populist crap all over the precious few opportunities the left has to even speak. Nick Griffin did great out of question time because the open hostility of the panel made him an underdog and his mantra of blaming immigrants was clear and simple compared to other more complex and difficult explanations. His presence did not 'open up' the debate, it stifled it. And when you are talking about the left, they need all the opportunities they can get to deliver their message without providing even more platforms for the right to deliver theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:it removes an opportunity to smash his argument into the ground. If stupid soundbites stick in the public consciousness more effectively that's down to a failure of the left to play the game properly. Maybe Nigel Farage is a better example, since he's been on question time more than just about anybody else and his ridiculous 'arguments' have yet to disappear from view. In fact they only become more ingrained through repetition. Debating someone with intellectual ideas when their mantra is simply to blame everything on the 'other' just doesn't work very well, and that isn't entirely the fault of the left being rubbish at arguing. Where this fits into 'no platforming' is that people seem to assume that right wing or otherwise disagreeable views deserve to be aired at student events and be given a platform by those who don't support them. But there doesn't seem to be any kind of counter going the other way. Where is the obligation of the Telegraph or the Daily Mail to give a platform to views their editors disagree with? It simply doesn't exist. No-platforming can be overused or misapplied, but if you assume that the left has an obligation to let the right share their space without the right doing the same it only serves to unbalance the playing field even more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
So Labour have a new video out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cordxL3sn0c It's not bad actually. Puts a human face on the housing crisis and starts to address the Tory 'strong economy' bullshit by pointing out that our economy isn't actually helping anyone except those at the top. It also focuses on what seem to be relatively middle-class families who can just about pay the bills but struggle to actually achieve much out of life, which is a good start I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The Charter contains rights and freedoms under six titles: Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, Solidarity, Citizens' Rights, and Justice. Well those all sound like terrible things that we want no part of. What's the point of even staying if the UK is going to forcibly opt out of all the possibly useful bits and only wants in for the larger flow of capital and tax loopholes? To be honest that's probably corbyns position, despite him apparently being behind staying in. The Telegraph actually pointed out that he's in a reasonably good position where he can claim victory if we stay but also capitalise on the Tory implosion if we leave.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I have never trained to be a doctor. In fact, one of my old jobs was doing night shifts at an IT Helpdesk. I can remember how absolutely braindead & useless I was after the 4th consecutive 13 hour night shift of 1800-0700. And all I was doing was telling people to turn their server on & off, rather than actually trying to heal variously broken people. Yeah four consecutive 13 hour nights is the current norm, which most doctors are fine with. That will literally look like a picnic compared to the rota's currently being compiled.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:When I think of feminism. I think of equalness to each other. Not to discriminate or give disadvantage too because of their gender. To be fair and understand but not to use your gender to your advantage over others. The idea that there are women out there using feminism to try and give women an unfair advantage is like the 'welfare queen' myth. Sure some of them probably exist, but they are a tiny unimportant minority. The only reason they have a name is because a lot of people want to use them to discredit the whole group.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:There are however a subset of feminists who basically want to put bourgie white women on the same footing as bourgie white men and gently caress everyone else. That is basically intersectionality at work, and while you can criticise individual feminists for failing to realise that they may have privilege in other areas it's hardly a problem unique to feminism. Certainly calling anyone a 'feminazi' with all the sexist connotations that has is not the right way to fight for equality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:There are people who self-identify as feminists who are bad feminists, just as there are people who identify as socialists who are bad socialists. In the context of feminism particularly it can get a little difficult because if a guy tries to point out problems in theory/practice in good faith, they're going to get dogpiled by people who insist that they don't have the right to because of their male privilege etc. It's infuriating and it's why I tend to keep discussion of gender issues at arms length - it's just exhausting for a man to try to participate. It's difficult, seeing as my girlfriend is super into gender/LGBT stuff. I always feel guilty for being less than eager to talk about it with her because it's all very important stuff, but it's just a topic I'm tired of. Men can discuss feminism, they just need to be careful not to drown out the women involved or try to explain feminism to them. Realistically it's an example of male privilege that some men find any discussion where they are not automatically considered the authority to be 'infuriating'. And it's another example that you can simply decide not to be bothered by gender issues because you are tired of them. Women don't really have that option. ThomasPaine posted:Also, could someone explain to me exactly what the problem is with the 'don't refer to yourself as a feminist, call yourself an egalitarian' angle? I'd probably substitute 'socialist' for egalitarian (because that's sounds a bit too liberal) but on the whole it seems like a reasonable position. Socialism kind of necessarily incoporates all equality movements while indicating an awareness of how they all fit together based on class analysis, so it seems sensible to go with that rather than something that by definition starts with a single issue and goes from there. Genuine question because I know a lot of good people HATE it when you say that. I worry I'm missing something fundamental. The difference between feminism and egalitarianism is the difference between 'black lives matter' and 'all lives matter'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Firstly I apologise for that terrible sentence structure. Isn't it a bit ironic to say that you aren't knowledgeable enough about the case to decide what you think would be the best outcome, while calling other people 'clueless' about the issues? Yes, the problem of sexual abuse is widespread and the threat of false allegations is very exaggerated, but people are still talking about a specific case with specific facts that will have specific consequences depending on how it is resolved. Trying to reduce it to 'you support women being forced to work with abusers' is pretty disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
josh04 posted:It's not ironic; I'm talking about the part I know about (what makes you a dick on facebook) and not talking about the part I don't know about (contract law). In my understanding the Kesha situation is one with no real good outcome. Either you force a woman to remain in contract with someone accused of abusing her, or you set a precedent that any allegations of a crime no matter how well evidenced are grounds for voiding a contract. It's easy to say 'how dare you say siding with Kesha would have negative implications' when you don't propose a solution that doesn't have negative implications because you say you don't understand the situation well enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The emotive issue there is that, unfortunately, this means it's commercially beneficial to let your rapist walk free and even get to keep doing it. I wouldn't say it is commercially beneficial, just commercially neutral from a contract standpoint. And ultimately, isn't this where the criminal justice system should come in? It isn't really the place of contract law or civil court to punish rapists or encourage reporting their crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Cerv posted:And judicial review of Hunt's decision to impose the contract without agreement. That might be more effective since he's made it clear that no amount of strikes are changing his mind. I wouldn't be so sure. The contract 'imposed' by the government is a million miles away from the one they initially wanted, and all the major concessions came just after the two strikes. Couple that with the public support and the fact that a majority blame the government rather than the doctors, and I don't see how Hunt can possibly weather full-on industrial action. Bear in mind that so far we have only had two 24 hour emergency care only strikes. Our 'nuclear option' would be a full walk out of indefinite duration. How long do you think the government would hold out?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
winegums posted:The time to go nuclear has long since passed. Indefinite IA is the only way the government will be made to listen. These baby strikes didn't have appropriate impact - the government doesn't really care if it's emergency cover only since that's not producing a headcount. Cynical or not, the only way Hunt will be stopped is if full IA is taken and patients get ill as a result. What makes you think Hunt cares about patients? Especially what makes you think he cares about patients more than doctors do? He has personally contributed to deaths with his wilful misinformation, he would be overjoyed if our strikes actually led to death or injury since it would help turn the public against us. The emergency strikes so far have had an impact. Every time a trust has to cancel elective operations it loses an enormous amount of money. Hunt may not care much about that either, but it does contribute to making him look bad. As does media coverage of doctors out on picket lines. There are plenty of people calling for a full and indefinite walk-out, and it may come to that. But part of the reason we still have so much public support is that we are so drat reasonable. We have already scaled back our actions twice, and all we are asking for now is a return to negotiations. That makes it so much harder to spin us badly in the press, and reinforces the point that when serious IA really does start the government has entirely forced us into that position. thespaceinvader posted:Seriously, the BMA can do very little except lose here, Have a little faith. The BMA and it's membership is prepared to go to the wire on this. Hunt has already made huge concessions. He doesn't want us on strike.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:You seem to be contradicting yourself. In what way am I contradicting myself? Hunt and co. genuinely don't give a poo poo about patients, but tell me what they can do to break the BMA? We have a mandate for industrial action, we are well paid enough that most can stand the financial loss associated with striking, and we can't be voted out of office. This isn't the miners strike. The government doesn't have a million tons of healthcare stockpiled, nor can they close down all the hospitals. If the BMA decided (for example) that we now strike for one day every single week, how would the government stop us? You are absolutely right that there is huge resistance to politicising the BMA and the debate in general, but the wind is definitely blowing. Back at the start anti-Tory comments were jumped on pretty quickly on the facebook group. Now they are the norm and you have key members of the negotiation team posting pro-Corbyn stuff. It's a slow process, but it doesn't mean we are doomed. thespaceinvader posted:Last I saw it was about 65% in favour, but that went down to nearer 50% for full withdrawal of labour. And that was before the latest set of strikes were announced. It was 65% in favour and about 22% opposed, and the number in favour didn't change between the first and second strikes. Two-thirds of the public blame the government compared to about 15% blaming the doctors. We have the highest public support for any strike for a very long time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Basically in the idea that because the BMA is willing to go to the wire Hunt will care, when in the previous sentence you noted that Hunt doesn't care. The government doesn't care about the patients, they care about public opinion. Even if it turns against the doctors the government will still get tarred and we can't be voted out in four years. They don't want protracted, lengthy industrial action. If they did, they would have simply imposed their original contract rather than making the concessions they did. Remember that the media spin is absolutely calculated to make the government look hard-edged and unbending. On both occasions when we went on strike we were branded villains and the threat of imposition was reinforced by another podium-thumping statement to the press. And then another raft of concessions was quietly made at the negotiating table. We haven't begun to ramp this up yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:Jabby, tbh at this point, as hard as it will be for people in the NHS, at this point people dying in hospital corridors is the only thing the government will pay attention to. No, I wouldn't like it to be someone close to me, but they are not listening to sweet reason. What alternative do they have? Ordering in army medics? Regardless, you have my complete support and sympathy. The government would love people to die as a result of this strike. It would be the motherload of negative spin against the doctors. They only care about public opinion, and people don't need to actually die for that to turn against them even further.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:If Labour had a better leader, he might actually be able to engage Cameron, and actually, you know, debate him. Cameron doesn't take Corbyn seriously, and outside of the diehard fans, few people do. Labour needs a strong leader with a vision, not an activist who wondered in off the backbenchers - if Corbyn had more of a backbone, he would have had a good comeback about poverty/income inequality, but he didn't, he just let Cameron tear him to shreds. Again. So if Labour had a better leader they could force Cameron to answer questions rather than spew soundbites and personal attacks? Is there someone waiting in the wings with a remote control or something, because Blair couldn't do that and neither could Brown or Miliband.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Blair did exactly what Cameron does but better and was always better than Cameron in PMQs, Blair only suffered against him because things were beginning to go to poo poo and it was for Cameron to attack, his whole thing is not as slick Blair. That was my point really. Blair didn't force Cameron to answer questions, he was just better than him at spouting soundbites and personal attacks. Even if you wanted to go back to that style of PMQs, there isn't another Blair waiting in the wings. The format of PMQs allows for questions to be avoided and encouraging the opposition leader to simply 'push harder' is bollocks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I couldn't get past Gender neutral sex ed would be great, it makes no sense to teach kids purely about their own bodies when they could learn about both. Having said that though part of the reason for segregating a class is to allow girls/boys the opportunity to learn and ask questions without the associated shyness/embarrassment that comes with the opposite sex. If you are arguing against that then you could conceivably be harming girls ability to learn. So it depends exactly what 'gender neutral' means in context I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Thought Diane Abbott did pretty well though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Kin posted:I know this is a bit off topic, but has anyone had any success in getting their local supermarket to pull their head out of their arse in regards to home deliveries? Did you try saying 'can you please bring it up to my flat?'
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
So on the junior doctors front, this is a thing now: For context, this is a leaked email from Basildon hospital. It says that because they have been unable to fill eighteen posts for medical registrars, and are also unable to find enough agency cover, they are going to say 'gently caress it' and simply drop the number of senior doctors present overnight from two to one. This allows them to run a rota with only 13 doctors instead of 22. To be clear, this is incredibly loving dangerous. The medical registrars are usually the most senior doctors present overnight, and their entire job is to respond to medical emergencies. They are always busy. But because the job sucks so loving hard and they can't find enough people to do it, they have just decided one doctor can do the work of two from now on. So, if you have a heart attack in Basildon hospital overnight, the amount of time you can expect to wait before being seen by a doctor just went up massively. Just try to cling on to life until they arrive, they have a lot of other people to see first. gently caress the Tories. THIS IS WHY WE ARE ON STRIKE.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Serotonin posted:That's how it reads to me. Deflect the blame on the parents. Typical political smear tactic. It can also be seen as a dog-whistle tactic, in that it says 'the boys parents were homophobic' to most people and 'he was gay, so of course he was bullied' to certain others.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 14:09
|
|