5 ms·

I believe the EU would be the lesser of two evils here. If we leave it up to the UK Government and Mrs May we will have it far worse. She has tried several time

I believe the EU would be the lesser of two evils here. If we leave it up to the UK Government and Mrs May we will have it far worse. She has tried several times to ban WhatsApp and encryption in general. I wouldn't put anything like this past her.

a_tractor 8y ago
You have much more control over Mrs. May than you do the EU. Very short-sighted thinking, imo.
TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
The UK is currently (it's law!) going to impose mandatory online age verification for “adult content”, including IIRC the ability to block non-compliant foreign sites (will they block twitter, tumblr?)
- sieabah 8y ago
  Twitter, tumblr, and reddit all host adult content. I think Facebook and Instagram are the only that disallow it in any form. Guess history truly does repeat itself.
JoeSmithson 8y ago
> She has tried several times to ban WhatsApp What? Did you swallow some fake news or did I miss something massive? --- Downvoters, this is not Reddit. The top Google results for "UK WhatsApp Ban" are all related to this - https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/952170/WhatsApp-Ban-New-Age-Block-EU https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/9521... - which is EU rules causing age requirement to jump from 13 to 16. Is this what you are referring to?
- headmelted 8y ago
  It's based on (nonsensical) comments the then home secretary Amber Rudd made in relation to "banning" end-to-end encryption. Give the exact quote a Google for a laugh. It really is the most nonsense anyone has ever fit into a single sentence. Summary: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-imessage-encryption-facebook-apple-amber-rudd-conservative-conference-a7979811.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
antibes 8y ago
I don't know the EU/EuroParl equivalents, but the UK still has a robust Judicial Review system. I would strongly argue that the UK has a longer history of independent judiciary, both capable of standing up to misguided legislation, as well as willing and enabled to do so, with the sense of purpose, clarity and finality, which [at least apparently, or perceptively] absent features are longstanding argument behind EU cecessionism.
- dpwm 8y ago
  In 2006, the Data Retention Directive got passed. [0] In July 2006 a legal challenge started. By 2014 the directive was ruled incompatible with the EU charter of fundamental rights. It took a while, but that's due to having to go through your own country's courts first for a referral to the ECJ. > I would strongly argue that the UK has a longer history of independent judiciary Yes. I could equally strongly argue that the UK has a longer history of the judiciary delivering very favourable decisions that fly in the face of basic logic and rely on the privilege of the judicial classes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
  - antibes 8y ago
    regarding your second statement, counter argument to my claimed argument: Unfortunately I cannot disagree. I certainly had a much longer history in mind, as well as being selective to begin with the start of the twentieth century, whereabouts the modern system of judicial thought appears to be becoming established, and largely healthy in the broad directions. (For personal context, my father was born in 1907. Illegitimate, because his father, fearing debtor's prison caused by a profligate young business partner, shot himself, unknowing his wife, at 43, was with child, my father. Ensued flight from our locality, the social opprobrium literally excommunicating. Paperless, illegitimacy was illegitimacy, I will never know how my father, late but present, attended a good school on scholarship, the only document most people ever then could show, unavailable. He couldn't vote, until marriage and property ownership, conveyed superficial ascendancy to the class system. Outright property ownership was still necessary to vote, during his youth. So, very generally, I think the animus of the judiciary, began to turn, during the years my father grew up. This was in wide canvas a positive effect caused by legislation. But legislation followed countless decisions that created a weight of case law leaving legislators little option but to relieve the courts of the eash of applications, and relieve parliament of increasing embarrassment the result also inadvertently of the suspension of the Houses during wartime. So then we arrive at the classical post war history of equality in the workplace and massive massively painful demographic adjustments that only died out, never were truly assuaged. I believe that bu the nineteen sixties, the judiciary began to asset a collective sense of greater immediate responsibility. Not least a generation among them by this time ascended or even rocketing to on high, since no encumbents sat above them - although few officers, comparatively, died in the Great Ear, appetite for public service was greatly diminished by experience personal and emotional as well as utilitarian futility. If not life, then so much hope for life, was denuded from a generation whom we don't immediately suspect to be ear casualties. This, too, was (immediately post war, from 50 anyway) the time of great individualism in the Bar. Desire to speak forth, rather than sit in Review, appealed to heartbroken men. Counterintuitively, the common trenches of the first, spurred little individual cry - the nation was st home, almost all, the war a newspaper report of alien incomprehensibility. Counterintuitively, considering that total war, involving all able, promoted iconic, stereotypical, nonconformity and isolation self ideation of a supreme personal victory. My own pet take how individualism was acceptable in total war, arose from the beginning of the concept of universal sacrifice of workshops, farms and all for the effort, leading to a new search for identity. Thus"we're all in it together" did not resonate with the irony it probably should. Unfortunately, this set a dangerous precedent, of heroism and the diminution abstract, of collective costs of war, which mars our vision and sensibilities, today. I can't fairly stud my comment with case examples, because without a thorough survey and definitions chosen after thorough triage, I will crudely sculpt citations and findings from insignificance into fractured lay icons, else omit the most emotionally charged decisions for completely over sensitive reasons; I should make a complete hash of tracing the notable cases in isograph landscaping for beneficial study of the landscape formed by the nation's elements in fullest force. It is altogether too easy to speak of exceptional counsel the oratory and the skills of summary, and never know when you are reviewing the true seismic shifts of history. But I will - I have been in undercurrent throughout my comment - guiding by the hidden valley of my argument, the reader of my thoughts towards my perception that the judiciary took a conscientious active role, forcibly I think, from the time of first post rationing government. So much was in flux, I don't think of party politics before about 1965. This is totally arbitrary on my part, no different from opening a dictionary close enough to the first letter of the sought word, to be convenient. I offer a single reason behind judicial activism, as relatively speaking certain rulings arguably might be considered: cold war and specifically the outlawing of the Communist Party Of Great Britain. I think the acquittal of Jeremy Thorpe, for example, was intended to relieve others of the the danger of blackmail.
pwned1 8y ago
You have the ability to vote Teresa May out of office and change UK laws through your member of parliament. The European Commission, the European Council, and the Council of the European Union are entirely undemocratic, and the European Parliament is democratic only in name. There's no serious argument that the EU is in any way responsive to voters.
- bambataa 8y ago
  I’ve never understood the argument that the Councils are undemocratic. They are made up of leaders elected by each state. Do you also think that the UK Cabinet is entirely undemocratic and that individual ministers should be elected to each role?
- dpwm 8y ago
  > the European Parliament is democratic only in name It was representatives (MEPs) today that chose to vote in favour of this directive. They could have voted differently and rejected the proposal outright. Can you elaborate on how this is a "democratic only in name" institution?
  - pwned1 8y ago
    It's democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MEP is? Five year terms? Total lack of responsiveness (according to comments on here today), lack of real democratic accountability. Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not. Particularly when the EU Parliament doesn't even initiate legislation, the un-elected European Commission does.
    - dpwm 8y ago
      The UK government is democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MP is? [0] Five year terms? [1] Total lack of responsiveness [2] lack of real democratic accountability [3] Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not.[4] Particularly when the UK parliament doesn't even initiate (propose) legislation: ministers are appointed by the government, and are not elected to their position. And civil servants write the legislation before it goes to parliament. [0] In 2013, 3/4 people could not name their MP. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659 [1] Five years unless there is a supermajority or the loss of a no confidence vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_201... [2] Numerous examples of this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-responsive-your-mp-responding-8198107; https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-responsive-your-mp... https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps [3] There is an ability to recall MPs, but they need to have breached the parliamentary code bad enough to be suspended from sitting for a number of days or engaged in criminal behaviour and been duly sentenced. The current UK government is actively trying to strip people of voting rights who do not have the money for suitable photo ID (minimum £34) [4] The UK's first-past-the-post electoral system means that the majority of votes do not matter.
headmelted 8y ago
In fairness I did say almost. On a side note I do wonder if Amber Rudd passed along the necessary hashtags to Theresa May before taking the fall and hanging up her clipboard. It's dire all over if the best we can say is we've got the least of all evils. Sadly, that appears to be the case, even with this disastrous legislation.

a_tractor 8y ago

You have much more control over Mrs. May than you do the EU. Very short-sighted thinking, imo.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago

The UK is currently (it's law!) going to impose mandatory online age verification for “adult content”, including IIRC the ability to block non-compliant foreign sites (will they block twitter, tumblr?)

sieabah 8y ago
Twitter, tumblr, and reddit all host adult content. I think Facebook and Instagram are the only that disallow it in any form. Guess history truly does repeat itself.

JoeSmithson 8y ago

> She has tried several times to ban WhatsApp What? Did you swallow some fake news or did I miss something massive? --- Downvoters, this is not Reddit. The top Google results for "UK WhatsApp Ban" are all related to this - https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/952170/WhatsApp-Ban-New-Age-Block-EU https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/9521... - which is EU rules causing age requirement to jump from 13 to 16. Is this what you are referring to?

headmelted 8y ago
It's based on (nonsensical) comments the then home secretary Amber Rudd made in relation to "banning" end-to-end encryption. Give the exact quote a Google for a laugh. It really is the most nonsense anyone has ever fit into a single sentence. Summary: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-imessage-encryption-facebook-apple-amber-rudd-conservative-conference-a7979811.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...

antibes 8y ago

I don't know the EU/EuroParl equivalents, but the UK still has a robust Judicial Review system. I would strongly argue that the UK has a longer history of independent judiciary, both capable of standing up to misguided legislation, as well as willing and enabled to do so, with the sense of purpose, clarity and finality, which [at least apparently, or perceptively] absent features are longstanding argument behind EU cecessionism.

dpwm 8y ago
In 2006, the Data Retention Directive got passed. [0] In July 2006 a legal challenge started. By 2014 the directive was ruled incompatible with the EU charter of fundamental rights. It took a while, but that's due to having to go through your own country's courts first for a referral to the ECJ. > I would strongly argue that the UK has a longer history of independent judiciary Yes. I could equally strongly argue that the UK has a longer history of the judiciary delivering very favourable decisions that fly in the face of basic logic and rely on the privilege of the judicial classes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
- antibes 8y ago
  regarding your second statement, counter argument to my claimed argument: Unfortunately I cannot disagree. I certainly had a much longer history in mind, as well as being selective to begin with the start of the twentieth century, whereabouts the modern system of judicial thought appears to be becoming established, and largely healthy in the broad directions. (For personal context, my father was born in 1907. Illegitimate, because his father, fearing debtor's prison caused by a profligate young business partner, shot himself, unknowing his wife, at 43, was with child, my father. Ensued flight from our locality, the social opprobrium literally excommunicating. Paperless, illegitimacy was illegitimacy, I will never know how my father, late but present, attended a good school on scholarship, the only document most people ever then could show, unavailable. He couldn't vote, until marriage and property ownership, conveyed superficial ascendancy to the class system. Outright property ownership was still necessary to vote, during his youth. So, very generally, I think the animus of the judiciary, began to turn, during the years my father grew up. This was in wide canvas a positive effect caused by legislation. But legislation followed countless decisions that created a weight of case law leaving legislators little option but to relieve the courts of the eash of applications, and relieve parliament of increasing embarrassment the result also inadvertently of the suspension of the Houses during wartime. So then we arrive at the classical post war history of equality in the workplace and massive massively painful demographic adjustments that only died out, never were truly assuaged. I believe that bu the nineteen sixties, the judiciary began to asset a collective sense of greater immediate responsibility. Not least a generation among them by this time ascended or even rocketing to on high, since no encumbents sat above them - although few officers, comparatively, died in the Great Ear, appetite for public service was greatly diminished by experience personal and emotional as well as utilitarian futility. If not life, then so much hope for life, was denuded from a generation whom we don't immediately suspect to be ear casualties. This, too, was (immediately post war, from 50 anyway) the time of great individualism in the Bar. Desire to speak forth, rather than sit in Review, appealed to heartbroken men. Counterintuitively, the common trenches of the first, spurred little individual cry - the nation was st home, almost all, the war a newspaper report of alien incomprehensibility. Counterintuitively, considering that total war, involving all able, promoted iconic, stereotypical, nonconformity and isolation self ideation of a supreme personal victory. My own pet take how individualism was acceptable in total war, arose from the beginning of the concept of universal sacrifice of workshops, farms and all for the effort, leading to a new search for identity. Thus"we're all in it together" did not resonate with the irony it probably should. Unfortunately, this set a dangerous precedent, of heroism and the diminution abstract, of collective costs of war, which mars our vision and sensibilities, today. I can't fairly stud my comment with case examples, because without a thorough survey and definitions chosen after thorough triage, I will crudely sculpt citations and findings from insignificance into fractured lay icons, else omit the most emotionally charged decisions for completely over sensitive reasons; I should make a complete hash of tracing the notable cases in isograph landscaping for beneficial study of the landscape formed by the nation's elements in fullest force. It is altogether too easy to speak of exceptional counsel the oratory and the skills of summary, and never know when you are reviewing the true seismic shifts of history. But I will - I have been in undercurrent throughout my comment - guiding by the hidden valley of my argument, the reader of my thoughts towards my perception that the judiciary took a conscientious active role, forcibly I think, from the time of first post rationing government. So much was in flux, I don't think of party politics before about 1965. This is totally arbitrary on my part, no different from opening a dictionary close enough to the first letter of the sought word, to be convenient. I offer a single reason behind judicial activism, as relatively speaking certain rulings arguably might be considered: cold war and specifically the outlawing of the Communist Party Of Great Britain. I think the acquittal of Jeremy Thorpe, for example, was intended to relieve others of the the danger of blackmail.

pwned1 8y ago

You have the ability to vote Teresa May out of office and change UK laws through your member of parliament. The European Commission, the European Council, and the Council of the European Union are entirely undemocratic, and the European Parliament is democratic only in name. There's no serious argument that the EU is in any way responsive to voters.

bambataa 8y ago
I’ve never understood the argument that the Councils are undemocratic. They are made up of leaders elected by each state. Do you also think that the UK Cabinet is entirely undemocratic and that individual ministers should be elected to each role?
dpwm 8y ago
> the European Parliament is democratic only in name It was representatives (MEPs) today that chose to vote in favour of this directive. They could have voted differently and rejected the proposal outright. Can you elaborate on how this is a "democratic only in name" institution?
- pwned1 8y ago
  It's democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MEP is? Five year terms? Total lack of responsiveness (according to comments on here today), lack of real democratic accountability. Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not. Particularly when the EU Parliament doesn't even initiate legislation, the un-elected European Commission does.
  - dpwm 8y ago
    The UK government is democratic on paper, sure. But in reality, does anyone know who their MP is? [0] Five year terms? [1] Total lack of responsiveness [2] lack of real democratic accountability [3] Sure, it looks democratic, but in reality it's not.[4] Particularly when the UK parliament doesn't even initiate (propose) legislation: ministers are appointed by the government, and are not elected to their position. And civil servants write the legislation before it goes to parliament. [0] In 2013, 3/4 people could not name their MP. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659 [1] Five years unless there is a supermajority or the loss of a no confidence vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_201... [2] Numerous examples of this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-responsive-your-mp-responding-8198107; https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-responsive-your-mp... https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps [3] There is an ability to recall MPs, but they need to have breached the parliamentary code bad enough to be suspended from sitting for a number of days or engaged in criminal behaviour and been duly sentenced. The current UK government is actively trying to strip people of voting rights who do not have the money for suitable photo ID (minimum £34) [4] The UK's first-past-the-post electoral system means that the majority of votes do not matter.

headmelted 8y ago

In fairness I did say almost. On a side note I do wonder if Amber Rudd passed along the necessary hashtags to Theresa May before taking the fall and hanging up her clipboard. It's dire all over if the best we can say is we've got the least of all evils. Sadly, that appears to be the case, even with this disastrous legislation.