Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Brexit actually going to happen?

Will we have a brexit?


  • Total voters
    362
I'm not sure who I find more contemptible; right wing "they come over here, taking our jobs" dickheads, or smug lexit pricks who insist that they've got it right, the rest of us are stupid, and come out with shit like this ^^^

That was nothing to do with Brexit or Lexit, I just really want to know why, when asked for a positive example of progressive social change, someone would suggest the General Data Protection Regulation. That to me is quite an interesting response. Do you not find anything odd about that?
 
That was nothing to do with Brexit or Lexit, I just really want to know why, when asked for a positive example of progressive social change, someone would suggest the General Data Protection Regulation. That to me is quite an interesting response. Do you not find anything odd about that?

Yeah, but Brexit is not about progress; it's crucially about the velocity of regression.
 
I'm not convinced. i am fairly sure that (pre AOC equality) that 'under age' gay men (over 16) could also be prosecuted (and were) - one of the gay men convicted in the 'operation spanner' case was (at the time of the 'offence' 17 and was not considered a 'victim' by the law.

Spanner was a different kettle of fish. It was about whether or not certain sado-masochistic acts could be considered consensual, as opposed to the perpetration of bodily harm.
 
Spanner was a different kettle of fish. It was about whether or not certain sado-masochistic acts could be considered consensual, as opposed to the perpetration of bodily harm.

I can't find detail now (and it's a bit of a tangent from this thread) but I was led to believe when I was 18-ish that if I and (over 21) partner did get caught, we'd both be in the dock. And have a recollection that one of the arguments in the equalising AoC debate was that gay men under 21 were put off reporting sexual assault / rape because they risked prosecution if the case wasn't proved.

The 1967 partial decriminalisation happened before the UK joined the EEC of course
 
I can't find detail now (and it's a bit of a tangent from this thread) but I was led to believe when I was 18-ish that if I and (over 21) partner did get caught, we'd both be in the dock. And have a recollection that one of the arguments in the equalising AoC debate was that gay men under 21 were put off reporting sexual assault / rape because they risked prosecution if the case wasn't proved.

The 1967 partial decriminalisation happened before the UK joined the EEC of course

Absolutely my memory of it too, it wasn't the same as Hetero AoC, the younger underage partner was often criminalised too, and very certainly socially ostracised.
 
:confused:
I pointed you towards the UKs own AMR initiative that predates the EU's by over a decade and was it's key influence (as well as the WHOs).

You pointed me towards a 'strategy and action plan' document from nearly twenty years ago. My question was about actual implemented policy. Has the UK been implementing policy on AMR in agriculture ahead of what is being done by the EU as a whole? Have other countries? Your implication was that we shouldn't be worrying about chlorinated chicken because of the EU's failure to do anything about AMR. So, is the EU ahead or behind of other parts of the world in terms of actually implementing meaningful policy?
 
You pointed me towards a 'strategy and action plan' document from nearly twenty years ago. My question was about actual implemented policy. Has the UK been implementing policy on AMR in agriculture ahead of what is being done by the EU as a whole? Have other countries? Your implication was that we shouldn't be worrying about chlorinated chicken because of the EU's failure to do anything about AMR. So, is the EU ahead or behind of other parts of the world in terms of actually implementing meaningful policy?
It's the strategy and action plan that was later adopted by the EU (together with the WHO).
The UK couldn't effectivlye persue its own course for implementation because it's as much about import regulations as it is about governing your own market. So being paet of the single market meant pushing it through the EU.
If the UK wasn't part of the EU, would have been unilaterally implemented and the EU would have most probably followed suit - as they did with the Californian (CARB) emissions standards.
You'd be surprised how many of Europe's EN, CEN, CENELEC, etc standards (and even ISO standards for that matter) are just verbatim copies of older BSI standards.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about after Brexit, clearly,

But
as it happens
"fewer than six thousand pounds" would sound right but
"less than £6000" would too

not quite sure why but it *is* in the way that Mount Everest *is* or Alma Cogan *isn't*
 
It's normal usage to use 'less' when talking about money, even though it comes in countable units. A proper grammar nazi needs to know about these exceptions.

I have recently come to the conclusion that the word 'fewer' is pointless and am campaigning for an accelerated end to its life.
 
There's a story about rights for flexible workers on the BBC website this morning which appears to contradict the proposition that it's only the EU which 'cares' about such things...
 
Back
Top Bottom