Regarde Aduck posted:

The vote invalidation part of this law opens it up to abuse. What a dumb addition. Just fine the people that hosed up. Votes are sacred and it should take a lot more to invalidate them.

Spangly A posted:

the best response is putting landlords that do that inside for life and seizing their assets because they've attempted to use capital to directly manipulate people

Pochoclo posted:

This assumes that the government is going to painstakingly match each and every physical ballot (which they have to find in a huge pile of paper) with the pictures and compare them. I don't know if I trust them that much.

At the very least, it would cause a lot of noise.

Also, again, this is only if the ballot IDs are sequential, which would be immensely stupid. They're probably some kind of cryptographically generated hash, which makes this whole thing moot.

ronya posted:

with postal votes it's a lost cause since you can, you know, just show your ballot to whoever under whatever coercive threats before posting said ballot. nobody verifies your identity when you post it, so maybe all you're doing is selling your blank signed postal ballot

in the absence of specific precedent of such an attack, we generally trust postal votes, however

Pochoclo posted:

Because any idiot would be able to know all voter IDs in a constituency if they are sequential. Sure, they might not be able to do jack-poo poo with that information, but why even risk it, when there's a perfect viable alternative that doesn't need more resources or effort?

I mean, I'm sorry if I come across as excessive or whatever, I just was involved in the development of very secure software before and this is like a cardinal sin to me.

CoolCab posted:

I'm cynical as gently caress, 350. I said 100 seat majority when she called it though, so at least I'm marginally less cynical now.

quote:

So here we go - forget vote share, that's for internal wrangling afterwards and arguments about FPTP, the important thing is who ends up running the country and how much they're going to have to fight their own backbenchers afterwards.

To enter, quote this post (or PM me if you'd prefer to enter anonymously) with the total amount of seats you think will be won by:

CON: Currently 331 including the Speaker
LAB: Currently 229
LD: Currently 9
Other: 81

Only counting parties standing in the majority of seats and likely to get more than 5 seats, sorry regional party fans and the one UKIP supporter I know is still lurking.

Scoring will be simple - when the final result is announced, you will get one point for each seat you are off for each of those four. Lowest score wins. Failing to put in a guess for any of those four will be counted as a zero.

The price of entry is a £5 donation to the (registered, UK) charity of the winner's choice. It's on the honour system - I'll announce the winner and the winning charity on Monday the 12th (assuming no weirdness with recounts in any of the seats put the result) and provide a link for donations.

dispatch_async posted:

Can turnout difference in 18-25 year olds really explain the 11 point difference in the polls? What % of eligible voters are 18-25?

I'm guessing there's much more to the difference than just youth turnout

forkboy84 posted:

No, we still have a government until the Queen says otherwise as far as I understand. Though I'll grant you that I bet there's a dozen posters with a better grasp of constitutional law than me.

CoolCab posted:

initial reports will be wildly inaccurate and that's the nature of the 24 hour news cycle

with that said, a terrorist attack at 1030 on a Saturday night into five people on a bridge seems rather ineffective. is london bridge typically packed at this time and, moreso then many other available targets at other times?

OwlFancier posted:

He's got binoculars.

blunt posted:

Police have confirmed they're attending a second 'incident' at Borough(?) Market.

EvilHawk posted:

I doubt they'd call it so quickly. Probably treating it as a terrorist incident instead?

chernobyl kinsman posted:

blunt posted:

Seeing constant live videos on TV from different spots around the area of riot police literally chasing people away screaming 'please leave the area' is really weird to watch compared to how normally it's a collection of videos from social media after the fact. 2017 is strange.

(Someone getting nicked just got picked up by the sky cameraman)

jabby posted:

I dunno, but it's hard to see how the government can talk tough about cracking down on this sort of stuff when it's so blatantly impossible to stop. I guess they could use to revive the idea that we need to ban encryption and monitor everybody all the time. Realistically though it's fairly obvious you need to stop people wanting to do this sort of thing.

Sinteres posted:

That's true for self-radicalizing disaffected youths without ideological motives, but it's unclear that it would help with disaffected self-radicalizing terrorists who will still be glorified by the people whose aims they're choosing to align themselves with, let alone people who are actually part of a network.

blunt posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-4...4b05cda1b11496b

I guess that explains the evacuations and huge cordons.

E; people now being sent away by police with their hands on their heads.

EvilHawk posted:

A lot of it is going to be the police treating it as the worst case scenario.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

"Dear jeremy, how can stopping me being exploited in a system that makes the call-on look like socialism possibly be a good thing?"

Who am I kidding, this prick has never and will never work a day in his life.

jabby posted:

Such a blatant dick move by May to suspend campaigning and then come and give a campaign speech from the Prime Minister's podium. I mean in what universe is talking about how you'd give terrorists harsher prison sentences remotely relevant to the security situation rather than a policy announcement for your own party?

Gonzo McFee posted:

I dunno, third attack within two months with Theresa May as PM and previous six years in charge of moving funds from frontline services to centralised snooping doesn't look good for her.

jBrereton posted:

what's wrong with barry gardiner

Angepain posted:

i agree with points 1 and 3 here

Unkempt posted:

Please come on Wednesday and give May a big ol' hug, TIA

Darth Walrus posted:

Three guys burst out of a van and started stabbing people. Also, there may have been the more conventional kind of Saturday night stabbing elsewhere in London, which got people confused for a bit.

TheRat posted:

Furthermore, UK police doesn't actually have a shoot to kill policy.

Spangly A posted:

Farage is dogwhistling like a madman there but I've read the Pilger article and I definitely have a lot of questions about why the gently caress the bomber managed to dodge arrest and how his involvement in an mi5 affiliated extremist group influenced this

if there's 3000 people walking around on a terror list, presumably under control orders, I think the government now need to say how many of them are affiliated with extremist groups funded by britain, how many of them are affiliated with extremist groups funded by countries we send arms to, and how many of them are affiliated with mi5

Skinty McEdger posted:

But you see the communities don't do enough to tackle the problem, furthermore *sound of projectile vomiting*

Spangly A posted:

There can't be serious public debate about what the security services and police are doing with the reactionary rhetoric making GBS threads the whole place up, true. But I think it's getting pretty public interest to ask if mi5 have any other radicalised assets laying about that they aren't able to keep check on, especially since their risk assessment appears to still be based in PREVENT and, in action, total shite.

Gonzo McFee posted:

This is the second time in a month that there's been an attack, May's gone on to say (Or strongly imply) that if they had the right powers they would have had the information and the attacks would have been stopped and then then someone's come forward saying they already told the police the information they needed to stop it.

This would be devastating for May if the press ever called her on it.

learnincurve posted:

I know I'm late to this discussion but I was waiting for the ghouls to sod off before reading the thread.

About this shoot to kill thing. If your attackers have knives then you don't need to shoot to kill unless they have the knife aimed directly at somone's throat, which is unlikely because people will be running around screaming. You aim at their legs if at all possible. You get shot in the leg you are hitting the deck and you can't stab people if you are on the ground. Mr plod is less likely to hit members of the public in the head, and they can get the bad guys into custody afterwards.

The in this is that modern terrorists use texts and the internet so much that they no longer need to actually talk to them to get the information they need, and a nice clean execution avoids giving them the publicity of a trial or the possibility that they will continue to operate within prison.

dispatch_async posted:

A lot of Labour MPs refused to support it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/27/labour-mps-face-backlash-over-failure-to-vote-on-yemen-campaign


PLP in being huge shits shocker.