|
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 May 30 2014 04:31 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Are you saying that they are wrong in all situations and dosages?
Well , yeah. I think there isn't a lot of difference between one racist or another. It's a very ideological question after all. Either you promote an open society where everyone has equal rights and is equally respected, or you think certain groups of people should have more rights and privileges and/or are more respectable.
I don't think there's a lot of middle-ground to cover, it's pretty hard to be a half-racist. I don't think the polarity stems from the fact that 'political-correctness' forces people to join one of two camps, I think it's such a polarized issue because racism and homophobia are simply not much more than a irrational expression of fear towards unknown people or people that interfere with your religious belief system. It's a pretty simple concept.
|
Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation.
Source
|
On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source
Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in?
|
On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in?
Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want.
|
On June 25 2014 10:25 Gator.Butters wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in? Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want.
wow, I did know that there was no single constitution, but I always assumed there was some kind of equivalent to what other countries consider "constitutional rights".
|
On June 25 2014 10:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2014 10:25 Gator.Butters wrote:On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in? Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want. wow, I did know that there was no single constitution, but I always assumed there was some kind of equivalent to what other countries consider "constitutional rights".
Back in the late 80's there was a movement for something equivalent to the American Bill of Rights, called Charter 88. Here's a link to the original text if you are interested.
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/pages/the-original-charter-88
It's closely linked to the British republican movement, in that it seeks to abolish the British monarchy and instill a fully republican government.
|
David Cameron has failed in his attempt to block the nomination of arch-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker as the next president of the European Commission, as he was outvoted by fellow EU leaders at a Brussels summit.
The vote came after the prime minister made a last-ditch bid to persuade the leaders of the other 27 member states to think again, warning them that they would "live to regret" the way in which the former Luxembourg PM has secured the EU's top job.
Juncker's nomination - which must be confirmed by a vote in the European Parliament - was announced by European Council president Herman van Rompuy in a message on his official Twitter feed.
"Decision made. The European Council proposes Jean-Claude Juncker as the next President of the European Commission," wrote van Rompuy.
Juncker's nomination was approved by a margin of 26-2, with only Cameron and Hungarian PM Viktor Orban opposed, said British officials.
The vote represented a departure from the decades-old tradition that Commission presidents are chosen by consensus of national heads of government.
The PM insisted on a vote being taken and formally minuted, in order to force fellow leaders to put their cards on the table and have their support for the controversial Luxembourger recorded.
Source
|
On June 25 2014 10:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2014 10:25 Gator.Butters wrote:On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in? Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want. wow, I did know that there was no single constitution, but I always assumed there was some kind of equivalent to what other countries consider "constitutional rights".
It's quite funny imho considering Britain (a monarchy without anything close to a constitution) is the first to blame to lack of democracy in EU...Irony at its best...
|
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken part in rallies and marches across the UK as part of a day of strike action by public service unions.
Teachers, firefighters and council workers joined the strike, which follows disputes with the government over pay, pensions and cuts.
Thousands of pupils were affected as some 6,000 schools in England closed, the Department for Education said.
The Cabinet Office described the action as "irresponsible".
But Trades Union Congress (TUC) general secretary Frances O'Grady said workers had gone on strike "to say enough is enough".
The GMB and Unison unions said more than one million people had taken part in the strikes.
But Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said fewer than 500,000 had participated.
And a government spokesman said "most" public sector workers had reported for work and "nearly all key public services" were delivered as normal.
Source
|
On June 28 2014 06:22 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2014 10:29 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 10:25 Gator.Butters wrote:On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in? Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want. wow, I did know that there was no single constitution, but I always assumed there was some kind of equivalent to what other countries consider "constitutional rights". It's quite funny imho considering Britain (a monarchy without anything close to a constitution) is the first to blame to lack of democracy in EU...Irony at its best...
The whole democracy argument against the EU is a red herring anyway. Juncker will be elected because of the support of the EP, the most of democratic institution of the EU. Yet he was opposed by the UK government exactly because of this: they would prefer undemocratic consultation between governments, not officials with strong democratic mandates.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
would the UK be a better democracy without the queen and her estate.
|
On July 11 2014 06:30 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2014 06:22 Agathon wrote:On June 25 2014 10:29 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 10:25 Gator.Butters wrote:On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in? Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want. wow, I did know that there was no single constitution, but I always assumed there was some kind of equivalent to what other countries consider "constitutional rights". It's quite funny imho considering Britain (a monarchy without anything close to a constitution) is the first to blame to lack of democracy in EU...Irony at its best... France is currently considered a "flawed democracy". UK is rated ahead of France, the US, and quite a damn lot of European nations. Please explain to me how you possibly came to your conclusion? Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27310566 and http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Democracy0814
for this discussion to make some sense you first need to define what you think 'democracy' really is about. France doesn't score so well because it's a very centralized country (which in my opinion isn't necessarily a good indicator) and because the people are so dissatisfied with the situation (which is also questionable and hard to measure).
I think really meaningful indicators today are minority rights, a working legal system, low corruption and stuff like that. I think much of the friction in France and the UK stems from the fact that they still hang on to their national authority to much in regards to Europe and that especially in France, statism and cultural pride seem to get in the way of modernizing the country.
|
|
|
On July 11 2014 19:39 SatedSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 09:44 Nyxisto wrote:On July 11 2014 06:30 SatedSC2 wrote:On June 28 2014 06:22 Agathon wrote:On June 25 2014 10:29 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 10:25 Gator.Butters wrote:On June 25 2014 08:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 25 2014 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Cigarettes sales to anyone born after the year 2000 will become illegal in the United Kingdom if doctors secure enough legislative support for a radical new policy they are promoting, the British Medical Association (BMA) said in a news release.
BMA delegates voted in favor of the move at the group’s annual conference on Tuesday. The motion called on the board to review the potential health effects of a policy “banning forever the sale of cigarettes to people born after a certain year,” such as 2000.
It also called on the BMA to lobby the government for implementation of the ban if the review shows it would have health benefits.
“It is not expected that this policy will instantly prevent all people from smoking, but (rather it will) de-normalize cigarette smoking,” Tim Crocker-Burque, London research assistant in academic public health and BMA member, said in the release.
Eighty percent of smokers start the habit as teenagers, Crocker-Burque said, and if the ban is enforced it could create the first tobacco-free generation. Source Is it even constitutional in the UK to give people different rights depending on which year they're born in? Considering there's no written constitution, your question is somewhat of a moot point. More plainly, yes parliament can do whatever they want. wow, I did know that there was no single constitution, but I always assumed there was some kind of equivalent to what other countries consider "constitutional rights". It's quite funny imho considering Britain (a monarchy without anything close to a constitution) is the first to blame to lack of democracy in EU...Irony at its best... France is currently considered a "flawed democracy". UK is rated ahead of France, the US, and quite a damn lot of European nations. Please explain to me how you possibly came to your conclusion? Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27310566 and http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Democracy0814 for this discussion to make some sense you first need to define what you think 'democracy' really is about. France doesn't score so well because it's a very centralized country (which in my opinion isn't necessarily a good indicator) and because the people are so dissatisfied with the situation (which is also questionable and hard to measure). One user made a ridiculous claim about Britain and got completely shot down for it. There was no discussion.
Based on your style of argument you don't seem to be the kind of person who would take the time to read a 50 page report, let alone evaluate it critically. Am I right?
|
A former Tory activist who claims to have been personally involved in finding rent boys to ‘entertain’ eminent Conservative politicians in the 1980s has offered to give evidence to the Butler-Sloss inquiry into sex abuse.
Anthony Gilberthorpe, who chaired the Stroud Young Conservatives in the early 1980s, has told the Sunday Mirror that during the Conservative annual conference in Blackpool, in 1983, he was given “about £120” by the then chairman of the Scottish Conservatives, Dr Alistair Smith, who told him: “Go and fetch some entertainment.”
He said that it was “a norm” at that time that some older members of the Tory party would hold parties at which young men – often under 21, which was then the age of consent for gay sex – were paid to take part.
He gave the newspaper the names of several Conservative politicians who he alleged were at these parties, including the then Attorney General, Michael Havers, who was the brother of Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the judge who has been given the task of leading the inquiry. The four whose names were published by the Sunday Mirror – Smith, Havers, Keith Joseph and Rhodes Boyson – are all dead. The newspaper says that Mr Gilberthorpe also named one politician who is still a serving minister, and two who served as Cabinet ministers under Margaret Thatcher.
Source
|
United States43984 Posts
As sleazy as it obviously is I don't see anything especially heinous about the rich and powerful having sex with 20 year old male prostitutes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
isn't there a big anti-pedo campaign in the UK. this satire show did a series on it. not that it's directly related to this
|
United States43984 Posts
Not so much anti-pedo, we were always not keen on pedophilia, but rather a series of scandals exposing institutional protection and complicity to high profile abusers which has triggered a backlash.
|
On July 14 2014 06:04 KwarK wrote:
As sleazy as it obviously is I don't see anything especially heinous about the rich and powerful having sex with 20 year old male prostitutes.
the article says that the prostitutes at the time were under the age of consent, so that would make it illegal, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
