News Stories Which Highlight the Structure of the System

[P3nT4gR4m]

How long are Tesco going to exist as a thing now that ze germans are invading? Just saying - problem might resolve itself. 

[Junkenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0InepmCwQ&list=UUswH8ovgUp5Bdg-0_JTYFNw

Credit where's it's due, Russell Brand and George Monbiot doing a nice breakdown of the implications of the TTIP, which is going to do all kinds of crap to all kinds of places.

[Demolition Squid]

Just in case anyone was forgetting the UK also has plenty of racism...

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/07/judge-resigns-racist-remark-about-victim-richard-hollingworth

An immigration judge has been forced to resign as a district judge after making a racist remark about a crime victim.

Richard Hollingworth was hearing a case of harassment at Preston magistrates court when he told officials to bring the victim, Deepa Patel, to court because he wanted to complete his sentencing that afternoon.

The prosecutor, Rachel Parker, said she thought it was too short notice and didn't know whether Patel could get the time off work.

Hollingworth asked where she worked, and Parker said she did not know. The judge replied: "It won't be a problem. She won't be working anywhere important where she can't get the time off. She'll only be working in a shop or an off-licence."

Parker asked what he meant, and Hollingworth replied: "With a name like Patel, and her ethnic background, she won't be working anywhere important where she can't get the time off. So that's what we'll do."

At that point Parker withdrew from the case, telling the judge: "I am professionally embarrassed. I cannot prosecute this case."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Just in case anyone was forgetting the UK also has plenty of racism...

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/07/judge-resigns-racist-remark-about-victim-richard-hollingworth

An immigration judge has been forced to resign as a district judge after making a racist remark about a crime victim.

Richard Hollingworth was hearing a case of harassment at Preston magistrates court when he told officials to bring the victim, Deepa Patel, to court because he wanted to complete his sentencing that afternoon.

The prosecutor, Rachel Parker, said she thought it was too short notice and didn't know whether Patel could get the time off work.

Hollingworth asked where she worked, and Parker said she did not know. The judge replied: "It won't be a problem. She won't be working anywhere important where she can't get the time off. She'll only be working in a shop or an off-licence."

Parker asked what he meant, and Hollingworth replied: "With a name like Patel, and her ethnic background, she won't be working anywhere important where she can't get the time off. So that's what we'll do."

At that point Parker withdrew from the case, telling the judge: "I am professionally embarrassed. I cannot prosecute this case."

Wowwwwwww.

[Demolition Squid]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/15/leaked-document-labour-strategy-counter-ukip-threat-immigration

This is quite interesting - well, not the document, but the reporting on it.

An internal Labour document sent to the party's MPs has urged them to combat the electoral threat from Ukip by talking about the pressures immigration places on services such as health and housing.

It also says "Volunteers and activists must understand and acknowledge electors' concerns about immigration on the doorstep, which will mean hearing opinions that may not gel with their own. In these cases, it's important to remember that first phase of re-establishing trust is to listen and understand.

"Our focus must instead be moving the conversation on to issues where we have clear policy which tackles the problems people are worried about, whether they express those concerns through the prism of immigration or not."

The damage in the paragraph potentially lies in the implication that voters do not understand the root causes of their concern about immigration.

Cue a lot of politicians with mealy-mouthed responses, because you can't outright tell someone they do not understand something.

But actually, they're right. People don't understand the issues, because the Right have lied, distorted and manipulated so hard that 'the immigrants' have become the root of all our ills - not slashed budgets, a false recovery, or the steady erosion of worker's rights. All these things are laid at the door of 'the immigrants', even though immigration has more to do with the solution than the problem. Because most immigrants work and pay their taxes, which is pretty fucking vital when you've got an ageing population with the elderly starting to outnumber the young.

Labour are terrified of outright stating the truth - they're so desperate not to seem 'out of touch' with people (even though those people are out of touch with reality) they are actually willing to don the 'prism' of racist rhetoric in order to try and obfuscate their true beliefs and get back into power. Because they believe the british public are too stupid to listen to and understand their argument.

What makes me really depressed is that they may be right in thinking that.

[Junkenstein]

The thing that always gives me the shits with people blaming immigration for X woe is that you're targeting an inherently vulnerable group with fuck all political power and sway. To me, it's equivalent to targeting the homeless or mentally ill.

The sickening part is where it's encouraged by political ideologies to protect their own interests. It's blatantly obvious why Farage bleats on about immigration instead of Banking. Same for the conservatives. Same for Labour. These people all have substantial backing and interests to protect.

Here's an interesting idea - Actually enforce the tax regime that you legally have the right to do so. Once everyone's actually coughing up the correct amount then there may be some kind of basis for attacking those with fuck all.

It would be nice to see a few attacks on Russian oligarchs with the "IMMIGRANTS!" tone. I'm being silly of course, if you've got any wealth you're not the same as those other immigrants.


Here's the final irony, for me anyway, I'm currently running jobs in Holland and Germany. I've had more than a few people try and blame their woes on "these people" terkin' der jerbs and they can't understand why what I am doing is essentially exactly the same thing. Apparently what I'm doing is OK, but the other way round is VERBOTEN. If you can work that out, you're doing better than I.

[Demolition Squid]

Well, the subtext here is that Labour - at least - acknowledge that immigrants aren't the problem and their people don't want to buy into that rhetoric (because otherwise, they wouldn't need to add the 'hold your nose' type tone...). I think most Tory and all UKIP politicans bar potentially Farage himself actually do believe the bullshit they spew - so at least they believe they are acting in the right way, even if it is misguided.

But rather than take the fight to the right wing and explain why it is bullshit, they'd rather concede that point in the rhetoric (and thus, sell out the immigrant community) which is ... not as bad, I guess. But it is disappointing.

(Incidentally, when I watched Question Time I was reminded why I try not to talk politics with my dad - nothing like a reasonably intelligent man calling Enoch Powell a 'genius' to remind you how smart people can believe stupid things)

[Doktor Howl]

The thing that always gives me the shits with people blaming immigration for X woe is that you're targeting an inherently vulnerable group with fuck all political power and sway. To me, it's equivalent to targeting the homeless or mentally ill.

It's also the go-to solution for fascism, when a foothold needs to be solidified.

[Junkenstein]

I think most Tory and all UKIP politicans bar potentially Farage himself actually do believe the bullshit they spew - so at least they believe they are acting in the right way, even if it is misguided.

Horseshite.

Farage, and to a greater or lesser extent all UK politictians have become obsessed with the battle over the middle which is one of the reasons they now appear so similar. They are similar. The policies on offer are in reality no different to the suit next door. I strongly doubt that any of them believe much of anything, they will literally say the thing that has the opportunity of getting the most votes.

Here's a thing, If I said whatever it took to get you to give me a cheque, I could easily be done for fraud. Did we notice that all political parties dropped the "recall MP's" idea? I did. Did we also notice how Labour is talking about how it's austerity will be less austere than others? I did.

You've got the songbook set and if you want in the club you'll sing the fucking song.


Quite simply, the purpose of parliament and government should be to regulate the power of those entities with more influence than the general populace. In reality, the UK Governments have successively done deals with these entities for their own private gain. It's not a co-incidence that the top chap at HMRC does a deal with companies over their tax and gets to walk into a cushy job which has "conflict of interest" written all over it. That's not even the most galling example.

But rather than take the fight to the right wing and explain why it is bullshit, they'd rather concede that point in the rhetoric (and thus, sell out the immigrant community) which is ... not as bad, I guess. But it is disappointing.

Horseshite again.

It is as bad, and personally I call it worse. You're showing what should be your potentially most loyal voting base that you don't give a fuck and you'll throw them under a bus to try and win over Gladys Worthering-smythe-fortesque, who shares none of their interests or concerns and actively blames them for the nation's woes.

I guess it's an easy out for all concerned. If the target has already been picked (By whom, I wonder?) why bother pointing out that better, easier RICHER target over there? You know the targets that dodges tax, controls the media and influences government directly and indirectly? If you think I'm referring to anyone in particular there, I would note that there's easily at least a dozen names that could apply to.

Joining in with this shit and being part of the club that will kick those with minimal financial and political power is just shitty. And I say that anyone that does so is a shitty, shitty person indeed.


It'd be nice to see Immigrants say "Fuck this bullshit" and down tools for a day nationwide to see the effect. Unlikely to happen as they'd probably all get sacked for such a thing. I bet the papers would have some interesting headlines though. Probably blame them all twice as hard.

[Junkenstein]

The thing that always gives me the shits with people blaming immigration for X woe is that you're targeting an inherently vulnerable group with fuck all political power and sway. To me, it's equivalent to targeting the homeless or mentally ill.

It's also the go-to solution for fascism, when a foothold needs to be solidified.

That too. Very much that too.

[Cain]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/15/leaked-document-labour-strategy-counter-ukip-threat-immigration

This is quite interesting - well, not the document, but the reporting on it.

An internal Labour document sent to the party's MPs has urged them to combat the electoral threat from Ukip by talking about the pressures immigration places on services such as health and housing.

It also says "Volunteers and activists must understand and acknowledge electors' concerns about immigration on the doorstep, which will mean hearing opinions that may not gel with their own. In these cases, it's important to remember that first phase of re-establishing trust is to listen and understand.

"Our focus must instead be moving the conversation on to issues where we have clear policy which tackles the problems people are worried about, whether they express those concerns through the prism of immigration or not."

The damage in the paragraph potentially lies in the implication that voters do not understand the root causes of their concern about immigration.

Cue a lot of politicians with mealy-mouthed responses, because you can't outright tell someone they do not understand something.

But actually, they're right. People don't understand the issues, because the Right have lied, distorted and manipulated so hard that 'the immigrants' have become the root of all our ills - not slashed budgets, a false recovery, or the steady erosion of worker's rights. All these things are laid at the door of 'the immigrants', even though immigration has more to do with the solution than the problem. Because most immigrants work and pay their taxes, which is pretty fucking vital when you've got an ageing population with the elderly starting to outnumber the young.

Labour are terrified of outright stating the truth - they're so desperate not to seem 'out of touch' with people (even though those people are out of touch with reality) they are actually willing to don the 'prism' of racist rhetoric in order to try and obfuscate their true beliefs and get back into power. Because they believe the british public are too stupid to listen to and understand their argument.

What makes me really depressed is that they may be right in thinking that.

If it makes you feel better, the vast majority of people in the UK, going by the polls, give a relatively low weighting to immigration as an issue.

Which makes this even more foolish, IMO.  You never accept an opponent's framing of a debate - they framed that debate in a particular way because it plays to their strengths, and in accepting the frame, you are purposefully allowing yourself to be gimped.  In particular, Labour are never going to get the Crazy Vote while the option of the 'Kippers is available to the public.  It's a losing proposition, why even bother?

That said, I don't think the Tories or UKIP are very sincere about their concerns regarding immigration, except maybe at a rank and file level.  Immigration has always been the UKIP wedge for attacking Europe - I honestly don't think Farage in particular gives a toss about where anyone comes from, mainly because no matter where they live, it's not as awesome as his own opinion of himself.  And the Tories are in a halfway house, where their Eurosceptic backbench does it for much the same reason as UKIP, and Cameron does it in order to not lose voters to UKIP.

I'm wondering if this leak is also timed to coincide with pressure to question the Blair cabinet with what they knew over torture.  Ed Miliband can claim with some credibility he had nothing to do with that...but his brother did, and he is tainted by proximity.  If someone wanted to mount a leadership bid, a hypothetical MP by the name of Jlan Aohnston, or Cvette Yooper, for example, they'd be moving towards ideal conditions for doing so.

[LMNO]

The website is sketchy, but the facts seem straight enough.

In April 2009, a Surry County (N.C.) law enforcement officer stopped a car traveling on Interstate 77, allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on. The officer mistakenly believed that state law prohibited driving a car with one broken brake light. In fact, the state traffic law requires only one working brake light. Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car.

Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search. Upon the officer finding cocaine in the vehicle, he arrested and charged Heien with trafficking. Prior to his trial, Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized in light of the fact that the officer's pretext for the stop was erroneous and therefore unlawful. Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, the state court of appeals determined that since the police officer had based his initial stop of the car on a mistaken understanding of the law, there was no valid reason for the stop in the first place.

On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer was wrong in concluding that the inoperable brake light was an offense, because the officer's mistake was a "reasonable" one, the stop of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence resulting from the stop did not need to be suppressed.

Short version: Your Fourth Amendment rights can be violated if the cops don't understand the law.


Edit: A slightly less sketchy source here.

[Cain]

You know, I've never actually read the statues on murder, so I can't really know that stabbing someone in the face 27 times is, technically, not legal.

[LMNO]

"Your honor, I honestly believed that walking around all smudgy and stuff was illegal.  So I shot him."
      /

[Junkenstein]

You know, I've never actually read the statues on murder, so I can't really know that stabbing someone in the face 27 times is, technically, not legal.

Ah, but ignorance of the law is no excuse, legally.

The lesson here seems to be the same as always, avoid interaction with the Law as far as is reasonably practicable.