Trolls will be exterminated!
|TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!|
|Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle||Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle||Print / Digital||Subscription Gift Cards||Print / Digital||Subscription Gift Cards|
Eternal optimist and Bradfordian.
Posted by John Drake on 28 November 2014 - 09:39 AM
One libel case has just ended. We don't want another arising as a result of comments being posted on here. The details of the settlement are subject to confidentiality on both sides. As a result, it is not a subject that is open for discussion on here. Hence the original thread being removed, as will any further threads started on here on this matter.
Posted by John Drake on 07 November 2014 - 03:44 PM
Have they officially been stopped?
Turned off for now to ease strain on the server. For all people moaned about em, lots of people read and responded to most of em.
When the new server comes onstream I'll see if I can find a way of incorporating them on the forum without narking people off.
I like an impossible challenge...
Posted by John Drake on 07 November 2014 - 03:01 PM
I agree with you John, but put simply some of us just do not have the time. I've never been a member of a political party, but I maintain fiercely that politics is important to me. The question that I raised was because socialist leaning people like me, can see no attraction to the labour party at the moment, so why would they join the party in order to change it? It's not after all a Rugby League team to which we have an emotional attachment.
Because it won't change of its own accord and however wishy washy Labour might be these days compared to its more socialist past, under FPTP Labour remains the only viable national alternative to a perpetual Tory or Tory-led government of the right.
It becomes a fairly simple calculation for me:-
Do I agree with everything past Labour governments have ever done? No.
Do I agree with every policy Labour is currently advocating? No.
Do I agree with Labour on more things than I do with the Tories? A big fat yes.
I can understand why a lot of people don't see it that way, and prefer to align themselves with smaller parties that more closely reflect their views, but unless and until our electoral system changes (and I don't believe that will ever happen under the Tories, whereas at least Miliband - if not his whole party - supported change in the AV referendum), I'll remain a 'big tent' player and continue to support the only alternative party of government we have rather than mucking around on the sidelines or opting out and moaning that they don't represent me anymore.
Posted by John Drake on 03 November 2014 - 10:21 PM
Good article here:
No man is an island, you see, and wealthy people are such because others helped or bought whatever they were selling.
And on this island – a place where a state-educated Welsh immigrant to Sussex is able to get into Cambridge, meet the right people and get the right breaks so that at the age of 61 he’s wealthy beyond imagining – it’s only fair Griff Rhys Jones spits up a few grand extra by way of thank you.
Critics of the mansion tax call it a tax on success. So why don’t its proponents rebrand it a little?
Call it the price of success, or the mansion payback.
Give it the same exclusivity and cache of designer clothing or the latest car – ask people to pay it in an all-white Bond Street shop via their iPads, make it fashionable, and they’ll probably pay in their droves.
Taxation is something we should be proud of, not angry about.
Posted by John Drake on 03 November 2014 - 03:29 PM
I see the pre-election trend of those who don't want to pay their taxes declaring their intention to leave the country has started. I know, in reality, they never actually do but who would you like to see the back of? It could be the only remaining reason for voting Labour!
Well, if Labour win, we won't be leaving the EU anytime soon so at least he'll have the option to go and live and work freely in any other EU member country, which is nice.
Posted by John Drake on 02 November 2014 - 11:57 AM
TERMS & CONDITIONS OF USE
Your use of these forums constitutes your acceptance of these Terms and Conditions. League Publications Ltd (LPL) reserves the right to change these Terms and Conditions at any time by posting changes here. Your continued use of the site after changes are posted constitutes your acceptance of this agreement as modified by the posted changes.
You agree to use the site only for lawful purposes, and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict or inhibit the use and enjoyment of this site by any third party. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or League Publications Ltd.
These Terms & Conditions apply in full to all communications made on this site, whether in the public forums or via the Private Messaging system.
All contributions must be civil and tasteful.
No disruptive, offensive or abusive behaviour. Contributions must be constructive and polite, not mean-spirited or contributed with the intention of causing trouble.
No unlawful or objectionable content. Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable.
Only one username per person is allowed. If you attempt to use multiple logins for the purpose of disrupting the forum or annoying other users, use the personal details of another individual to register one or more accounts, or deliberately swap your username with someone else for the same purpose, your account may be disabled without warning.
No spamming or off-topic material.
No advertising without prior permission.
No inappropriate (e.g. vulgar, offensive etc) user names, or usernames which are an attempt to impersonate another individual.
We reserve the right to issue warnings and/or temporarily/permanently suspend access to all or part of the site if any of the above conditions are infringed.
We reserve the right to request a user to validate their identity by post in order to continue using the forum.
All users accept complete and total responsibility for any potentially harmful, libelous or other legally actionable comments and that they indemnify League Publications Ltd to the total extent of any and all costs, settlements and judgements involved with defending any legal claim against their posts.
If these Terms and Conditions are not accepted in full, your use of the site must be terminated immediately.
Posted by John Drake on 24 October 2014 - 04:38 PM
you can't please everyone.
Never a truer word spoken!
People used to moan that we never updated the site. Now other people moan that we update it too often.
All the posts are Rugby League related, and this is a Rugby League forum, so it isn't spam.
Many of the threads simply pre-empt the same news stories being posted on here from other websites, so people read the news on here and comment on the news on here. As far as we're concerned, that's a good thing.
They kick off discussion on topics that might otherwise not get started. Again, as far as we're concerned, that's a good thing.
Some of them will duplicate stories already posted. It's an automated process, so that's inevitable. However, we (I say 'we' but it will usually be me) frequently checks the site for duplicate threads and merge or delete them where appropriate. But, I'm not sat here reading this forum 24/7, so some might stick around longer than others. Sorry about that, but really, is it that big a deal just to ignore threads that don't interest you?
There are busier days than others. Some days there's a lot of news, other days nothing much happens. That's life.
The forum is busier than it has ever been in terms of traffic, so it can't be putting many people off. The opposite is happening, it would seem. The forum appears more lively because it is frequently being updated with new topics to discuss, rather than endless discussions about the same tiny handful of subjects dominated by the same handful of people.
Very few of these news threads end up with no replies, and most of them get quite a high number of views, so someone, somewhere must be reading them.
Posted by John Drake on 23 October 2014 - 08:53 PM
There are lots of other websites out there where people who like Rugby League and people who like Rugby Union can argue the toss till the cows come home about the respective merits of their chosen rugby code, and suggest that each others mothers smell of elderberries in the process, if they so wish.
For long established reasons, this site isn't and never will be one of them, and people who simply want to indulge in the above will not be welcome. We don't need them, we're busy enough with more reasoned (well, most of the time) discussions about Rugby League, which makes sense, this being a Rugby League website n'all.
We do have a cross-code section, where people can discuss, well, cross-code matters (the clue is in the title) to their hearts content, so long as they do so within the well established rules of this site, where we do not accept that anyone's mother smells of elderberries, no matter which code of rugby their offspring may prefer.
The above may not be to everyone's taste or approval, but that's just tough, because that's the way TotalRL rolls: no trolls.
That doesn't mean we won't welcome people who like Rugby Union. We'll welcome anyone with an interest in anything, so long as they are also interested in Rugby League. That's why to earn the right to post in the cross-code section at all, you have to make 100 posts elsewhere on the forums before you'll be allowed in. Few trolls are that persistent, that patient or even just that able to hold a reasonable conversation about Rugby League with Rugby League fans without revealing their true colours before getting anywhere near achieving posting rights to the cross-code forum.
This is the internet. It's not like people don't have a choice. We're happy enough to be the website that provides people with the choice to discuss Rugby League matters without being endlessly sidetracked into pointless argy-bargy about another sport. This is a policy that is not up for discussion, and that's why I am locking this thread now.
Posted by John Drake on 18 October 2014 - 10:28 PM
Where is there a truly representative democracy? I was listening to something on the radio yesterday about the US. Each state no matter how big or how small elects the same number of senators, so that America's farmers remain relatively prosperous, because the small agricultural states have more say than the big city states, whereas the urban population in many states lack the basics of life.
If we introduce PR and our legislature becomes truly representative of the votes cast, we'll lose the contact of an MP representing his constituency in any meaningful way.
I disagree about the coalition BTW. For me they haven't put a brake of the worst excesses of the Tories. NHS "reform" Austerity, Student Fees and many other obnoxious policies not in their manifesto have been allowed to go ahead.. They claim that the £10k tax threshold is down to them, but they keep quiet about nodding through the 20% VAT rate, that more or less eats up any gains for most people.
The US system is worse than ours. It is designed to fail. Unless a President carries the Senate and the House, they can't get much done. One can repeatedly block the other, and they usually do. But at least their second chamber (House of Representatives) that is elected, unlike our second chamber (House of Lords) which, hilariously after all these years, remains wholly appointed. What kind of democracy is that, but a totally warped one.
For me, there is no justifiable defence left for FPTP, in an age when the two old 'major' parties are shedding vote share like crazy. The current Coalition is not a fair representation of what a coalition might look like elected under a proportional system, because the share of seats would be far more balanced.
Had the 2010 result been proportional, we'd have seen something like this:-
Conservative (36.1%) 234 seats (as opposed to the 307, or 47.2% of total seats they got)
Labour (29.0%) 188 seats (as opposed to the 258, or 39.7% of total seats they got)
Lib Dem (23.0%) 149 seats (as opposed to the 57, or 8.8% of total seats they got)
Given that an overall majority in the House of Commons requires 326 seats, under PR, the Lib Dems could have done a deal with either Labour or the Conservatives, and whichever they had chosen, for whatever reasons, they would have carried far more clout in that coalition with 149 seats than they ever could with just the 57 they got under FPTP, which has seen them function mostly as enablers of Conservative legislation and apologists/scapegoats for the most unpopular aspects of it.
The notion that the contact of a sole MP is a good enough reason to lumber on with an electoral system that completely distorts the will of the electorate, and effectively disenfranchises millions of them by denying them the representation they voted for, is to me, a joke. I'd guess many people don't have a clue who their MP is anyway, and many vote for a party label already, otherwise why are party labels included on ballot papers now, when once upon a time they were not.
We're living in an age where people are disillusioned with the political process and actively disengaging from it. That's a dangerous road to continue down and the next General Election, under FPTP, will make it far worse. Not just because it is likely that UKIP will win a lot of votes and very few seats, enraging those who choose to vote for them, but those votes will skew the outcome in possibly hundreds of other seats. Whichever of the 'major' parties limps over the line to form a government, they will have no genuine mandate if they have achieved barely a third of the votes cast, which looks likely. And that would be a third of the vote on a turnout of probably only 65%, ie, a majority government with the active support of less than a quarter of the total electorate. That is not democracy by any measure.
The number of the electorate actually supporting and having voted for the government of the day will continue to decline until this stupid, antiquated, undemocratic system we are hobbled with at Westminster is cast into the dustbin of history and replaced with something that at the very least begins to produce a House of Commons that more accurately reflects the way people have voted.
I think a switch to PR would re-energise politics in this country. Every vote would carry the same weight. No party could take its electorate for granted or rely on appealing only to its own 'base' to win a majority. It should be applied to local authorities too. No more one-party fiefdoms. It would also kill the fear many have that the current hot potato of 'English votes on English laws' - ie turning Westminster into a de facto English Parliament by barring non-English MPs from voting on English only laws, following greater devolution to Scotland - would result in a permanent Tory majority. Under FPTP, a permanent Tory majority in England is much more likely. Scary thought, for any non-Tory voters out there...
Sure, PR might mean a few people or parties you don't like gaining seats, but it is better to have them inside Parliament where they can be held to account, than leave them to raise an angry army of the disenfranchised on the outside, panicking the 'major' parties into bending over backwards to appease them and forgetting what they are supposed to believe in themselves in the process, as is happening now with the 'UKIP effect' on the Tories and Labour. And in any case, an electoral system shouldn't be designed to keep anyone out, it should be designed to reflect the will of the electorate, whatever that might be.
Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.7
Licensed to: TotalRL.com