Politika u UK

[hazard]

Pa OK, ali ja ovde vidim pad Laburista uglavnom na uštrb Zelenih, Torijevaca i pomalo Libdemsa. Oni zbirno nadoknadjuju laburistički gubitak od 12 poslaničkih mesta, SNP tek 2. To mi malo nejasno. OK, prelivanje ka Zelenim i da razumem, ali ovo drugo...

[Budja]

Pa OK, ali ja ovde vidim pad Laburista uglavnom na uštrb Zelenih, Torijevaca i pomalo Libdemsa. Oni zbirno nadoknadjuju laburistički gubitak od 12 poslaničkih mesta, SNP tek 2. To mi malo nejasno. OK, prelivanje ka Zelenim i da razumem, ali ovo drugo...

 

Zapravo, ovo je gubitak LAB u odnosu na prosle skotske izbore, a ne u odnosu na parlamentarne izbore.

Od tada, LAB su stabilini, ne padaju.

 

[dragance]

Mozda zato sto vise nemaju gde da padnu?

[hazard]

Zapravo, ovo je gubitak LAB u odnosu na prosle skotske izbore, a ne u odnosu na parlamentarne izbore.

Od tada, LAB su stabilini, ne padaju.

 

 

 

OK, hvala. Interesantna mi je ova podela između voting intentions na regionalnom i constituency nivou. Constituency izboru u Škotskoj su klasičan FPTP, je l' tako? Interesantno je kako se tu Zeleni ne pojavljuju, dok na regionalnom nivou imaju 9%, što bi značilo da glasači Zelenih u pojedinačnim izbornim jedinicama izbegavaju da glasaju za njih jer ne misle da mogu išta da dobiju (ili ovi možda čak i nemaju kandidate?), dok na regionalnom nivou gde postoji proporcionalnost glasaju za njih, i da je tih 9% otprilike onoliko koliko fali ukupno SNPiju, Laburistima i Libdemsima na regionalnom nivou. Sa druge strane, Konzervativci su stabilni i imaju isti % na oba nivoa.

 

To me dovodi do pitanja na čiju štetu idu ovih +5 za konzerve? Kaže Arslo da su se pojačali tamo gde su tradicionalni bili jaki. Da li to znači da je na prethodnim škotskim izborima deo konzervativnih glasača dao glas Labour-u, kao najjačoj unionističkoj stranci u Škotskoj, jer je SNP vrteo izbornu platformu oko referenduma? I sada kada referenduma više nema i nije tema za blisku budućnost, vraćaju se ,,svojoj" partiji?

[Dr Arslanagić]

Ja mislim da su mnogi škotski konzervativci na prošlim škotskim izborima glasali taktično, odnosno protiv SNP-a. Sad više za time nema potrebe. Štaviše, veći je prostor za rast za konzervativce u budućnosti.

[189-]

[Takeshi]

Tories vote against accepting 3,000 child refugees

 

James Brokenshire, a Home Office minister, said the government could not support a policy that would “inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in sending children alone ahead and in the hands of traffickers, putting their lives at risk by attempting treacherous sea crossings to Europe which would be the worst of all outcomes”.

The amendment was backed by Labour, the SNP and Liberal Democrats.

Keir Starmer, a shadow Home Office minister, said “history would judge” MPs for voting against the plan, saying it was the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since the second world war.

“It is the challenge of our times and whether we rise to it or not will be the measure of us,” Starmer said. “We have the clear evidence of thousands of vulnerable children and we now need to act. This is the moment to do something about it, by voting with us this evening.”

 

lepo im je u kontinentalnoj evropi, sto da se akaju preko kanala.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Takeshi

[Dr Arslanagić]

Torijevci postaju baš baš odvratna stranka.

 

Jedan od razloga zašto je Britanija nekad bila Velika je to što su radili upravo suprotno od ovog nesrećnog odbijanja izbegličke dece.

 

Jebote, 1916. godine su primili i iškolovali 350 nesretnih Srba i ko zna koliko Belgijanaca, a u komitetu za pomoć srpskim izbeglicama su se nalazili svi živi, od zadrtih levičara poput Henrija Brejlsforda do ultradesničara poput Vilijama Džojnson Hiksa.

[hazard]

Torijevci postaju baš baš odvratna stranka.

 

Little Englanders. Pojeli ih kompleksi zbog gubitka imperije, i sad postaju oni najgori sitnicavi malogradjanski ksenofobi. Steta sto su Libdemsi takav kurton pa ovi Torijevci ostaju nekako po defaultu.

[bigvlada]

UK GOVT PUSHES 10 YEARS JAIL FOR ONLINE PIRATES

 

BY ANDY ON APRIL 21, 2016 C: 300

BREAKING

The UK government has published its conclusions following a consultation into punishments for online copyright infringement offenses. At the earliest opportunity Parliament will be asked to increase custodial sentences up to a maximum of 10 years while ensuring that unwitting pirates are protected.

 

In early 2015 a study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) concluded that criminal sanctions for copyright infringement under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) should be amended to bring them into line with offenses such as counterfeiting.

 

The report triggered a proposal from the UK government that the maximum prison sentence for online copyright infringement should be increased to ten years. The current maximum of two years is not enough of a deterrent, it was argued.

 

In July 2015 the government launched a consultation aiming to gauge opinion on boosting penalties to ensure that online piracy is considered as “no less serious” than offline infringements.

 

This morning the government released its conclusions while confirming it will indeed be asking Parliament for a ten year maximum sentence.

 

In a published statement, Minister for Intellectual Property Baroness Neville-Rolfe says that more than a thousand responses (pdf) helped to shape the government’s decision to stand by its earlier calls for increased penalties. Demands for additional clarity will also be addressed.

 

“As a result we are now proposing changes that include increasing the maximum sentence, but at the same time addressing concerns about the scope of the offense,” Neville-Rolfe says.

 

“The revised provisions will help protect rights holders, while making the boundaries of the offense clearer, so that everyone can understand how the rules should be applied.”

 

The minister says that a number of safeguards are already in place to “limit the risk” that a “very low level” infringer could be subjected to a high penalty, including that infringement must be proven to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Addressing concerns raised by the consultation that unwitting infringers might find themselves subjected to draconian sentences when they had no intent to cause any harm, the government references a system that has been in place for some time at the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

 

Without mentioning them by name, the report notes that “enforcement agencies and private prosecutors have a staged response system, encompassing education, ‘cease and desist’ notices, and domain suspension.”

 

In other words, those likely to be targeted by the ten year sentence are given advance warning by the likes of PIPCU, FACT and the BPI, that they’re treading on thin ice.

 

The government also addresses concerns that the term “affect prejudicially” is too vague when used to describe the extent to which a copyright holder needs to be affected before an offense is committed.

 

“It was argued that a single infringing file could fulfil this requirement in some circumstances (if widely shared subsequent to the infringement for example) therefore setting an unacceptably low threshold for committing the offense,” the government explains.

 

The government’s position is that minor infringement does not lead to a criminal prosecution but it does concede that the term “affect prejudicially” has the potential to “give rise to an element of ambiguity.”

 

Perhaps predictably the consultation raised concerns that a maximum sentence of ten years would place infringement alongside serious offenses such as rape, firearms offenses and child cruelty.

 

Nevertheless, the government feels the sentence is warranted and uses the case brought against several release group members last year as an indicator that while ten years is a maximum, it would only be utilized in the rarest of cases.

 

“The Government believes that a maximum sentence of 10 years allows the courts to apply an appropriate sentence to reflect the scale of the offending. An example where copyright infringement was deemed to warrant longer than a 2 year sentence is where five defendants received sentences totaling 17 years for releasing more than 2,500 of the latest films onto the internet,” the government writes.

 

“They were prosecuted under the Fraud Act, where the highest sentence was four and a half years. Capping the maximum available sentence at a lower level would unnecessarily limit the ability of the courts to apply appropriate sentences in the more serious cases of copyright infringement.”

 

The government says it will now introduce its re-drafted offense provisions to Parliament at the “earliest available legislative opportunity.”

 

https://torrentfreak.com/uk-govt-pushes-10-years-jail-for-online-pirates-160421/

 

Nenagradno pitanje: Za koliko godina će skidanje jednog filma Adama Sendlera povlačiti za sobom doživotnu robiju? 

[Dr Arslanagić]

Little Englanders. Pojeli ih kompleksi zbog gubitka imperije, i sad postaju oni najgori sitnicavi malogradjanski ksenofobi. Steta sto su Libdemsi takav kurton pa ovi Torijevci ostaju nekako po defaultu.

 

Nego, jel prošlo ovo kroz Dom Lordova? Kako je glasala baronesa Arminka?

[bigvlada]

Zemlja sa dugom legalističkom tradicijom je odlučila da dijaspora ne može da glasa na referendumu. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/british-expats-lose-legal-battle-right-to-vote-eu-referendum

[jms_uk]

Ali samo ona koja 15 godina odsustvuje iz zemlje...

[bigvlada]

Otprilike su im poručili da menjaju pasoš. 

[Anduril]

Ali samo ona koja 15 godina odsustvuje iz zemlje...

 

Pusti - to su samo detalji koji su mnogo bolje reseni u drugim zemljama sa jos mnogo duzom i vecom legalistickom tradicijom.