HumanPenguin

HumanPenguin, 8 days ago

with people on lower incomes and those without a car disproportionately affected.

Not to mention disabled. Many disabilities both physical and mental. Make driving impossible. Not just visual impairment as I have.

But the reduction in bus services especially to smaller towns and villages. Where its often moved to 0 buses or one bus every 2 days like services.

The reduction over the last 15 years or so has become very noticeable. Forcing a huge increase in cost. As taxis that have increased hugly in price since the pandemic. Are the only option people like me have.

I am old enough to remember pre privatisation as a child. Where you could get Sunday level services everywhere, even on Xmas day. When there really were few places apart from very extream areas. Where commuting via public transport was not an option.

What ever way you look at it. The tory privatisation of buses has failed miserably.

HumanPenguin, 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

Agreed. I had no idea. But then I’ve never actually been involved with anyone going through this.

But the whole idea is basically slavery. Sure I can understand. ( and honestly as a raging hetro, would likely feel it myself). If you married a set sex and are attracted to that sex. The person your with changing that. Would really feel disturbing.

But the idea i could actually prevent a partner is insane. It is basically returning to a time were men owned the wife. IE Mrs as in the property of Mr.

The one savior. Divorce is relatively easy. But still requires fault or long separation.

I don’t know the facts. But if a court refuses to see refusing a gender change as a fault to force a divorce. Then I can see trans partners having to live years separated from their spose to force a divorce to allow a change. So basically forced to live how the spose insists gender wise. For years weather they remain involved or not.

Under no circumstances should it be acceptable. For one human being to have that much control over the body of another non consenting human.

Its basically returning to the ideals where rape within marriage did not exist.

HumanPenguin, 8 days ago

Seems more logical to increase rather then reduce options.

Its crap because of lack of GPS atm. But you always have a right to see a second gp. Or change your GP.

So surely even if you have a prejudiced GP. Thay are not all that way. Also historically laws change procedures. Little comparative history.

Back in the 60s it was illegal to give the birth control pill to non married women. And lots and lots of GPS were very vocal about that being correct. With some being anti pill in general.

But when the law changed. The fact that people had the right ment few GPs refused. Because why bother to fight a losing battle. And the ones that did changed over a few years.

Basically even with religious objections. Once the NHS guidance changes. GPS and doctors tend to adapt even if slowly in limited cases.

HumanPenguin, 7 days ago

No expert here. But in most situations. It is impossible to see any specialist. Without a GP or ER etc for situations that have resulted in an emergency or hospital visit of some form.

The NHS has never had the option to see a consultant. Without a more genral doctors recommendation.

So this is not suggesting labour would just add GPS to the process. They are already there and able to do as you suggest. Although you have the right to see the data and file formal complaints if the were being obstinate.

What they are suggesting is allowing GP to start the process with out needing the multi member board to validate the patients need.

So given the numbers. A few prejudiced GPs is still a much much greater list of people you can turn to, most of them following the guidance. Then the current methods that currently still allows some GPS to be arseholes.

HumanPenguin, 8 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

Can’t disagree with the tittle. Although its not just the US that needs to thinkbabout keeping capacity.

But the idea that China is not playing by the rules. Is rather hypocritical. When you consider the subsidies the US has used for past priorities. Lets face it whose rule is China breaking. And why the hell should China be expected to follow them when the US and other nations have made zero effort to prevent there own corperations outsourcing to China. More to the point. Getting China to take over production has been an intentional move from the west. As a way to reduce the hold on communism. Western governments have openly tried to encourage a growth in capitalist ideas and a buying Chinese population to sell to.

Yhe US can and should do what they like terrif wise. Doing so is basically just subsidy in reverse. IE charging other providers rather then funding reduced cost production of your own manufacturing. Its just less efficient because you can only effect limited other nations when you have treaties with some. Where as subsidies allow you to ensure your nation can still produce its own requirements. No matter what other nations do. Why nations should be very careful about agreeing to subsidy banning treaties.

But the US has used subsidy with oil farming and many other industries through history. When it suited them to ensure their industries could compete. As has europe and much of the world.

But if you don’t like the fact that another nation dose not follow rules you have invented with out their agreement. Don’t pretend its chinas fault. China dose plenty we can critisize them for.

But the moving of production from the west is a open choice by Western companies. And one many many people have warned will leave the west without their own facilities. Since at least the 80s. The fact that western governments and western voters of those govs etc, did nothing to stop the actions. Is hardly a reason to blame China.

But let’s face it the day and politician anywhere says. OK we are doing this to fix our own lack of gas ( give a shit ) over the last 50 years.

Is the day we see a huge change in modern democracy. Or at least the attempt at one.

HumanPenguin, 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

As bad as the post office behaived. And it is finguck disgracefully.

What seems the most effective way of preventing this behaviour. Is some way to ban parliment from passing its duty to manage the judiciary on to 3rd party organisations.

Seriously our courts police and CPS is supposed to be how laws are kept equal without giving agency to people with conflicting interests when examining evidence. And government ministers are supposed to oversea these organisations under the scrutiny of a parlimentry majority. IE democratically ( ignoring how crap fptp is).

Yet the post office was handed CPS’s job and police investigational powers. For crimes it perceives from its staff. Not entirly unique RSPCA has been given policing investigational powers with animal care crimes. Local authority CPS and police powers with council tax payment cases.

But in all of these crap systems. The whole point of judiciary having no conflicting interests in the gathering and or evaluation of evidence. Is totally ignored. Just to allow our government to invest less in ensuring non biased investigation and prosecution of laws. While claiming its for efficency.

Any situation where UK citizens can have their freedom removed based on evidence gather evaluated and or presented by people with conflicting interests in the results of that evaluation. Is clearly prown to curruption. And our government should simply have no right to pass those guys to organisations with other priorities and motivations then justice.

Of course banning a future parliment from anything is impossible in our current constitutional monarcy. So it would require a pretty historic constitutional change to allow some form of limits on all parliments. But it is time for something significant i personally think.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

How?

Well no country is forced to obay sanctions. Such things are (like all international law) built on treaty agreements between nations.

So only nations with agreements to support sanctions against other nations are required to enforce them within there own laws.

And in russias case Those agreeing nations are mostly NATO members. Where as china was a warsaw pack member during the cold war.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Oh right wing def feel every life has value.

Just less value then everybodies right not to be forced to pay for them.

They are fairly open about the value of a states non right to force an indevidual to fund anothers life. Being more important then anything.

That the value for all lives is based on either an indeviduals ability to self support. Or other indeviduals willingness to offer charity.

It is forced charity usinging the states ability to use violence they consider a greater crime then any % of society not wanting to support the lives of those in need.

Its not value or no value. But priority of those values that differs.

IE states using its same power of violence to kill forign people who might disagree with the state. Can be argued with no worry about the value of those actions. They have no issue with not choosing to fund defence or the actual state ability to use violence to enforce its laws.

Just the state taking money via potential force to provide life to US citizens in need.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Ill say one thing. As some one with disabilities. While i have no desire myself. Heck my life will be short anyway.

I do feel it is a right people should have.

It just really requires a sound mind at the time of choice. And huge effort to ensure it is not a choice the paiteint is neing forced or guilted into making.

As I cant really come up with an effective and garenteed way to enforce those restrictions.

Im currently happy my natiin will not allow anyform of assisted suicide. It must be entirly at partients own control. And technocally even then its a crime. But one that xamt be punished. Where as an assistant will be jailed.

But I can hope/wish for a world where people could choose to have suffering ended without so much risk of others pushing them into it for thier ow. Reasons.

As I say its not a choice I would make. But my own health means it could be one I mY want amd need help to make in the future.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

Worse the only ones that can. Tend to be more wealthy so more likely to vote tory.

Good thing he is unlikely to read lemmy.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

Honestly with the actions the tories have made over lately.

I’m starting to think winning is not their plan.

I can see them forcing the labour party to make promises by looking like they are trying to bribe the poor to vote for them. Challenging them in debates. And living about labours claims in the media. Making voters think they are offering way more then they are.

And just trying to make labour look like a complete failure in the first term.

There recent attempt to indicate they need to prepare for nuclear war. Gives them huge options to force labour to come out with defence spending promises. During the campaign.

This would either be unfixable or limit labours ability to make other promises. Allowing 2029 to be about how labour has failed to improve anyones lives.

Add the recent media news about the end of the recession. Based on limited evidence and very short term improvements.

They will then be able to say labour failed to keep the tory repair going.

I really don’t think the tories plan to win. Just force labour to have to commit to spending in ways that will slow down any improvements in the econ.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

While non of these promises seem very impressive. I will respond to a few of your comments.

Code for austerity, some arbitrary cap on fiscal deficit.

Agree fully

How could that be done if spending rules are ‘tough’? By raising taxes on the rich? I highly doubt that even with the higher taxes, the Government would be able to raise enough revenues to ‘fund’ a green transition.

He is talking about a company competing in the current energy structure.

It really dose not require huge investment. Companies can both sell energy created by other companies. So produce 0 themselves. But only buy from green sources. Already selling. That dose is increase the demand for green energy without actually investing anything in it.

Or it can invest in one or 2 very small energy production schemes that are green. And sell that to other companies

While that costs money. He makes no promises about how much would be spent. It could literally be a company owning one windmill. And his claim has been achieved.

Its really only an expensive promise if you add assumptions about how big the gb energy company is going to be. He has not made any commitments on that.

<span style="color:#323232;">Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes.
</span>

NHS would require a shit ton more spending than whatever could be raised by tackling tax avoidance. Decades of austerity has to be compensated for.

To fix the NHS compleatly yes. But he is only offering to reduce waiting lists by 40000 more appointments

He dose not say what type of appointments or make any promises as to the costs invested.

He could litralling hire a nurse 40hrs a week. Much as GP are already doing. Average of 10 mins an appointment. 240 appointments a week. That is 167 nurses.

Not a huge cost. Or much of a promise.

Hitler particles detected. How will the security command be paid for? NHS has to be funded by ‘tackling tax avoidance’ but funds for border security never need to be ‘raised’.

GODWINS LAW STILL IN FULL SWING.

but I agree its not costed here. But also remember he. He really has not committed to spending much on everything else yet. So how much dose he need. How much is he actually promising here.

what annoys me more. Its just a rebadged tory policy they have failed to achive. So is he planning to copy failure to commit as well as policy? I will add. Tories rwanda bullshit iss costed at 150k per victim sent. So if that is costed in the current budget. Then cancelling it and using that money would technically be costed. So its no worse then tory bulshit.

What is antisocial behaviour?

pretty well defined in the past. By both labour and tories. Its not a new thing.

Also how are revenues for police officers raised? Every bit of welfare has to be ‘paid for’ by raising taxes or whatever but there is no mention of how police officer salaries would be paid for.

Agreed. But again what is he actually commiting to more is not a number. Hiring a few specials (is that the still the name for unqualified part time officers now) would meet the commitment.

Its another promise with no real measure.

<span style="color:#323232;">Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools.
</span>

Its fascinating how he can’t just say ‘Recruiting 6,500 teachers’, he has to ‘pay for it’ with something else. Why do private schools exist in the first place?

because some folks want to pay for an elite education. But the better question is why the hell are they allowed to claim charity status and not pay taxes on the fees.

It is potentially a fairly large some of money. Lots of higher earners send kids to privrate school. And every privrate school uses charity status to allow no taxation on the income. I actually like this idea. But its an old one. Labour has used multiple times.

Where it might fail. If you increase the cost of provrate scooling(I’m gonna leave that typo. As I did not go to a privrate school ;) ). As this would fairly huge. You may see an equal number of lower wealthy deciding they cannot afford it. So it deff has a failure point. But less provrate schools is still a win to some extent.

This is so bad, Starmer is really showing that he is not different from the Tories**************

Oh def agree. Including typical promises that don’t promise much. Long time tory practice. Offer something that sounds great. But give 0 detail of what it actually will be.

PS I am visually impaired on a tablet. So sorry I make lots of typos. I try to fix the ones I see. So lots of edit but again vision is crap so I just miss loads. Sorry but live with it please.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

That’s just not true…

Followed with a list of excuses pointing out. It is actually true.

I think you need to understand the meaning of true. Having reasons for why he did do something. Dose not mean the person saying he did something is living.

At the end of it. The man won leadership of the party members. By making overt pledges. Then cancelled all those pledges. If you can’t understand why a high % of party members feel there vote was stolen by him. You are not trying.

Honest Democracy involves convincing voters to follow you. Not lieing to gain there vote.

If you can’t convince the majority of a party to follow you. Run to lead a party where the majority agree with you.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

which is why he’s gone from 20 points behind in the polls to 20 points ahead.

Not entirly correct.

He made that gain entirly because of tory actions. Starmer has not won support. The tories have thrown it away. Nothing starter has done has had huge influence on voters.

He is at best seen as a less currupt continuation of the same politics.

Tortoise and hare. Tortoise did not win through his effort. Hare lost via his overconfidence.

Starmer is just a Tortoise who was lucky enough to be challenging a stupid hare.

HumanPenguin, 12 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

Reasonable people are clearly being a little to reasonable. We have been looking at this for 50 years now. Exxon announced the issue in the 1970s.

But corperation. Including exxon under new leadership. Have spent a freaking fortune using false science and media lies. To try and slow down any effort to limit non renewable use.

So yes. Reasonable people are being way to fuckung reasonable.

Edit. And allowing corperations to be only concerned with profit. While killing human beings and destroying the planet.

Honestly if you add the amount of false science research funded purely to allow corperations to create anti climate change. This (plus the plastic industry.)

Have done way more intentional harm the the tobacco industry did whe they discovered the harm fro there products.

But at least many nations punished the tobacco lobby and fined them to help cover the costs.

HumanPenguin, 12 days ago

Its not an emp.

Description says it fools the ebike into thinking its over heating.

Sounds more like some form of directional microwave transmitter. Designed to effect the bms

HumanPenguin, 12 days ago

Or given the lack of knowledge of the writer.

There are only a few different temp sensors used in the bms systems on all lithium battery management systems.

Developing a frequency that interferes with the signal from the sensor to the bms. Would be a viable way of shutting the bms. So the engine down.

But just a guess.

HumanPenguin, 12 days ago

And t1ds in 2024 often relly on phones to track blood sugar via continuous glucose monitoring devices.

The big thing that will increase lawsuits. Is the fact this is visible when used.

So anyone with a damaged device in range is likely to blame it even if it was safe and some how only effected the ebike.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

To be classed as a ebike legally in the UK. Where we are talking about.

It must make a max speed (15mph) i think max power ( 250w for 2 wheel higher for 3 wheeler) and be classed as electrically assisted. IE peddling has to be an option both when powered and not powered.

If any of those rules are not met. It is legally an electric motorbike. And must meet the laws for a motorbike. Including a licence.

As I can’t drive due to vision. Whe it was a little better I was looking into the rules of making a ebike conversion. This was a while ago. So some things may have changed a little. But the ebike vs motorbike requiring a licence principal still applies.

Hence why things like escooter are basically illegal on public roads. (With a few experimental exception s for hire ones. That require a depriving licence.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

True. But that means the system would work. As a e scooter or e motorbike would just roll to a stop.

But OP was specifically talking about the ebikes as mentioned in the article. And by UK legal definition an illegal ebike. Is not an ebike. So anything defined as one would still be able to escape and likely faster then the max 15mph electrically assisted is allowed to operate at.

Of course decrepit old facts like me would likely go slower if riding one was still viable safty was.

But yeah its all silly really yes ebikes as mentioned in the article have other options.

But the current e scooter craze where folks often ignore the law and its there actually trying to shut it down makes more sense. I doubt the article written was actually very informed about the differences.

Also I have to wonder about e motorbikes. These things legally(licenced driver) or illegally self built (yep I considered hiden switch ideas that could make it from ebike to an off road e moter bike for fun) but they tend to be pretty darn fast. And have insane acceleration speeds when built to be an emoterbike legally or not.

So I wonder weather a cop would be able to keep a directional microwave antenna pointed at the system long enough to work.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

He’s only going to win because the Tories are so vile

Honestly currupt and incompetent is a better word then vile. Not because I personally don’t think their vile. Honestly vile seems way to nice a word to me. If I was religiose id say 300÷ MPs constantly being buggered by demons. And makeing the nation pay for their enjoyment.

But because the main reason he will win. Is he appeals to tory voters who support their policies. So people who clearly do not think they are vile.

Its the fact that thier corruption during covid. And utter incompetence over the last 4 pms. Really has left tories own nasty voters thinking starmer may actually be competent at implementing policies that change very little from there own goals.

Unfortunately due to first past the post. The rest of us are left choosing between demonically inspired incompetent currupt arseholes. Or the only viable way to remove them. Even if the policies are not that different.

Myself I’m in what was a tory safe seat. That LD just won local by a land slide.

So even starmer is unlikely to be the best way to get tories out. I’ll watch polling because anything is better then the current tories. But 1 tory or 2 sane tory copies parties really will be all I can choose with out basically helping the tories by voting for a no hope option.

FPTP Really is feudalism hiding as democracy. Were basically forced to choose lube or no lube. Getting buggered by someone we like/agree with just ain’t an option. If I vote green or any other left of centre party. I’m basically voting for poor and disabled folks don’t deserve lube Sunak

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

Honesty politics of some form happens at every euro v. We are always hearing about nations using votes to express their like or dislike for other nations.

It seems to just be a fact of life with this comp. Most just laugh it off in the media afterwards.

People are people prejudices and nationalism is always going to show when it has a hold in a nation.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago

Offering the public a choice.

While allowing one side to outright lie about what them winning means.

Is not democracy its corruprion.

So yes likely exactly how he earned a lordhood.

To offer a democratic choice. You need an informed votership. And allowing all the opposing claims of no loss with all benifits. That the brexit side claimed. Was simply curruption. His or the party right. All equates to the same thing.

And given he used exaxly the same tricks in the AV ref.

He knew full well such a ref was open to lies and tricks to sell a side.

And was the only person with the power to ensure voters had the ability to clearly state what they wanted. No legal reason a ref need to be yes or no.

He could have easaly formated it as 2 question.

Leave stay.

If leave should we try to keep eea like membership.

This would have allowed simple maths to say. X % of leavers feel we should keep single market.

Heck as the questions are on the same paper.

He could have given a list of benifits and losses for people to select yes or no to.

At least then during debate with the EU. There would be a clear democratic path of what was wanted by the people. Broken down by leave and remain voters.

Making any negotiation in parliment and with the EU easier to debate.

HumanPenguin, 11 days ago (edited 11 days ago)

If i missed a few stupid typo correction. Sorry visually impaired so while I try to reread and catch them all. It can be a nightmare when I make a typo autocorrect replaces with something wierd. Ashanti to Asian tiger seems to be a fav here

The whole thing was a mess. And well we brits have a pretty arrogant establishment.

But here is a story that made me smile when I learned it during some research into the history of the UK Ashamti wars.

When our ancestors finally defeated the Ashanti in 1896. They demanded the golden stool. As a punishment for the defiance of the Ashanti. As the stool was a very important part of the tribes identity. And according to history. It was given over by Queen Yaa Asentwaa (True bad arse worrior Queen who lead and motivated the final rebellion of the tribe. Seriosely read up on her she is inspiring) gave over the stool before being banished from Ghana by the brits.

And we have been holding it in British museums ever since.

But sometime around the 1970s. When our (young at the time) Queen visited the nation. It was discovered we were given a fake. Queen Yaa Asentwaa had given the British soldiers one more FU after admitting defeat. And the rullers of the Ashati Tribe in Kumasi ( city in Ghana still rulled by the Ashanti Asantehene(king) till this day (the status of the city and King is built into their constution). Has been using the real golden stool as their traditional laws requires for all formal ceremonies since 1896.

As someone who has always had an interest in the region (long still close relationship with Nigerian ex gf). And have always been a bit pissed about the arrogance of many actions of our nation during that time.

I find the effectivness and ease that the British commanters had the wool pulled over there eyes. Hilarious.

When you add the final war of 1896. Was after almost 100 years of the brits regularly starting wars trying and out right failing to beat the Ashati into submission. The tribe being a constant thorn in our ability to rule what we called the gold Coast and managing to remain independent of the British for all that time plus the Portuguese and Spanish who several times tried to controll the area from the mid 1700s.

The history of the Ashati empire really is fun to read about.