British PM Candidate Promises Social Media Crackdown (politico.eu) 218
Theresa May's party "is expected to win a majority at the June 8 election," reports Reuters -- and she's promising they'll pass new social media laws. An anonymous reader quotes Politico:
They want to introduce a new measure that could fine or punish internet firms which fail to adequately flag and take down content harmful to minors or "direct users unintentionally to hate speech, pornography or other sources of harm," according to a press release. "The internet has brought a wealth of opportunity but also significant new risks which have evolved faster than society's response to them," May said. "We want social media companies to do more to help redress the balance and will take action to make sure they do"... The Conservative digital platform also promises to better protect Brits' personal information, compelling social media companies to trash user records from before the age of 18. The party plans to encourage the development of digital by default government and business services, as well.
Alternative title: (Score:5, Insightful)
British PM Candidate Explains, "I don't understand how the Internet works!"
There seems to be an awful lot of politicians that don't understand how powerless they are to control what happens outside of their country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There seem to be an awful lot of techies who don't understand that politicians can in fact control what happens outside their country.
Maybe not on the entirety of the internet, but certainly for a few big social media companies, which is all that matters to the millennial crowd anyway, since they have elected to move entirely to corporate centrally controlled internet services. It works especially well when the social media company - let's call it Facebook for example - agrees and wants to self-censor to a
A source of income (Score:2)
It's far better than taxes since it doesn't take money from citizens. It doesn't affect domestic internet companies since all the big social media outfits are american. In fact it is "free" cash.
There are plenty of cases of the US government fining foreign companies for contravening its laws. Many times they have to pay $$$$ billions. So i
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be said though, the Tories do seem to have a particular obsession with internet porn and general puritanism. Remember David Cameron's pornwall? The proposal to make you call your ISP and ask them to turn the porn on for you, or have it "blocked" by some magical firewall by default.
Re: Alternative title: (Score:2)
Except if your country is big enough to, you know, actually matter.
Re: Alternative title: (Score:2)
I think they understand very well indeed. They propose to punish firms that have a UK presence and do not crack down. That's entirely possible and within their power.
Sure they can't stop things being posted on the internet. But they can prevent any firm from *making money from internet* in the UK unless they toe the line. Economic reality being what it is, that will have a huge effect on what people in the UK consume.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they aren't taking away your porn
In the UK they've already taken away a number of types of porn - e.g. porn that includes face-sitting is now illegal in the UK.
Theresa May would love to ban the rest too. She's a fascist totalitarian killjoy that also wants to ban encryption because it stops the security services from monitoring everybody in the country all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
You just had to ask... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In his Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln said that the USA should have a government of, by, and for the people
... while waging war on people that felt his government didn't represent them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because slaves aren't people, right?
Oh wait, no.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fair point, not to be merely handwaved away. Lincoln felt that multiple smaller nations would not endure. He was probably right, given the events of WWII and the cold war.
Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this goes way beyond the GDPR. The EU rules are mainly about retaining control over your data, and clarifying existing rules on the right to be forgotten (which isn't what you think it is).
The Tories are proposing mandatory porn filtering, with fines if the filters don't work. The proposal is vague, probably because they don't have any real idea how it would actually work or the burden it would place on ISPs, so it is hard to evaluate the precise level of stupidity involved.
Most likely it's just an election promise that will be quietly forgotten after a consultation where ISPs tell them it's moronic. They have proposed similar things before, but the cost usually ends up putting them off, and they already have to help pay for the new data retention and surveillance powers.
Re: (Score:2)
For the love of all that you hold dear, fellow Brits: get out and vote for whoever can beat the Tories where you are. Labour might be are a bit shit, the Lib Dems can't win a majority, and the Greens are frankly nuts, but the Tories are out to destroy our country for corporate self-interest if they get a majority.
Tresemmé could hold an Erdogan-style referendum giving her despotic powers and she'd be voted in. UK electorate are the classic turkeys voting for Christmas.
After they return the Tories with an even bigger majority, I sure as hell hope all the moaning about the NHS shuts the fuck up. You voted to kill it, so let it fucking die.
good luck!! (Score:2)
Good luck defining "hate speech, pornography or other sources of harm," or what it means to direct users towards them. Sounds like a full employment plan for politicians.
"direct users unintentionally to" (Score:4, Interesting)
"direct users unintentionally to"
So if it's unintentional that means a bug or error has been found in software designed to define the content
Are we going to punish companies for bugs? Perhaps the measure should at least allow the companies to address it in a timely manner, or to prove that they were at least attempting to be stringent? A punishment for something unintentional seems a little extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a serious proposal. It's an election promise that will be forgotten as soon as they win, handed to some working group to waste money for a few years and then be quietly dropped.
Nice bit of distraction from the other computer problems and their enhanced, near real-time surveillance powers that they plan to bring in. Shame that didn't get more media coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing press have been making much of Labour's pledge to borrow money to invest in infrastructure - the usual "tax and spend" bullshit - yet the figure is less than half what the "fiscally sound" Tories have borrowed in the last couple of years alone
That may be because Labour are planning to spend everything the Conservatives are planning to spend plus more besides and with this additional borrowing on top of all of that.
The Tories have also seen the national debt rise by a colossal amount despite this "austerity" they keep telling us is for our own good.
But you must surely see this as a good thing, given your support for Labour spending even more?
Not a PM Candidate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We basically do. If you help the Conservative candidate get in, you're helping Theresa May become PM.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true in theory, but not in practice, at least not in practice in this 2017 General Election.
As evidence for this consider the Conservative "battle bus" [thesun.co.uk]. If you double click on the top photo on that page to enlarge it (or alternatively click this link [thesun.co.uk]), and then look *very* carefully just under the window on the open door at the front you might be able to just make out the word "Conservatives". If you have the eyes of a hawk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That office would be the MP for wherever it is, PM.
Re: (Score:2)
... *not* PM.
Preview schmeview.
Re: (Score:2)
PM is not an Elected Position (Score:3)
Does Theresa May aspire to be elected to an office?
Yes, she does but only for Member of Parliament, NOT Prime Minister. The position of PM is not an elected one but an appointed one. The reigning monarch chooses the PM but by long-standing tradition always picks the leader of the party with a majority of seats in the commons. The PM remains in office until either they step down or they are fired by the monarch. They may also have to step down if they lose a confidence motion but I'm not sure whether that is legally binding or whether it just means that the
Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
This could go a long way toward persuading average Brits they should protect their privacy...and make it considerably more difficult for law enforcement to sort out the really bad stuff from relatively harmless things.
For example, if I were an ISP, I'd probably start offering discounts to customers based on the level of internet security they were willing to employ. If a customer was willing to make it impossible or incredibly difficult and expensive for me to determine what sites they were visiting, I'd be willing to knock quite a bit off their monthly internet bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the government and information aggregators, no doubt you're right. But the ISP's get most of the headache and little of the reward. Don't you think government is likely to just force them to give up the information? And parties interested in buying it won't pay an ISP anywhere near what the data are worth.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see getting caught between predatory data gatherers and soon-to-be-furious victims as a long term strategy for a happy business life.
Re: (Score:2)
Britain just voted to leave the protection of the EU data protection regulations - clearly they don't seem to care too much about this on the whole.
Re: (Score:2)
This could go a long way toward persuading average Brits they should protect their privacy...
No. Would be nice, but no. Much, much, more concerned with getting rid of foreigners. Foreigner in this instance means foreign-looking, not necessarily a nationality thing.
Free speech (Score:2, Troll)
Free speech dies when social justice is "enforced".
One persons hate speech is their political enemies voice. How convienient!!
Re:Free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think that Teresa May and the Conservatives are concerned with enforcing "social justice"? Then again, maybe you're so far to the right of her that it feels that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Whats sad is that Europe has gone so far left they actually think Teresa May is on the right.
Uhhh, dude, are you actually praising the historic far right in Europe?
Like, for real...?
Re: (Score:2)
No I'd say "far right" is anybody claiming that it's more important to protect people's rights to cary lethal weapons in public than to provide them with healthcare. That's extreme FU right.
Re: (Score:2)
No I'd say "far right" is anybody claiming that it's more important to protect people's rights to cary lethal weapons in public than to provide them with healthcare. That's extreme FU right.
Everybody has the natural right to defend themselves despite what any government tells you.
Nobody has the right to force another person to work for them. We used to call it "slavery" and found it abhorrent, now it's called "nationalized services" and it's great as long as it wasn't your career-field that was nationalized.
"But I wasn't a doctor, so I didn't speak out..."
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck does nationalisation have to do with slavery?
The civil service in pretty much every country is nationalised. Are you saying they're all slaves?
Federal law enforcement in the US is nationalised. Are FBI agents all slaves?
Or are you just stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has the right to force another person to work for them. We used to call it "slavery" and found it abhorrent, now it's called "nationalized services" and it's great as long as it wasn't your career-field that was nationalized.
Civil servants are slaves folks, you heard it here first. Well paid slaves with great job security, holidays and pensions.
No other comment required or offered.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple solution is (Score:2)
Simply to deny use of any Social media to anyone who is considered a minor.
Problem solved.
Far cheaper and easier a solution than to try and mediate every post, image and video that can be found there.
Re: (Score:2)
That would probably be a good idea. Unworkable in practice though.
Not on this planet (Score:2)
They really do live in a different universe than us, just like Juncker said, after that dinner with P.M. May.
They have many illusions and this is another one.
Nanny state chilling effect... (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Excerpt: "The country was listed among the "Enemies of the Internet" in 2014 by Reporters Without Borders,[6] a category of countries with the highest level of internet censorship and surveillance that "mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users".[7] Other major economies listed in this category include China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia."
It ends basically
Re: (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with the so-called "Nanny State". It has everything to do with predatory fascists grabbing as much control as they can over the lives of average people. The Nanny State is a well-intentioned but overprotective government constantly trying to guard its people from the consequences of their own actions. For the current crop of far-right wannabe dictators currently consolidating their control of former democracies in the US, the UK and elsewhere, protecting people is an excuse. Naked
You can take the daughter out of the vicarage ... (Score:2)
You can take the daughter out of the vicarage, but you can't take the vicarage out of the daughter.
Not that anything will happen. It's just throwing a bone to Daily Mail readers which is pretty pointless as they're all dedicated Tory voters, especially now the BNP has imploded.
Hypocricy alert! (Score:2)
Will that be before or after they have to hand them over to the secret police under the new Snooper's Charter?
Re: Hypocricy alert! (Score:2)
It's OK, Someone Else Will Take the UK's Place (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, just anyone who disagrees with them.
But banning "hate speech" is totally Ok (Score:2, Insightful)
UK already has hate speech laws [wikipedia.org], which must've been fine with you. And they are not "obsolete", but actively prosecuted [reason.com].
Which was so cool with the "anti Tories", their Illiberal American brethren would love such laws [hotair.com] to come to the land of the First Amendment — to the annoyance of the earlier generation of Illiberals [aclu.org], flabbergasted at what their rhetoric lead to.
Re:But banning "hate speech" is totally Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
UK already has hate speech laws [wikipedia.org], which must've been fine with you.
Representative democracy doesn't work that way. Just because the party in power implements a particular law, that does not mean the voters are "fine with it". The choices in an election have a very coarse granularity. You vote for a party, not particular policies. If you vote for Labour so that you get more enlightened censorship laws, then you also get a PM that thinks the British economy should be more like Venezuela's. People care about their paycheck more than they care about the free speech rights of Holocaust deniers, but that doesn't mean that every Tory voter supports censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Next Article: Britain is disconnected from the Internet to avoid all content they cannot control.
InterExit?
Re:"Harmful to minors" (Score:4, Insightful)
It is basically a Victorian agenda with zero scientific evidence as a basis. The one thing it shows is the utterly evil nature of those that push this agenda, nothing else. And of course, this is just the preparation step for full censorship. The UK is already half a police-state, and that universally (if not stopped decisively) devolves into a full police state and ultimately full-blown fascism. The strange thing is that a lot of people in the UK seem to be cheering this process onwards, just like if it never happened in history.
Re: (Score:2)
And the funny thing is that when too young, children just do not care about porn (so no harm done), and when not too young anymore, they manage to get access to it anyways (with, as far as science can determine, no harm done). What is pushed here is a fundamental religious agenda, that is not based on actual facts. There is no scientific evidence that porn does harm to children. The only thing that is needed is for parents to put it into context, i.e. explain that these are models and athletes and that no,
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that is needed is for parents to .... explain that these are models and athletes and that no, real people do not perform like that or have an anatomy like that and real sex works a bit differently.
Are you speaking for yourself or for all of us?
That done, any possible harm vanishes.
Wow, that's easy then. Any ideas how to solve world hunger while you are on a roll?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you speaking for yourself or for all of us?
All of us. By the way, in case you're about to try it, claiming you have the anatomy of a pornstar, on the internet, while anonymous is super credible. So we'll all defo believe it.
Wow, that's easy then.
It really is in this case.
Re: Freedom, States and Irish passports (Score:2)
I'm a French citizen living in the UK. I can live anywhere I want, I'm there by choice.
Re: (Score:2)
The way things are going you might leave *before* you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. Firstly, i think the rights of EU citizens to stay in Britain will be guaranteed fairly early on, if for no reason other than that there are many British citizens living in the rest of the EU that we don't want back.
Secondly, I think, once Brexit kicks in, I don't think this will be a country that many people would live in by choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, I think, once Brexit kicks in, I don't think this will be a country that many people would live in by choice.
It'll be nice for the people running it, which is believe is the intention.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone under 30 living in Russia wants to get out, for example, because Russia is appalling and they know it, but they can't, and so they keep paying the tax which funds the Russia military and Government who then launch cyber-attacks on the EU and USA.
Sounds like they should stop being pathetically servile cowards and remove Dear Leader Putin from his perpetual office.
How long was Russia a democracy for? A few years? Pathetic.
Re:Freedom, States and Irish passports (Score:5, Interesting)
National citizenship rules should be changed. Instead of getting automatic citizenship based on where you are born, you should instead get provisional citizenship until your 21st birthday, and then you pick permanent citizenship in the country that best fits your political and economic views.
Re: Freedom, States and Irish passports (Score:2)
The age of 21 would be a horrible time to be making a decision of that gravity. Many people are hot-headed idiots at that stage of their life.
Re: (Score:2)
National citizenship rules are up to the individual country, and with the exception of the Americas, very few countries actually have birthright citizenship. (Some countries allow you to just buy your way to citizenship; the US does this for example.)
That said, I doubt you'd get most countries to cooperate with the idea that somebody who has never been there before can just suddenly claim the rights to being a national just because they hit an arbitrary age number. Gaining citizenship in the US for example
Re: (Score:2)
What if the country that best fits your views doesn't want you?
That is just a minor implementation detail.
Re: (Score:2)
What? That bastion of free speech, the Republic of Ireland?
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
An embarrassing law, yes. Doesn't get enforced. You forgot to link that the case was quickly dropped. I'll link it for you. [independent.co.uk]
It was dropped six days ago because nobody gave a fuck.
Glad I could help you out there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's becoming less and less relevant as power is gradually removed from the states and given to the federal government. Not being enough for those in power, they seek to expand beyond the borders of their country and control other countries as well, currently through treaties, political meddling, and outright assassination of uncooperative foreign leaders.
The end goal is the "one world government", where they no longer need to balance control with freedom.
Re: Freedom, States and Irish passports (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this issue always existed. Why didn't the Japanese who were interned move away to a state that would project them? Why didn't gay people just move to another state in the 50's that would properly protect them? Why couldn't people who are in prison for drug usage move to another state where drug usage was legal?
Because nobody ever stood up for them, hence there was no place to go. Blaming "the federal government" is a cop out; rather than admit that the multiple states approach didn't work, because conservative Americans held (and still hold) very little sympathy for people who lead lives different from themselves, it's much easier to blame something as large and abstract as the federal government. When we talk about outsourced jobs, is it the federal government's fault, or that of the companies for willingly and knowingly sacrificing quality and employee welfare for a better bottom line?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Fairly sure I could move to Ireland even post-Brexit, I'd easily get into Canada or Australia and if I had to I'd gamble on getting into most of Scandinavia, Iceland and New Zealand.
So basically even without looking at the Far East, the Middle East, Central or South America or the whole of Africa, I'm replete with choices.
But just upping and moving? for normal people without millions in cash? no.
I may not be normal but I don't have millions in cash, so... yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trudeau wants to let everyone and their dogs come here.
Don't worry, no-one wants to go there.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the USA. In the US you're a racist xenophobe monster worse than Hitler if you oppose an open border.
Yet they elected a guy who's main thing was a new, bigger, better, stronger, yuger, border wall?
Re: (Score:2)
Except the USA. In the US you're a racist xenophobe monster worse than Hitler if you oppose an open border.
"My arguments are so painfully weak that I must exaggerate the other side's view grotesquely in order to make a facile point."
Re: (Score:2)
Whine, whine, whine, Bluestrat fights against a strawman. In reality, you're a racist xenophobic monster who looks up to Hitler as a hero if you consider immigrants only a problem and uselessly and blindly rail for a wall that you believe those same immigrants will pay for.
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
And for the most part, I agree. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that civilization isn't possible without rule of law, and rule of law isn't possible without having a jurisdiction. Hence, borders are necessary. And likewise you can't necessarily allow people to come and go as they please without some form of controls, international agreements, etc, otherwise borders don't serv
Re: (Score:2)
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
And for the most part, I agree. Fundamentally, what this comes down to is that civilization isn't possible without rule of law, and rule of law isn't possible without having a jurisdiction. Hence, borders are necessary. And likewise you can't necessarily allow people to come and go as they please without some form of controls, international agreements, etc, otherwise borders don't serve any purpose.
Exactly correct, thank you!
I advocate for civilization over anarchy. Border and immigration security & control are a necessary part. This is not rocket surgery.
My A/C stalker must hate civilization. Sad.
But, it seems I live rent-free in his head. Funny.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
While I can't speak for GP, I haven't really seen anybody who wants to ban all immigration, rather just illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is already banned - that's why they call it illegal. The changes that people want to make are making legal immigration harder and enforcing laws against illegal immigration more strongly. The problem with these policies is twofold. The first is that the people who advocate them often benefit from low-priced labour as a result of illegal immigration. The second is that they're often using immigrants as a scapegoat for something else: For example in the UK, in the run up to the referen
Re: (Score:2)
For example in the UK, in the run up to the referendum, we saw that a lot of communities that were 1% or less immigrant were blaming immigrants for the lack of jobs: even if they deported all of the immigrants, it would make no meaningful difference to unemployment rates.
Yeah, people often stumble after moaning they tuk ur jaaabs, when you say what jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[Brexiters will] fall all over themselves contorting into some explanation as to why they support a totalitarian wannabe like May, just because they'll get their precious withdrawal from the EU.
FYI, May was a Bremainer. http://www.euronews.com/2016/0... [euronews.com]
May is merely implementing the result of the referendum. The Brexit-Bremain split is largely orthogonal to the Tory-Labour split. One of the strongest Brexit areas is the South Wales valleys, a working class, Labour supporting, former coal-mining area.
I am a Brexiter and I don't particularly support the Tories, not since that Thatcher bitch destroyed most of British manufacturing, nor Labour since that Blair bastard destroyed the rest. All the mai
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting the nose to spite the face seems to be a very popular pastime for the Brits.
Re: (Score:2)
She was so lukewarm that I'd class here as a Brfence-sitter, waiting to see which way the find blew.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, May was a Bremainer
Not exactly. She was in favour of remaining part of the information sharing agreements with spy agencies in the rest of the EU, but opposed to remaining bound by the decisions of any international courts. Basically, she wanted power without oversight. She's now decided that Brexit is a good way of achieving this.
Re: (Score:2)
You realise you're fitting the brexiteer/UKIP stereotype wonderfully, right? In these very comments you've demonstrated your lack of understanding of what the EU is, and how you are adamantly against your own best interests if they are not packaged up in a bow of your choosing.
Classy stuff. And no, I'm not saying this because your opinion is different, but because your opinion is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
May is merely implementing the result of the referendum.
No, May is interpreting and implementing hers, and the tories vision for bexit. No other information was gathered about why people voted in or out. It was a binary choice, which was stated many time before to be advisory and non binding. Then it got a 52/48 split which is little better than a meh, yet she's ploughing ahead full steam for what's looking like a hard exit if we're lucky but the nuclear option is the one they're really gunning for. Is that why you voted for brexit? What exactly did you want fro
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for smaller parties, UKIP last time.
lol. I mean holy fuck. UKIP are getting smaller by the minute mate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ho for fucks sake, we never lost power to EU.
And we voted for MEPs, to represent us. unfortunately idiots voted in farage as one of MEPs, and instead of trying to change things, he just fucking whined and did fuck all...took a nice fat pay packet.
You have been told a massive pile of bullshit by the fuckers..
Re: (Score:2)
ho for fucks sake, we never lost power to EU.
Except having to conform to their numerous orders. Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales. They are taking big chunks of time out of my life.
Re:Watch all the Freedom-loving Brexiters dance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except having to conform to their numerous orders.
You do realise that we won't be able to do whatever the fuck we want after we leave, right? I mean, no one will agree to do a trade deal with us if re refuse to agree to any rules.
And you know, if we refuse to agree to the EU stuff on fisheries, we risk getting what the EU juust managed to prevent which is a full blown fish stock collapse. Once that happens, you can piss and moan however much you like but you still won't be able to get fish out of the sea.
Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal
Well then you're a right fucking numpty because you can still get creosote if you know where to look.
It also is terrible for the environment so selling it to every tom dick and harry to tip down the drain is a fantastically poor idea too. Creosote is really rather carcinogenic, so yeah, it's a pretty good idea to not have it for general sale on the grounds that not having people kill themselves for not have the right piece of obscure knowledge. But you can still get hold of it easily enough, though without your own pressure treating kit, you won't do nearly as well as if you simply buy pretreated fencing.
Now, you lazy, ill informed git, here's somewhere that'll actually sell you the stuff:
https://www.creosotesales.co.u... [creosotesales.co.uk]
for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales.
Well, I hear Tories love Wales, so I'm sure you won't be at all fucked now you've just handed them all the power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the creosote ban, it was specifically because creosote was found to be significantly more carcinogenic than previously believed. Do you stain those hundreds of yards of fencing yourself? If so, that directive has significantly reduced your likelihood of dying of lung cancer. If not, then it's reduced your ability to emplo
Re: (Score:2)
but a big deal for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales. They are taking big chunks of time out of my life.
Well, why didn't you say so sooner? I mean, the Tories never stop talking about how much they care about fence-maintainers in Wales! I'm sure you're foremost in their minds when they're considering new policies, being such a large part of their core demographic.
I'm actually trying to decide whether or not your post is intended as parody. It's that ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say something mean, but then I realised you live in the damp misty hills of Wales. You've enough to deal with.
Keep voting Tory I'm sure Wales will be a paradise soon once you're rid of all the forrins.
Re: (Score:2)
ho for fucks sake, we never lost power to EU.
Except having to conform to their numerous orders. Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales. They are taking big chunks of time out of my life.
So you're prepared to fuck everyone over for your inconvenience and for the sake of several hundred yards of fence? Maybe you should give Trump a shout, I hear he's looking for people that know about fences. Is there any reason they banned this stuff or where they like ' yeah this nukenerd guy, fuck him and his fences'?
Re: (Score:2)
If you might recall, the USA had a revolution over being ruled by a foreign power. The UK managed to do it much more peacefully.
You think Brexit is like the american revolution? lol
You have a toddler's view of the world. Holy shit, what a fucking moron you have to be to think those situations are comparable.
LOL.
Re: (Score:3)
Theresa May's party might win and she might not actually get elected in her constituency - at that point she could NOT be Prime Minister.
Yes she could. It is not a PM's job requirement to be a member of parliament, either in the Commons or the Lords. In 1963 Alec Douglas-Home was PM for a time in that position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What would happen is that a Tory in a safe seat would resign, a by-election would ensue in which May would be the Tory candidate and win.
The British Prime Minister is actually chosen by the Queen. Don't worry, she won't choose you or me.