UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[Imperializt Russia]

Just to select a specific quote from the assistant director of the BBFC - "some porn is animated, which isn't realistic, even with animation becoming ever more realistic with better technology"

I despise this argument. Immensely. Mostly because of its use in videogames, but I find its use here especially egregious.

[Hydesland]

You pretend that you do not understand what I am saying, or that I am talking nonsense, then you propose I do things that don't make sense unless you understood full well what I was saying.

I just misunderstood you at first. So are you going to do the calculation?

Low unemployment is a result of correct pricing of labour.
How is it incoherent?

Because I'm not sure I know what it means for labour to be 'correctly priced', or why it even matters whether the result of an economic shock is to drop wages significantly (which they won't, because wages are sticky) or more unemployment, unless you think the wage decline will also cause some benign deflation (which it won't).

How does currency depreciation creating an inflation shock create unemployment in conditions of sticky wages? Should rather do the opposite, if it does anything at all.

I do not think currency depreciation will create unemployment, quite the opposite, I think it might reduce unemployment.

OK: so please link to Remain promotional material that stated "the negative effects of Brexit can be eliminated by central bank action".

You're confusing campaigners with experts again.

Astronomer is defined by ability to make correct positions.

No it isn't lol.

My position is that pretty much everyone commenting on economics is a quack.

Your position is wrong.

I have made no specific prediction of the short term economic effects of Brexit, nor have I endorsed other peoples', nor did I base my vote in the referendum on beliefs about the short term economic effects of either option.

It is if you wish to present NSG Hydesland Experts as predicting a heads outcome.

[/quote]

But I'm not predicting a heads outcome, I'm stating a probability.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Just to select a specific quote from the assistant director of the BBFC - "some porn is animated, which isn't realistic, even with animation becoming ever more realistic with better technology"

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

I despise this argument. Immensely. Mostly because of its use in videogames, but I find its use here especially egregious.

What's this argument used for? The argument that video games make people violent? I assume.

[Fartsniffage]

join us today for another delve into parliament and its law making. today's focus shall be, in typical souseiseki fashion, on the laws which criminalize possession of images of legal adults having legal sex the government does not like. more specifically we will be attempting to ascertain whether our new libertarian candidate dominic raab supported these laws as doing so would surely undermine his libertarian credibility. its also the classic souseiseki salt mine so it's no secret why i choose it.

not gonna lie, everything in the wall of text was just stuff i came across the got pissed off at while looking for actual things relevant to dominic. you can totally ignore it while still getting the gist of the post. but since we all love the parliament of the united kingdom so much i'm going to assume no one will do that.

we start off with a classic explanatory note note on the new offence

"The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law"

ya don't fucking say

"The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people."

the law has been used to target things like urethral sounding and fisting, the most vanilla shit in the world. as covered extensively in previous posts it was later extended to consensual sex. in otherwords, this a lie. alternatively, we're so conservative that this is our line for "the most extreme"

The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.

every fucking time i read up on this shit i see r v brown being used as a justification for all sorts of stupid fucking shit and everything comes flooding back to me.

not immediately overturning that shit was the ECHR's real crime in my eyes. they're too conservative and too light-handed.

also again we note that the statements about the threshold being very high is a lie.

----

anyway, that brings our quick peek into the explanatory notes to an end. in order to actually get into whether or not raab supported this we will need to jump to the specific amendment that closed the "loophole" where consenting adults having consensual rape fantasy was legal. this lies in the criminal justice and courts act 2015.

in order to do this i need to plow my way through parliamentary record. this is, as you may appreciate, a massive bitch, so i hope you appreciate this!

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... tages.html

"The final provisions in part 1 deliver on a commitment that is important to me and the Prime Minister. The Bill will make it a criminal offence to possess pornography that depicts real or simulated rape. I am sure that both Houses will share my view that such images are wholly unacceptable and that it is right to close this gap in the law."

bite me you fucking shitheel

Sadiq Khan: [...] We do not oppose the plans relating to automatic release and recall, and we welcome clause 16, which bans the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting rape. A number of victim groups and experts have called for that change, and the Government and the Justice Secretary should be commended for listening to the evidence.

if there was any doubt sadiq khan was a useless shitbag let these rumours be dispelled. we will also give him a gold star for commending the justice secretary, whose department had earlier stated there was no evidence whatsoever such material leads to actual crimes, on listening to evidence. their original consultation of course being noted for its absolute absence of any sort of evidence. but don't let that get in your way sadiq, go give the tories a big old hug!

My final point on part 1 concerns the new offence introduced in clause 16 that criminalises the possession of pornographic materials depicting rape and non-consensual sexual penetration. I truly applaud the Government’s efforts in this regard to minimise the use and dissemination of extreme pornographic materials, and particularly the work they are doing to minimise the opportunities for children to come into contact with this filth. In my view, however, there can be no benefit to society or to the individuals involved if persons convicted of sex offences are left languishing in prison without treatment or, worse, released into the community

huh, this guy has a good point. he's using typical "the children!!!" scaremongering (they've been doing this since they tried to keep all hardcore porn banned in 2003, it's very old) and is making people into criminals over legal adults having legal sex (are you tried of this yet?) but at least he recognizes that just throwing people in jail does fuck all to actually fix things.

it should be apparent at this point i'm just going through and ctrl + fing for rape until i find the relevant section and amendments and bitching as i run into stupid shit on the way. this is pretty much the only way i've found to actually navigate commons/lords debates and committees that actually works.

David Austin: My name is David Austin. I am the assistant director at the British Board of Film Classification

it's hard to describe my feelings at the moment in words. in lieu of that i shall use metaphor: if i had drums beside me i would be beating them as hard as i could.

David Austin: Yes, there are examples of sexually violent material that are not caught by the Bill. There are a number of areas of violent and abusive pornography that are not caught. It might help if I list one or two of those areas. [...] It was in reference to animation. We have not seen the updated explanatory notes on the Bill—I do not know whether they have been published yet. The notes that we have seen do not talk about animated content. It is possible to argue—I do not know how the courts will interpret it—that animation is not realistic, even though it is getting more and more realistic all the time with computer-generated imagery. CGI images of children and animated images of children in sexual abuse situations are illegal under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, so that would take care of animated depictions of child abuse, but it does not take care of animated depictions of rape of adults, for example.

There is a Japanese genre called hentai which is a pornographic genre which features things like incest, underage sex and forced sex.

does he want to ban hentai without knowing what it even is?

i'm also wondering whether he wants to ban cartoons that depict the "rape" of adults. as far as i can tell this asshole actually wants to you have to make a snap judgement on whether a cartoon character look young and is enjoying the sex they're having. lucky the committee seems to immediately dismiss him almost immediately as the idea is fucking retarded, or they just ran out of time. it's a shame they can't see how everything else is fucking retarded, but thems the breaks.

i mean, he's just saying it won't be covered, so maybe that's just him stating fact and he doesn't want it banned? but he's also from the BBFC so he gets zero benefit of the doubt, hmm.

Clause 16
Possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration
2.15 pm

Dan Jarvis: I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 16, page 16, line 30, leave out from ‘explicit’ to end of line 31 and insert

‘way, real or simulated depictions of either—’.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, in clause 16, page 16, line 31, leave out from ‘of’ to end of line 37 and insert

‘the portrayal of sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent,’.

Amendment 28, in clause 16, page 16, line 37, at end insert—

‘(c) sexual activity where one of the participants is portrayed in such a way as to make them appear under 18;

(d) a person participating in a sexual activity with someone who is depicted as a member of their immediate family; and

(e) sexual activity incorporating sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which do not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game.’.

are you ready? here comes the big one!

they actually wanted to ban incest porn. fucking gold.

this is another reminder that every time they say "child" you should mentally substitute "adult that looks like a child".

Its inclusion in the Bill is a real victory for groups like Rape Crisis South London and the End Violence Against Women coalition that have long campaigned against rape pornography. Their open letter to the Prime Minister last summer was signed by more then 100 women’s groups, academics and campaigners and has been instrumental in bringing us to this place.

thanks a lot assholes

We are eager to work with the Government to help to ensure that we get this right and to stamp out such abhorrent images. It is in that spirit that we tabled these amendments to explore how the Bill might be improved.

please take a moment to dwell on this sentence. notice the kind of language the government uses on this issue. "stamp out", "abhorrent", "no place in our society", "evil thing", "cult of violence". next time you're thinking about calling me cynical or hyperbolic please just sit and have a think and remember that this is what the government actually thinks of me. my own government. this is what "our sovereignty" means to me.

Subsection (2)(c) clearly states that an image will come within the scope of the offence if it portrays something in an “explicit and realistic way”. As Mr Austin explained, that could allow material that is badly acted, such as clearly fictional depictions of rape with actors acting a script, escaping the scope of this legislation.

you have no idea how entertained i am by the idea of the defence of bad acting

There is some ambiguity, however, on whether clause 16 will achieve this. Concerns have been raised, for example, about videos portraying under-age sex, many of which feature women who are over the age of 18 but look far younger and are purposely depicted as pre-pubescent. That is exacerbated by pairing them with much older actors, resulting in material that has been described as looking just like child abuse.

oh no, not over the age of 18. anything but that. pedophiles might start watching videos of legal adults and be encouraged to seek out legal partners or legal pornography for a non-harmful outlet instead of viewing or worse participating in actual child abuse. what a horrible prospect that would be.

I am sure that there is full agreement across the Committee that such images are unacceptable. Just as the last Labour Government acted to ban pornography depicting harmful and life-threatening acts, we are ready to work with this Government to send a clear message that extreme material that glorifies sexual violence is not acceptable.

lol at the tories slabbering over the labour government and the labourites getting on their knees to profess how awesome the tories proposals are

Can the Minister reassure us about animation? I did not realise that there was such a genre, and I am not convinced that the Bill will capture it. Is there a way that we can incorporate it?

person learns that they may not be able to throw people in jail over cartoons, immediately moves to rectify situation

There is growing evidence of the impact of this sort of product, particularly on young people. I have heard from young girls who see such hard-core pornographic material and are genuinely fearful of their first sexual encounter, because they think that that is what sex is about and that they ought to endure this sort of abusive experience. I have also heard from young boys who, as young boys do, when they are searching around to try to figure about a bit more about sex, stumble across this material and therefore think that this is the way they should act towards a woman.

i think i mentioned it before, but this is word for the word the same rhetoric used to ban all hard core pornography back in the day. the "decency of society", "public morality" and "but the children" shit was the exact same rhetoric used to justify banning male homosexual acts and unequal ages of consent back in the day. the rhetoric has not changed one fucking bit.

It is about the detrimental effects that homosexuality has on society as a whole. It is about trying to counter a climate where this sort of behaviour is condoned and seen as somehow normal. As she rightly said, exposure to this type of material leads young people to believe that that is the way to behave. There is quite clearly a societal imperative for us to take action on such material.

i may or may not have edited this quote

I have to declare an interest: I graduated in law from Durham university, but my extra-curricular activities tended to predominate somewhat, so I cannot aspire to the distinction to which the two learned professors rose. But I am grateful to them for outlining their approach to the Bill. They quite rightly say that the use of the term “realistic” mirrors international provisions on pornography that are designed to cover both real and simulated images. They argue in support of an amendment to suggest that some clarification of what “realistic” means would be helpful. I am fairly open-minded about how we do that. It could be done in the Bill, but if my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that there are better ways to achieve such clarity, I will be content to listen to his argument.

Clearly, this is an opportunity to fill a gap that some of us would say has existed for too long. I think that we all share the difficult aspiration for criminal law not to have to play catch-up constantly with the more alarming developments with which the otherwise welcome innovation of the internet presents us from time to time.

they can already throw people in jail over non-realistic cartoons and they are still mad that the definition of realism means they can't prosecute people over shit that isn't actually fucking happening

Jeremy Wright: I think that we are all conscious of the fact that in discussing the clause and the amendments, we must strike a delicate balance as legislators. We are talking about the most extreme and disturbing images, but also those that, although distasteful to most, might not warrant the intervention of the criminal law. We must therefore be careful to balance our distaste, and in some cases disgust, against the personal sexual freedoms of consenting adults to behave as they wish without undue state interference. We must also bear in mind the existing criminal law in related areas.

someone makes a good point. he's still kowtowing to their bullshit, but he's making the right motions about consenting adults and how you can't just throw everyone you don't like in jail. will he be our hero?

Jeremy Wright: I think that Ministers and everyone else should be humble enough to accept that we may not have got everything right, but inevitably, wherever we decide to draw the line, there will be disagreement about whether we have drawn it in the right place. There will be those who say—they have already said it during the course of this Committee’s deliberations—that we have not gone far enough on the offence; others will say that we have gone too far. I do not think that there is a good argument that we have gone too far; we will certainly always consider whether there is further action that we can take.

nope he's backing out he's perfectly ok with throwing people in jail over consenting adults under the right circumstances, hope is a mistake

Amendment 28 would extend the parameters of the existing offence. It would widen the scope of the existing extreme pornography possession offence to cover depictions that appear to portray incest, under-age sexual activity and scenes involving sexual threats, humiliation or abuse. Now is probably the best time for me to provide some background on the law as it stands.

mmm, amendment 28. let's keep that one in mind.

The offence is narrowly targeted, for good reason.

(lie)

Hon. Members will recall that the original offence was created by the then Government following a full public consultation, and it is deliberately targeted at the extreme end of the scale.

note: the majority of the responses to the consultation were negative (271 out of the 397, or 68%)

“While those who view extreme pornography will not necessarily go on to commit sexual offences, their use of such materials sustains a culture in which a ‘no’ to sexual activity is not taken seriously; in which equality and dignity are not protected”.

but all the acts done take place within a culture where "no" to a sexual activity is taken very seriously. could it be this person has no fucking idea what they're actually talking about? maybe if we did actual sex-ed instead of just trying to ban everything and being prude fucks we wouldn't have this problem? just a thought!

To conclude my remarks on the development of section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act 2008, during the public consultation, there was considerable concern among respondents and in Parliament that the offence could have a serious impact on people’s private sexual behaviour and personal freedoms. The offence was carefully and deliberately constructed with these concerns in mind.

everytime they say this while completely ignoring the truth of what precedents have been set and how the CPS has conducted itself in carrying prosecutions using this legislation just makes me angrier

Jeremy Wright: [...] I must make it clear that the Government consider the protection of the country’s children from sexual abuse a top priority, and we are always open to and appreciative of suggestions to strengthen the law where necessary. However, to extend the offence to cover depictions of apparent under-age sexual activity is unnecessary.

he's saying there's no need to cover this shit because it's already covered under other laws, but...

In addition, although I find the depictions of sexual threats or humiliation and simulated acts of adult incest deeply distasteful, as I am sure does everyone else, there are others—competent adults—who do not share our views. In a liberal democracy, the law intervenes only when necessary. It would be stretching the definition of “necessary” to include these extensions. I do not feel that it is appropriate to broaden the terms of the existing offence any wider than the Government propose.

It is important to state that the extreme pornography offence is one of simple possession, not of publication, dissemination or broadcast. The publication of obscene material is covered by other legislation, including the Obscene Publications Act 1959, but the law should be slow to intervene in simple possession and should do so only where there is a real need. I believe that depictions of rape constitute such a need but that a wider case for prohibition is not made out. I am grateful for the support shown for our proposal across the Committee, but for the reasons explained I am convinced that it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to extend this offence to cover the images that this amendment would capture. I cannot therefore support it.

oh come on jeremy, you're so close! you're so fucking close! why are you supporting this crap?

conclusion: the government adds all sorts of clauses to mega bills that makes it impossible to ascertain single votes on issues so it was impossible to determine whether or not dominic actually supported the specific clause or amendments. i'm still posting this though because it took me an hour and a half to go through all this shit. consider it another part of my continuing series on how the government are absolute idiots on this issue. however, raab did vote in favour of the bill period, so take that as you will i guess?

i am also leaving it in as an invitation to my brexit voting friends. since you are so strongly supportive of parliamentary sovereignty i have no doubt that you must have significant experience interacting with our great parliament in order to form such a strong opinion on its proceedings. i have not quite hit the hansard and divisions yet, can you help me solve the mystery of dominic rabb and section 37 of the criminal justice and courts act 2015? was he down for clause 16? was the commons amendment 28 carried? was lords amendment 36B carried? was the house divided? i can't handle all this democracy, my body is tingling! as far as i can tell the bill went through mostly without question and no one, least of all dominic rabb, had much to say about it. based on this i think we can reasonably extrapolate that he was either supportive of or at least ambivalent to the law. oh well.

...

is it just me or did the committee make absolutely no reference to the written evidence submitted in relation to clause 16? did they... completely fucking ignore all of it in favour of letting some prick from the BBFC go on about how how hates hentai?

Souseiseki has all the words. They're the best words. Hillary can't even pronounce words like these.

[Imperializt Russia]

Just to select a specific quote from the assistant director of the BBFC - "some porn is animated, which isn't realistic, even with animation becoming ever more realistic with better technology"

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

I despise this argument. Immensely. Mostly because of its use in videogames, but I find its use here especially egregious.

What's this argument used for? The argument that video games make people violent?

I don't recall hearing it in recent years, I admit - but time was, it was used to explain why violent video games were going to turn children into mass-murderers.

On that note:

[The Nihilistic view]

I'm just wondering why you think for basically suggesting WW3 might happen with a leave vote among other things is not resorting to scaremongering and/or threats? Your idea that remain somehow owned Logic with it's reliance on "best guess outcomes" is total nonsense when put up against things like this. The economic suggestions for the period after the vote look at best badly misguided and wrong and at worse purposely false, growth in the 3rd quarter was supposed to be a major slowdown to 0.1-0.2% as people like the BoE predicted, it was 0.5%.

When it comes to scaremongering they both get 10/10. Anybody from either side who thinks their side was somehow better is frankly holding a delusional opinion.

I was wondering when you'd show up. As for what I think, I think the universe has a sense of humour. I think that because, realistically, you're one of the few Brexit supporters that has been able to muster something approaching a good argument at times. One of maybe three on the forum, and one of a scarce handful the literal hundreds of Brexit supporters I've spoken to or interacted with since this vote was called.

And despite this, you still fall into the shit arguments Leave presented. Because not once was it said or otherwise implied that World War 3 would start. The quote from Cameron where this was pulled stated as follows.

"Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking? I would never be so rash to make that assumption". In his speech he referenced campaigns from the Napoleonic Wars to the Battle of Britain and the Balkans, as he argued that the UK has never been able to isolate itself from turbulence in continental Europe. Is that a rash assumption? No, that a pretty common theme if we study historical literature - at least in my experience.

Now I'm in the security field, and part of my job is to examine security policies of nations. This line of work has generally led me to be critical of the pan-European attitude because we've gotten lazy. We've fallen into the attitude that a war in Europe isn't really possible and if there is a problem the US will deal with it. This is probably the area where I've been most critical of the EU and other parties.

Ukraine was a little bit of a wake-up, but lets face it the response has been lacklustre. Yet despite this, Cameron is right. We need cooperation and the EU was a serious pillar of that. Of course, the traditional fallback on this is NATO and the basic argument that was long as we have this we'll be fine. But having examined US security policy that argument is becoming less and less true each year. The economic centre of the world is shifting East, and Europe is becoming less and less strategically important for the US each year. There has been a longstanding frustration in the US military structure over European military policies - including our own, so there's not a huge amount of goodwill to keep the status quo going.*

Cutting to the nub of what he said us being in or out of the EU is not going to impact on the risk of war, it's not going to affect the operation of NATO. It's interesting you bring up the Ukraine because one of the factors in the situation there that was developing over the last decade was the eastward expansion of the EU. There in my mind EU tacit support for the overthrow of an elected president because it happened to be that the protesters were pro-EU. The crisis developed partly because the EU wants to expand it's influence in a way that basically took a pointy stick to try and poke Putin with it. To be honest nobody comes out of the Ukraine crisis looking great from Russia to the West to the Ukrainians themselves.

I am not surprised the US is frustrated at some European countries not pulling their weight, few regularly do. I would be if I was an American policy maker. The anwser is simple really if Europe wants that security, we all know the anwser just few politicians are willing to actually commit to it. But again it's something irrelevant to Brexit, whether we are in or out the US will still be pissed at the military situation in most NATO countries. There are broadly two things in my mind that back up European security for the last 70 years the first and main reason America, the second to a lesser degree Britain and France (regardless of the time they were officially not in NATO or not). Neither of those are a creation of the EU, neither of those are dependant on the EU existing and if we want to continue to enjoy the same security the anwser is to double down in making sure both of these things continue to both exist and be favourable. If NATO has it's 2% rule for example then all members should at least reach that target as a starting point, it's where a good part of US frustration comes from in Europe piggy backing off the US.

If Cameron wanted to talk about peace and security perhaps he should have started with reversing the defence cuts of the previous years before the referendum instead of trying to tie European peace to remaining in the EU. Especially when there is no reason not to do security stuff that is cooperated on currently after Brexit, stuff we do with other non EU countries. A lot of it is not actually underpinned by the EU either like the British-French military cooperation.

*Snipped some to keep it less like an essay

[The Nihilistic view]

Anyway I think things have gotten entirely too serious, we need to relax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRot9IjNSso

[The Nihilistic view]

Because they are multinational firms, such as miners who mine in south America - the UK market is not as relevant.

Bullshit. This idea that the FTSE indices are unrelated to the health of the UK economy is purely a Remain invention of the past 3 months.

Major Brexiteer here as you know, I have looked at foreign earnings and possible currency fluctuations (where relevant) when picking stocks since I started investing 6/7 years ago. It's just not the sort of thing that usually makes the regular news. Companies can and can't give clues on the UK economy depending on what proportion of their earnings are from the UK among other things. I would never say it's totally unrelated but neither is it ever totally related either.

It's not an invention, it just never usually has a reason to come up.

[Souseiseki]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -taxpayers

the fucking magical deal the UK offered nissan to keep them in the UK is...

...

...

stay in the single market or negotiate conditions near identical to single market access

[Olivaero]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/nissans-post-brexit-deal-could-lead-to-colossal-bills-for-taxpayers

the fucking magical deal the UK offered nissan to keep them in the UK is...

...

...

stay in the single market or negotiate conditions near identical to single market access

Exactly what I've always thought "Open for business" meant gee it feels good to be right.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/nissans-post-brexit-deal-could-lead-to-colossal-bills-for-taxpayers

the fucking magical deal the UK offered nissan to keep them in the UK is...

...

...

stay in the single market or negotiate conditions near identical to single market access

For fucks sake....

Anyone who voted to leave is a fucking moron.

[Ifreann]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/nissans-post-brexit-deal-could-lead-to-colossal-bills-for-taxpayers

the fucking magical deal the UK offered nissan to keep them in the UK is...

...

...

stay in the single market or negotiate conditions near identical to single market access

Bridge to engine room, lol factor nine.

[Souseiseki]

"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice — stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." -David Cameron

oh man looking at old cameron tweets is an art

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/nissans-post-brexit-deal-could-lead-to-colossal-bills-for-taxpayers

the fucking magical deal the UK offered nissan to keep them in the UK is...

...

...

stay in the single market or negotiate conditions near identical to single market access

Bridge to engine room, lol factor nine.

I've driven a Nissan. Warp factor mild chuckle at best.....

[Olivaero]

"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice — stability and strong Government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband." -David Cameron

oh man looking at old cameron tweets is an art

A government so strong it destroyed it's self.

[Souseiseki]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/your-face ... t-5232639/

HOW DID I MISS THIS

[Mad hatters in jeans]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/30/nissans-post-brexit-deal-could-lead-to-colossal-bills-for-taxpayers

the fucking magical deal the UK offered nissan to keep them in the UK is...

...

...

stay in the single market or negotiate conditions near identical to single market access

Bridge to engine room, lol factor nine.

We have no more power.

[Ifreann]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/your-facebook-twitter-and-blog-are-about-to-be-monitored-for-references-to-the-government-5232639/

HOW DID I MISS THIS

Ceiling #government is watching you post on NSG.

[Souseiseki]

Souseiseki has all the words. They're the best words. Hillary can't even pronounce words like these.

thank you for your confidence in my words. i will add level 5 wordeologist to my cv.

What's this argument used for? The argument that video games make people violent?

I don't recall hearing it in recent years, I admit - but time was, it was used to explain why violent video games were going to turn children into mass-murderers.

On that note:

i am legitimately surprised the UK has not banned violent video games in general and am forced to assume the main reason it hasn't happened is that video games don't elicit the same visceral reaction that pornography does. it might also be a reflection of the same thing we see in america, an acceptable of violence in almost all forms of life including children's entertainment coupled with an unholy fire released upon the nation if a nip is so much as slipped in the sight of a young one.

e: one might go as far to say the abundance of violent movies and video games has led to a cultural normalization of violence. in fact...

"I am not prepared to invent a defence of non-existence for video games which breed and glorify cruelty. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of death is an evil thing. Killing is uncivilized."[/i] -Lord Templeman

"There is a need to regulate video games portraying violence, to safeguard the decency of society and for the protection of women" -The Prosecution in a 2011 case in the United Kingdom

"The consultation paper outlined similar observations to the US Government by arguing that violent video games can entice people to commit violent acts and, secondly, it fuels the abuse of real people by supporting violent fantasies. That said, it is important to note that there is no empirical evidence that violent video games lead to actual violence. This might not matter, however, since violent video games depict the abuse of the powerless and – in accordance with the Kantian account of liberalism – the state can justify the criminalisation of them on the grounds that it is preventing a “cultural sanctioning” from occurring. In other words, if violent video games were legal, it might begin to shape cultural norms; this would then blend into the way people perceive violence, which might lead to it being promoted." -Jordan Grey, What is the justification for criminalising violent video games? The "indirect harm" approach in the UK is contrasted with the USA's protection of free speech

Fake violent games 'don't cause crimes': Ministry of Justice refuses to ban sick games that simulate abuse and violent crimes: The Ministry of Justice has refused to ban games involving simulated violent scenes, insisting there is 'no evidence' to link them to the actual crimes. -The Daily Mail

The children's charity NCH, stated that "this is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that computer-generated violence is just as unacceptable as real violence". -BBC

Judge Tony Briggs told Hoque in court after his most recent conviction, "You are an intelligent man. You certainly should have been aware of the risk of indulging in accessing this material, and you acknowledge your foolishness and guilt. This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. Its danger is that it obviously portrays gratitous violence for self-gratification, and the more it's portrayed, the more the ill-disposed may think it's acceptable." -The Register

The Ministry of Justice has denied suggestions that Britain's video game would suffer from the law. A spokesperson said: "The clauses in the Bill are to tackle glorifications of violence which have no place in our society. It is not our intention to criminalise the possession of material that does not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act or to criminalise the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or other video games.” -The Independent

edit: i'm tried but i want to make it clear for future purposes these are all edited and the underlying point is that they're all so lacking in real substance that you can justify banning almost anything using them by swapping out the correct terms

the case seems rock solid to me. what we need now is someone with a sympathetic case (like the family of a murder victim) who is absolutely convinced that video games caused their loved one's death and is willing to push the issue so we can start a nation-wide campaign. i actually just remembered while i was typing that that jack thompson actually did this with GTA several times and got his ass disbarred for it.

[Vassenor]

So you know how the government has been making big noises about how there's going to be an extra £10bn in funds for the NHS?

Yeah, no.

[Even Less of Mackonia]

So you know how the government has been making big noises about how there's going to be an extra £10bn in funds for the NHS?

Yeah, no.

Except they haven't and people who still think this confuse referendums for election campaigns.

Completely deregulate all pornography, its depressing government even wastes time talking about this crap.

[Philjia]

So you know how the government has been making big noises about how there's going to be an extra £10bn in funds for the NHS?

Yeah, no.

Except they haven't and people who still think this confuse referendums for election campaigns.

This is a different claim unrelated to the referendum, which you would know had you read the article.

[Vassenor]

So you know how the government has been making big noises about how there's going to be an extra £10bn in funds for the NHS?

Yeah, no.

Except they haven't and people who still think this confuse referendums for election campaigns.

Completely deregulate all pornography, its depressing government even wastes time talking about this crap.

TIL something the government announced in February was all part of the campaign.

[The Huskar Social Union]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/your-facebook-twitter-and-blog-are-about-to-be-monitored-for-references-to-the-government-5232639/

HOW DID I MISS THIS

Well i have Sassy Socialist Memes liked on Facebook soo when am i being sent off to prison as an enemy of the state?

[Freefall11111]

Should the gov. guarantee the right of EU citizens to continue living and working in the UK post-Brexit?
Yes: 58%
No: 28%
(via BMG)

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm almost surprised that the "No" side is so high.