UKMT Long March 2016 - Beware the Iain Duncan Smith of March (am I doing this right?)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT Long March 2016 - Beware the Iain Duncan Smith of March (am I doing this right?)

«‹›141 »

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Cerv posted:

The Home Office have actually listened to the ACMD for once and poppers have been saved.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/2...paign=PNTwitter

Happy days

The home office were told bluntly by the ACMD that poppers were not psychoactive and a ban would not be enforceable under legislation. This is being spun as them "changing their mind".

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 16:33

Fans: Jun 27, 2013; A reptile dysfunction

For those who missed "Nicky Morgan vs The Graph of gently caress You Got Mine"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_Yhggk62o

In which Nicky Morgan tries to pretend she cannot comprehend what the graph possibly means.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:14

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Spangly A posted:

The home office were told bluntly by the ACMD that poppers were not psychoactive and a ban would not be enforceable under legislation. This is being spun as them "changing their mind".

After the home office previously said the act was written to specifically include poppers.
Would've been interesting to see which way the courts eventually interpreted the badly written nonsense.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:28

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Cerv posted:

After the home office previously said the act was written to specifically include poppers.
Would've been interesting to see which way the courts eventually interpreted the badly written nonsense.

I would absolutely love to watch the ACMD take the governments legislation to the loving cleaners in a courtroom but sadly they and everyone else is outright banned from writing about how stupid the government is anymore.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:30

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Cerv posted:

The Home Office have actually listened to the ACMD for once and poppers have been saved.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/2...paign=PNTwitter

Happy days

Well, it's good that the one that anyone can make in a kitchen with no chemistry training isn't getting banned.

However "I understand that the Council has now advanced its understanding of the psychoactivity of the alkyl nitrites group under the Act and concluded that only substances that directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system are psychoactive under the Act." is the biggest bunch of :psyduck:

since "�Data� includes data which is not electronic data and any information (whether or not electronic)." (which was only a few weeks aro, but this government likes legislation with a high rate of :psyduck:

).

So poppers dilate the blood vessels, which causes an indirect psychoactive effect? What's a direct effect? Something that directly acts on a receptor only? What about prodrugs and other indirect mechanisms? Heroin is only a prodrug for delivering morphine.

Or if you're going to look at it another way, that they're still going to be as broad as possible on psychoactive substances, does that mean that bromide salts are banned? Those do directly depress the central nervous system if you eat them, however they don't if you're using them for photography (excluding any aesthetic meandering about the psychoactivity of art). Now the obvious and sensible solution is to allow them to be sold legally for photography but not for human consumption, but this entire act was supposed to get rid of the "Plant Food - Not For Human Consumption

" loophole, so what does that now mean? Bromide salts are banned? Solvents are banned?

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:36

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Guavanaut posted:

Well, it's good that the one that anyone can make in a kitchen with no chemistry training isn't getting banned.

However "I understand that the Council has now advanced its understanding of the psychoactivity of the alkyl nitrites group under the Act and concluded that only substances that directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system are psychoactive under the Act." is the biggest bunch of since "�Data� includes data which is not electronic data and any information (whether or not electronic)." (which was only a few weeks aro, but this government likes legislation with a high rate of ).

So poppers dilate the blood vessels, which causes an indirect psychoactive effect? What's a direct effect? Something that directly acts on a receptor only? What about prodrugs and other indirect mechanisms? Heroin is only a prodrug for delivering morphine.

Or if you're going to look at it another way, that they're still going to be as broad as possible on psychoactive substances, does that mean that bromide salts are banned? Those do directly depress the central nervous system if you eat them, however they don't if you're using them for photography (excluding any aesthetic meandering about the psychoactivity of art). Now the obvious and sensible solution is to allow them to be sold legally for photography but not for human consumption, but this entire act was supposed to get rid of the "Plant Food - Not For Human Consumption " loophole, so what does that now mean? Bromide salts are banned? Solvents are banned?

Haha look at you trying to make sense of garbage.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:52

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

future thoughts for Labour: politicise the ACMD, promise to write some legislation that actually makes sense.

I don't even mean good legislation like decrim or regulation, just something that will actually survive a courtroom. Bring back Nutt too.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 13:56

Gum: Mar 9, 2008; _{oho, a rapist

time to try this puppy out}

it means that the reason almost nobody else has tried a blanket ban on legal highs is that it was always obvious that any law you could write would end up being a complete mess, requiring some really dodgy interpretations to function

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:05

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Spangly A posted:

future thoughts for Labour: politicise the ACMD, promise to write some legislation that actually makes sense.

I don't even mean good legislation like decrim or regulation, just something that will actually survive a courtroom. Bring back Nutt too.

Aww, the cheerful naivety of someone who thinks any legislation written anywhere in the western world in the last 50 years has been written by people who understand the subject being legislated and not by disinterested civil servants being shouted at by politicians to write something that sort of matches the promise they just pulled directly out of their arse to keep the papers quiet.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:11

Boing: Jul 12, 2005; trapped in custom title factory, send help

Drug policy has always been about banning things because they are psychoactive, not because they are bad for you, which is insane by any standard and I can't even think of the conservative political ideological reason for it.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:12

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

Aren't these regulations supposed to come into force in April?

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:13

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Boing posted:

Drug policy has always been about banning things because they are psychoactive, not because they are bad for you, which is insane by any standard and I can't even think of the conservative political ideological reason for it.

"Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy"

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:14

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Boing posted:

Drug policy has always been about banning things because they are psychoactive, not because they are bad for you, which is insane by any standard and I can't even think of the conservative political ideological reason for it.

it's not conservative, it's reactionary. I don't understand this. It must be banned.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:14

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

Boing posted:

Drug policy has always been about banning things because they are psychoactive, not because they are bad for you, which is insane by any standard and I can't even think of the conservative political ideological reason for it.

Mostly that poors and ethnic minorities do them.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:14

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Guavanaut posted:

However "I understand that the Council has now advanced its understanding of the psychoactivity of the alkyl nitrites group under the Act and concluded that only substances that directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system are psychoactive under the Act."

I guess this means the smell of delicious, delicious curry is banned, cos that acts pretty directly on my CNS by stimulating olfactory receptors, which set off a neuronal cascade in my brain that ends up with me wanting to eat a delicious, delicious curry.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:15

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

XMNN posted:

Mostly that poors and ethnic minorities do them.

also this, the Heroin scare was one of the most absurdly hypocritical things that's evolved in recent history. We can't have those Chinese and blues musicians laying around on heroin, we should instead create a black market and infect with world with addiction.

*swigs opium*

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:16

Hoops: Aug 19, 2005; A Black Mark For Retarded Posting

I've underestimated how damaging this would be to Osborne, I'm starting to think he'll be gone soon. The papers have decided they can get him out so they're all after him now. I don't even think it's inherently a political stance from them, just that the narrative is rolling now and they smell blood.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:22

jabby: Oct 27, 2010

Hoops posted:

I've underestimated how damaging this would be to Osborne, I'm starting to think he'll be gone soon. The papers have decided they can get him out so they're all after him now. I don't even think it's inherently a political stance from them, just that the narrative is rolling now and they smell blood.

I think the issue for the Tory leadership is that their flagship propaganda outlets, like the Telegraph and the Mail, back Brexit. So they are far more willing to print article that damage the leadership than they would otherwise be.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:29

Phoon: Apr 23, 2010

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Not if you look at what anti-EU campaigners are actually after it's not. It's never been about freedom of movement (of people or of capital), these are things that are massively advantageous to the upper classes because they keep wages and taxes locked in a race to the bottom. What it's about is the removal of whatever restrictions there may be on these Glorious Captains Of Industry. You know, things like not forcing your staff to work 90 hours a week for 30 hours pay, or preventing your factory from spewing arsenic into the air and water, or any of the other millions of pettyfogging little annoyances that they think up in Barmy Brussels to keep the poor benighted job-creators down.

yeah I know this I just mean imagine how the millions of non-rich brexit supporters would react to being screwed over so openly

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:38

Trickjaw: Jun 23, 2005; Nadie puede dar lo que no tiene

Sadly, this Belgium bombing is going to be a gift from the gods for the Tories. The news will be full of it for weeks, it gives urgency to the investigative powers bill, and after a sober period of reflection, the out boys will be jumping up and down about immigrants.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:38

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Trickjaw posted:

Sadly, this Belgium bombing is going to be a gift from the gods for the Tories. The news will be full of it for weeks, it gives urgency to the investigative powers bill, and after a sober period of reflection, the out boys will be jumping up and down about immigrants.

immigrants really means muslims these days, doesn't it?

I mean you're right, but it's not as if radical jihadists are getting on ferries at Zeebuirg to attack us

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:40

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

BBC posted:

Conservative MP James Cartlidge intervenes to question John McDonnell's "fitness for office".

"On a day of a terrorist attack" he asks Mr McDonnell to "withdraw his previous support for terrorist organisations that have attacked this country".

John McDonnell replies that "to bring that into the debate at this time at a politcial point at this stage is unacceptable" and points out he has criticised the terrorist attacks in Belgium.

Speaker John Bercow is forced to intervene to say "attempts to shout the shadow chancellor down" were "unacceptable".

The debate is getting a bit nasty

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:56

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

goddamnedtwisto posted:

"Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy"

Joke's on them, I'm a stoic so I'm always happy, even when I'm not. Suck it shitlords!

# ? Mar 22, 2016 14:57

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Jose posted:

The debate is getting a bit nasty

McConnell really should not have held back there, that was a loving disgraceful remark and unparliamentary language was called for.

He should have told the nasty little rat to get hosed.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 15:03

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Bercow gets some praise as speaker but the fact he let that question remain is ridiculous. He just compared a member of the opposition to a suicide bomber while the news streams images of bodies everywhere.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 15:05

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Phoon posted:

yeah I know this I just mean imagine how the millions of non-rich brexit supporters would react to being screwed over so openly

Glorious communist revolution? :getin:

Rejection of UKIP followed by a Corbynist landslide?

Nah it'll probably end up being something terrible.

Jose posted:

The debate is getting a bit nasty

The only moral terrorist sympathizers are our terrorist sympathizers.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 15:08

Kassad: Nov 12, 2005; It's about time.

Spangly A posted:

immigrants really means muslims these days, doesn't it?

Not sure there's a real difference other than they're different code words for "not white".

# ? Mar 22, 2016 15:12

Gyro Zeppeli: Jul 19, 2012; sure hope no-one throws me off a bridge

Kassad posted:

Not sure there's a real difference other than they're different code words for "not white".

Can slim it down even closer to "not the right kind of white". Cuz they really don't like eastern Europeans either.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 15:18

Pistol_Pete: Sep 15, 2007; Oven Wrangler

Trickjaw posted:

Sadly, this Belgium bombing is going to be a gift from the gods for the Tories. The news will be full of it for weeks, it gives urgency to the investigative powers bill, and after a sober period of reflection, the out boys will be jumping up and down about immigrants.

Somewhat less helpful for the Tories that are supporting staying in Europe, like the Prime Minister, for example.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 16:03

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

https://t.co/Y97JUh62cU
Welsh polling:

REMAIN 43 (+6)
LEAVE 38 (-7)

CON 22 (=)
LAB 34 (=)
LIB 5 (=)
UKIP 15(-3)
PC 21 (+2)

CON 22 (=)
LAB 31 (=)
LIB 5 (+1)
UKIP 14 (-4)
GRN 4 (+1)
PC 22 (+3)

That'd mean the loss of Labour's majority in the Assembly. Fieldwork was done before Osborne's budget, so public opinion may have shifted against the Tories since.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Mar 22, 2016

# ? Mar 22, 2016 17:20

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

LemonDrizzle posted:

https://t.co/Y97JUh62cU
Welsh polling:

REMAIN 43 (+6)
LEAVE 38 (-7)

CON 22 (=)
LAB 34 (=)
LIB 5 (=)
UKIP 15(-3)
PC 21 (+2)

CON 22 (=)
LAB 31 (=)
LIB 5 (+1)
UKIP 14 (-4)
GRN 4 (+1)
PC 22 (+3)

That'd mean the loss of Labour's majority in the Assembly. Fieldwork was done before Osborne's budget, so public opinion may have shifted against the Tories since.

Wow, I know Wales likes the EU, but that's a real big surge in support since whenever they last ran a poll.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 17:25

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Darth Walrus posted:

Wow, I know Wales likes the EU, but that's a real big surge in support since whenever they last ran a poll.

The last poll was an outlier with Leave having a comfortable lead.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 17:31

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

LemonDrizzle posted:

https://t.co/Y97JUh62cU
Welsh polling:

REMAIN 43 (+6)
LEAVE 38 (-7)

CON 22 (=)
LAB 34 (=)
LIB 5 (=)
UKIP 15(-3)
PC 21 (+2)

CON 22 (=)
LAB 31 (=)
LIB 5 (+1)
UKIP 14 (-4)
GRN 4 (+1)
PC 22 (+3)

That'd mean the loss of Labour's majority in the Assembly. Fieldwork was done before Osborne's budget, so public opinion may have shifted against the Tories since.

Sort of inevitable with the rise of UKIP in the last 5 years. Still, Labour working with PC would be likely, as happened in 2007 when Labour only managed 26 AMs

# ? Mar 22, 2016 17:33

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

Boing posted:

Drug policy has always been about banning things because they are psychoactive, not because they are bad for you, which is insane by any standard and I can't even think of the conservative political ideological reason for it.

The only moral pleasure is the pleasure gained from the purchase of a consumer product, bought with the meagre scratchings earned from a zero-hours contract. Pleasure must be portioned up and dispensed only after acceptable levels of despair and suffering have been endured. This is known as 'striving'.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 18:46

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

the hottest of takes from katie hopkins
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/712236185482092544

# ? Mar 22, 2016 18:52

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

You would be the sort of idiot who gives her the attention she wants.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 18:54

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

shrike82 posted:

the hottest of takes from katie hopkins
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/712236185482092544

gently caress off

# ? Mar 22, 2016 18:58

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

and corbyn's weakass response

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/712202239713083392

# ? Mar 22, 2016 19:01

Trickjaw: Jun 23, 2005; Nadie puede dar lo que no tiene

shrike82 posted:

the hottest of takes from katie hopkins
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/712236185482092544

It is unsurprising you would follow that oval office. I'm glad she knows the origin of who ever the bombers were, the rest of the world doesn't.

E: actually, rather than engaging with you, gently caress off oval office.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 19:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 16:33

jabby: Oct 27, 2010

shrike82 posted:

and corbyn's weakass response

What would a strong response sound like?

# ? Mar 22, 2016 19:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT Long March 2016 - Beware the Iain Duncan Smith of March (am I doing this right?)

«‹›141 »