|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On November 18 2016 03:29 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 21:30 bardtown wrote:
Mythical with more mythology. The judges don't get to decide any such thing. They will decide whether or not triggering A50 must go through parliament, and every significant Labour figure has already said they won't block A50.
Trump is good for Brexit and bad for the EU. Also: inflation down, unemployment down, consumer spending significantly up. They won't block it depending on what the government plans to negotiate. The monkey with blond hair seems to think that Italy should be more open to a favourable trade deal due to wine exports. Trump is good for Brexit because he is the USA's version of Brexit. A time warp back 40 years. Inflation is not down. Unemployment is, however benefit claims are up (long live 0 hour contracts? lol..). Consumer spending would be up wouldn't it? It's Christmas in 1.5 months. Also an SC judge has said it would be more problematic as they will need to draw up legislation to supercede the 1972 act which is the part that would take severely longer than previously estimated. Maybe you should try reading something other than tabloid newspapers. I know the Sun has p3, but that doesn't make it a reliable source.
Lmao. Inflation is down. Spending in October was up relative both to September and to October of last year. Also, why are you scoffing at Italian wine exports when a few pages ago you were talking about how amazingly valuable Scottish whiskey exports were?
|
The commonwealth is not an economic bloc. The Commonwealth will not and cannot be an economic bloc. There is no political will to make it so amongst its members, much less the ability to make it a meaningful one. The most notable ability the Commonwealth has is to host some games every now and then, and to promote measures against climate change.
|
On November 18 2016 05:13 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 03:29 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 17 2016 21:30 bardtown wrote:
Mythical with more mythology. The judges don't get to decide any such thing. They will decide whether or not triggering A50 must go through parliament, and every significant Labour figure has already said they won't block A50.
Trump is good for Brexit and bad for the EU. Also: inflation down, unemployment down, consumer spending significantly up. They won't block it depending on what the government plans to negotiate. The monkey with blond hair seems to think that Italy should be more open to a favourable trade deal due to wine exports. Trump is good for Brexit because he is the USA's version of Brexit. A time warp back 40 years. Inflation is not down. Unemployment is, however benefit claims are up (long live 0 hour contracts? lol..). Consumer spending would be up wouldn't it? It's Christmas in 1.5 months. Also an SC judge has said it would be more problematic as they will need to draw up legislation to supercede the 1972 act which is the part that would take severely longer than previously estimated. Maybe you should try reading something other than tabloid newspapers. I know the Sun has p3, but that doesn't make it a reliable source. Lmao. Inflation is down. Spending in October was up relative both to September and to October of last year. Also, why are you scoffing at Italian wine exports when a few pages ago you were talking about how amazingly valuable Scottish whiskey exports were?
... That doesn't make sense buddy. Scottish Whisky will always be sold because it is the best. Italian wine will always be sold because it is one of the best. I'm scoffing at Boris Johnson actually using that as an argument.
|
What is this commonwealth talk aha. When UK is ok nobody mentions that, when UK is 'down' and suddenly it becomes the backup plan? Even india wont say yes easily anymore if Theresa doesnt allow for worker movement.
And Trump can potentially be good for brexit, like he was saying UK can skip the queue etc; but then this is Trump we are talking about, will UK really go so low to rely on someone like Trump. More so Trump is like an uncertain time bomb, today he says Yes, tomorrow he says No, kind reminder that english hates that kind of attitude so much.
|
The U.K. is in the unfortunate position of being a dependent island nation that has little recourse for its major gripes with the EU. It needs the EU more than the EU needs it, even if both would be horribly burnt by a poor break. Though if the EU is as much of a sinking ship as the Eurosceptics believe, then a hard landing is inevitable either way and it's better to give some serious thought about how Britain will align itself afterwards.
|
'The UK economy faces a period of significantly higher import prices on the back of a record slump in the pound, one of the deputy governors of the Bank of England has said, hinting policymakers were less willing to tolerate a sterling-induced inflation rise.
The pound’s 11 per cent fall against the dollar in the two days after the Brexit vote marked the sharpest depreciation since 1967, said Ben Broadbent, who warned the weakening exchange rate would exert “significant upward pressure on import prices”.
Input prices faced by UK manufacturers have soared to decade-highs in the months following the referendum, leading to concerns that consumer spending is set to be squeezed next year.
The BoE changed tack in its latest economic outlook, saying it was less willing to tolerate a sustained inflation overshoot in the wake of sterling’s 20 per cent decline against the dollar this year.
Mr Broadbent said there was a large lag time between the sterling-driven rise in import prices to consumers prices, “long enough, in principle, for monetary policy to do something about them”:
It’s not clear policy is impotent in the face of such events; nor is it clear, even in the absence of “second-round” effects on inflation expectations, that policymakers should be indifferent to them
According to one of the BoE’s models, it would take a 0.5 percentage point rise in interest rates to prevent inflation from rising in the wake of a sharp depreciation.
“It’s technically feasible, at least according to this model, to keep inflation pretty close to target after a significant depreciation in the exchange rate. It’s just rather costly in terms of unemployment,” he said.'
Source : www.ft.com
|
On November 18 2016 05:13 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2016 03:29 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 17 2016 21:30 bardtown wrote:
Mythical with more mythology. The judges don't get to decide any such thing. They will decide whether or not triggering A50 must go through parliament, and every significant Labour figure has already said they won't block A50.
Trump is good for Brexit and bad for the EU. Also: inflation down, unemployment down, consumer spending significantly up. They won't block it depending on what the government plans to negotiate. The monkey with blond hair seems to think that Italy should be more open to a favourable trade deal due to wine exports. Trump is good for Brexit because he is the USA's version of Brexit. A time warp back 40 years. Inflation is not down. Unemployment is, however benefit claims are up (long live 0 hour contracts? lol..). Consumer spending would be up wouldn't it? It's Christmas in 1.5 months. Also an SC judge has said it would be more problematic as they will need to draw up legislation to supercede the 1972 act which is the part that would take severely longer than previously estimated. Maybe you should try reading something other than tabloid newspapers. I know the Sun has p3, but that doesn't make it a reliable source. Lmao. Inflation is down. Spending in October was up relative both to September and to October of last year. Also, why are you scoffing at Italian wine exports when a few pages ago you were talking about how amazingly valuable Scottish whiskey exports were?
Ofc. UK's still a full member of the EU.
|
He doesn't grasp that.
In reality it most likely won't even happen, it just served to disunite the UK and piss off its' closest allies.
|
Jesus fucking christ.
User was warned for this post
|
A bill giving the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months from inside parliament and barely any from outside.
The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US.
The security agencies and police began the year braced for at least some opposition, rehearsing arguments for the debate. In the end, faced with public apathy and an opposition in disarray, the government did not have to make a single substantial concession to the privacy lobby.
[...]
The Investigatory Powers Act legalises powers that the security agencies and police had been using for years without making this clear to either the public or parliament. In October, the investigatory powers tribunal, the only court that hears complaints against MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, ruled that they had been unlawfully collecting massive volumes of confidential personal data without proper oversight for 17 years.
One of the negative aspects of the legislation is that it fails to provide adequate protection for journalists’ sources, which could discourage whistleblowing.
One of the few positives in the legislation is that it sets out clearly for the first time the surveillance powers available to the intelligence services and the police. It legalises hacking by the security agencies into computers and mobile phones and allows them access to masses of stored personal data, even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Privacy groups are challenging the surveillance powers in the European court of human rights and elsewhere.
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
[...]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper
|
On November 20 2016 03:47 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +A bill giving the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months from inside parliament and barely any from outside.
The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US.
The security agencies and police began the year braced for at least some opposition, rehearsing arguments for the debate. In the end, faced with public apathy and an opposition in disarray, the government did not have to make a single substantial concession to the privacy lobby.
[...]
The Investigatory Powers Act legalises powers that the security agencies and police had been using for years without making this clear to either the public or parliament. In October, the investigatory powers tribunal, the only court that hears complaints against MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, ruled that they had been unlawfully collecting massive volumes of confidential personal data without proper oversight for 17 years.
One of the negative aspects of the legislation is that it fails to provide adequate protection for journalists’ sources, which could discourage whistleblowing.
One of the few positives in the legislation is that it sets out clearly for the first time the surveillance powers available to the intelligence services and the police. It legalises hacking by the security agencies into computers and mobile phones and allows them access to masses of stored personal data, even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Privacy groups are challenging the surveillance powers in the European court of human rights and elsewhere.
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
[...] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper
Serious question: is any of this related to why people refer to the PM as Theresa "police state" May? If not, where does that come from?
|
On November 20 2016 04:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 03:47 Dan HH wrote:A bill giving the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months from inside parliament and barely any from outside.
The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US.
The security agencies and police began the year braced for at least some opposition, rehearsing arguments for the debate. In the end, faced with public apathy and an opposition in disarray, the government did not have to make a single substantial concession to the privacy lobby.
[...]
The Investigatory Powers Act legalises powers that the security agencies and police had been using for years without making this clear to either the public or parliament. In October, the investigatory powers tribunal, the only court that hears complaints against MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, ruled that they had been unlawfully collecting massive volumes of confidential personal data without proper oversight for 17 years.
One of the negative aspects of the legislation is that it fails to provide adequate protection for journalists’ sources, which could discourage whistleblowing.
One of the few positives in the legislation is that it sets out clearly for the first time the surveillance powers available to the intelligence services and the police. It legalises hacking by the security agencies into computers and mobile phones and allows them access to masses of stored personal data, even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Privacy groups are challenging the surveillance powers in the European court of human rights and elsewhere.
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
[...] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper Serious question: is any of this related to why people refer to the PM as Theresa "police state" May? If not, where does that come from?
It is, yes. She proposed a similar bill about 4 years ago but it was eventually blocked in parliament, then after the general election last year she revived it as this current bill mentioned in the article.
|
On November 20 2016 04:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 03:47 Dan HH wrote:A bill giving the UK intelligence agencies and police the most sweeping surveillance powers in the western world has passed into law with barely a whimper, meeting only token resistance over the past 12 months from inside parliament and barely any from outside.
The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US.
The security agencies and police began the year braced for at least some opposition, rehearsing arguments for the debate. In the end, faced with public apathy and an opposition in disarray, the government did not have to make a single substantial concession to the privacy lobby.
[...]
The Investigatory Powers Act legalises powers that the security agencies and police had been using for years without making this clear to either the public or parliament. In October, the investigatory powers tribunal, the only court that hears complaints against MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, ruled that they had been unlawfully collecting massive volumes of confidential personal data without proper oversight for 17 years.
One of the negative aspects of the legislation is that it fails to provide adequate protection for journalists’ sources, which could discourage whistleblowing.
One of the few positives in the legislation is that it sets out clearly for the first time the surveillance powers available to the intelligence services and the police. It legalises hacking by the security agencies into computers and mobile phones and allows them access to masses of stored personal data, even if the person under scrutiny is not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Privacy groups are challenging the surveillance powers in the European court of human rights and elsewhere.
Jim Killock, the executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. The state has unprecedented powers to monitor and analyse UK citizens’ communications regardless of whether we are suspected of any criminal activity.”
[...] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper Serious question: is any of this related to why people refer to the PM as Theresa "police state" May? If not, where does that come from?
Of course it is. She's been trying to get this legislation through for years. Now she has had the chance to sneak it through parliament and because she's the epitome of a dishonest secretive politician she took it straight away. Interesting seeing as the tories on here were saying she's not that bad.
Just wait until she gets the chance to separate the UK from the ECHR. That's the end of human rights in the UK. I wouldn't trust this incompetent childish government to set their own rules. They have proved over and over again that they don't take their responsibilities seriously and couldn't care less about the population.
Don't get me wrong, I disliked Cameron, but May is a whole different ball game. She's evil and has managed to present herself very differently in the media.
|
I was wondering why she was so set to remove the ECHR and now we know why. To prevent ECHR challenging her pet project. Theresa May is dangerous and is acting against British interests. Our rights once removed will be harder to recover.
|
One of the main reasons for her wanting us to remove ECHR is revenge. When she was home secretary she was left humiliated after spending millions trying to deport a terrorist to Libya. The ECHR decided he was at risk of being tortured and May was left very embarrassed by the whole thing. Ever since then she has been out for her petty vengeance at the expense of our people, who all gain legal protection against the government from the ECHR.
|
On November 20 2016 05:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I was wondering why she was so set to remove the ECHR and now we know why. To prevent ECHR challenging her pet project. Theresa May is dangerous and is acting against British interests. Our rights once removed will be harder to recover.
While its easy to entirely blame May for this, it still had to pass a vote aswell, those voting in favor carry just as much blame.
|
http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-quietly-sneaks-correction-admitting-blatantly-lied-run-war-syria/
Nine months after its successful Syria smear campaign, the BBC has been forced to come clean. A story about a peaceful protest outside an MP’s office had been bent into propaganda to promote a war. Now that we have the war the BBC can admit the truth. In a correction snuck onto their website they have admitted that the smear on anti-war activists as violent thugs was untrue.
As the vote on bombing Syria approached there was increasing scepticism about the bombing campaign. An initially supportive public were slowly remembering the lessons of Iraq and Libya and were feeling apprehensive about another sortie. They needed galvanising behind the war to protect MPs from reprisals at the ballot box. Something had to be done.
A peaceful protest outside Stella Creasy’s unoccupied Walthamstow office became a show of intimidation and violence outside her occupied home. Peaceful protestors became a “hard-left hate mob” and perhaps most bizarrely “vicars, imams and net trolls.” Famously violent people, vicars.
MPs were asked to denounce and criticise such behaviour. Tom Watson suggested that any Labour member on the demonstration would be expelled. Diane Abbott said that “protesting outside someone’s home is too far” and she’s right, but that never happened.
The story was a way for the BBC and the rest of the media to delegitimise the anti-war view by tying it inexorably to a group of thugs. Actually, not even a group of thugs but an image of a group of thugs. Regardless of the truth of the story you have Labour’s deputy leader suggesting that members be expelled without anyone knowing the truth.
|
On November 20 2016 19:38 Jockmcplop wrote:http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-quietly-sneaks-correction-admitting-blatantly-lied-run-war-syria/Show nested quote +Nine months after its successful Syria smear campaign, the BBC has been forced to come clean. A story about a peaceful protest outside an MP’s office had been bent into propaganda to promote a war. Now that we have the war the BBC can admit the truth. In a correction snuck onto their website they have admitted that the smear on anti-war activists as violent thugs was untrue.
As the vote on bombing Syria approached there was increasing scepticism about the bombing campaign. An initially supportive public were slowly remembering the lessons of Iraq and Libya and were feeling apprehensive about another sortie. They needed galvanising behind the war to protect MPs from reprisals at the ballot box. Something had to be done.
A peaceful protest outside Stella Creasy’s unoccupied Walthamstow office became a show of intimidation and violence outside her occupied home. Peaceful protestors became a “hard-left hate mob” and perhaps most bizarrely “vicars, imams and net trolls.” Famously violent people, vicars.
MPs were asked to denounce and criticise such behaviour. Tom Watson suggested that any Labour member on the demonstration would be expelled. Diane Abbott said that “protesting outside someone’s home is too far” and she’s right, but that never happened.
The story was a way for the BBC and the rest of the media to delegitimise the anti-war view by tying it inexorably to a group of thugs. Actually, not even a group of thugs but an image of a group of thugs. Regardless of the truth of the story you have Labour’s deputy leader suggesting that members be expelled without anyone knowing the truth.
How much of a trustworthy news source is this site? Never heard of it and all the headlines are click bait?
|
On November 20 2016 22:36 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 19:38 Jockmcplop wrote:http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-quietly-sneaks-correction-admitting-blatantly-lied-run-war-syria/Nine months after its successful Syria smear campaign, the BBC has been forced to come clean. A story about a peaceful protest outside an MP’s office had been bent into propaganda to promote a war. Now that we have the war the BBC can admit the truth. In a correction snuck onto their website they have admitted that the smear on anti-war activists as violent thugs was untrue.
As the vote on bombing Syria approached there was increasing scepticism about the bombing campaign. An initially supportive public were slowly remembering the lessons of Iraq and Libya and were feeling apprehensive about another sortie. They needed galvanising behind the war to protect MPs from reprisals at the ballot box. Something had to be done.
A peaceful protest outside Stella Creasy’s unoccupied Walthamstow office became a show of intimidation and violence outside her occupied home. Peaceful protestors became a “hard-left hate mob” and perhaps most bizarrely “vicars, imams and net trolls.” Famously violent people, vicars.
MPs were asked to denounce and criticise such behaviour. Tom Watson suggested that any Labour member on the demonstration would be expelled. Diane Abbott said that “protesting outside someone’s home is too far” and she’s right, but that never happened.
The story was a way for the BBC and the rest of the media to delegitimise the anti-war view by tying it inexorably to a group of thugs. Actually, not even a group of thugs but an image of a group of thugs. Regardless of the truth of the story you have Labour’s deputy leader suggesting that members be expelled without anyone knowing the truth. How much of a trustworthy news source is this site? Never heard of it and all the headlines are click bait?
I'll be honest, I have no idea.
My dad posted it on facebook and he's fairly well informed. I'll have a look around and see if I can find anything better.
I have found this:
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/14619781.BBC_admits__significant_inaccuracies__in_coverage_of_Syria_peace_vigil/
and this:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/09/bbc-quietly-owns-blatant-propaganda-lies/
In fact, if you go here:
http://www.live.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/corrections_april_september_2016
and look at the entry from 8 July 2016, its all there on the BBC website.
|
On November 20 2016 05:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 05:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I was wondering why she was so set to remove the ECHR and now we know why. To prevent ECHR challenging her pet project. Theresa May is dangerous and is acting against British interests. Our rights once removed will be harder to recover. While its easy to entirely blame May for this, it still had to pass a vote aswell, those voting in favor carry just as much blame.
Not as much but some.
I don't understand the ignorant thinking of how she can possibly assume that there will be a soft brexit transitional period into a real favourable hard brexit.
The other EU countries are poised to take revenge. There is no way in hell anything to do with this leader will ever be for the better. Even for a tory she is vile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
