Posts by Dr. Mouse

Re: Maybe consumer groups...

"But do we really need to test this generation on public thoroughfares?"

Should cruise control/lane guidance/collision warning & avoidance technology "not be tested on public thoroughfares"? These technologies are there to assist the driver. They can improve safety and the enjoyment of driving.

All Tesla's Autopilot is is a smart cruise control system. Anyone who can't understand that (when it is in the manual, the car tells them every time they turn it on, and it was explained to them when they bought the car) is an idiot who shouldn't be on the road, and should be taken to court for driving without due care and attention.

Personally, I believe they should change the name, just to reinforce the point. But the issue is, generally, idiots driving them (or not, as the case may be). The same idiots would end up in accidents anyway.

Re: Goldsmith lost in Richmond because of it. Apparently.

"It's a bit like a doctor asking for consent to remove a badly damaged little finger that would be tricky to repair, and then, after you say ok go ahead, telling you he's actually taking it off at the wrist, or maybe the elbow."

This.

I have heard many Leave voters saying "I voted for us to leave the whole lot/reduce immigration/some other thing".

Nope. You voted to leave the EU, because that was the question. You may have voted because of X, but that's not what you voted for.

The government would have fulfilled it's obligations* with respect to the referendum if we left the EU, but stayed in the EEA/EFTA. Doing any more than that is beyond the democratic mandate it has been given.

Although if they do that, a large bunch of Leavers will whinge that that's not what they meant or wanted.

No matter what happens, though, I'm fairly certain a majority will be unhappy with the result. Taking a few scenarios:

- Hard Brexit: I'm fairly certain that a decent chunk of people who voted Leave wanted a Soft Brexit of some description, enough to tip it over the 50% unhappy when you include the Remainers.

- Soft Brexit: A large proportion of the Leave side, plus a large proportion of the Remain side, would be unhappy, no matter the terms.

- Stay in EU: More than 50% voted Leave, so a majority unhappy (even including those who only voted in protest).

- Any option: All failures or downturns for many years to come will be blamed on the decision made by the Govt/Parliament on this, so at some point over the next decade or so, every person in the country will be unhappy with whatever decision has been made, unless that exactly fits with their own particular idea and they have not changed their opinion at all.

* I say "obligations", although it is not technically obliged to do anything at all, legally or procedurally.

Re: Warrant Canary

"It's fantasy to think that warrant canaries provide some sort of legal escape route."

I do not know how someone could be prosecuted for it, though.

You place a factual statement, which is not illegal, on your website. When asked to provide info, that statement is no longer factual. You *Must*, therefore, remove it from your website, or else be done by, say, ASA. Or even be sued when someone finds out. If this is classified as having informed the public, you are put in the position of having to do one illegal thing or another.

If I was on a jury in a case like this, I would conclude that the catch-22 was a get out. No matter the judges instructions, I would find not guilty, as it was the only moral thing a person or company could do in that situation.

You don't have to be vegan to think that unnecessary cruelty should be avoided.

Certainly, cruelty should be avoided. I don't think there's even such a thing as necessary cruelty.

However, how do you know that cruelty is involved in production of the tallow in the notes? It sounds like what you are saying is that use of animal products is, by definition, cruel, and I would beg to differ on that.

If we look at the animal kingdom, most carnivores kill their prey in much more cruel manners than humans do. We generally take steps to ensure the animal is stunned before killing them.

In addition, AFAIK, tallow is generally produced as a by product of other industries, such as food production. There is logic to saying that, if the animal will be killed for food, anyway, why not make the best possible use of all parts of it?

I do believe the Royal Mint has made an error here, as there will be negative PR. However, if anyone wishes to stop accepting or using them, that is their right*. I'm sure it will be a massive inconvenience to them (for example, if they refuse a fiver as change in a shop, they'll either get a bunch of bulky, heavy coins or be told the transaction cannot be completed). But, then again, vegans are used to being inconvenienced (and inconveniencing others), so they probably won't mind that.

* WRT legal tender, see http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines

In short, it is only a legal requirement to accept legal tender as payment of a debt.

Re: only thing I ask

I have to say, I'm with all those who want /s?bin kept separate from /usr.

I have seen my fair share of disk corruption of one form or another. Having the essential utilities on the root partition while the rest reside on a different one makes sense. It keeps a "root-only" bootable and usable system available even if the rest of the partitions are corrupted, and gives a chance to recover the system without resorting to booting from CD/USB (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has spent ages hunting for a "rescue" disk to recover a botched system).

Although if people here are correct and systemd has screwed this path up, I guess the change makes little difference....

Re: Morally binding what though?

the fact that the author himself suggests that it's reversible weights quite a lot with me

I give it some fair weight myself. However,

1) He had not said so before this case was brought. I don't think he even had by the time this case had finished, and the judge was considering his verdict.

2) Just because they guy who wrote it thinks it's reversible doesn't mean it is. It would be down to a court to decide. As we probably won't find out unless we have to challenge it, it must be assumed that it's not.

Therefore triggering A50 overrides an Act of Parliament, so can only happen by an Act by our constitution.

Re: Morally binding what though?

@Chemist: From the first ref. you gave. This supports my position: We don't know for certain, we'd better assume we can't back out.

13. It is unclear whether a notification under Article 50, once made, could be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK without the consent of other EU member states. In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse.

Re: Morally binding what though?

Even the author of Article 50 is suggesting it can be canceled !

Yes, he is... Now.

Before this case started, the majority of those expressing an opinion on it were saying it couldn't.

If there's even a chance that it is a one way process, the Royal Prerogative cannot be used, as it potentially overrides an Act of Parliament.

The sensible thing to do would be to get the courts (probably including the ECJ) to rule on whether it is possible to back out of it. Otherwise, assume it's not possible, and get Parliament to approve it.

Re: Morally binding what though?

If we leave the EU, we will need to repeal the European Communities Act, and an Act of Parliament can only be repealed *drum roll* by another act of parliament!

Also playing the "what if" game: The vast majority of sources before this court case was filed (in fact, before it started) said that triggering A50 was irrevocable. If so, then triggering A50 would mean that the ECA would effectively be nullified by the government's decision*.

If A50 can be backed out of, as some have just started saying, then the use of the Royal Prerogative would seem appropriate. This question has not been definitively answered, though.

* Actually, the European Law on this issue states that it must be triggered in accordance with the countries law/constitution. Therefore, without an Act of Parliament, the EU may be able to argue that it hasn't been correctly and lawfully triggered and bring Brexit to a halt. Surely it's worth taking it to Parliament to avoid that highly embarrassing situation, isn't it?

No-one doubts the sovereignty of Parliament, in particular their power to remove an executive of whose actions they disapprove. But democratically elected representatives need to think very carefully before overriding the democratically expressed will of the people who elect them.

As for the unholy combination of merchant bankers and unelected judges who achieved this result ...

As has been stated by others, the judiciary are not "overriding the democratically expressed will of the people". They have rules that, by our own constitutional law, enacted by Parliament through the will of the people, Parliament must approve triggering A50 for us to leave the EU.

It is likely that Parliament would approve it, as doing anything else would be seen to be "overriding the democratically expressed will of the people". It would cause outrage. However, no "overriding the democratically expressed will of the people" has taken place, yet. In fact, the judiciary are upholding "the democratically expressed will of the people" by ensuring the Government can't just overturn legislation brought in by Parliament. It is maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament.

Re: We live in a parliamentary democracy

And parliament asked the people of the country to decide. Well I was in a minority it seems, the country voted to leave. Now it seems we no longer live in any sort of democracy at all, we live in a country where unelectable judges see fit to disregard the will of the people, who were asked by parliament to decide.

The Referendum was Advisory. The people were asked the opinion.

The judge has not seen "fit to disregard the will of the people", he has seen fit to ensure the laws of the land, passed by Parliament by the will of the people, are followed.

He has not said "Brexit cannot happen". He has said that, in order for Brexit to be legal, the law must be followed. Only Parliament can override an Act of Parliament.

Do you want the Government to be able to change laws willy nilly without Parliament? That way Dictatorship lies.

Re: Wait a minute...

If every vehicle has these things then pedestrians can safely walk out in front of any vehicle and not get run over.

And the problem is that pedestrians will do that, and the car driver won't get anywhere at all. Result - driving a car in town becomes a very slow way to travel.

This already happens. Look at city centers on a Friday/Saturday night. People, esp after a few drinks, think "They won't run me over, I'll just cross and ignore the traffic".

I can see this becoming annoying, but I don't think it's a strong argument against autonomous vehicles. I'd rather have the ability to engage the self-driver and sit back than have the stress of watching out for these ****s myself, not to mention all the idiot drivers.

Bottom line is, IMHO, that self-driving cars are coming, and they will save a lot of lives. They will be more convenient in most situations. With the ability to just hail one (probably for a darned sight less than the total cost of owning a car) will leave most with little reason to buy their own. It's the future and, while it won't be here next year, I foresee them being everywhere a decade or so from now.

all I can see an employer doing is confirming Company and VAT registration and getting me to sign a waiver saying that to the best of my knowledge I fully comply with UK tax law

Nope. They have to check, using a pathetic, inaccurate and not-yet-finished online tool (which obviously will use HMRC's viewpoint, not that which has been written into law or that which has been shown as correct in the courts) to determine whether you are in disguised employment. If the tool says you are, they must charge income tax and NI at source. See http://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/inside_ir35_contractors_guide_april_2017_and_beyond.html for a quick guide.

If it is later found that you should have been inside IR35, they will be liable for the unpaid tax. Do you know of any company or agency who would be willing to take that risk on your behalf? No, most will just deem everyone to be inside (several have said so up front) instead of facing the liability themselves.

Re: IR35, is currently costing the taxpayer around £440m a year

But if HMRC really have ignored how the contract "actually works", you'll be able to convince a judge and he'll chuck it out.

Yep. I have seen several reports which say that HMRC lose the vast majority of IR35 cases which go to tribunal. This is why they are trying to change the rules, to force (unnecessary) tax and NI to be taken at source, and force PSC consultants to take them to tribunal to get it back. They think (hope) that most won't bother.

That said, if I was consulting for the public sector, I would be upping my rates in April to cover any extra tax which will be imposed, as well as considering a move to the private sector. It's ridiculous to think that agencies or government departments will be willing to take the risk under these rules: Most will just blindly force consultants to work on payroll, obviously without giving them any of the rights of an employee.

Re: Budweiser Light is like making love to a beautiful woman in a canoe...

So what does that tell you?

That Yanks wouldn't know a good beer if it was tipped over their heads?

Re: The system is broken

Works on a personal level... why not the corporate?

That's what the personal allowance is (supposed) to be for*.

The personal allowance should be set at an amount such that you don't get taxed on what you need to live and work. This is vaguely similar for all individuals, so to simplify things, the allowance is given. It would not work for a business due to the wide variety of business types and models etc.

Personally, I would not object to doing away with this and allowing "claiming of expenses": Allow an individual to claim for basic living costs and working costs, so basic housing, basic food, travel to and from work etc, and offset this against their gross income for tax.

Re: The system is broken

"or just tax turnover, not profit."

Taxing turnover is not a fair way to tax. It seems to tick the boxes, but it has been shown time and again that it's not the right way to do it.

Let's take a silly example.

Company A manufactures widgets. It costs £1 in materials and £5 in labour to make each one. They sell 1m of them for £10 each (wholesale), meaning a turnover of £10m and a gross profit of £4m. They then spend £3m of their GP on, for example, wages and other costs to run the business, leaving a net profit of £1m to pay tax on.

Company B buys 500k of those widgets and shifts them through it's online distribution chain at £20 each. Their turnover is £10m, and gross profit £5m. They spend about £1m on running their business, leaving £4m net profit to pay tax on.

Both have a turnover of £10m, but they have vastly different profits. Is it fair that those 2 companies pay the same amount of tax?

A tax on turnover is known as a sales tax. We all know that a sales tax is not a tax on the company, but a tax on their customers. VAT, for instance, is a tax on consumers. It does not tax the amount of money that a company makes, but charges their customer for the privilege of buying the product.

We should be taxing profit. However, we need to make sure that the profits reported in each country actually match the real product, and are not distorted by artificial means to reduce overall tax liabilities.