SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Job]

If that isnt a 'thing' ..god knows what is.

 

[Job]

Einstein went over there and reported back the very description of racism.
Calling out an entire nation from his small observations..with little interaction with the individuals.
Lo and behold many Chinese agree, they are being racist against their own ancestors...which does not bode well for their future interactions with the world.

 

[Scouse]

If that isnt a 'thing' ..god knows what is.

What. A guy who died nearly 70 years ago once wrote some things in a private diary and people are interpreting them how they want?

Yep. Massive.

 

[Job]

Lol..irrelevant because he painted himself as a humanitarian..a leftie hero.
OK lets apply that to Enoch Powell...nah he was a fucking evil Nazi .
Einstien racist?
It was a long time ago..things were different then.

 

[Scouse]

I don't recall Einstein coming out and talking about rivers of blood.

When you are a person of influence trying to build a better world then the opinions you express in public and the actions you perform are what matter, not what private personal demons you struggle with as a complex human being.

Intellectually Einstein absolutely knew the perils of racism - which is why the actions he performed were the actions of a humanitarian.

Pointing at him like a schoolkid and going "look look - he thought racist thoughts!, therefore we're all clearly racist!!!" is retarded - because, regardless of what he arguably was expressing (and having read it, it's way open to interpretation, and the man has no right of reply right now) - his actions throughout his life are far more important in defining who he was and what he stood for.

 

[Scouse]

Five generations to reach average income.

Another report that says social mobility is utterly broken in the UK. Which is no surprise. The rich are clearly getting richer and the poor are becoming more locked in to their poverty, and all the intellectual, social and physiological issues that brings with it. (They're poorly educated, they're lives are fraught with conflict and they're unhealthier and die earlier).

Normally when we discuss this sort of thing we immediately polarise into the @Bodhi n Raven side of "fuck paying more tax, people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and my apparently hippy "need structural changes in society" waffle, that immediately gets dismissed as communist (with champagne, of course).

Reading that article reminded me of a Tedx talk about where in the world is it easiest to get rich the other night. Interesting and evidence based, which shines a light on which of those polarised viewpoints is closer to the correct course, with, of course, massive implications for the above.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU


Worth 15 minutes of your life.

 

[Moriath]

Obviously something is fundamentally broken with capitalism as a way of working when a few can own most of the wealth. And millions are at or below the poverty level.

There are always exceptions to the rule. My dad was only a policeman and retired on around 30k. His parents worked in factories. My mum only had part time jobs.

I was the first in our family to go to uni and was earning what my dad finished on by the time i was 26.

I know not near the poverty level. But when i was born we lived hand to mouth. Pay cheque to pay cheque. So it is possible to better yourself and your situation.

But its not easy and many cant do it and remain in poverty like their parent.

We need some sort of sharing of the riches. The trickle down doesnt.

 

[Bodhi]

We don't actually live in a true capitalist society sadly, what we have now is crony capitalism where the money ends up in the hands of a select few cronies, in true capitalism this doesn;t happen - it ends up in the hands of anyone who can create value in society.

And trickle-down economics isn't really a serious economic theory put forward by any serious economist - it's mostly brought up by anti-capitalists ime.

There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics | Steven Horwitz

 

[Job]

My mate works for BT and 'lost' his van..well he forgot where he had parked it..do he gets out his BT tablet and tracks it to a side road.
Then he shows me the info on the tracking app.
Holy mother of god..we went past 1984 a decade ago.
Ever single worker in his group pops up and you click on more info and it shows wether the engine is running and if people are sat in the seats..plus a timeline of travel and seat occupation.
All viewable by the bosses against timelined stats of when you get a job and even which frickin door you open to get your tools.
Total survelliance...wheres the fuckin EU court of workers humanitarian rights for this shit...the EU love it though...Gallileo up and running ..track everyone day and night.

 

[Deebs]

My mate works for BT and 'lost' his van..well he forgot where he had parked it..do he gets out his BT tablet and tracks it to a side road.
Then he shows me the info on the tracking app.
Holy mother of god..we went past 1984 a decade ago.
Ever single worker in his group pops up and you click on more info and it shows wether the engine is running and if people are sat in the seats..plus a timeline of travel and seat occupation.
All viewable by the bosses against timelined stats of when you get a job and even which frickin door you open to get your tools.
Total survelliance...wheres the fuckin EU court of workers humanitarian rights for this shit...the EU love it though...Gallileo up and running ..track everyone day and night.

Most companies which operate large fleets of vehicles use this technology. The company I work for has it in the contract so you know when you accept the job. They even record the g-forces so they know if you go to fast round corners or roundabouts etc.

What BT need to fix is the ability to view data about other drivers as that clearly is wrong, and if they display the driver name, in breach of GDPR.

 

[Gwadien]

New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP

'Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.'

'Maybe we should leave this one alone Chris'

'No, we have a cause, old chap!'

 

[Deebs]

New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP

'Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.'

'Maybe we should leave this one alone Chris'

'No, we have a cause, old chap!'

The bloke is a cunt and the Bill should have passed.

 

[Moriath]

The bloke is a cunt and the Bill should have passed.

Should it? I think a clarification on another law. Enraging public decency. Or anti social behaviour should be used and not making another law when it could be controlled by other things already on the books.

Otherwise we end up with very specific laws and thousands of them. Always adding another when something else anti social happens.

I dont believe the police could not have bought any charge against the guys who did it to the mp. They just didnt have the time or inclination to persue it. Which is different from saying there was nothing they could do.

 

[Deebs]

Should it? I think a clarification on another law. Enraging public decency. Or anti social behaviour should be used and not making another law when it could be controlled by other things already on the books.

Otherwise we end up with very specific laws and thousands of them. Always adding another when something else anti social happens.

I dont believe the police could not have bought any charge against the guys who did it to the mp. They just didnt have the time or inclination to persue it. Which is different from saying there was nothing they could do.

What? Taking a picture up a women's skirt should be illegal. That is a simple fact. There is no need for a debate. It is just wrong. Pure and simple. We already have thousands of laws to follow.

 

[Scouse]

What? Taking a picture up a women's skirt should be illegal. That is a simple fact. There is no need for a debate. It is just wrong. Pure and simple. We already have thousands of laws to follow.

We do already have thousands of laws. He could have been prosecuted under one of them, I'm sure.

 

[Deebs]

We do already have thousands of laws. He could have been prosecuted under one of them, I'm sure.

Really? The unknown taking of a picture up a girls skirt was unheard off until cameras became more mobile. Ala mobile phones. Hopefully I will be standing in a queue with your missus and I have my phone in my hand and silently take a picture of her gash in knickers or even better not.

 

[Job]

I don't recall Einstein coming out and talking about rivers of blood.

When you are a person of influence trying to build a better world then the opinions you express in public and the actions you perform are what matter, not what private personal demons you struggle with as a complex human being.

Intellectually Einstein absolutely knew the perils of racism - which is why the actions he performed were the actions of a humanitarian.

Pointing at him like a schoolkid and going "look look - he thought racist thoughts!, therefore we're all clearly racist!!!" is retarded - because, regardless of what he arguably was expressing (and having read it, it's way open to interpretation, and the man has no right of reply right now) - his actions throughout his life are far more important in defining who he was and what he stood for.

Boloks..firsrly he never saud rive4s of blood..but whatever...Enoch made his fears public...Einstein pretended to be a humanitarian and behind the scenes was a racist as the next guy.
Which exactly is better.
I'll tell you, the open honest man...but for some reason the liar is looked up to cos his lies fit the program.
Feel free to continue supporting your fantasy world..I prefer to deal with people who air their true selves.

 

[Scouse]

Really? The unknown taking of a picture up a girls skirt was unheard off until cameras became more mobile. Ala mobile phones. Hopefully I will be standing in a queue with your missus and I have my phone in my hand and silently take a picture of her gash in knickers or even better not.

You seem to be taking it a bit personally Deebs.

Yep, blokes who do that are cunts. That's not up for debate. But Moriath made the point about plod not prosecuting - probably because they couldn't be arsed, so...

 

[Deebs]

You seem to be taking it a bit personally Deebs.

Yep, blokes who do that are cunts. That's not up for debate. But Moriath made the point about plod not prosecuting - probably because they couldn't be arsed, so...

Not personal to me. The law change would have allowed plod to prosecute instead of looking at alternative methods.

 

[Gwadien]

You seem to be taking it a bit personally Deebs.

Yep, blokes who do that are cunts. That's not up for debate. But Moriath made the point about plod not prosecuting - probably because they couldn't be arsed, so...

Yes, the Police are unable to do anything because there wasn't a law covering it. Now there is.

Those cunts are only blocking to make it easier for their descendants to read law.

 

[gohan]

I think the issue they have prosecuting under a different law is clarity. For instance, can it be an invasion of privacy when it's in a public place? Is it a form of sexual assault when he hasn't had to physically touch her or her possessions? For every law you could prosecute under there will be a loophole that makes it invalid. This kind of line in the sand law eliminates any grey areas and gives offenders nowhere to hide.

 

[Gwadien]

the actual f u c k


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Qbwz0Uik8

 

[gohan]

the actual f u c k


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Qbwz0Uik8

yeah I can't even do one Rubix cube sat down with 4 years to spare. Or juggle..... Or do anything that can be considered a talent.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think the issue they have prosecuting under a different law is clarity. For instance, can it be an invasion of privacy when it's in a public place? Is it a form of sexual assault when he hasn't had to physically touch her or her possessions? For every law you could prosecute under there will be a loophole that makes it invalid. This kind of line in the sand law eliminates any grey areas and gives offenders nowhere to hide.

That's not how English law works. If someone is prosecuted under statute X and the judge convicts, that becomes precedent for further cases. The whole point of the Common Law approach is you don't need a million prescriptive laws for everything, the cases help adapt existing laws over time by setting new precedents. Ironically its one of the things that sets the UK apart from the Codified legal approach that covers most of Europe, and yet every time a new category of crime evolves everyone starts screaming "we need new laws". No, we don't, we usually just need a willingness to present new cases.

 

[Scouse]

The law change would have allowed plod to prosecute instead of looking at alternative methods.

Yes, the Police are unable to do anything because there wasn't a law covering it. Now there is.

Those cunts are only blocking to make it easier for their descendants to read law.

I still think plod could probably prosecute, but frankly don't want to or can't be arsed. But maybe I'm wrong.

Aside from that the interesting thing is - @Gwadien - why has he blocked it? It's been met with universal outrage, yep, but I'd like to know his reasons behind it in the first place.

Look at your reason - yep, it's flippant - but think about it. Most MPs aren't going to put their head above the parapet for no good reason.

I'd love to know his reasons. Maybe he's got a point of view we've not thought of and felt strongly enough about it that he's forced the law to be looked at more closely (because that's what he's done, he's not "blocked" it - just delayed it).

 

[Moriath]

What? Taking a picture up a women's skirt should be illegal. That is a simple fact. There is no need for a debate. It is just wrong. Pure and simple. We already have thousands of laws to follow.

I am not saying it should be legal. Neither is @Scouse we are just saying that it should be covered under other laws.

Like there is no specific law for being naked in the street in the uk. But if they want to they can arrest you for public decency or anti social behaviour.

Just because something is wrong doesnt mean it needs a specific law to target it. It can be covered by laws that already exist.

Oh and two years in jail as a maximum scentence is wayyy to harsh as well. Until recently it was 5 years for carrying a knife. I think taking a pic is less than half as serious as that.

 

[Moriath]

Not personal to me. The law change would have allowed plod to prosecute instead of looking at alternative methods.

The only reason this got anywhere near parliament is because it happened to an MP.

@DaGaffer has the point spot on.

 

[dysfunction]

What amazes me more is why this wasn't a prosecution offence earlier.

 

[Moriath]

What amazes me more is why this wasn't a prosecution offence earlier.

It was just under different legislation.

 

[CorNokZ]

Just your average American