Printable View
As I said, this was set up like life insurance, not as a compensation scheme like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Is it appropriate that if someone dies in general due to a less high profile tragedy that their widow loses any claims if life insurance pays out?
If there's an issue here it shouldn't only be dealt with for high profile cases.
You keep portraying this as something inevitable, when it was a choice. Nobody was forced to design this scheme as a life insurance in such a way that less well-off families would be disproportionately disadvantaged. There was no overarching principle that could not be set aside. Though the govt. may call it a life insurance policy, it is more akin to a simple damages scheme that offers a flat lump payment rather than taking into account age, future earnings etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm not saying its inevitable, I'm saying the system has inequities in it that should be dealt with properly and not just as a bandage on high profile cases.
If its appropriate to deal with this in this instance, then why is it inappropriate to deal with it for eg a doctor that dies at a very young age from cancer, or in a car crash, or any other not high profile tragedy?
This argument is dubious both morally as well as from a political and policy perspective. If we accept your "bandage" framing—for the sake of argument—it is appropriate to apply that bandage now, in a situation with a problem that requires an immediate solution—a solution that is both known and eminently feasible, with no major downsides—and then sort out the broader problem later when things are not quite as fucked-up. The govt. was clearly able to create the scheme, which is a bandage on a high-profile problem in and of itself; the govt. could and should have implemented the scheme in such a way that this foreseeable problem would've been avoided. The logical implication of your reasoning is that no compensation scheme like this one should have been implemented at all—after all, it is just a bandage on a time-limited high-profile problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Err no that's not what I'm saying at all.
The logical implication of my reasoning is that either the asset threshold of welfare payments should be abolished, or applied, consistently. The compensation scheme is worth an order of magnitude more than the benefits - either benefits should be universal and regardless of assets, or they should be means tested and given to those that need them. If they're to be means-tested and given to people who need them I'm not sure why it should be different in this case than any comparable cases where life insurance happens.
Why create this scheme at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which scheme?
The life insurance scheme? Because people were dying through a high profile pandemic tragedy. They're getting the compensation so that their widows and children don't struggle.
Or the welfare scheme? Welfare is for people without means who need it. If they have £60k cash in the bank then the welfare scheme says they don't need it.
That doesn't sound like a regular case "where life insurance happens". Should've let it be and implemented more general policies to accomplish the same thing—not just for a special case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I was thinking the same. It sounds like a bad idea executed horribly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
The logical implication of your reasoning is that no compensation scheme like this one should have been implemented at all—after all, it is just a bandage on a time-limited high-profile problem.
The government has taken responsibility for dealing with the pandemic, quite right too. Making payments to people who've died fighting to keep others alive during the pandemic seems reasonable to me and is a fraction of the cost of the pandemic overall and not the same as welfare.
But if you're now complaining the Tories have paid too much and been too generous then I'm not sure how to respond.
You can't simultaneously approve of what they've done and agree that they shouldn't have done it. The logical implication of your previous posts is that they shouldn't have done this. You agreed with that, but then you expressed your approval of precisely the thing you previously agreed they shouldn't have done. My position is that the govt. wasn't generous enough, and that they should've exempted payouts under this scheme from calculations of capital for welfare purposes. It would've been easy, fair, and good.
Twitter Link
Arguably not the most reliable source but I called this a few weeks ago. The Corona Virus is perfect for Johnson. He can blame his incoherent waffling and lies on it, spend as much as he likes and then bail just after we officially leave the EU.
Bullet proof and the hero of the nation for getting us out. Plus the added benefit of not having to deal with any of the consequences.
Can someone explain to me why the British government is so desperate to get people back to work from offices?
Some in the media are, I don't believe the Government are. The media keeps spinning up stories saying people will be told to go back to the office only for the Government to quash the stories the next day.
The government are keen for the economy to keep going and for people to get back to work - but that may not be at the office.
The mystery of the missing PM:
https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/202...44/?refresh_ce
The PM was at Westminster Cathedral that weekend for the Christening of his baby, so somewhat unlikely.
The christening is said to have taken place on the 11th and it's just a couple of hours to Perugia. The official very non-specific denial of the specific claim about the exact time of day he was supposed to have landed in Perugia can be true if the exact time or day is wrong (although, let's face it—even a specific denial would be suspect, from this bunch of liars). Will obviously have to be corroborated.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
They have denied the story outright, which there is no reason to do if its not true - if he was in Perugia for a weekend then that would be entirely fine. Italy isn't under travel restrictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
However on the weekend in question at the times he was meant to be in Perugia he has been: photographed in the Cabinet Office (Friday evening while video messaging the Parliamentary Conservative Party as mentioned after he was supposedly in Perugia), photographed in Westminster Cathedral (while supposedly in Perugia), photographed in Downing Street (Monday morning, before he supposedly returned from Perugia, a photo snapped by the Paparazzi and used on the front cover of the Evening Standard).
Someone has clearly got their facts wrong, but it doesn't seem to be Downing Street.
The only problem is that there is a detailed official statement that explicitly identifies Johnson as having been in Perugia that weekend (in addition to Blair), and at least two sources at the airport who agree that Johnson was there recently. The later unofficial clarification from the pres. of the airport, in contrast, is not very compelling. We're seeing now what happens when a leader and his subordinates gain a global reputation for lying—people can't take them at their word, even on those occasions when they might actually be telling the truth. The PMs visit to a Russian oligarch, at a particularly fraught time, would absolutely be the kind of thing a liar might deem to be worth lying about. The mystery will be solved once the passengers on the flights in question are identified, and locatable photos of Johnson that Saturday and Sunday eventually emerge.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
LOL you sounds as bonkers as Carole Conspiracy.
The PM has been photographed in the Cabinet Office, Westminster Cathedral and Downing Street.
There is no evidence he's been in Perugia besides a Press Release mentioning him that has now been said to have named him in error.
Twitter Link
And why would they even deny he was there if he was, given that there'd be no issue with him being there? Italy is on the authorised travel corridor list at the minute.
You sounds like a conspiracy nutjob.
On what dates and at what times? Not dispositive; circumstantial, at best—which is a problem when dealing with a known liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The press release explicitly mentioned both Blair and Johnson, which is what made the initial explanation about a simple mix-up implausible. Moreover, the tweet you linked to contains an important factual error in the statement from the chairman of the airport's board: there was, in fact, another flight from the UK on the 12th—a private flight from Farnborough allegedly carrying only one (private) passenger, who (it was later asserted) was not Johnson. One charitable and parsimonious explanation is not a simple mix-up but a case of Chinese whispers (notwithstanding testimony from other sources working at the airport). A second possible—albeit less plausible—explanation is that Johnson went through there recently but not on that particular weekend, and the people who say they saw him were confused about the dates rather than about the person.Quote:
There is no evidence he's been in Perugia besides a Press Release mentioning him that has now been said to have named him in error.
Twitter Link
The PM skipping off to another country to hang out with a Russian oligarch in the middle of several developing crises is a big deal—it would've indicated a lack of prudence & reliability, and would've looked incredibly dodgy to boot (much like a previous dodgy trip to hang out with the same oligarch).Quote:
And why would they even deny he was there if he was, given that there'd be no issue with him being there? Italy is on the authorised travel corridor list at the minute.
I have strongly negative priors when it comes to your PM's and his subordinates' truthfulness—and justifiably so. I therefore require compelling independent corroboration of their claims. In this case, the most compelling refutation of the initial reporting would've been clear evidence of Johnson being in the UK on Saturday evening or all through Sunday. However, I'm willing to provisionally accept the airport's claims—allegedly corroborated by local police—re. no other Brit but Blair being a passenger on the flights in question. Good thing a diligent journalist was able to get to the bottom of the matter.Quote:
You sounds like a conspiracy nutjob.
It would be an extremely stupid thing to lie about given that, you know, his name would be recorded in multiple pages. So I doubt it's true, but hey, if not we'll know soon enough.
Indeed.
It is sad to see Aimless falling for silly and obviously fake conspiracy theories, it isn't healthy.
He'll be talking about children in tunnels next.
Tbf I don't know what the protocols are for recording/reporting the PM's private comings and goings. One way to get an idea is to see whether the claims re. his multiple private visits this year can be corroborated using public records.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
How would you know whether those stories are or aren't real, RB, given your inability to properly read simple articles from beginning to end, and your love of liars? Now you've made me think there must be something to those stories after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Don't worry I'm sure Q can tell you what's going on.
How many other conspiracy theories are you going to buy into?
"Project Fear"?
Ooh that was a good one, a lot of people bought into that nonsense. Glad to see you coming around to realising Project Fear was nonsense though.
That literally makes no sense :bulb:
Which conspiracy theory are you referring to? The theory that an official statement that the PM went to visit his Russian oligarch buddy in Perugia—which he has done on many occasions, at least once under scandalously suspicious circumstances—was true, or the theory that Boris Johnson is a known liar, and both he and his subordinates are notorious for deceiving the public? Neither are conspiracy theories; the former is plausible a priori and requires evidence to either corroborate or refute, whereas the latter is just established fact that should inform one's priors unless one is hopelessly partisan and completely deluded about Johnson's character.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Incidentally, while we're trying to suss out the limits of our perspectives, how many other accents do you intend to use to racially profile people, RB? Or have you decided to settle for just profiling people with "Irish accents"? How about people who employ urban black modes of speech, or are just black? After all, you've previously used their over-representation in crime statistics to justify the racist overpolicing to which they're subjected, so why not treat them with the same kind of wariness yourself?
It makes perfect sense. He's saying that project fear was a conspiracy theory, while you're recognizing that those who dismissively called it "project fear"—and characterized it as a massive plot to scare Brits into voting against a hard Brexit—were being delusional. It's in the same rhetorical family as zingers like "i know u are but wot am i"Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Your professed naivety does you no favours. And I don't justify overpolicing or racial profiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You had plenty of time for asinine defenses of both in previous discussions about policing in the US—and let's not even get started on your interesting reflections on Irish Travelers.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you think there is no criminal element to Irish travellers? Travellers are not a race, it is a way of life people choose that involves crime as part of the way of life.
I've made my opposition to the US Police lately abundantly clear.
Twitter Link
A bullshitter and clown, leading—sorry, "leading"—a nation.
You have indeed made yourself abundantly clear, but I'm not sure your defense of racism and prejudice came across quite the way you think it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's neither racism nor prejudice to say that there is a major criminal element to Gypsies. That's like saying it's racist to or prejudicial to say there's a major criminal element to Maifiosos. Especially since I always made clear I wasn't speaking about Irish in general, any more than Italians in general.
Johnson is right. You laughing at it doesn't change anything.
He's wrong, and now I feel compelled to laugh at you as well—not only because you're so hilariously delusional about the reasons for the UK's ongoing failure to manage its pandemic, or because you're so bizarrely delusional about the reasons for other nations' success, but also to help push down my disgust at your ongoing defense of racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Twitter Link
1 in 5 uni students in the UK live at home, with family. At some unis, more than half do. These students are much more likely to be from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, and much more likely to be non-white. In case you were wondering whose PM Johnson really is.