SPAM random annoying things

[old.user4556]

That amused me greatly

 

[DaGaffer]

That amused me greatly

Me too, but the hypocrisy is just breathtaking; especially from "Saint" JPII.

 

[Zarjazz]

Since almost all porn sites aren't even hosted in the UK how is it even enforceable?

 

[MYstIC G]

BBC 3, yes you've moved it online, no we don't give a shit, shut the fuck up about it. If they'd promoted it this heavily before it might not have needed to be thrown off the TV.

 

[Raven]

Or if it wasn't just filler. Complete waste of license payer money.

Its like one of those shitty freeview channels that just put utter bollocks on all day just for adverts.

 

[Raven]

Getting honey in my beard, I have washed my face 3 times now after having it on toast.

 

[Moriath]

Or if it wasn't just filler. Complete waste of license payer money.

Its like one of those shitty freeview channels that just put utter bollocks on all day just for adverts.

It wasnt aimed at your age demographic so no wonder you didnt like it. Just cause it didnt appeal to you doesnt mean it was a waste

 

[Moriath]

Getting honey in my beard, I have washed my face 3 times now after having it on toast.

Dont hav eit on toast then

 

[Scouse]

Tories ban freedom of conscience

 

[Tom]

I completely agree with the "ban". Foreign policy is a national responsibility. Local councils should concern themselves with running services, not taking political stands against foreign governments.

 

[Raven]

Sod off, anyone should be able to boycott goods or services from countries involved in illegal occupations. Public body or not.

 

[fettoken]

Tories ban freedom of conscience

So many levels of fucked up.

 

[Gwadien]

Surely foreign policy should be based upon the long-term reaction of the people.

For instance lots of people have been annoyed about Israel for a very long time, but our Government/s have repetitively taken the friendly approach.

 

[Scouse]

Foreign policy is a national responsibility.

Nothing to do with foreign policy - it's about where councils or national bodies buy their goods or make investments.

But sticking with local councils - different councils should be able to source their goods or make investments based on whatever criteria they like - and if they want to source / invest in ethical producers then that's absolutely fine. If we don't like it then we can vote them out.

Sticking with the purely illegal Israeli settlements angle though - even the EU now requires packaging changes to give people the ability to make purchases in line with their conscience.

Whilst it's palpably NOT about just Israel I happen to agree with this line in the article:

The UK chapter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement decried the coming ban, likening it to former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's "unwavering support of apartheid South Africa" in the 1980s.

For the Tories a large part of it will be about economically propping up their friends against the democratic wishes of the UK public.

 

[Gwadien]

Would that mean the councils can trade with Cuba (Not sure the current state of embargoes) or is it okay to deal with country with ethical issues, but not to deal with a country for ideological reasons?

 

[Raven]

The fact that there arent massive amounts of embargoes against Israel is criminal in itself.

 

[Scouse]

Would that mean the councils can trade with Cuba (Not sure the current state of embargoes) or is it okay to deal with country with ethical issues, but not to deal with a country for ideological reasons?

Freedom of conscience means you can make purchasing and investment decisions on a case-by-case basis - to be argued out by our democratically elected representatives.

The tories are shutting that argument down. In the case of Israel (which this is not specifically about) that means we have no choice but to purchase goods produced in illegal settlements and provide those settlements with financial support - regardless of how we feel about it.

 

[Gwadien]

Freedom of conscience means you can make purchasing and investment decisions on a case-by-case basis - to be argued out by our democratically elected representatives.

The tories are shutting that argument down. In the case of Israel (which this is not specifically about) that means we have no choice but to purchase goods produced in illegal settlements and provide those settlements with financial support - regardless of how we feel about it.

That's kind of my point.

It's okay for the Government to say 'no, you can't trade with this country' but we can't say 'no, we don't want to trade with this country'

 

[soze]

Freedom of conscience means you can make purchasing and investment decisions on a case-by-case basis - to be argued out by our democratically elected representatives.

The tories are shutting that argument down. In the case of Israel (which this is not specifically about) that means we have no choice but to purchase goods produced in illegal settlements and provide those settlements with financial support - regardless of how we feel about it.

Well you can't the head of procurement at the council can. And if he decides he supports Nazis he can start buying from them until you can vote him out. They should have rules on who they can and can't buy off. But the consumer still has the right to refuse any goods that you do not agree with. I think it is wrong but I can see why the government are taking this stance with what whether we like it or not is an ally.

 

[Tom]

Nothing to do with foreign policy - it's about where councils or national bodies buy their goods or make investments.

So what if you're a business trying to sell a service to your local council, and that council refuses to contract with you because you buy some of your stock from Israel?

That isn't fair. Trading with Israel is legal and a council has no right whatsoever to discriminate in this fashion. And frankly, I very much doubt a council would refuse to accept council tax from a taxpayer who trades with Israel, so it's bollocks anyway. China has a worse human rights record but you never see council officers whinging about where their phones come from.

 

[Gwadien]

So what if you're a business trying to sell a service to your local council, and that council refuses to contract with you because you buy some of your stock from Israel?

That isn't fair. Trading with Israel is legal and a council has no right whatsoever to discriminate in this fashion. And frankly, I very much doubt a council would refuse to accept council tax from a taxpayer who trades with Israel, so it's bollocks anyway. China has a worse human rights record but you never see council officers whinging about where their phones come from.

So what if it was the other way around?

What if a council wanted to trade with a Country which the Government didn't want them to?

This is a pretty centralising move really, in an increasingly decentralising era.

 

[Scouse]

So what if you're a business trying to sell a service to your local council, and that council refuses to contract with you because you buy some of your stock from Israel?

That isn't fair.

It's not only fair, it's proportionate and hugely common and widespread.

This is a pretty centralising move really

Don't fall into the bullshit about local councils being given more power. They're being given "power" in the sense that they get to make superficial decisions about seemingly important things - but it's the central government washing it's hands of responsibility for decisions it's already taken by alternative means (for example funding).

They can point at councils and say "it's their fault your hospitals aren't working".

Meanwhile, any important decisions are still taken centrally. It's a sham. A bit like our "democracy" as a whole.

 

[Gwadien]

I suppose in a non-Israel example, you could say that the Councils source fairtrade Bananas, but because the Government has a trade agreement with Niger, they feel obliged to use their bananas instead?

I don't know if Niger even produce bananas.

 

[Tom]

So what if it was the other way around?

What if a council wanted to trade with a Country which the Government didn't want them to?

This is a pretty centralising move really, in an increasingly decentralising era.

Foreign policy is decided by national government, not local. If a local government wants to trade with someone the national government says not to, then it's tough shit.

What next, local governments deciding "no blacks no Irish"?

 

[Scouse]

Foreign policy

It's not foreign policy.

It also counts for places they may purchase things in the UK. Or if they decide not to invest council money in a certain investment scheme because that scheme invests in coal, or tobacco.

Edit: But:

What next, local governments deciding "no blacks no Irish"?

Yes. If that's how they want to bow out of ever being in power again...

 

[soze]

It's not foreign policy.

It is though. Israel are an Ally our government have an interest in not pissing them off. And like it or not if Israel hear that 75% of our local councils are boycotting brands based on Palestine that will piss them off. So telling local councils they can't boycott the companies keeps an ally on side.

They are not saying they have to buy from them just that they can't boycott them? So nothing is stopping the Council getting a quote from these people but choosing a different company to go with?

 

[Tom]

It's not foreign policy.

I missed that they were also blocking local governments making ethical choices regarding coal, etc, but the fact remains that as far as Israel goes (or any other country), that's foreign policy and any council which discriminates along those lines will now find itself in trouble. And I think that's right.

As for ethical considerations, Manchester used to be a "nuclear free zone". As did Sheffield. And we all know what a pile of fetid shit those ideas were. Councils have a public duty to do the best for their populations. I don't think it's right that a council could invest money in a scheme that returns less profit but which is more ethical. Leave that to the lawmakers.

 

[Scouse]

any council which discriminates along those lines will now find itself in trouble. And I think that's right.

So, it was right that Thatcher supported the apartheid government and we funded it?

"Freedom of conscience" was my original post with the link - and that means free not to buy from products made in illegal settlements (not Israel, just the illegal settlements) - if it's against your conscience.

Or is it right that we should be forced to buy from racists again, for example?

As for ethical considerations .... I don't think it's right that a council could invest money in a scheme that returns less profit but which is more ethical.

Disagree strongly. That's exactly how capitalism is supposed to work - you don't buy from unethical producers - you enforce your values through your wallet.

To ban that means that you may have to buy from companies that produce and sell arms to fuel african conflict, or invest in companies that are drilling for oil in the arctic circle, or companies that repeatedly been found to have been killing babies since 1974...

Leave that to the lawyers and nothing will get done. Lawyers enforce the law. Money can enforce moral standards without any laws being present.

 

[Tom]

So, it was right that Thatcher supported the apartheid government and we funded it?

That isn't really anything to do with this.

"Freedom of conscience" was my original post with the link - and that means free not to buy from products made in illegal settlements (not Israel, just the illegal settlements) - if it's against your conscience.

They're perfectly free to buy from whoever they like, they just can't refuse to do business with someone they don't like on the grounds the government has set out. It isn't hard.

Or is it right that we should be forced to buy from racists again, for example?

Come on Scouse, that's a very poor argument.

Disagree strongly. That's exactly how capitalism is supposed to work - you don't buy from unethical producers - you enforce your values through your wallet.

To ban that means that you may have to buy from companies that produce and sell arms to fuel african conflict, or invest in companies that are drilling for oil in the arctic circle, or companies that repeatedly been found to have been killing babies since 1974...

Leave that to the lawyers and nothing will get done. Lawyers enforce the law. Money can enforce moral standards without any laws being present.

Meh, the UK is one of the world's leading arms manufacturers and flogs weapons to Saudi Arabia that are then used to kill civilians in Yemen. I'm not really seeing much of a distinction between us and some random company that sells arms to Africa, tbh. I'm not saying it's right, but you haven't really chosen a good example.

If you don't like councils trading with unethical companies then petition your MP to change the law so that standards are tightened up and whatever it is they're doing/selling is made illegal. Leaving it to David Blunkett and his red flag is a bit silly.

 

[Scouse]

That isn't really anything to do with this.

I disagree strongly. It's directly comparable. Israel has been accused of a form of apartheid. It is violently repressing a minority and denying them representation.

Aside from that, we're being forced to financially support areas of illegal settlement activity - not just the country - but the most contentious parts of it.

The comparison bears close scrutiny IMO. It's a direct and clear parallel.


As for the rest of your post, you're repeating yourself on some bits - but this:

If you don't like councils trading with unethical companies then petition your MP to change the law

What's the point? The actions that should be taken (ethical purchasing and investment) are already being taken - and the tories are changing the law so the councils are no longer free to take the ethical actions that they've always taken for granted.

Do you not get it? It's always been perfectly fine to act in this manner - but now Israel, big tobacco and the fossil fuel lobbies (through the multitude of high-level global divestment campaigns) are feeling the heat because capitalism is working as it should - the Tories are riding in like a white knight to protect their friends and their vested interests against grassroots financial pressure.


Freedom of conscience doesn't need to be lobbied for - we've already got it - it needs to be protected from the Tories.