Jump to content

The New Condem Government


bickster

Recommended Posts

Denying that there is a link between a worker's ability to add value and wages just seems perverse.

it seems perverse to me as well, but plenty of situations where a persons ability or rather inability to create wealth or add value has no effect on their remuneration and they receive salaries well above the national average,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If it was a Conservcative MP being linked to some dodgy padeophile group, then I doubt that would pass without comment either.  A very good example of Drat's beloved 'h' word.

You do realise some of us have been mentioning a certain former Thatcher minister as a paedophile and member of a very dodgy group for some considerable time now but it never seems to hit the press in this manner and thats an actual very active paedophile at the time he was in power which is a whole few scales higher than anything about Harperson

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stuff about Labour in the Sun is just Murdoch ensuring his horse wins the next election. Press Barons have manipulated the news agenda to defend their interests for as long as there have been newspapers. Ever was and will be so its what Newspapers are for. To hear those of a leftist persuasion bemoaning the fact that the paper that got Bliar elected in 1997 is now kicking Labour around at will looks for all the world like a jilted lover bitching about the new girlfriend.

There weren't too many complaints about the treatment of politicians and potential libel claims when the press runs stories about paedo ex Tory ministers, in fact, several posters on here seemed to positively relish the attention the story was getting. To bemoan the Suns treatment of Harman, Dromy and Hewitt is hypocrisy of the highest order.

a total missing of the point eames

The fact that Murdoch supported labour previously has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.

I think your right wing thinking is clouding your judgement here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Denying that there is a link between a worker's ability to add value and wages just seems perverse.

it seems perverse to me as well, but plenty of situations where a persons ability or rather inability to create wealth or add value has no effect on their remuneration and they receive salaries well above the national average,

 

 

This confirms Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class, that the further one gets from the point of actual production, the higher the status and the higher the reward.

 

Something which seems to be confirmed every single day.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen

Edited by MakemineVanilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Denying that there is a link between a worker's ability to add value and wages just seems perverse.

it seems perverse to me as well, but plenty of situations where a persons ability or rather inability to create wealth or add value has no effect on their remuneration and they receive salaries well above the national average,

 

 

This confirms Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class, that the further one gets from the point of actual production, the higher the status and the higher the reward.

 

Something which seems to be confirmed every single day.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen

 

Thank you, not sure if Veblan has ever come up in any of my reading so far, anyhow, something else to put on my to do list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is everyone aware? august bank holiday

 

I presumed it was a prank until I checked it's real!

This Peter Bone http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/25/tory-mp-peter-bone-innocent-benefit-fraud-police-raid

 

He and his fellow back benchers (Chris Chope, Philip Hollobone and David Nuttall) put something like 40 private members bills together for this parliament, not all as stupid as the Margeret Thatcher day one,

 

This one was actually quite reasonable: BBC Licence Fee (Civil Debt) – Bill to make provision to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee.

As I think this one was, especially when you consider who we've had hold the post and what a meaningless position it is;

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) – Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and its responsibilities to be allocated to other Departments of State.

however an awful lot of the bills would look at home in a UKIP manifesto and are thinly veiled anti anyone who isn't British

Anyhow, as others have pointed out looks like it's dead in the water, maybe he can spend more time fighting the above mentioned case, quite apt as his very anti welfare state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of that BBC licence Bill was to undermine the Beeb and leave us dependent on the likes of NI for news, leading to the appalling situation they have in the US. Utterly reactionary. I wonder who sponsors him.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of that BBC licence Bill was to undermine the Beeb and leave us dependent on the likes of NI for news, leading to the appalling situation they have in the US. Utterly reactionary. I wonder who sponsors him.

I know the probable purposes of this bill. You don't think I'm naive enough not to realise that possible agenda, but this is why I would suggest it is the sign of a 'rebel faction' either real or fake, as things stand the Government (of whichever political party) have a nice big axe to hold over the BBC in regards to it's charter and funding, that's why we have the arguments over whether the BBC is Labour or Tory biased, It's neither, It's soft biased to whoever is in governance at any particular time.but anyone who has experienced how the BBC think about, and how Capita TV license salesmen act behave towards anyone without a TV license, whether they are Legally License free households or not could only see this as a good thing even though their is no altruistic reason behind it. The BBC have only two opinions over the TV license, you buy one or you are an evader and hence a criminal, if you claim you don't watch live TV you are a criminal and a liar,  no matter how they publicly present their views on this, that is the view that is shown in action. Capita wearing their TV licencing cap use coercive, bullyboy tactics, which will involve falsifying evidence, lying, and threats to either get you to buy a license or be prosecuted for evading it to in order to get their commission.

 

The reason i use the term rebel faction, real or fake is most of these private members bills could be seen  'outside' stated government policy, we all know how stated government policy can vary enormously from the real policies they will pursue. so this could either be a bunch of rebels willing to put their at odds (with official policy) thoughts out there, or they could easily be just putting some of the hidden agendas of the Government as a way to get them into parliamentary debate but in a way the Government can distance and disassociate themselves.

 

The bill about the BBC could be seen in two ways, an attack to weaken the BBC, or an attack to threaten the BBC and bring it more into line, their soft bias is often presented as a bias against, we all are familiar with the sentiment of you're either with me wholly or against me. Maybe this is a case of coercion or leaning on the BBC in a way that te government as said before can distance themselves, but it's a threat they can distance themselves, bit like a Gangsta sending his henchmen round to shake you down or rough you up a bit.

 

However despite all this I believe decriminalisation of many currently illegal activities should be at least debated so such a bill would in my opinion be a good thing. the BBC don't help themselves by breaking their charter regarding unbiased reporting, and many of their other actions

Edited by mockingbird_franklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We kind of take the BBC licence for granted and so it was very strange, when a few years ago, Michael Moore did a programme where he told incredulous US citizens that people were sent to jail in the UK for watching television. They just did not believe him.

 

When viewed like that, the compulsory nature of the licence certainly does seem to be a rather strange arrangement. Even watching videos on equipment capable of picking up a BBC signal requires a licence (?). 

 

Although it was almost certainly more neutral than Churchill's British Gazette during the General Strike, I think its constant claim to impartiality is exaggerated.

 

It has had some fine moments but there seems to be very little evidence that it is capable of being anything but the mouthpiece of the establishment these days. Close reading of the revised charter seems to suggest that by definition the establishment view represents what is a balanced, which by default defines any other view as unbalanced. So for instance, if the government decides that man-made climate change is a fact, it is considered unbalanced to challenge that fact because the government's view is taken as the established consensus. 

 

The BBC's news and views output certainly seems to confirm that suspicion, and whether it is climate change, immigration, membership of the EU, or foreign policy, the BBC seems never to demur from known establishment thinking.

 

Their role seems to be to reaffirm the consensus at every turn and not challenge which ever party is in power.

 

We might be comfortable with the BBC and we may fear a media dominated by Sky, but although we might be happy that we don't have a Bill O'Reilly, we don't have a Bill Maher either.

 

It may very well be that the BBC's subtlety in constantly restating the establishment's views is far more dangerous when it comes to narrowing debate, than the transparent bellicose, crass, right-wing bias of something like Fox news. 

 

There is definitely something objectionable about being made to purchase a licence fee, to pay for your own government indoctrination.  

 

Being jailed for watching Casualty seems extreme.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole jail thing is misleading, it's all about money, I don't think anyone

 

"Even watching videos on equipment capable of picking up a BBC signal requires a licence (?)."

 

good question mark as it's not true, owning television equipment does not require a license, nor does having it installed, it has to be installed with the intention of use to receive live broadcast signals, despite the BBC/TV licensing claims any other device (PC Smart Phones etc) do not come under TV license jurisdiction, unless they are used to watch live broadcasts, just having the ability does not make them television receiving equipment, for that the primary use of the equipment and intention has to be to receive live TV.

Capability is not the reason to have a license but the intended use of equipment defines it's status.

 

Their is no way short of watching someone or getting them to admit they watch live TV without a license to convict someone.TV detection equipment is a fallacy that has been used as for physiological purposes only, No one has ever been convicted of TV license evasion through detection evidence, If it is so brilliant why don't they use it? That is before we consider the issue of RIPA on it's employment. 100% of the time it is self incrimination that gets a conviction, this self incrimination has been known to be obtained through coercion, misrepresentation, duress, lies and fraud with the complicity of the court system.

The BBC know the game could be up for the license fee, so are positioning themselves for it to be collected either through general taxation (either local or national) and/or levied on Internet service provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and they put on hold plans to sell your medical records, denying the system would be misused for commercial gain, then they do this,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10656893/Hospital-records-of-all-NHS-patients-sold-to-insurers.html

Disgusting.

How is this legal?

Someone should take this up in Strasbourg.

This one slipped by with very little fuss didn't it. The BBC likes to drive home the Tory 'we must outsource' message when understaffed wards with over worked nurses results in levels of care falling short. What's vile is the way that the nurses, who's view is never heard, are passively blamed.

So, no heads have rolled for this, and yet here it's reported that more data is being used for commercial purposes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hospital-records-used-to-target-ads-on-twitter-and-facebook-say-privacy-campaigners-in-latest-nhs-data-concerns-9166633.html?utm_content=buffere1d32&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Edited by Kingfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â