At the very least, he heavily implies in what he says that he is being charged with a crime that has a maximum of 1 year, even if he didn't literally go "He is facing up to 1 year in prison". No other offence is mentioned, Phil specifically quotes this sentence only. It would be quite relevant if it was 1 year made up of a different sentence for something else.
Meaning a month of anxiety wondering whether he'll get 1 year in prison or not.
He can't get 1 year in prison.
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
I think this is quite important. It appears to have been incorrectly reported as a year in some places. Doesn't make a huge difference, he's still being threatened with prison, but it is important to be accurate.
Shouldn't they be? For the most part?
Unless there's a direct reason why it mitigates, for example hunger mitigating theft, why should the feelings involved aggrivate the offence?
The act committed is the offence, and we are very... Selective in when we consider the motivations to be relevant, and not even slightly consistent.
I'm more than happy to have a debate on this, but inb4 dismissive buzzwords and no consistent line of reasoning
I'm curious - do you think we should remove terrorism laws, since the acts involved with terrorism are already illegal?
They just handed Facebook the biggest present in the world with GDPR.
Now anyone who holds data wins, and those without the data in the firstplace - Tough shit.
How, exactly? They still have to protect that data and are subject to the same punishments for failing to do so.
If you're half the price due to lack of overheads you'll get enough business I think. People still sell weed to tourists on the streets of amsterdam for example.
Must be extremely slim profit margins, relative to today anyway. I never found weed very expensive in Amsterdam but I never pay too much attention to the cost of things on holiday so I might just have not noticed. At least its an improvement to remove much of that market, even if there's still enough to keep it around.
Weed went up a ton when they switched to Euro's. Stuff that used to cost 10 guiders suddenly was 3 times the price (10 euros). Costs less than euro a gram to produce. Plenty profit available.
Considering everything I don't see it being that low, certainly not with everything factored in. Maybe a poor quality outdoor grow in large quantities with lined up buyers, but considering labour, distribution, property, power, police etc for most cannabis I can't see how. Under a euro a gram can't work out to minimum wage, never mind the risk premium. They'd be better off working at tesco
That isn't the issue. The issue is that he's suggesting giving a sample to Russia, which is really silly because:
It doesn't make sense to give a sample to a country that you know is acting in bad faith and will have no form of honest response. It's giving them credibility which they have no justification for.
1) They have no right to a sample, We are entirely within International Law not to do so.
2) They will lie about it, 100%. Like they have so far. All it will do is muddy the waters and lend them legitimacy
3) Our intelligence services, along with numerous others, agree that it was them- why would we take the Russians' word (The people that you know, carried out a Chemical Weapons attack on our soil) over theirs?
We are giving a sample to the OPCW, which is fine. We are being entirely legal and there is no reason to give Russia a sample. All it does is extend their narrative a little more. They already have many many conspiracy theories about this and there is no reason to believe giving them a sample would help, rather make things worse.
Oh and by the way Russia is very good at getting away with things.
I don't understand how any of this hurts us. They don't need a right to it for it to be a reasonable thing to do. Let them lie, like they have so far. The OPCW will contradict them. Giving them a sample and letting them analyse it isn't taking their word for it, and my response would be totally different if Corbyn was saying "We should take Russia's word for it".
I just don't see the harm in giving them the sample. Let them do what they want with it, if anything refusing to looks a little odd. It makes no difference either way, does it?
I posted this elsewhere, but while the results are amazing they are nowhere near the safety level of actual humans. Like, if we replaced all human drivers with google's latest effort, accident rates would skyrocket.
It should be noted that this is comparing "disengagements" with crashes, which are quite significantly different things. Disengagements seem to be defined by things that cause the car to end self driving control and hand it back to the driver, such as a hardware discrepancy, or a recklessly behaving road user. On final release it would make logical sense that there are systems in place to avoid an accident in most cases of disengagements, for example by stopping the car. About 1/3rd are for unwanted maneuver of the vehicle, and throughout the year the number of them are trending down a lot.
I'm curious as to why Britain didn't send Russia a sample of the agent as they requested. Britain also veto'd a UN resolution asking for an investigation into the attack. Also why did this attack even happen in the first place? Assassinations can be done in a much more subtle fashion. Was it to send a message? Lots of unanswered questions.
Conspiracy theory time: Perhaps the nerve agent fell into rogue hands (we already know it is not exclusive to the Russian state), and Britain knows that if they send a sample to Russia, they will be able to trace where it came from and prove it wasn't them. But it's more politically advantageous to just blame the Russian Government for it. It also makes Russia look bad because they don't know who is using their own stolen nerve agents.
I smell a Russian bot, especially with no post history.
One of the most obvious flaws in that post relates to the point about the UK not giving Russia a sample, and that Russia requested an independent investigation from the OPCW. It conveniently leaves out that the OPCW is conducting an independent investigation right now, implying the opposite.
This is somewhat self-explanatory, but for simplicity's sake: According to international law the UK is to give Russia 10 days to respond. It is also suggested that they make available the "evidence" they have against Russia. This last one shouldn't even need to be spelled out in a convention; the right for the accused to see the evidence against them is so fundamental to justice itself that it's almost damning that the UK thinks they can just flaunt this moral obligation. It has literally been in our justice system for 500 years. It's not trivial. It's fucking important. Russia actually spoke to the OPCW, and notably said the following:
In addition, in this particular case, it would be legitimate for the British side to seek assistance from the OPCW Technical Secretariat in conducting an independent laboratory analysis of the available samples that allegedly show traces of nerve agents in Salisbury.
From gov.uk: Independent investigators from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will arrive in the UK tomorrow to kick off their investigation into the nerve agent used in the attempted assassinations of Mr Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury on 4 March.
Independent investigators from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will arrive in the UK tomorrow to kick off their investigation into the nerve agent used in the attempted assassinations of Mr Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury on 4 March.
The team from The Hague will meet with officials from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the police to discuss the process for collecting samples, including environmental ones.
These will then be despatched to highly reputable international laboratories selected by the OPCW for testing with results expected to take a minimum of 2 weeks.
This is the next step in the process to independently verify the analysis carried out by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister wrote to the OPCW to formally invite them to verify the government’s analysis of the nerve agent used in the Salisbury attack. Subsequently the UK’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW wrote to the Technical Secretariat inviting them to come to the UK to take a sample, under Article 8 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
The OCPW is conducting an independent investigation, including independently verifying the substance.
We wouldn't have trump if he had been nominated.
Yes we would. Bernie would have been painted with the Commie flag the moment he won the nomination, and it would have sunk him.
Yeah, I agree. I like Bernie, but he was only so popular because few politicians really attacked him. If he got the nomination everyone would start calling him an extremist and a lot more mud would be thrown.
I'm not sure he would have lost, but it wouldn't be that easy I think.
The receptionists are busy doing check in and check out work. Have you ever worked in a doctor's office?
Who do you think should be answering the phones,
The doctor prints it and hands it to you, or electronically sends it directly to the pharmacy
giving injections, drawing blood,
In my experience this isn't usually done at the GP, but the doctor can do this. Specialists are based in hospitals with nurses available
faxing and mailing forms,
filling out paperwork,
working with insurance companies/doing prior authorizations,
Receptionist, prescribed care is covered equally here
giving patient education, giving medical advice, etc?
The doctor, but pharmacists are also expected to give education and advice
Where paperwork requires higher authorization, the doctor has a short time to review and sign off on it at the end of the day. To be clear I think the other person was quite rude, but I'm just wondering if this sort of thing is why healthcare costs so much in the US. Nurses aren't cheap.
I work in a specialist office in a hospital. "Specialists are based in hospitals with nurses available" yes, that's me. That's literally my job. Also, doctors don't draw blood and rarely give injections. They don't have time to do all that. As for writing prescriptions, we write them, doc signs off, it gets sent electronically. It's ALL about saving time.
By "doctor" I thought you meant like, a family doctor. We tend to refer to what you mean as specialists, not doctors - "I went to the doctor" means GP. Bit of a language difference haha.
Most of those things are paperwork, which are done by receptionists. Usually specialists don't have their own specific nurses unless it's a very large department, they'll send you to someone else to get a blood test but it makes more sense in that context.
You physically write prescriptions? Isn't it just printed or sent electronically? It seems like that would take much longer, the doctor just puts it straight in the computer here for the pharmacist.
So is CGMC not okay to order from lately? It’s been goin down non stop and I was really looking forward to placing my first order on there
Once you've completed an order on there you get given a private URL, you can use them to connect if the site is down in most cases (it's possible an attacker has that server too).
The whole idea behind this attack makes no sense. Russia and Putin are not dumb. This sounds more like it was done by porton Down to implicate Russia.
Why not? They've killed people in Britain again and again. They have clear motive to show off that they can reach people, particularly in Britain. The target is an ex Russian spy ffs. Porton Down did it my arse.
Reminds me of when Germany seized property of Jews; especially with American ties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
I mean this whole campaign of trying to stick something on Russia has been going on for a while, and there is barely any evidence or need for Russia to do these things by the way (lol). Can people who lied about WMDs and lied about the Iraq war (babies thrown out of cribs) be really trusted? they love starting wars based on theatrical reasons.
This looks a lot like a Russian bot account lol. The comparison to Hitler, the lack of any recent post history and ridiculous defence of Russia don't look good.
No evidence or need, what a joke.
All I'm saying is we have all these world powers telling everyone else wtf their problem is, when they can't even fix fundamental issues at home.
One big glass house and every country is throwing rocks, and threatening ww3.
But this is at home... Russia is sending people into the UK to execute people, that's literally the point.
But in the provided source that's stated no where, and no where on the internet either.. it's literally nonsense
I edited my comment about 30 seconds later, quoting the source.
But it's still saying a boy who has sex with an under 16 girl, it doesn't say a boy under the age of 16 has sex with an under 16 girl.
It's implying the boy is over 16 which he almost always isnt'
Alright, here's another source that explicitly mentions sex between people of the same age - it is not legal. The source does note though that Home Office guidance says there's no intention to prosecute under 16s where ages are similar and it was consentual, this doesn't apply to under 13s or people near but past either age boundary if I'm not mistaken.
It is an offence for anyone to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. However, Home Office guidance is clear that there is no intention to prosecute teenagers under the age of 16 where both mutually agree and where they are of a similar age.
Emphasis on the "anyone".
Hey, Trump's administration did something competent for once. Or at least, are seemingly doing something competent.
The male teachers I had were attentive in the sense of "I hate myself, this job and most of all I hate you so I am going to pay a lot of attention to ruining your day", but then they were catholic priests.
Thinking back, I thought the vast majority of my male teachers were alright. I can only think of a few examples I disliked.
Fair enough, that is true. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this has any link to Portion Down though apart from the fact that chemical weaponry was involved. I think it would've been less surprising if Portion down had been more involved
While it isn't a connection in the way that you mean, the substance was analysed there and if I'm not mistaken it's where the UK is opening a new chemical weapons defence center now.
I just went to the doctor. Had to pay $25. I have a trade deficit with him that just keeps growing. If he doesn't buy some fruit from me or something, I'll have to stop going.
Not sure what this has to do with my comment? I wasn't arguing that having a trade deficit is bad, I was asking for a source that explicitly includes these things.
Funny enough, it looks like Canada was citing US government data, which shows an 8 billion dollar trade surplus, and after the fact Trump was probably citing Canadian figures which show a roughly 15 billion dollar deficit. Take a look at this chart to see the difference. The two countries agree on the trend lines, but the figures are consistently off by 15 to 20 billion. By the way Trump should be very happy with those trend lines if his main concern is shrinking the US trade deficit with Canada. It has shrunk a ton lately (helped temporally by the 2008 crash constricting US spending), and is now at its lowest point since NAFTA was signed 24 years ago.
Still, I don't know where Trump got the idea that the discrepancy is due to energy and timber. Those would be counted. The discrepancy is more likely due to difficulties in calculating imports of services, with Canada not counting some of their foreign costs.
Also, the statement "we lose $17 billion a year" is of course bullshit. Anyone who has even a rough understanding of what trade deficits are would know that's wrong.
I actually came across the same thing in my own research. Apparently this is true, but is mostly a result of re-export classification according to Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/180206/dq180206b-eng.htm
There are numerous reasons for the differences in the customs-based statistics produced by Canada and the United States, however, the application of international standards in recording imports and exports of goods is the main source of asymmetry, particularly the attribution of trading partner.
For instance, suppose a $50 million shipment of laptops is exported from China to Canada. China records this in its customs-based trade statistics as a $50 million domestic export to Canada and Canada records an import of $50 million from the country of origin China. One month after the $50 million shipment of laptops arrives in Canada, it is re-exported to the United States. The United States records this as a $50 million import from China (as China is the country of origin), although the country of export is Canada. Canada records it as a re-export to the United States and includes it in its value of total exports to the United States. Ultimately Canada reports a $50 million export to the United States and the United States reports a $50 million import from China, resulting in a $50 million asymmetry. If this was the only transaction in the month, Canada would show a $50 million trade surplus with the United States, and the United States would show a $0 trade balance with Canada.
TL;DR If Canada imports something from say, China, then exports it to the US, the US records it as an export from China but Canada records it as an export from Canada
I've given you sources showing that the average is very high
And i've given you sources showing why the average metric is patently misleading and unhelpful to affecting a real solution.
Sure, in raw amounts. This again ignores that China is responsible for more than 4x the people.
That's just not a valid excuse - And it comes to heart of the matter. A larger population is not at all an excuse in a country plagued by rampant inequality where a relatively tiny class of corrupt rapacious capitalists and unelected kleptocrats hoard the wealth while condemning our one home to oblivion through their own race-to-the-bottom business decisions and complete failure to adhere to their own environmental laws.
How many shared planets per capita do we have again? ! ?
The US also pollutes
Yes they do, but nowhere near Chinese levels and again, they're trending towards reducing emissions whilst China is committed to ramping up theirs well into 2030 and then they've only committed to reduce emissions growth - not actual emissions. Take a moment to appreciate that fact. The world's largest polluter by a huge margin will continue to ramp up their already-world destroying emissions output for the next twelve years before they even consider reducing the rate of growth. We're talking exponential pollution here for at least the next decade for the benefit of an already obscenely-wealthy self-appointed few - that's unacceptable.
Are you trying to say that the number of people is irrelevant now?
Absolutely I am, I'm trying to get it through to you that the per-capita metric on it's own is wholly misleading and in China in particular is being used to deflect valid, timely and much-needed criticism. This is one issue where the United States in not the worst culprit by a long shot.
Can you go through the list, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Best idea you've had. Parroting the highly controversial per-capita metric while ignoring the reality on the ground here in China is not all helpful to affecting a real solution for my lungs and yours.
I'm going to continue making the point elsewhere, because it hasn't adequately been disproven. You can't seem to identify where my argument falls apart - go through the list. Which part is false?
If you're making this point from your own experience in China, this would make sense; Cities in China have extremely poor air quality due to the size of them and mass coal burning, if I'm not mistaken. The air is horrible for Chinese citizens to breathe. But, what each person is actually using in these cities is similar to that of elsewhere - it is simply that the pollution is all within such a tiny area that the effect becomes much worse. For the greater planet, it doesn't matter where it comes from.
Let's use a food analogy. If you have 100 people to care for, do you use the same amount of food as the person on his own?
That's not how lestrade is commonly portrayed. I've only read one of the books and long ago but all modern media treats him like a fool.
My Sherlock knowledge is based heavily on the BBC's modern day version (which is fantastic) so it may well be totally different in the books, but I think he's considered a fool by Sherlock because he sees everyone like that, particularly the traditional police. I never considered the man stupid, just not on the level of Sherlock. He's shown to be an idiot because he does things you'd expect a policeman to do, when Sherlock often knows its the wrong decision.