Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or register)
on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox set as my default
browser.
I've tried setting the phone to other default browsers, but iPlayer
will still only allow me to open it in Chrome.
Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or register) on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox
set as my default browser. I've tried setting the phone to other default browsers, but iPlayer will still only allow me to open it in Chrome. I
never use Chrome and have removed all permissions from it. If I tap on iPlayer's "Privacy" panel on its opening screen instead of signing in,
it does then open the privacy statement in Firefox, and allow me access
to all of iPlayer via that page (as I'm apparently already signed in to
the account). The BBC News app has no privacy panel available so access
is only via Chrome.
Do others have this issue with iPlayer?
Jeff Layman wrote:
Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
infrequently on phone/tablet/androidtv
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or register)
on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox set as my default
browser.
after it launches chrome, you can press [...] and choose "open in firefox" that
works for me, I signed-out and back in again to check.
I've tried setting the phone to other default browsers, but iPlayer
will still only allow me to open it in Chrome.
youtube plays the same trick to force you into chrome, but it also has an "open
in firefox" option.
Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or >register) on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox
set as my default browser. I've tried setting the phone to other default >browsers, but iPlayer will still only allow me to open it in Chrome. I
never use Chrome and have removed all permissions from it. If I tap on >iPlayer's "Privacy" panel on its opening screen instead of signing in,
it does then open the privacy statement in Firefox, and allow me access
to all of iPlayer via that page (as I'm apparently already signed in to
the account). The BBC News app has no privacy panel available so access
is only via Chrome.
Do others have this issue with iPlayer?
Jeff Layman wrote:
Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in
I think that justifies a formal complaint
I think that justifies a formal complaint, but I am not sure to who. Shame UK
left the EU because then you had somebody to complain to.
Martin wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in
I think that justifies a formal complaint
I just uninstalled all chrome updates, did a force stop and disable on chrome.
Then I went into the iplayer, signed out and back in again, with chrome unavailable, it didn't complain, it didn't use my defined preferred browser (firefox) it used a username/password prompt built-in to the iplayer app.
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)
On 03/07/2022 09:27, Martin wrote:
I think that justifies a formal complaint, but I am not sure to who. Shame UK
left the EU because then you had somebody to complain to.
Not sure what it is to do with the EU though they do tend to stick their
nose into everything.
There is "Contact the BBC" link at the bottom of every BBC webpage and
the following has a a tab for complaints with online message, postal
address, telephone etc etc.
But I doubt whether complaints from foreigners will carry much weight,
they should be made through the company or organisation that is
supplying the feed to BBC programmes because are the ones who have a
contract with the BBC.
The EU looks after users interests.
Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)
If you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC.
If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.
On 04/07/2022 13:45, MB wrote:
Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.
We weren't before, we were ruled from London, then as now.
On 04/07/2022 10:59, Martin wrote:
The EU looks after users interests.
Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.
"Foreigners" = people living outside the UK so not paying for the TV
Licence. I don't think the BBC has any responsibility to provide people
with the BBC services once they move abroad.
In message <t9uv1u$3ddf9$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
On 04/07/2022 13:45, MB wrote:And the Scots don't like it!
Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.
We weren't before, we were ruled from London, then as now.
On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>
<snip>
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)
If you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC.
If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi
channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.
I've just received a reply:
"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users
to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled
we fall back to the built in WebView. This wont differ even if a user
has selected a different default browser.
If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back."
Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign
in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather
app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an
Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a
fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option
is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the >iPlayer app call it reopens.
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 18:36:37 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on >>>> the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "WeIf you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC.
take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>) >>>
If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi
channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.
I've just received a reply:
"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users
to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled
we fall back to the built in WebView. This won’t differ even if a user
has selected a different default browser.
If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back."
Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign
in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather
app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an
Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a
fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option
is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the
iPlayer app call it reopens.
Why does the android version need a password to use BBC Sounds wifi radio, when
the Win10 version doesn't and why is there no way of create a new password when
the old password has been forgotten?
At least you got a relevant answer, even if we think that what they are doing is
not sensible. I never got a sensible answer when I asked when wifi transmitted
for BBC Sound would be stable enough to risk buying wifi radio. I was so near to
buying a radio that was made obsolete by the BBC. Roberts couldn't modify the wifi radios it had sod because they didn't have enough memory.
Apparently the Welsh, Northern Irish and the North of England don't like it either.
On 06/07/2022 11:24, Martin wrote:
Apparently the Welsh, Northern Irish and the North of England don't
like it
either.
And many of the Scot don't like being ruled by a bunch of crooks in Edinburgh, similarly many Welsh don't like Cardiff etc etc.
On 06/07/2022 11:40, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 18:36:37 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>
On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on >>>>> the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We >>>>> take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome IIf you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC. >>>>
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>) >>>>
If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi >>>> channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.
I've just received a reply:
"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users
to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled
we fall back to the built in WebView. This wont differ even if a user
has selected a different default browser.
If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back." >>>
Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign
in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather >>> app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an
Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a
fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option
is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the
iPlayer app call it reopens.
Why does the android version need a password to use BBC Sounds wifi radio, when
the Win10 version doesn't and why is there no way of create a new password when
the old password has been forgotten?
No idea, but careless, inconsistent coding comes to mind.
At least you got a relevant answer, even if we think that what they are doing is
not sensible. I never got a sensible answer when I asked when wifi transmitted
for BBC Sound would be stable enough to risk buying wifi radio. I was so near to
buying a radio that was made obsolete by the BBC. Roberts couldn't modify the
wifi radios it had sod because they didn't have enough memory.
I've replied back with this, and wonder what the response will be:
"Firstly, I am afraid that your point about Chrome being used because of
its Custom Tabs is at least a year out-of-date. Even the developers of
Chrome itself state in their overview at ><https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/> that "Custom
Tabs is a browser feature, introduced by Chrome, that is now supported
by most major browsers on Android."
Secondly, Chrome is a system app in later versions of Android and cannot
be uninstalled without rooting or use of a fairly complicated procedure
using adb. With my Android 11 phone, I cannot even disable it. I can
force it to stop, but as soon as I tap on the iPlayer app sign-in it
causes Chrome to restart.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could I refer you to the BBC's >"Privacy Notice" (at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>). This >starts with "We take your privacy very seriously. And so should you.".
In that case, it seems ironic that Chrome is forced upon iPlayer app
users as it is well accepted to be the most privacy-invasive browser
around. Perhaps you could explain why the iPlayer app's privacy notice
at ><https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/about-bbc-iplayer-and-our-policies/app-privacy-notice>
is different, and does not include the "We take your privacy very
seriously. And so should you." statement (which, strangely enough, opens
in Firefox, not Chrome, from the iPlayer app).
I do take my privacy seriously, which is why I have raised this issue
with you. I can sign-in to other Android apps without using Chrome, and >should be able to do it with the iPlayer app."
You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their >activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:52:29 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 06/07/2022 11:40, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 18:36:37 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on >>>>>> the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We >>>>>> take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I >>>>>> really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>) >>>>>If you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC. >>>>>
If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi >>>>> channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.
I've just received a reply:
"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users >>>> to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled >>>> we fall back to the built in WebView. This won’t differ even if a user >>>> has selected a different default browser.
If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back." >>>>
Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign >>>> in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather >>>> app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an
Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a >>>> fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option >>>> is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the >>>> iPlayer app call it reopens.
Why does the android version need a password to use BBC Sounds wifi radio, when
the Win10 version doesn't and why is there no way of create a new password when
the old password has been forgotten?
No idea, but careless, inconsistent coding comes to mind.
At least you got a relevant answer, even if we think that what they are doing is
not sensible. I never got a sensible answer when I asked when wifi transmitted
for BBC Sound would be stable enough to risk buying wifi radio. I was so near to
buying a radio that was made obsolete by the BBC. Roberts couldn't modify the
wifi radios it had sod because they didn't have enough memory.
I've replied back with this, and wonder what the response will be:
I look forward to seeing their response.
"Firstly, I am afraid that your point about Chrome being used because of
its Custom Tabs is at least a year out-of-date. Even the developers of
Chrome itself state in their overview at
<https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/> that "Custom
Tabs is a browser feature, introduced by Chrome, that is now supported
by most major browsers on Android."
Secondly, Chrome is a system app in later versions of Android and cannot
be uninstalled without rooting or use of a fairly complicated procedure
using adb. With my Android 11 phone, I cannot even disable it. I can
force it to stop, but as soon as I tap on the iPlayer app sign-in it
causes Chrome to restart.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could I refer you to the BBC's
"Privacy Notice" (at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>). This
starts with "We take your privacy very seriously. And so should you.".
In that case, it seems ironic that Chrome is forced upon iPlayer app
users as it is well accepted to be the most privacy-invasive browser
around. Perhaps you could explain why the iPlayer app's privacy notice
at
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/about-bbc-iplayer-and-our-policies/app-privacy-notice>
is different, and does not include the "We take your privacy very
seriously. And so should you." statement (which, strangely enough, opens
in Firefox, not Chrome, from the iPlayer app).
I do take my privacy seriously, which is why I have raised this issue
with you. I can sign-in to other Android apps without using Chrome, and
should be able to do it with the iPlayer app."
Very good!!
You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their
activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.
They probably use Chrome themselves. Insisting that users use Chrome too, saves
them from testing their software with other browsers. Their testing is less than
100% like most software nowadays.
I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult it is to
stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make its use de rigueur.
On 07/07/2022 10:43, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:52:29 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>
On 06/07/2022 11:40, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 18:36:37 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on >>>>>>> the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We >>>>>>> take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I >>>>>>> really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>) >>>>>>If you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC. >>>>>>
If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi >>>>>> channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.
I've just received a reply:
"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users >>>>> to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled >>>>> we fall back to the built in WebView. This wont differ even if a user >>>>> has selected a different default browser.
If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back." >>>>>
Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign >>>>> in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather >>>>> app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an >>>>> Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a >>>>> fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option >>>>> is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the >>>>> iPlayer app call it reopens.
Why does the android version need a password to use BBC Sounds wifi radio, when
the Win10 version doesn't and why is there no way of create a new password when
the old password has been forgotten?
No idea, but careless, inconsistent coding comes to mind.
At least you got a relevant answer, even if we think that what they are doing is
not sensible. I never got a sensible answer when I asked when wifi transmitted
for BBC Sound would be stable enough to risk buying wifi radio. I was so near to
buying a radio that was made obsolete by the BBC. Roberts couldn't modify the
wifi radios it had sod because they didn't have enough memory.
I've replied back with this, and wonder what the response will be:
I look forward to seeing their response.
Came in today:
"You do not need to uninstall Chrome, you can simply disable it. If you >cannot disable it like you said, then that is something you have to take
up with the manufacturer, as it's not something we can help you with >unfortunately.
The first privacy page you listed is a collection of all the privacy
FAQs specifically related to the BBC account. The 2nd page you listed is
a single FAQ dedicated for the BBC app's privacy notice so this is why
they are not identical.
We appreciate the information about the Custom Tabs feature being
supported on most Android browsers. I will make sure this feedback gets
seen on our dedicated feedback reports for iPlayer and this gets seen by
the iPlayer Product Team."
I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult
it is to stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make
its use de rigueur. I suppose the final paragraph might introduce a >possibility of opening the iPlayer app to other browsers, but I'm not
holding my breath. I'm also rather puzzled by the "privacy" statements >explanation. Is there a question (FAQ or otherwise) on the iPlayer
privacy page I linked to? It still doesn't explain why there needs to be
two separate statements.
"Firstly, I am afraid that your point about Chrome being used because of >>> its Custom Tabs is at least a year out-of-date. Even the developers of
Chrome itself state in their overview at
<https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/> that "Custom
Tabs is a browser feature, introduced by Chrome, that is now supported
by most major browsers on Android."
Secondly, Chrome is a system app in later versions of Android and cannot >>> be uninstalled without rooting or use of a fairly complicated procedure
using adb. With my Android 11 phone, I cannot even disable it. I can
force it to stop, but as soon as I tap on the iPlayer app sign-in it
causes Chrome to restart.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could I refer you to the BBC's
"Privacy Notice" (at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>). This >>> starts with "We take your privacy very seriously. And so should you.".
In that case, it seems ironic that Chrome is forced upon iPlayer app
users as it is well accepted to be the most privacy-invasive browser
around. Perhaps you could explain why the iPlayer app's privacy notice
at
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/about-bbc-iplayer-and-our-policies/app-privacy-notice>
is different, and does not include the "We take your privacy very
seriously. And so should you." statement (which, strangely enough, opens >>> in Firefox, not Chrome, from the iPlayer app).
I do take my privacy seriously, which is why I have raised this issue
with you. I can sign-in to other Android apps without using Chrome, and
should be able to do it with the iPlayer app."
Very good!!
You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their
activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.
They probably use Chrome themselves. Insisting that users use Chrome too, saves
them from testing their software with other browsers. Their testing is less than
100% like most software nowadays.
They probably just want to see if what they want to do works with
Chrome. If it does, that's all they need to know as it has such a large
share of the browser market.
Jeff Layman wrote:
I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult it is to
stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make its use de rigueur.
In the past, devices had a separate component AndroidSystemWebView which was a
separate minimal functionality browser that could be embedded in apps.
<https://developer.android.com/reference/android/webkit/WebView>
Eventually, around android v4.4, Google got fed-up of maintaining Webview as well as Chrome, so Webview became Chromium based just like Chrome is Chromium based (whether or not webview has access to the Chrome's cookies etc, I don't know, hopefully not).
If the BBC is not prepared to use the user's preferred browser, they could use
Webview in all cases, the fact that they prefer to use Chrome, and only fall-back to Webview if Chrome is disabled probably tells you that they can link
more data from cookies etc about a user's viewing habits with general web-browsing across phones/tablets/desktops :-(
UK was never ruled from Brussels
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that
after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything except distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.
On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance
with the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been
repealed) was found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required
by an EU Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
mathematics, being too complicated to do in one's head, very often
required pen and paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family
friend found that after decimalisation she became able to work out her
'divvies' whereas previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units
for everything except distances and road-speed, because all the
sign-posts are still in miles, so there would be no benefit in
learning to use kilometres, but if they were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
from the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the
religion that is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the
whole goddamned bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.
Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the Maastricht Treaty.
Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was legislation passed under duress.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old >non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance withBloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive. >>
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?
On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full
compliance with the UK's weights and measures act (which has
never been repealed) was found guilty of not pricing by the
kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the
old non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
mathematics, being too complicated to do in one's head, very
often required pen and paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces
and getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and
farthings, and having no bother with any of it. We were taught
about all this in school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so
we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any
difficult sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference
how complicated the calculations are if you don't have to do them
at all because you have a machine to do them for you?
Have you tried multiplying 3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?
Have you tried multiplying 3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
On 10/07/2022 23:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There
was legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance
with the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been
repealed) was found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as
required by an EU Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
mathematics, being too complicated to do in one's head, very often
required pen and paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family
friend found that after decimalisation she became able to work out
her 'divvies' whereas previously it had been beyond her. I use SI
units for everything except distances and road-speed, because all the
sign-posts are still in miles, so there would be no benefit in
learning to use kilometres, but if they were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
from the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the
religion that is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the
whole goddamned bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.
Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures
Act was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound.
That was his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
But he didn't comply with *ALL RELEVANT* UK law, and that was the point.
Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting
the Maastricht Treaty.
It was a democratic choice to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.
Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
immediate General Election and warned them that a significant
proportion of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave
in and approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.
Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK 'democracy' works.
If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
UK? It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
Have you tried multiplying 3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?50 18s 7d
Jim
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was >>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics, >>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and >>>> paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without* calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well, pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.
On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess JohnYes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?£50 18s 7d
Jim
??? 3x17=51
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
Jim
On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess JohnYes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?£50 18s 7d
Jim
??? 3x17=51
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?£50 18s 7d
Jim
??? 3x17=51
On 11/07/2022 09:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was >>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics, >>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and >>>> paper.
I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
On 11/07/2022 00:04, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 23:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.
Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
'democracy' works.
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians.
They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want");
and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by *years* of Parliamentary resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision.
That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
If you don't think that was a democratic choice, then why are youYou are going off at a tangent. Read what I said above. I made no
and others always comparing the EU's governance to that of the UK, and
complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the UK? It seems
to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting that the EU's
governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
comment whatever on the EU's governance.
My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.
On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?£50 18s 7d
Jim
??? 3x17=51
Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.
Because they see if for the mistake it was.
On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess JohnYes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?£50 18s 7d
Jim
??? 3x17=51
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.
The correct answer is 62 16s 7d
Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
Jim
On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
Because they see if for the mistake it was.
It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.
I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
agree to differ on this.
Jim
On 11/07/2022 02:56 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
Because they see if for the mistake it was.
It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance
agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.
I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
agree to differ on this.
Jim
*You* might agree to that...
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
Because they see if for the mistake it was.
It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.
I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
agree to differ on this.
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get
the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
Yet another bigoted anti-EU claim made without a shred of evidence in support, so I presume, as on all the previous occasions, that you're
just lying.
If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.
and get short shrift if £3 13s 11d is the price after the half-crown discount for buying a baker's dozen or more
On 11/07/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet >>>> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary >>>> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get
the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
Yet another bigoted anti-EU claim made without a shred of evidence in
support, so I presume, as on all the previous occasions, that you're
just lying.
From memory, they did that with Denmark's accession to the EU and RoI's agreement of Maastricht. (I think they renamed the "agreement" in the
latter case.)
On 11/07/2022 14:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
Because they see if for the mistake it was.
It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance
agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.
Remainers simply knew all along that it would be as bad as it has turned
out to be, after it was simply political-economic common sense. Stop blaming others for your own piss-poor judgement.
I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
agree to differ on this.
We will agree to differ, but that doesn't make you right ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/08/six-charts-that-show-how-the-uk-economy-is-in-crisis
... or even still part of a majority ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/25/one-year-on-most-voters-say-brexit-has-gone-badly
On 11/07/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet >>>> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary >>>> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get
the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
Yet another bigoted anti-EU claim made without a shred of evidence in
support, so I presume, as on all the previous occasions, that you're
just lying.
From memory, they did that with Denmark's accession to the EU
and RoI's
agreement of Maastricht. (I think they renamed the "agreement" in the
latter case.)
Didn't they have three goes with Denmark before they got the answer they wanted?
On 11/07/2022 16:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 14:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent
severance agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version
to get anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.
Remainers simply knew all along that it would be as bad as it has
turned out to be, after it was simply political-economic common
sense. Stop blaming others for your own piss-poor judgement.
Of course it has gone badly. That was the Remainer intention all along.
By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing constructive to say.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:17:28 +0100, Indy Jess John ><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
The correct answer is 62 16s 7d
Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
Jim
Ok but it was a bit awkward!
For the given example it can be done mentally or with paper and pencil
3 x17 = 51
13s x17 =10x17 +3x17 =221s /20 11 1s
11p x 17=(1s - 1p) x17 =17s -17p = 15s 7p
so adding it all up
62 16s 7p
Have you tried multiplying 3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well, >pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.
I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
feature of them.
On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that
after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything except
distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the >Maastricht Treaty.
Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern >ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an >immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was >legislation passed under duress.
After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without >discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still >important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was >legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get the >"wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
On 11/07/2022 19:49, Indy Jess John wrote:Or fact, depending on which side you are on.
Of course it has gone badly. That was the Remainer intention all along.
Paranoid conspiracy theory.
By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing
constructive to say.
So why are you making them, as in your other-planet remarks about
Remainers above?
On 11/07/2022 17:25, Max Demian wrote:
On 11/07/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:Didn't they have three goes with Denmark before they got the answer they >wanted?
On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet >>>>> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this >>>>> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people >>>>> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary >>>>> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of >>>>> MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get
the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
Yet another bigoted anti-EU claim made without a shred of evidence in
support, so I presume, as on all the previous occasions, that you're
just lying.
From memory, they did that with Denmark's accession to the EU and RoI's
agreement of Maastricht. (I think they renamed the "agreement" in the
latter case.)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:09:06 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was >>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that
after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything except >>> distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles, >>> so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from >>> the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the
Maastricht Treaty.
Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.
That's how democracy works in UK.
After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.
So other than UK going part metric which other regulation is bad?
I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
feature of them.
For those who needed it.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:23:51 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive. >>
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
I was a programmer in the days of £SD
and there were standard subroutines to callditto, of course knowing which other systems used which units was important
Figaro wrote:
£62 16s 7p
I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
feature of them.
For those who needed it.
When I worked in telly, I recall seeing a catalogue entry for a
"timecode calculator", basically a calculator that could add and
subtract time intervals in hours, minutes, seconds and frames, and
could be set to any of the standard frame rates, 24, 25 or 30
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
On 11/07/2022 14:24, Robin wrote:
If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.
and get short shrift if £3 13s 11d is the price after the half-crown
discount for buying a baker's dozen or more
I'd continue to barter.
On 11/07/2022 20:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/07/2022 19:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
Of course it has gone badly. That was the Remainer intention all along. >>Paranoid conspiracy theory.
Or fact, depending on which side you are on.
By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing
constructive to say.
So why are you making them, as in your other-planet remarks about
Remainers above?
Remainers are a class of people; "ad hominem" is a specific person, of
which you and not I have resorted to.
because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly articles in the DT.
Wasn't it because the majority wasn't within the agreed limits? Having referendums was the Dutch parliaments decision not the EU's. If UK had set similar limits on the Brexit referendum, UK wouldn't have left the EU.
On 12/07/2022 09:01, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:09:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was >>>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with >>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was >>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics, >>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and >>>> paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that >>>> after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas >>>> previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything
except
distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in
miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they >>>> were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that >>>> is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned >>>> bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was >>> his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the >>> Maastricht Treaty.
Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion >>> of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.
That's how democracy works in UK.
After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.
So other than UK going part metric which other regulation is bad?
The one that came to mind first of all was the Working Time Directive.
It was proposed under "Employment" until the UK said they had a veto on
that category, so it was finally passed as a Health and Safety Directive
to which the UK had no veto.
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you have a machine to do them for you?
On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:23:51 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
The UK Government had no choice. The mistake they made was mentioning
the veto during the proposal stage.
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly
articles in the DT.
As opposed to the lies in propaganda from Brussels?
I remember years ago when I used to regularly buy a newspaper, there was
a column which regularly found errors in promulgations from the EU.
Their own people did not seem to understand the rules they expected
everyone to obey!
On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
Why did "it make" sense?
It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
pounds then why should it concern anyone else?
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Has anybody?
I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?
On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.
The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly
articles in the DT.
As opposed to the lies in propaganda from Brussels?
I remember years ago when I used to regularly buy a newspaper, there was
a column which regularly found errors in promulgations from the EU.
Their own people did not seem to understand the rules they expected
everyone to obey!
I remember one POTUS (Clinton?) was trying to encourage the UK to stay
in the EU. Someone wondered what Americans would say if a parliament in Venezuela could produce laws they had to obey, the dollar was replaced
by the Peseta with new Federal Reserve in Panama, a court in Cuba had supremacy over US courts etc etc.
In article <36jnch96sj6mhmchhlultugrom5dq0689c@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated the
calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you have a
machine to do them for you?
It matters if it means you have no real understanding and that makes you >prone to being more easily diddled and mislead.
Jim
It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the messenger
for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is just
another irrational political religion.
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Has anybody?
I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?
On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
you did make an ad hominem attack.
To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
just another irrational political religion.
To use your own words that point of view "needs to be backed up with evidence, you have provided none".
I know you won't admit you lose, this quote is for the enjoyment of
everybody else, and I will leave the conversation there.
Misunderstanding can happen with any system. I remember once
presenting in a shop two items, less than one pound but more than
fifty pence each, and two pound coins to pay for them. I hadn't even
had to think about it in numerical detail, but the till jockey asked
for "two pound something", presumably having miskeyed the amounts, and
it took some time to explain to her why it couldn't be right. The
logic seemed simple to me, but maybe it wasn't obvious to someone who
had become so accustomed to allowing the machinery to do it as to have abandoned the effort of thinking.
Rod.
On 12/07/2022 11:06, MB wrote:
On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
Why did "it make" sense?
It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
pounds then why should it concern anyone else?
Because having differing units is a con-man's charter.
On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
you did make an ad hominem attack.
I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers. If you
don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in.
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Has anybody?
I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?
Jim
Quite! I was brought up to understand pounds and ounces and suddenly all weights were in kilogrammes and grammes. I also have an old house where everything is sized in feet and inches and it became a real problem
finding replacements in imperial measures. A door latch mechanism in
metric made the hole for the spindle not quite in the right place for the existing handle. Mail order from America was my salvation.
I transferred grocery shopping to shops that were wise enough to put signs
on the goods which said how much it was per kilogram but also had (in
smaller characters because that is what the law insisted on) the
equivalent price per pound. I could do the arithmetic in my head but
didn't see why I should have to.
A lot of the independent shops had a conversion chart behind the counter
so that when a customer asked for 3/4 lb of something (mince in the
butcher's for instance) they knew to weigh out 340g on the scales. They acquired most of the elderly to shop there because "the people serving
knew what they meant".
On 12/07/2022 09:46, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 09:01, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:09:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act >>>> was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That
On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
UK was never ruled from Brussels
Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was >>>>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
(paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones >>>>>> take precedence.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance
with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was >>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
Directive.
Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old >>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and >>>>> paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that >>>>> after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas >>>>> previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything
except
distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in
miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if
they
were changed, so would I.
The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion
that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned >>>>> bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and >>>>> was therefore rightly convicted.
was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting
the
Maastricht Treaty.
Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern >>>> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an >>>> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant
proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.
That's how democracy works in UK.
After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.
So other than UK going part metric which other regulation is bad?
The one that came to mind first of all was the Working Time Directive.
It was proposed under "Employment" until the UK said they had a veto
on that category, so it was finally passed as a Health and Safety
Directive to which the UK had no veto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003
"Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC is a European Union law Directive and
a key part of European labour law. It gives EU workers the right to:
at least 28 days (four weeks) in paid holidays each year,
rest breaks of 20 minutes in a 6 hour period,
daily rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours;
restricts excessive night work;
at least 24 hours rest in a 7 day period;
a right to work no more than 48 hours per week, unless the member state enables individual opt-outs.
It was issued as an update on earlier versions from 22 June 2000 and 23 November 1993.[1] Since excessive working time is cited as a major cause
of stress, depression, and illness, the purpose of the directive is to protect people's health and safety. A landmark study conducted by the
World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization
found that exposure to long working hours is common globally at 8.9%,
and according to these United Nations estimates the occupational risk
factor with the largest attributable burden of disease, i.e. an
estimated 745,000 fatalities from ischemic heart disease and stroke
events alone in 2016.[2] This evidence has given renewed impetus for
maximum limits on working time to protect human life and health."
So let's see how 'bad' this has been in practice, shall we?
In the past, some of the most notoriously over-worked people were junior hospital doctors, but now ...
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/articles/european-working-time-directive
"The regulations
These regulations created measures designed to protect the health and
safety of workers and aim to ‘improve health and safety at work by introducing minimum rules for employees relating to daily and weekly
rest periods, rest breaks, annual leave entitlements, length of working
week, and on night work’.
Some groups of workers were initially excluded from these regulations, including doctors in training but from August 2004, the provisions of
the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) applied to doctors in
training also. This means ensuring that doctors in training can work
safely and effectively without excessive workloads that might compromise patient care."
... and more generally ...
https://www.bfwh.nhs.uk/onehr/hr-policies-advice/working-time-directive/
What else?
https://driverhours.co.uk/working-time-directive/
"The Working Time Directive Rules for Drivers:
What is the weekly maximum?
The total number of hours worked cannot exceed 60 hours within any fixed week.
What is the maximum weekly average?
Over the WTD period, usually 17 or 26 weeks, you must average no more
than 48 hours per week.
I.e. Your hours should be monitored each week for 17 weeks. At which
point you add them all together and divide the total by the amount of
weeks within the period. This result must be no more than 48 hours.
What are the daily driving limits?
You cannot work for more than 6 accumulative hours without a break. As defined by the Drivers hour’s laws, a break must be at least 15 minutes
in length in order to qualify as a break.
If you are to work between 6 – 9 hours, then you must accumulate 30
minutes of break across your shift."
So this seems to be an example of EU legislation making us all safer
than UK legislation might otherwise have done, and yet you're
complaining about it? Nothing demonstrates the irrationality of the Brexshit religion greater than that.
And than this ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row
"The Brexit opportunities minister is pushing for the laws carried over
after Brexit to expire by a “cliff-edge” deadline of 23 June 2026, marking 10 years since the EU referendum."
So what he's trying to do is, regardless of the merit or otherwise of
each and every law, repeal them all by a given deadline.
It's an irrational religion based on divisive populist xenophobia,
always was, and always will be.
On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
you did make an ad hominem attack.
I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers. If you
don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Hee hee! The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
You are *so* predictable.
On 12/07/2022 11:09, Java Jive wrote:
So this seems to be an example of EU legislation making us all safer
than UK legislation might otherwise have done, and yet you're
complaining about it? Nothing demonstrates the irrationality of the
Brexshit religion greater than that.
And than this ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row
"The Brexit opportunities minister is pushing for the laws carried
over after Brexit to expire by a “cliff-edge” deadline of 23 June
2026, marking 10 years since the EU referendum."
So what he's trying to do is, regardless of the merit or otherwise of
each and every law, repeal them all by a given deadline.
It's an irrational religion based on divisive populist xenophobia,
always was, and always will be.
Those regulations you have quoted only affect us.
We can make our own
that say the same thing or are better (or suit us better).
I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz =
1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.
To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
just another irrational political religion.
In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
just another irrational political religion.
What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?
The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
just another irrational political religion.
That reminds me of a business trip to London, where I arrived at the
station for my train back home to discover it had been cancelled and I
had to wait for the next one. I went along to Burger King and ordered a hamburger and a cup of coffee. The till was broken. The till jockey (a
great description!) told me the till wasn't working and had 4 goes at
adding two numbers together. Meanwhile my burger and coffee were getting
cold because they wouldn't be handed over until paid for, so after the
4th go I gave the correct amount I should be charged and I handed over a
£5 note. Then there were 3 goes at telling me what change I should get, none of which were right. Then the tannoy announced my train and what I
was being offered was only 10p too much so I took it and went for my train.
The column was written by Boris. The EU kept a public file of te lies he wrote.
What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?
The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
On 12/07/2022 16:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting
that you did make an ad hominem attack.
I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers. If you
don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Hee hee! The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
You are *so* predictable.
Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that right:
I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own ad
hominems. You continue to act like a child. You are *so* predictable.
On 12/07/2022 12:07, Martin wrote:
The column was written by Boris. The EU kept a public file of te lies
he wrote.
I think the newspaper did similar with the lies from Brussels.
On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
But ad hominems are against a specific person.
Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
ad hominems. You continue to act like a child. You are *so*
predictable.
I commented on a class of
people, not an identifiable single person.
Can I recommend you read the
work of George Boole?
On 12/07/2022 21:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?
The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
But the people in the EU who fund some of them can arrange for
unnecessary delays etc which can blamed on BREXIT.
I saw news report earlier about the EU building an 8 million euro
bunker. I thought it was going to be the long anticipated EU Führerbunker but at only 8 million euro, I think it is just an
overpriced SCIF.
On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
But ad hominems are against a specific person.
Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
ad hominems. You continue to act like a child. You are *so*
predictable.
Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.
I commented on a class of people, not an identifiable single person.
So effectively you insulted a whole class of people
In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes
To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
just another irrational political religion.
What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?
The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
On 12/07/2022 13:37, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Has anybody?
I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972? >>>
stay in.
Jim
Yes, but that comes under the category of "an EU matter affecting only
that state (and carried out by that state)". I don't know of an EU-wide referendum on any matter - all decisions on such are carried out by the
EU politicians.
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
work of George Boole?
On 12/07/2022 17:36, NY wrote:
I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz
= 1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.
Well, one out of three anyway.
On 12/07/2022 23:27, Java Jive wrote:
On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
But ad hominems are against a specific person.
Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
ad hominems. You continue to act like a child. You are *so*
predictable.
Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.
But ad hominems are against *specific* people.
I commented on a class of people, not an identifiable single person.
So effectively you insulted a whole class of people
Yes I did. But that is *not* an ad hominem attack like the one you
made. Which is what I have said all along, and I say it again.
The Remainers are entitled to their opinions and I support their right
to have them. What I don't support is their continued attempts to
overturn or interfere with a decision made by the majority of those who responded to the referendum.
[snip fantasy interpretation of recent events]
The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely
by the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise
till they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over
what is happening.
What was actually needed was a Parliament with the guts to follow up
Teresa May's mantra that "No Deal is better than a bad deal" and vote
for a No Deal. Britain buys more from the EU than the EU buys from us
so it would have hurt the EU's budget far more than it would have
damaged ours. Faced with that reality the EU would then be trying to
salvage something from the wreckage rather that remaining in the driving seat. But neither the Remainers in the other parties nor sufficient of
the newly elected Conservatives were prepared to vote for a No Deal, and
that effectively killed some of the benefits that Brexit could have delivered.
Some benefits have been delivered. Trade Deals have been made with other countries which would never have been possible under EU rules,
and if
the coronavirus pandemic hadn't interfered with world trade that would
have brought a Brexit dividend in cheaper goods in the shops by now.
It
was the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine that wrecked that
ideal, not Brexit itself.
The other benefit is that Britain had a Covid vaccine available in bulk
and was delivering it to the UK population long before the EU had a vaccination policy; and with their "Punish Britain" attitude they
claimed that the Astra Zeneca vaccine was unusable and by buying it and
then refusing to use it they condemned many of their citizens to an
avoidable Covid death, while removing from the market the available
stocks that could have been supplied to poorer countries and so
increased their death rates too.
There are other complications remaining from the half in and half out situation we are currently in, but the above will give you a flavour of
how we are where we are, and how different it might have been if
Parliament had got wholly behind the referendum decision.
On 12/07/2022 17:26, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 12/07/2022 13:37, Indy Jess John wrote:Ted Heath, who took us into "The Common Market" knew at the time that by joining the UK would eventually be committed to be part of the EU's
On 12/07/2022 11:05, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to
Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
Has anybody?
I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and >>>> the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?
I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in
1972?
stay in.
Jim
Yes, but that comes under the category of "an EU matter affecting only
that state (and carried out by that state)". I don't know of an
EU-wide referendum on any matter - all decisions on such are carried
out by the EU politicians.
united states of Europe model. But the 1972 referendum question was
whether we wanted to stay in "The Common Market" with the trade benefits
that would bring. There was no suggestion of any loss of sovereignty at
that time, it was merely a trade deal, which is why the answer was that
we wanted to stay in.
"Indy Jess John" <jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:VJ98H.2722271$6_j.758871@fx37.ams4...
sit in the commons he had to swear loyalty to the Queen, and he could
I rather liked the Justice Secretary pointing out that in order to
The EU as it exists today was formed by the Maastricht Treaty. John
Major promised a referendum on any treaty that resulted in a loss of sovereignty, but he lied!
The Remainers are entitled to their opinions and I support their right
to have them. What I don't support is their continued attempts to
overturn or interfere with a decision made by the majority of those
who responded to the referendum.
Which they haven't done to the agreement, binding in international law,
that Johnson himself negotiated, but now wishes to tear up or at least
break significant parts of, and which has caused all the current
problems which everyone and anyone who knew anything about the subject
said it would cause all along.
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class
of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read
the work of George Boole?
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of
people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
work of George Boole?
I found “The Laws of Thought” rather heavy going and I am still only half way through. I do not remember anything in it that seems relevant to the current discussion. Did you mean some other work of his?
In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a classWell, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other than
of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you
read the work of George Boole?
an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might not
be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem attack
on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines', or maybe
more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least choose
a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because that was
the only way that they could gain power.
In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a classWell, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other than
of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you
read the work of George Boole?
an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might not
be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem attack
on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines', or maybe
more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final
right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1,
1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent
of Parliament.
*ALL* treaties entail loss of sovereignty, but it has never
been the style of UK government to have a referendum every time a new
treaty is signed;
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because
that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
The agreement included the ability of the Uk and the EU to make agreed changes to it. That was the alteration to Teresa May's BRINO draft that
Boris achieved.
The EU doesn't really want us as a member state, they just want us as a
net donor to the EU budget. By digging their heels in, encouraged by the remainers in Parliament who are already suggesting increasing the EU
control over UK trade, the EU think they can make that happen. Thus, the clause inserted in the agreement that modifications can be made will
never be used until the Remainers STFU and the EU give up the idea they
can once again dictate to Britain.
There is plenty of evidence for this if you trawl through the news
archives.
At the time Teresa May was getting nowhere in her
negotiations with the EU
Donald Trump was facing similar EU blocking
tactics to the agreement he was trying to obtain. He gave them a blunt ultimatum, that the EU signed the agreement offered to them or America
would block all imports from all EU member states until they did sign
it. He got agreement in days to a better deal than Britain achieved in years.
Anyway, breaking international law happens from time to time when the
small print in the agreement becomes a major inconvenience. America tore
up their agreement with Iran, for instance. After a bit of fuss in the media for a while, it all became yesterdays news. There were no
consequences to America.
On 12/07/2022 17:48, Norman Wells wrote:That's the UK pint, the US pint is only 16 Fl oz which means a pint of
On 12/07/2022 17:36, NY wrote:
I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz
= 1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.
Well, one out of three anyway.
568 fl oz = 1 pint is wrong. It is 568cc (or ml) = 1 pint.
568 fl oz is about 3 and 5/9 gallons!
The other useful near enough conversion is that 1 litre is about 36 fl
oz and a pint is 20 fl oz and that 20:36 ratio is quite useful for
converting recipes.
Jim
On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a classWell, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you
read the work of George Boole?
hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other
than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might
not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative
case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem
attack on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines',
or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
On 13/07/2022 08:04, Java Jive wrote:
Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final
right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1,
1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing
assent of Parliament.
And the British Parliament has done this. But for accuracy, our
continued membership only depended on failure to act; continued
membership was the default.
*ALL* treaties entail loss of sovereignty, but it has never been the
style of UK government to have a referendum every time a new treaty is
signed;
That as far as it goes is an accurate statement. However few treaties require the laws passed by Parliament to be ineffectual if an EU
Directive doesn't align with it. That is a very significant loss of sovereignty
And if a referendum is promised and then not provided, that Prime
Minister has acted in bad faith. It lost his party the next General Election.
Continued membership continued because those in power realised that membership was in their best interest.
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad
hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
the consequences of your own failure to cast your vote wisely.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad >>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument" >>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
On 13/07/2022 09:51, Java Jive wrote:
the consequences of your own failure to cast your vote wisely.
I didn't fail to use my vote wisely. I voted Brexit because I wanted the
Acts passed by the UK Parliament to have more importance to residents of
the UK than EU regulations have. And that is what I now have
I have corrected that for you. Ex-politicians could get very lucrative
jobs in the EU.
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because
that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because
that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on aWell, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
class of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend
you read the work of George Boole?
hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other
than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might
not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative
case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad
hominem attack on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad
homines', or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept
"ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin
then it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem
argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
On 13/07/2022 10:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on aWell, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum
class of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I
recommend you read the work of George Boole?
ad hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one
(other than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might
not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the
ablative case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an
ad hominem attack on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum
ad homines', or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept
"ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from
Latin then it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad
hominem argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy
argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means
what it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
OTOH for "ad hominem" the OED gives "Origin: A borrowing from Latin."
The use of "borrow" in that sense is well-established.
On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad >>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then >>>> it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument" >>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
prove it.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad >>>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then >>>>> it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument" >>>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what >>>> it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
prove it.
Why?
If a word is generally understood to mean something, then I can just
use it whenever that's what I want to say, can't I?
On 13/07/2022 14:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept "ad >>>>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then >>>>>> it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument" >>>>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what >>>>> it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
prove it.
Why?
If a word is generally understood to mean something, then I can just
use it whenever that's what I want to say, can't I?
All you have to do now is establish that your initial condition is true.
Otherwise, you're in Humpty Dumpty territory.
On 13/07/2022 13:52, Robin wrote:
On 13/07/2022 10:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on aWell, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum
class of people, not an identifiable single person. Can I
recommend you read the work of George Boole?
ad hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one
(other than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression
might not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the
ablative case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then
an ad hominem attack on a specific group of people could be
'argumentum ad homines', or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad
hominibus'?
I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural. If we accept
"ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from
Latin then it has no need of one. In other words, the phrase "ad
hominem argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy
argument".
It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means
what it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
OTOH for "ad hominem" the OED gives "Origin: A borrowing from Latin."
The use of "borrow" in that sense is well-established.
And that very same dictionary defines the term as:
'directed against a person’s character rather than their argument'.
'A person'. Singular.
The idea that, now we're no longer part of the EU, suddenly the EU
becomes irrelevant and everything we've ever wanted is possible
On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
because that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory, rather
than one that such as the above that at least had some plausibility to
it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible one.
On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
because that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory, rather
than one that such as the above that at least had some plausibility to
it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible one.
QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?
On 13/07/2022 12:58, Java Jive wrote:
The idea that, now we're no longer part of the EU, suddenly the EU
becomes irrelevant and everything we've ever wanted is possible
Another thing I didn't say.
Your imagination is working overtime.
On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least >>>>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
because that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory,
rather than one that such as the above that at least had some
plausibility to it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible
one.
QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?
Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED trying
to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in fact you
hadn't, so I pointed this out.
<end quote>I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
On 14/07/2022 00:07, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:<quote>
On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least >>>>>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
because that was the only way that they could gain power.
I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory,
rather than one that such as the above that at least had some
plausibility to it; no-one is surprised that you chose the
impossible one.
QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?
Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED trying
to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in fact you
hadn't, so I pointed this out.
<end quote>I did NOT say that.
No, indeed you did not
QED
You agreed with me, so that *is* the correct use.
On 14/07/2022 09:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/07/2022 00:07, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:<quote>
On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not
On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
I did NOT say that.
If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at
least choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to >>>>>>>>> fail because that was the only way that they could gain power. >>>>>>>>
No, indeed you did not
QED
QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory,
rather than one that such as the above that at least had some
plausibility to it; no-one is surprised that you chose the
impossible one.
recognise QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a
new one?
Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED
trying to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in
fact you hadn't, so I pointed this out.
<end quote>;I did NOT say that.;
No, indeed you did not
QED
You agreed with me, so that *is* the correct use.
Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one that
I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your application
of QED was incorrect for the context.
And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?
On 14/07/2022 10:35, Java Jive wrote:
Because you ignored the QED, which was a good indicator of termination.
Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical
allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one
that I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your
application of QED was incorrect for the context.
And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?
So obviously you don't mind your time being wasted. I don't mind
humouring you in that case.
On 14/07/2022 15:28, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/07/2022 10:35, Java Jive wrote:
Because you ignored the QED, which was a good indicator of
Not in the context of the subthread, which was about the fantastical
allegations that you did try to claim, not the more reasonable one
that I suggested that you could have claimed but did not, so your
application of QED was incorrect for the context.
And why are you still arguing, when at least ten or a dozen posts ago
you said that you would stop wasting everyone's time like this?
termination. So obviously you don't mind your time being wasted. I
don't mind humouring you in that case.
So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
trying to get the last word in. Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
trying to get the last word in.
Makes no difference, you still lost
the argument, because you never provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for
your fantastical allegations.
But that wasn't an argument.
I am entitled to my opinion, you are
entitled to disagree with it, but you should nevertheless support my
right to express it.
On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
trying to get the last word in.
And are still playing it.
Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never
provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
But that wasn't an argument.
Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but
you should nevertheless support my right to express it.
You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions cannot be expressed
in public.
On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
trying to get the last word in.
And are still playing it.
Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never
provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
But that wasn't an argument.
Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but
you should nevertheless support my right to express it.
You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate.
On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
On 14/07/2022 20:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/07/2022 16:16, Java Jive wrote:
So in reality you were playing the very game that you accused me of,
trying to get the last word in.
And are still playing it.
Makes no difference, you still lost the argument, because you never
provided any credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
But that wasn't an argument.
Call it what you like, you lost it through not being able to provide any
credible *EVIDENCE* for your fantastical allegations.
I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but
you should nevertheless support my right to express it.
You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate. >>
Please substantiate that claim.
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
Please substantiate that claim.
You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot substantiate. >>
Indeed. It would be the end of faith based religions.
On 15/07/2022 11:30, Tweed wrote:
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2022 00:18, Java Jive wrote:
You are not entitled to make claims in public that you cannot
substantiate.
Please substantiate that claim.
:-)
On 15/07/2022 10:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions cannot be
expressed in public.
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
agree on the same set of facts.
On 15/07/2022 23:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they
agree on the same set of facts.
You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
On 16/07/2022 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
On 15/07/2022 23:26, Indy Jess John wrote:
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if
they agree on the same set of facts.
You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
I asked first.
You are using your normal approach of avoiding things you don't like by asking a question rather than giving an answer.
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from your
own cannot be expressed in public.
Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if
they agree on the same set of facts.
You haven't provided any facts so [snip crap]
And still haven't, so there are no facts to disagree on, only your wild
and fantastical claims, so it still remains the case that you have to
prove any of your opinion have the simple merit of truth.
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions stated in
public cannot be debunked and shown to be untrue.
I asked first.
Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:40:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>[Quoting broken Indy Jess John wrote:]
wrote:
I asked first.
Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?
Could somebody direct me to the grownups' newsgroups please?
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:40:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Shouldn't you be at school now?
Could somebody direct me to the grownups' newsgroups please?
Rod.
On 16/07/2022 11:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that opinions different from
your own cannot be expressed in public.
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
On 16/07/2022 23:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
[snip your attempts to wriggle out of having lost an argument]
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
On 16/07/2022 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
On 17/07/2022 09:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 16/07/2022 23:39, Java Jive wrote:
Please provide any credible *EVIDENCE* that false opinions that are
unwisely and ill-manneredly stated in public cannot be debunked and
shown to be untrue, as has happened here.
STET. Subthread ignored henceforth.
Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?You can use macros as long as you don't spam them, and don't use any unapproved macros. Don't use anything that gives you an advantage in gameplay like auto clicker macros, but if you have a macro that allows you to say ''gg'' when the game ends that
The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or register) on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox
set as my default browser. I've tried setting the phone to other default browsers, but iPlayer will still only allow me to open it in Chrome. I
never use Chrome and have removed all permissions from it. If I tap on iPlayer's "Privacy" panel on its opening screen instead of signing in,
it does then open the privacy statement in Firefox, and allow me access
to all of iPlayer via that page (as I'm apparently already signed in to
the account). The BBC News app has no privacy panel available so access
is only via Chrome.
Do others have this issue with iPlayer?
--
Jeff
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:10:04 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,105 |