UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Olerand]

If Libya isn't run as a democracy, Libya won't run for long. A new one-man regime will not survive for long, and we'll be back to square one.

Huh? It's been run that way literally as long as there's been a Libya, and was run successfully that way until we chose to destroy it, while democracy has been spreading devastation all over this region. The most successful Islamic democracy is Iran - perhaps that is the goal!

And I entirely agree, our democracies will not survive the migration waves. So to prevent them, we need a strong State in Libya, and to have a strong and sustainable State in Libya, it needs to be a democracy.

To prevent them you need to sink the boats, doesn't matter what happens in Libya.

BTW, many perhaps most of those coming through Libya aren't Libyans. They are Sub-Saharans who Gaddafi previously used similar shooting-type methods to stop. So again I ask, is the Western-backed democracy going to use such methods? If not, we are fighting to defeat ourselves.

What worked in the past will no longer work now. The world of the past is no longer the one we now inhabit. We also didn't choose to destroy it, Libya destroyed itself. The uprising against Qaddafi was born and spread before the Western bombing campaign.

Tunisia is the most successful democracy.

We need to stop the boats, because we can't sink them. Libya needs to control its shoreline, and to do that, it needs a strong and stable State.

The democratic State will have coast patrol. That's the whole point. Libyan coast patrols will need to stop the boats, and so that they can do that for the long term and not the short, the State that commands them needs to be sustainable, which means it needs to be democratic.

Africa's population will quadruple in the coming century. We cannot afford having a short-term band-aid State in Libya.

[HMS Vanguard]

Huh? It's been run that way literally as long as there's been a Libya, and was run successfully that way until we chose to destroy it, while democracy has been spreading devastation all over this region. The most successful Islamic democracy is Iran - perhaps that is the goal!


To prevent them you need to sink the boats, doesn't matter what happens in Libya.

BTW, many perhaps most of those coming through Libya aren't Libyans. They are Sub-Saharans who Gaddafi previously used similar shooting-type methods to stop. So again I ask, is the Western-backed democracy going to use such methods? If not, we are fighting to defeat ourselves.

What worked in the past will no longer work now. The world of the past is no longer the one we now inhabit. We also didn't choose to destroy it, Libya destroyed itself. The uprising against Qaddafi was born and spread before the Western bombing campaign.

Yes an uprising, an uprising that did not succeed in sweeping away the old regime and which, if it had, would have been strong enough to establish the new regime.

Suppose we had intervened carpet bombing the opposition forces. Today Libya would be stable and there would be no refugees. That is clearly in our interest. We made another choice for purely ideological reasons.

We put our thumb on the scales to get weak men into power and now surprised and outraged that these weak men couldn't keep possession.

Tunisia is the most successful democracy.

We need to stop the boats, because we can't sink them.

Then we can't stop the immigration and, if you and I are right, there is a good chance our civilisation will die, or be changed into something that is no longer our civilisation.

Libya needs to control its shoreline, and to do that, it needs a strong and stable State.

Such as that of Gaddafi. You want to establish a state such as Germany, which is not capable of closing its border, or France, which is not capable of sinking boats.

The democratic State will have coast patrol. That's the whole point. Libyan coast patrols will need to stop the boats, and so that they can do that for the long term and not the short, the State that commands them needs to be sustainable, which means it needs to be democratic.

Libya does not want to stop the boats, because the alternative is millions of Sub-Saharans build up in Libya. What Gaddafi did was put the Sub-Saharans in concentration camps, so they didn't think it was worth coming, too much risk. But Libya full of Western NGOs can't and won't do that, and if it did, people would demand that the bombers be turned on it, to make it let them pass.

[HMS Vanguard]

If we were capable of establishing a Libya that could stop the refugees we would be capable of sinking the boats.

If we were capable of sinking the boats, the boats would stop.

If we were capable of exercising violence to defend ourselves, which we are not out of compassion for our enemies, fewer of our enemies would die.

[Olerand]

What worked in the past will no longer work now. The world of the past is no longer the one we now inhabit. We also didn't choose to destroy it, Libya destroyed itself. The uprising against Qaddafi was born and spread before the Western bombing campaign.

Yes an uprising, an uprising that did not succeed in sweeping away the old regime and which, if it had, would have been strong enough to establish the new regime.

Suppose we had intervened carpet bombing the opposition forces. Today Libya would be stable and there would be no refugees. That is clearly in our interest. We made another choice for purely ideological reasons.

We put our thumb on the scales to get weak men into power and now surprised and outraged that these weak men couldn't keep possession.

Tunisia is the most successful democracy.

We need to stop the boats, because we can't sink them.

Then we can't stop the immigration and, if you and I are right, there is a good chance our civilisation will die, or be changed into something that is no longer our civilisation.

Libya needs to control its shoreline, and to do that, it needs a strong and stable State.

Such as that of Gaddafi. You want to establish a state such as Germany, which is not capable of closing its border, or France, which is not capable of sinking boats.

The democratic State will have coast patrol. That's the whole point. Libyan coast patrols will need to stop the boats, and so that they can do that for the long term and not the short, the State that commands them needs to be sustainable, which means it needs to be democratic.

Libya does not want to stop the boats, because the alternative is millions of Sub-Saharans build up in Libya. What Gaddafi did was put the Sub-Saharans in concentration camps, so they didn't think it was worth coming, too much risk. But Libya full of Western NGOs can't and won't do that, and if it did, people would demand that the bombers be turned on it, to make it let them pass.

An uprising that devolved into a civil war. And an uprising in which Qaddafi would have killed many, but would not have been able to put down. Libya was going to turn to civil war regardless.
Yes, we could have helped Qaddafi. It would have been ideologically and diplomatically inconsistent, but we could have done that. But we didn't. We live in the now, not the past.
We didn't have any weak men. That's the problem. As always, there was no "day after plan".

We can stop the boats. Otherwise, we will cease to exist.

Libya will not need to be France or Germany. It will, at best, need to be Turkey, or just Libya pre-uprising. It can accomplish that much.

If the migrants cannot come to Europe, there is no reason for them to come to Libya. Libya's entire deal with Europe today -and that has resulted in the lifting of the arms embargo just today- is that Libya will control its coast. Libya will need to stop the boats, take in the migrants, put them in camps, and deport them home.

If we were capable of establishing a Libya that could stop the refugees we would be capable of sinking the boats.

If we were capable of sinking the boats, the boats would stop.

If we were capable of exercising violence to defend ourselves, which we are not out of compassion for our enemies, fewer of our enemies would die.

Sinking boats of unarmed men is not interfering in Libya.

And honestly, if we were capable of shooting every migrant who approached our shores we wouldn't have this problem. But we don't, and we won't, so we're finding another solution.

[Questers]

Britain and France over-estimated the Arabs with the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

In general, people need to be led, most of the time: told what to do, where to do it and when to do it. Very few populations have the education or the type of education, culture or civic religion, to have real individualism. The Arabs [in Arabic countries] are the type of people who need to be told what to do, as a collective. The problem is defining the line between this and "I am a totalitarian maniac who attempts to get WMD and turns my country into a concentration camp" or "ALL people of X political persuasion or religion or race are going to be killed!!!"

Britain and the United States over-estimated the Arabs. We thought that they would be wholeheartedly for our invasion. Basically people -- especially Arabs -- just don't like being invaded. So we have to find some way to keep them from not being nuts without invading them.

[Geilinor]

We can stop the boats. Otherwise, we will cease to exist.

Libya will not need to be France or Germany. It will, at best, need to be Turkey, or just Libya pre-uprising. It can accomplish that much.

It's necessary to reduce the flow but nobody will cease to exist over this.

[Lamadia]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

[Imperializt Russia]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

Pretty sure each big packaging/sales change has actually had a big impact on smoking numbers.

Personally what I'm angry about (I got over the bland packaging some time ago) is actively banning ten-packs.
Fuck of, HM Gov't.

[Philjia]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

They did and got demolished: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36333450

[Wolfmanne2]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

It's iconoclasm, plain and simple.

[Ifreann]

https://twitter.com/CourtNewsUK

Former BBC executive who downloaded child porn escapes jail after he tells court he did it 'accidentally.'

Former BBC exec explains his vast porn collection: 'I found that the searching soothes me - it is the downloading that interests me.'

Former BBC executive who downloaded more than 150 indecent images of children ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work.

Former BBC exec explains why he would not hide child porn in a file named pizza. 'I do not like pizza and I am allergic to cheese.'

oh sweet jesus it's two, three, four levels of absolute bullshit going on at the same time. possibly five. we have reached bullshit inception.

e: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/fomer-bbc-exec ... -accident/ actual link

if either of you had done this you'd have gotten no where this lenient a treatment and you know it. people have gotten harsher sentences for smaller quantities of porn of adults that never looked at that other people sent them. this is the level of bullshit that presides over all the rest.

I wouldn't be one for the whole tough on crime thing, scruffy liberal and all, but fucking hell, are you withdrawing the pistachio?

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36301098
Very shocking, don't you think?
Some of the people noted, certainly, should not be allowed to vote in the referendum, as they have chosen to dismiss UK citizenship. Likewise, I believe that convicted prisoners, British people who have moved abroad permanently (with exceptions, of course,) migrants in their first few years of arrival, and so on, should be restricted from voting in national elections & referendums, however every British citizen deserves the right to vote. In many of these cases, however, the complaints are coming from people who still identity themselves as, for example, Dutch, and refuse to assume the full British identity by assuming citizenship. How can they possibly complain about not being allowed to vote in the referendum?

You don't need British citizenship to vote in the referendum. There's some half a million Irish people that'll be able to vote. Why them and not, say, Dutch people in similar situations?

---

inhomogeneous

Heterogeneous.

[Elepis]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

I don't see why it is a problem to have warning on packages.

[Wolfmanne2]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

I don't see why it is a problem to have warning on packages.

I don't either. But it is going to be standardised and that's the issue. The packages from different brands will have no distinction whatsoever. They'll be the same colour (iirc the colour that market research has deemed to be the ugliest), all writing will be the same font, it'll be completely covered with horrific imagery and warnings. I can already see the warning; this is just ruining my smoke now, because the package just looks so depressing.

[Philjia]

I don't see why it is a problem to have warning on packages.

I don't either. But it is going to be standardised and that's the issue. The packages from different brands will have no distinction whatsoever. They'll be the same colour (iirc the colour that market research has deemed to be the ugliest), all writing will be the same font, it'll be completely covered with horrific imagery and warnings. I can already see the warning; this is just ruining my smoke now, because the package just looks so depressing.

Isn't that the point?

[Ifreann]

I don't either. But it is going to be standardised and that's the issue. The packages from different brands will have no distinction whatsoever. They'll be the same colour (iirc the colour that market research has deemed to be the ugliest), all writing will be the same font, it'll be completely covered with horrific imagery and warnings. I can already see the warning; this is just ruining my smoke now, because the package just looks so depressing.

Isn't that the point?

The point of plain packaging, I believe, is to discourage people, especially impressionable youths, from taking up smoking, not to encourage those who already smoke to quit.

[Imperializt Russia]

Isn't that the point?

The point of plain packaging, I believe, is to discourage people, especially impressionable youths, from taking up smoking, not to encourage those who already smoke to quit.

Though I also believe that works too.

My gran, when she still smoked, used to joke that she'd buy cigarettes in bulk from France because then she couldn't read the warnings.

[Ifreann]

The point of plain packaging, I believe, is to discourage people, especially impressionable youths, from taking up smoking, not to encourage those who already smoke to quit.

Though I also believe that works too.

My gran, when she still smoked, used to joke that she'd buy cigarettes in bulk from France because then she couldn't read the warnings.

I've heard it suggested that the graphic pictorial warnings actually encourage people to smoke. As in, as much as no one likes looking at things like Moustachio and his manky neck tumour*, seeing it every time they smoke gets a Pavlovian thing going on, and thus seeing those images makes people want to smoke.


*I sell fags, so I get to see that and other such delights on a regular basis.

[Fartsniffage]

Though I also believe that works too.

My gran, when she still smoked, used to joke that she'd buy cigarettes in bulk from France because then she couldn't read the warnings.

I've heard it suggested that the graphic pictorial warnings actually encourage people to smoke. As in, as much as no one likes looking at things like Moustachio and his manky neck tumour*, seeing it every time they smoke gets a Pavlovian thing going on, and thus seeing those images makes people want to smoke.


*I sell fags, so I get to see that and other such delights on a regular basis.

I just ask for a "Smoking while pregnant may harm your baby." pack.

[Imperializt Russia]

That seems like quite a bizarre logic train to me. I'm not following.

[Ifreann]

I've heard it suggested that the graphic pictorial warnings actually encourage people to smoke. As in, as much as no one likes looking at things like Moustachio and his manky neck tumour*, seeing it every time they smoke gets a Pavlovian thing going on, and thus seeing those images makes people want to smoke.


*I sell fags, so I get to see that and other such delights on a regular basis.

I just ask for a "Smoking while pregnant may harm your baby." pack.

Just be sure not to get pregnant.

[Souseiseki]

there's only so many ways you can say THIS WILL DESTROY YOUR LUNGS AND GIVE YOU CANCER IDIOT WHY WOULD YOU EVEN before it gets boring

[Imperializt Russia]

there's only so many ways you can say THIS WILL DESTROY YOUR LUNGS AND GIVE YOU CANCER IDIOT WHY WOULD YOU EVEN before it gets boring

I smoke for social reasons.
And stress relief sometimes.

[Fartsniffage]

I just ask for a "Smoking while pregnant may harm your baby." pack.

Just be sure not to get pregnant.

I use my personality as a contraceptive. 100% effective.

[Imperializt Russia]

Just be sure not to get pregnant.

I use my personality as a contraceptive. 100% effective.

The only contraceptive better than abstinence.

[Lamadia]

New ban on tobacco being sold with branded packaging- massive warnings covering 60% of the packet, with a dull, identical company logo. Apparently it will reduce the number of children smoking- personally, I find it total nonsense. If people want to smoke, they will smoke, especially children. Certainly, destroying packaging like this is imbecilic, and if I were in Big Tobacco, I would seriously consider having a serious word legally with the Government.

I don't see why it is a problem to have warning on packages.

I am sorry, I assumed everybody here watched the news, or read newspapers. My mistake.
No, it is eradicating entirely all logos & branding, other than the brand time in tiny lettering. I think, although warnings should be on packets, plain packaging is silly and treats the electorate like idiots.

You don't need British citizenship to vote in the referendum. There's some half a million Irish people that'll be able to vote. Why them and not, say, Dutch people in similar situations?

I am not saying that the non-UK Irish should be allowed to vote. Please quote me on that- making that up is rather offensive, and suggests that I am something I am not, in particular, a xenophobe.