781–790 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Pay this or we will concoct some criminal charges on your entire leadership team, append each of you to interpol lists and formally request your extradition” is probably a good start.
Good luck with that. The US has that power, the UK doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many western democracies where there no single ruling party. 'The government' is made by an alliance of many different parties (eg: 25% + 15% + 10% + 5%.) They might share a common overall view of the world but each party can have a very different take on many subjects. The actual government has to do only what all of them agree upon, and the 5% party may have a disproportionate weight because that party le…
This is not working. A few decades later the biggest party is like 50% of the politicians. My theory is that power accumulates like money so you end up having few people with all the power. It's not that original, I must've read it somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Wiki had the guts it'd leave the UK. Nothing will happen unless there's a backlash from the citizenry.
Wiki isn't the citizenry. And no one voted for this. When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions. And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go. This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it i…
I never said or implied it was. If Wiki packed up and deserted the UK we'd have an actual measure of the opposition. At the moment we don't.
"When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions."
I'm well aware of that. Also the argument that a politician when in government gets to see a broader picture than his or her constituency and thus may vote against its (narrower/sectional) wishes.
I'd also remind you of the perils of voting against the wishes of one's constituency. The famous case of the conservative Edmund Burke the Member for Bristol illustrates the point. He was summarily booted out at the following election for voting against the wishes of his voters.
If Wiki leaves it'll polarize the electorate, we'll then see what happens. If Wiki stays with some mushy compromise the issue won't be resolved.
At the moment democracy isn't working properly which allows vested and sectional interests to slip in and rule (and in this respect the UK is arguably the worst).
The other point is nothing frightens government more than truly angry voters. Trouble is, UK voters are so under the thumb of government they're frightened to show who is actually in charge in a democracy. De facto, the gnomes and bureaucrats rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? People make all kinds of empty promises to get into power.
True but all the other parties are currently saying that they 100% will not reconsider this stupid law[1]. I don’t like Farrage. At all. He’s also currently the only MP questioning this law and he’s making fair points about it. The government response is not a clever rebuttal but Jess Philips and Peter Kyle making ad hominem arguments comparing him to one of the nastiest people in our country’s history. This is gover…
The only people moaning about this are the ones ashamed of jerking off. Just own it, and this issue goes away. Who cares if a random company has your mug shot to do an age estimation, they know you jerk off, so what?
Just keep porn away from your kids please and let's hope we do better for the next generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the racist label applied to Ny Demokrati is clear cut. It turned out that some of their elected representatives acted this way, but it was not part of their message or program as they won their seats. I see it as more a side effect of quickly populating a party with members without proper wetting. As background, this party was founded about 8 months before the election in 1991, almost like a fluke. It w…
You’re right! And you’ve written up a very good description of the concept of a fundamentally populist party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it "democratic" when both parties agree on everything of substance and elections don't change anything no matter who wins? Because that's how "democracy" has worked in the UK for at least as long as I've been alive. Also, no-one asked for this bill, both parties support it, it received basically no debate or scrutiny and was presented as a fait accompli. Where's the democracy exactly?
The Brexit referendum ought to have shut up the “your vote doesn’t make any difference” folks forever (regardless of whether or not they were in favor of Brexit). But they tend to have short memories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is, parents are literally the most likely people to do that
Only if you have a very biased definition of harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wiki isn't the citizenry. And no one voted for this. When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions. And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go. This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it i…
The libertarian fantasy where its possible to exist without the choices of others impacting you, doesn't work in the real world.
Rather, it's vested and sectional interests who control power and or have the most effective means to bring the citizenry around to their way of thinking.
As Chomsky would put it, these few have the means to manufacture consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about open source browsers that don't respect this convention?
In case with a smartphone, you will be able to install only white-listed apps from an app store on an unverified device, so you won't be able to install such browser. As for PCs, Windows might also prevent sideloading on unverified devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What alternative would you propose? How much additional workload would it create for the court system and how would you manage it considering their existing responsibilities?
I'd propose that Parliament bind itself and say "UK Government cannot create THESE types of law". The courts can then adjudicate on whether Government did or didn't stray into self-prohibited territory. This already exists in the Scottish Parliament, which has the power to legislate on devolved matters , but not reserved matters and excluded matters . If it does legislate in these latter areas, or the UK Government t…
The best that Parliament can do under the current definition is things like passing an interpretation law that includes various rules, and which permit courts to strike down other laws that violate these rules, unless said other law amends this one. Then Parliament could propose rules not allowing the government to propose such legislation unless (some conditions), etc. This would be with the intention of future Parliments keeping the rule.
That is all technically fine as long as future Parliament can simply drop the rule by majority vote, and can modify the law by sinple majority vote. But that means this is not really binding, just a relatively modern tradition.
If they tried anyway, a future Parliament (led by a different government) would likely just ignore it citing Parliamentary supremacy, and the courts would almost certainly concur if challenges arise.