Posts by LucreLout

Re: Warning - tory bashing.

The bailout deficit is the excuse for the deliberate policy of austerity which has allowed such savage cutbacks.

Look past your empty headed union propaganda and you'll find that there have been no cuts.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

Facts people. Facts are used to form reasoned positions, emotive rhetoric may make you feel better, but its all just BS.

Re: Warning - tory bashing.

Well, the bankers helped

Ah, the old lie oft repeated.

No banker in all of history has ever been able to force a chancellor to borrow £40Bn he didn't have to spend on dross he didn't need, for every year of an economic boom. The lack of preparation for an entirely predictable recession is absolutely labours fault. They inherited a growing and stable economy, running a budget surplus, and with low debts. And they utterly ruined it and pissed away the future of two generations.

Since 2008 debt has gone up consistently year on year.

The alternative was actual austerity. Actual cuts. Look at the bleating from the left, and all we've had yet is slower increases in public spending. Cuts would have made them shit the bed.

Re: Warning - something I know too much about

All the rural districts have spent judiciously and have reserves of cash.

Indeed. Back in 2007 when IceSave went bust, it emerged that the average local council had a full years worth of government money tucked away in reserves accounts. Nobody in the media could seemingly be bothered to inquire as to why something funded with the full wealth of the tax payer would ever actually need reserves. But have them they do.

That rather begs the question why they're cutting anything other than their reserve account bank balance. The country is broke - the tax payer has no more money to take, there's no more money to borrow and spend, so either they have to spend less, or spend their reserves.

Re: Warning - tory bashing.

Well they might have a chance if austerity hadn't completely gutted their budget

And yet public spending remains at an all time high. Austerity in the UK is a myth. It's a fairy story socialists tell themselves because they don't understand money. All that has happened is that spending has increased more slowly than before - not one pound has been cut from public spending.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

Sorry that the facts don't agree with your polemic, but if you will indulge in fact free rants, well, what did you think would happen?

Re: Becoming standard....

I recently stayed at Wynn hotel/casino in Las Vegas. Alexa was in my room listening to everything. Not my device. I didn't configure it. Who else besides Amazon is it feeding the audio stream to??

Nobody, once you unplug it.

Re: I do not like these scooters

One might suggest that you should already have been below the speed limit - it is a limit, not a target.

Absent a reason to go slower (rain, obstacles etc) it is the speed at which you are expected to drive. Try going slower on your test and you will fail.

Re: Make helmets mandatory - oh wait, we can't

Even crashes at over 70 km/h in the sprints do not result in head injuries

Yes, because they're all wearing helmets. Your argument isn't leading where you seem to think it is....

Re: Make helmets mandatory - oh wait, we can't

In summary, I'm not going to argue that helmets don't save lives, just that there is too much attention focussed on them instead of road safety.

People used to say the same about seat belts too.

Just make them mandatory, and in a few years, nobody will even remember why they kicked up a fuss, but the death toll WILL be noticeably lower.

Re: It is 22 weeks if he behaves himself

However if he smears brown stuff all over the cell like he did in the embassy, then he will serve the full sentence. The 20 day deduction for time already spent inside will apply regardless.

Assange is without any shadow of a doubt, a bellend. An allegedly rapey, treacherous bellend, depending on which accusations you believe. I'm firmly of the opinion he should be sent to Sweden for trial, and that he's serving a fair tariff for bail jumping. The American issues I make no comment on just now.

However, I just don't quite believe the accusations regarding a fecal makeover of the ambassadors pad. If they are true, and I think it's a big if, then he clear has some level of mental health issue which should be treated and not mocked. I suspect this was just a pretext to disgust people enough to overlook the granting of permission for the police to enter the embassy.

Re: The problem with your logic is that resisting the arrest is the crime.

IF you find yourself in the position of having to deal with plod.

Having pulled apart the woeful advice offered earlier, I thought I'd venture my own.

1) Comply with their instructions peacefully, respectfully, and calmly. It removes any justification to use escalating force upon you. If it transpires they are violating your rights, you can simply file a complaint and take their job another day. No really, the time to kick up a fuss is not while being questioned or taken into custody - in no circumstances will this ever help you.

2) If you do get arrested, ask for a solicitor and comply with the solicitors instructions. They know what they're doing more so than your interpretation of some guys advice on the internet. No comment isn't going to help you, it's just going to cause them to focus on you, due to the reasonable expectation that innocent people will cooperate. Obviously if your solicitors advice is "no comment" then do that, but where you can provide evidence of innocence, then compliance and answering questions will almost always produce a better outcome than sulking and stonewalling.

3) If you know you are guilty, admit it. That 1/3rd off your sentence can be important. If its a first offence and you admit guilt at your first court hearing, you'll get 2/3rd reduction in sentence, which means even GBH will be under the 2 year threshold for a suspended sentence - you walk free. Dicking about will leave you over the suspension threshold, and serving time (in cases of GBH you start off looking at 6 years, reduced by 2 years if its a first offence, and another 2 years if you plead guilty at the get go, which is then suspended for 2 years - dicking about will leave you facing 4 years even at a first offence, so you'll go away for 2).

4) If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Crying about it makes you look weak, and weakness in prison isn't a good thing. Killing yourself in custody may get you out of jail, but was whatever you did to get nicked really worth dying for?

I base this on many interactions with the police and CPS over the years - from carrying a pocket knife disclosed during stop & search (even though the blade locked in place and was millimeters too long for EDC rules), suspicion of fleeing a stolen car (wasn't me), driving offences too lengthy to list, and the drunk & wanton relocation of traffic cones and road signs whilst young. I've never been arrested, and that is due to respectful and polite compliance, and a tendency to actually be innocent of that which I was suspected of.

As well as being the police, the people you're interacting with are someones parent, someones child, someones spouse, and someones friend. They're real people, and they don't enjoy you verbally abusing them and making their day any harder than if I came to your work place and did the same to you. When most of your "customers" are disrespectful or abusive bellends, the ones you cut the slack are the ones that show respect, politeness, and basic decency.

That being said, police corruption (yes, it does exist) and misuse of powers (yes it does happen) should rightly be punished and punished harshly and publicly.

Re: The problem with your logic is that resisting the arrest is the crime.

1) Be polite.

Good advice.

2) Say nothing, don't explain, don't justify, silence is your right. "No Comment", "Am I free to go?", "I would like legal representation" are the only three things you should say, and silence is better than any of them.

Bad advice. The courts can an do take a dim view of a "no comment style interview" (text lifted directly from paperwork sent to the court by the CPS on one of my trips through the CJS. Co-operating, but only so far as to the advice of your solicitor, is always the better plan.

3) Ask for a lawyer, check they are in fact a lawyer and not plod.

Utter nonsense. It is illegal to pretend to be a solicitor or a barrister.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/fraud-dishonesty/bogus-fake-solicitors.page

https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/what-to-do-if-youre-not-sure-if-the-person-youre-dealing-with-is-a-barrister

4) You don't have to assist, don't give your name, or any other information. Let them read it off your driving license etc other pieces of ID on your person.

While this may be notionally true, you MUST give your name at the first court appearance, so refusing to do so ahead of time can only result in your being denied bail and held on remand.

The advice given by sed gawk guarantees your arrest and all but guarantees your detention until a court hearing may be scheduled. At best it's poor advice, at worst, it's rank stupidity - depending on why you find your self dealing with the police.

5) Don't consume any food offered to you if at all possible, water is fine, but they are not there to help you, they are there to provide information to CPS who will decide if "reasonable prospect of securing a conviction", sadly it doesn't matter to them to convict the right people.

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. My best friend is a serving police officer, and he cares very very much about securing convictions against the right people. Everyone makes mistakes and the consequences of a police/CJS fuckup are severe, but pretending they don't care is plain ignorant and wrong.

6) Don't get lippy, 1096 deaths in police custody since 1990, zero convictions. https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody

Statistically true, but the statistic doesn't say what you're pretending it does. Take 2017 for example. Of 23 deaths, 3 died in a cell, 5 died in hospital having become unwell in the cell, while 17 had mental health, rug, and alcohol issues involved.

The fact is your most likely to kill yourself rather than be killed by the police while in custody.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/25/highest-number-of-people-in-a-decade-die-in-police-custody

Re: Being a bit of a Devil's Advocate...

The US have found their reason to extradite him, they've wrung as much out the smear as they reasonably could, and Assange has wrung as much publicity out of it as he could. Forcing it back through Sweden benefits nobody.

Lets bring a bit of objectivity to this shall we?

Lets pretend that all of the possible charges in the USA are totally and utterly made up. They're not, but lets pretend they are to save his shills the effort.

Allowing Sweden to have first dibs will quite possibly result in a conviction for rape and/or other sexual offences. It's very hard for a sex offender to claim any credibility at anything ever again as nobody looks past rape or noncing.

Letting Sweden have him, with the proviso he is either returned to us or sent to them after the trial and NOT released from custody for even a minute, makes a lot of sense. Especially if his shills are right. Best case you wait while he does porridge & he's discredited forever, worst case, you wait another few months and proceed from where you are now.

Re: Do I care?

What is the median punishment handed out for bail jumping in the UK. I would suggest that 11 months (maximum 12) is way out on the right hand tail of the distribution.

Do try to be objective.

He skipped bail for a sex offence, then hid in plain sight for 7 years, berating the English judicial system, while running up a significant multi-million pound policing bill.

In all of history can you find a worse example of skipping bail? Most people who do are untraceable and so cost little to police. While they do it they don't appear in front of the worlds TV cameras thumbing their noses at the judge.

Frankly, if he hadn't got very close to the outer limits of the tariff, there would have been an outcry. The median punishment simply doesn't apply in this case. That you are an Assange fan simply doesn't change the facts.

I used to enjoy the odd Gary Glitter song, but he's still an irredeemable nonce. I grew up watching Rolf Harris, but frankly he belongs in prison. That you like the person committing the crime or find value in their work product, does not absolve them of justice. In this case, justice has been done, for the bail offence.

This was a case of "buyers remorse" more than anything else and would unlikely have resulted in a conviction.

Sorry, what?!

Look, try to pay attention because it's important for you personally that you understand. If a girl consents to giving you a handjob, that does not mean you can shag her bareback. What she's consented to she's consented to; what she hasn't consented to, she hasn't consented to.

The case in hand specifically revolves around multiple women consenting to protected sex but not bareback. Stealthing (taking the condom off without their knowledge) IS rape. Its a sexual act that they have not consented to. Given the bloke in question has a history of sleeping around without protection, it's understandable that some of the women may have refused to put themselves at risk of his STDs, and or pregnancy.

"Buyers remorse" is what you get when you buy a Citroen rather than a Ford. Rape is what you do when you force yourself on an unwilling partner, regardless of what she has consented to in the past. FFS.

Re: £16m of taxpayers' money

Can you show your working for that please?

Minimum of 3 people on duty on the ground (one front, one back, and one covering breaks). You need a 4th available to cover holidays and sick leave. You need that 24/7 so that means you need 9 police days per calendar day. Even with some clever staggering of shifts you're going to need at least 12 police officers to account for weekends. On top of that you're going to need someone in command back at base.

They're all going to have to carry a share of none front line costs (back office staff), and your media relations and command briefing to MPs etc is going to take a similar number of staff.

£2.2M per year, roughly divided by 26 police is £87k per year to include salary, NI, pension payments, equipment, training, expenses, office costs etc etc. It's entirely reasonable to accrue such a spend.

Argue whether its necessary if you must, but you're on a hiding to nothing trying to argue the costs aren't realistic.

He skipped bail, there are thousands of others in the UK doing exactly the same and it is entirely up to the police force how much money they spend locating these people, usually very little I imagine

Most bail jumpers aren't publicly hiding in the middle of the capital city. It's rather expensive guarding a building 24/7 for years on end when one of them does. Allowing him to escape on a private plane / yacht would not have been acceptable, and Assange very clearly wasn't about to choose to face the consequences of his crimes. It's a situation entirely of his own making.

he is accused of unwanted sex with a person with whom he has recently had consensual sex.

In what possible universe do you think you have a point here? He is accused of unwanted sex, so rape, with women who were no longer consenting and who allegedly had never consented tot he kind of sex he was performing.

I think only women who know him extremely well have anything to fear

I'm glad *you* think that. So we should just let go anyone you don't think is dangerous enough? Hmm, or, crazy as this sounds, we could have laws n stuff that apply to everyone rather than just those you deem a threat?

You might also argue the home office 'had to' do that to uphold the rule of law. In other words, a PR campaign. Their choice, but not a good use of money imho.

I agree - which is why Assange should have scuttled out earlier rather than being dragged out like some madman in front of the worlds press. That he chose to hide from the law for so long, knowing that such amounts were being spent, can only rightly aggravate the sentence imposed.

Moaning about feeling the (nearly) full force of the law simply isn't cricket. He's a big boy and he's made all his own mistakes. No tears.

For me, the US issue was always a smokescreen to avoid the rape allegation. If extradition to the US was his concern, he was far safer in Sweden.

You've hit the nail on the head. If this had happened before the Natwest Three, then maybe, maybe he'd have had a point. But after that? No, there's very few places easier to be extradited to the USA from than the UK.

Re: because they had the misfortune of being born both white and male

without them, non-white non-males can't get there foot in the door

Most of my team are non-white and a lot are non-male, and they'd be extremely offended by your view. I recruit based on talent alone, because I control that bit. I promote based on the companies batsht crazy metrics, which makes it all but impossible to promote a white guy, even if he is the best dev in the team.

Positive discrimination is just discrimination. At best it ensures some black people get to work for some white racists, who otherwise wouldn't hire them. I just don't see that as a good thing..... I don't want to work for a racist and I'd rather find out before I take the job than after.

Re: because they had the misfortune of being born both white and male

From the article:

I have an ever-increasing file of white male Microsoft employees who have faced outright and overt discrimination because they had the misfortune of being born both white and male. This is unacceptable.

I have the very same thing at the bank at which I work.

How they beat all the obstacles and discrimination they faced in order to become the first ever white male owners of a successful tech company should be a story that inspires all young white male students everywhere.

If it looks or sounds like racism when you swap the words "white" for "black" or it looks or sounds like sexism when you swap the words "male" for "female", then it can only rightly be considered racist or sexist without swapping the words.

White skin and balls are not a birth defect. That some white men are successful does not make it OK to discriminate against other white men. I'm frankly tired of watching my best employees leave because I can't get them promoted simply because they don't fit some wholly artificial diversity template.

It's time the right-on crowd grew up and realised that it's not OK to demonize white men. I'm tired of being blamed for all the worlds ills. I'm tired of the casual racism and sexism directed towards me every bit as much as any black woman would be were the tables turned.

Re: Pretty well Inevitable for an Alpha Version

When you combine alpha versions that are bound to be flimsy and journos who want a story it's pretty inevitable there will be breakages then a rush of "me too's".

Indeed. It's Samsung, so they're a pretty big target for "this new phone is a fuck-up" type stories. There'll have been plenty of journos opening and closing these phones more often than a hookers legs in a blatant attempt to get a broken Samsung story. That Samsung hadn't foreseen this and made a phone robust enough to work is damning.

Re: Pretty well Inevitable for an Alpha Version

Surely they must have tested these with real people before releasing to the journalists?

People whose income is derived from keeping the boss happy have an unfortunate tendency to become yes men.

Re: setting up a hidden service? pretty easy...

Fear of detection is the deterrent. Look at a simple case, speeding on the roads - changing the penalties has zero effect, placing speed cameras does slow traffic down - it's not the fear of a penalty, it's fear of being caught.

Unfortunately, that's completely incorrect.

Speed cameras don't slow most people down - try going anywhere on a motorway at 70 and report back. The punishment is a small fine and a metaphorical slap on the wrist. What's to fear?

Singapore, on the other hand, does not have chewing gum on the side walks, because the first offence penalty for selling it is $100,000 fine or two years in prison, and they go up sharply from there. It's not the fear of detection that stopped the black-market emerging, but the scale of penalty imposed.

Re: setting up a hidden service? pretty easy...

From personal observation some habitual/career criminals seem to prefer it and yet it would be difficult to have them diagnosed as insane. Maybe it introduces an excitement to life. Maybe they have a feeling of sticking it to the man. Maybe they're utterly convinced they'll get away with it this time in spite of past experience.

Once you have a criminal record, it may not matter so much how many entries it contains. And honest civilized man may fear prison - surrounded by criminals, unable to get a decent job after, etc etc. To a criminal, prison isn't hard - it's just an occupational hazard, surrounded by like-minded folk; there is no job on the outside....

Re: ""crime" and "morally wrong" can be tenuous"

And the problem with the written law not aligning with moral law is that it leads to both laws being weakened.

The real problem with "moral law" is that it can't exist. Morals are meaningless to all but the person to whom they belong; My morals are different to yours, yours are different to the next guy, and so it goes. Whose morals should the law be based upon? "Mine", for any/every definition of "me", is usually where you end up.