General politics discussion thread

[patiirc]

patdfb - there's a difference between openly bullying a kid and not giving them the attention and support they need.

 

 

it's a bit of a slippery slope I know, but I disagree that teachers are moderated *that* much. They might be assessed a lot, but it's not as though every piece of homework is double-marked. Don't really wanna get into a debate about BNP / policies, and I am fully aware many BNP members might be more than capable of separating their private and professional lives, but like I say, it's not something I feel too comfortable about. Hmm, bit of a grey area, real head-scratcher.....

 

I appreciate this, but this should be picked up if the parents give a shit about their kids. Id like to think you'd know if your kid is failing falling behind not happy or that something was wrong ( change in behaviour etc)

 

Im staying away from policies on this too, was more of the point of how being a member affects your ability to teach and what predujices if any would carry over. given the tightness of the cirriculum.

[garynysmon]

Can anyone understand the logic of holding the Budget just 2 months before a forced General Election?

[patiirc]

Can anyone understand the logic of holding the Budget just 2 months before a forced General Election?

 

As far as I understand it they legally have to because of the end of the financial year and the subsequent election that has to happen because of the 5 1/2 year rule

[Chest Rockwell]

Thanks to a UKFF tweeter who tweeted #debill I came across this on the subject:

BBC News - Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

 

Welcome to the 3rd Great Firewall.. after China and Australia.

 

 

 

Umm. No. Stop being so reactionary. Have you read the article?

 

I don't necessarily agree with the proposition, but it is clearly about piracy; there's nothing there to give the law as broad a scope as what's happening in China and Australia.

 

Yes, I have read the article, thanks.

 

This bit (especially the emboldened bit)

 

Earlier this month, peers defeated the government when they rejected a clause giving ministers the power to change laws on online copyright in future without the need for further legislation.

'Unintended consequences'

But their chosen replacement - a measure allowing courts to use injunctions to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites - also prompted criticism from companies, consumer rights campaigners and academics.

 

and unfinished definitions of illegal websites, would mean that the government as per Australia and China are censoring the internet for you. By stopping you viewing what they consider to be illegal content despite this being ill-defined in terms of this bill.

 

Would a website that contains images that broke copyright be banned or would sites in the traditional sense of illegal (hardcore porn etc) be banned? Who would make the differentiation?

 

Timely, this was on recently Panorama- Jo Whiley re Musical Piracy on the Internet just to further explore the issue.

 

Ill admit I didnt have much to agree with the programme and didnt like the 'Daily Mail Lite' attitude, but as a public broadcaster cant condone illegality then the show was always going to be of a similar position.

 

The BPI are money grabbing bastards though.. think not? Ask Calvin Harris

 

I forget I have to quantify everything on here.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't mean for my comment to be antagonistic. Apologies if it came off that way.

 

I do think you're jumping the gun a bit, though I am interested in hearing the answers to some of the questions you're asking* even if just to know that it has been considered. The BPI are cunts and the Lords are a bunch of old fucks who don't even understand the internet, but I don't see their intention in being that of using this the way the law is being used in Australia. The intention, at least, is about copyright and piracy.

 

 

* Or just getting a bit more clarity by reading the specific wording

[Dynamite Duane]

I'm wondering if the ISPs will be unhappy about this, they could lose money from subscribers who pay extra to be able to download more than a standard user. These subscribers who use such services do so specifically for downloading music, films, TV programmes etc or have I got this wrong?

[JNLister]

Done a piece today which is a very capsulated account of the bill: http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2010/...-a-step-closer/

[David]

I found it quite interesting that statistics show that people who download music on average spend almost twice as much on legal music per year than those who don't illegally download.

 

According to the the BBC show anyway.

[patiirc]

I didn't mean for my comment to be antagonistic. Apologies if it came off that way.

 

I do think you're jumping the gun a bit, though I am interested in hearing the answers to some of the questions you're asking* even if just to know that it has been considered. The BPI are cunts and the Lords are a bunch of old fucks who don't even understand the internet, but I don't see their intention in being that of using this the way the law is being used in Australia. The intention, at least, is about copyright and piracy.

 

 

* Or just getting a bit more clarity by reading the specific wording

 

 

No need for the apologies but thanks anyhoo.

 

 

Initially I wouldnt jump the gun, but with the incumbent governments laws being misused on a regular basis, Freedom of Information Act, and councils utter abuse of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to name two. Then a rushed piece of legislation such as this has no chance whatsoever of being enacted in the sense that it was meant.

 

The Panorama, had a small interview with the Lords technical adviser who quite clearly said you will need a ISP masker and then jobs a good un. Your IP will be spoofed to Timbuktu or whatever so the act could be circumnavigated.

 

The whole fact that it needs legislation is cringeworthy and smacks of nannyism, cronyism and a hyper distorted sense or what is 'right'

 

This bill is seemingly part of a 'new order' of almost Victorian values, where everything seemingly has to be 'whiter than white and perfect, Faux-Utopian I suppose. It is beginning to scare me and will more than likely end in disaster. Its as though it is a backlash against the perceived /media hyped monster that society has become. Its not just in the Uk it seems to be everywhere.

[Loki]

I found it quite interesting that statistics show that people who download music on average spend almost twice as much on legal music per year than those who don't illegally download.

 

According to the the BBC show anyway.

 

I'm always suspicious of those sorts of statistics.

 

What it means is that someone who has the ability and interest to download music illegally is more likely to buy music from iTunes than someone who isn't. But given how many people either don't download music AT ALL one way or the other (who aren't interested in music, don't have internet, don't have a computer etc) the statistic is meaningless.

 

It's like saying someone with a car is more likely to run someone over than someone without a car. I mean, obviously.

[David]

I'm always suspicious of those sorts of statistics.

 

What it means is that someone who has the ability and interest to download music illegally is more likely to buy music from iTunes than someone who isn't. But given how many people either don't download music AT ALL one way or the other (who aren't interested in music, don't have internet, don't have a computer etc) the statistic is meaningless.

 

It's like saying someone with a car is more likely to run someone over than someone without a car. I mean, obviously.

Or, it could mean that some of the people who download albums from the internet do so in order to see if it's any good first.

 

I've done that on many occasions myself. I'll give an album a listen, and if it's good i'll go out and buy it so I can get the official packaging and the sleeve etc.

 

One thing I heard during that show was music industry representatives banging on about the demise of the high street record store.

 

That has less to do with downloading than it has the fact that albums can be bought for eight quid or less on sites such as Play.com in my opinion.

 

I personally have no problem listening to an album, liking it, and spending between a fiver and eight quid on it.

 

I won't go into HMV or somewhere and spend twelve to fifteen notes on it though.

[Chest Rockwell]

Or, it could mean that some of the people who download albums from the internet do so in order to see if it's any good first.

 

I've done that on many occasions myself. I'll give an album a listen, and if it's good i'll go out and buy it so I can get the official packaging and the sleeve etc.

 

I don't know about you in particular, but the amount of people that say that and are just talking shit and actually download and listen to loads more than they buy is immense.

 

One thing I heard during that show was music industry representatives banging on about the demise of the high street record store.

 

That has less to do with downloading than it has the fact that albums can be bought for eight quid or less on sites such as Play.com in my opinion.

 

I personally have no problem listening to an album, liking it, and spending between a fiver and eight quid on it.

 

I won't go into HMV or somewhere and spend twelve to fifteen notes on it though.

 

Hah.. Yeah. That one really does take the piss. Why won't people bend over and take it for our shitty service? I fucking hate HMV for music; it's awful. It's like when Fopp gets called a "discount/budget" music store because they have the gall to sell things at a reasonable price...

 

Cheap books from HMV are good though!

[Happ Hazzard]

There's no doubt in my mind that downloading has diminished the cultural worth of music. It's turned it into a throwaway commodity. I remember hearing Terry Christian going on about how an album used to be something really major, you'd only buy a few a year. Whereas going to See Manchester Utd play was something he did every Saturday, it really wasn't a big deal, not even the most notable thing you'd do in a weekend. Nowadays the situation is completely reversed. I think he said when he was a kid, an album was about

[Carbomb]

There's no doubt in my mind that downloading has diminished the cultural worth of music. It's turned it into a throwaway commodity.

 

There's a huge difference between perceived monetary value and cultural worth. Cultural worth doesn't ever diminish, it merely changes.

[David]

I don't know about you in particular, but the amount of people that say that and are just talking shit and actually download and listen to loads more than they buy is immense.

I guess you could be right. I can only really speak for myself, but then again i'm a bit geeky when it comes to having albums I like on CD, especially if it comes in a limited edition or something like that.

 

Plus, a lot of the more obscure black metal bands are hard to find in shops or on download sites, so you get the satisfaction of knowing you've bought the album direct from the band themselves.

[Chest Rockwell]

Sure. You'll always feel much more happy to part with your money if you know you're lining the band's pockets directly and if it's a bit of an underground genre you know they need and appreciate your support that bit more. It's exactly the same with a lot of the hip hop I buy - also my motivation isn't quite the same of being completist or geeky about it, but I like to have stuff on vinyl so that's another good reason I buy even after downloading. Not everything mind. There's plenty of stuff I've downloaded, listening to and enjoyed without buying. I'm willing to hold my hand up to that.