I think I can survive without bewaring. A puerile video game isn't going to bother me any.
I suppose it is a waste of time reminding you about Mill and Locke? Yes, I thought so. Still, if you think shooting people who disagree with your politics a good fun, well, who am I to gainsay you? Says more about you than DK or I.
I look forward to the first time the french police stop you to produce your ID, and don't forget to fill in all those lovely french forms when you contribute to their near 50% tax/GDP ratio. What is their VAT rate again? 25%? No wonder it is so expensive over there.
Get with the program Harding, Bioshock has been out for over a year and is nothing like you or the author of that so-called review seem to think it is. Maybe you should try actually playing the game before spouting off about it, it has one of the best and most intelligent storylines I have seen in a game.
Longrider: I look forward to hearing your moans about how expensive France is once you start living there.
Unless you are loaded, don't eat out very often.
Housing is cheaper but that is simply because they have a lot of land - it is a big country. Apart from that you'll find yourself constantly skint. Oh and don't forget your medical bills!
Neil, just because you don't do your research, it doesn't mean that others are equally foolish.
When I talk of the cost of living, I am talking not about house prices, but everything. Just ask yourself, why so many people choose to do as I have and move to France and commute back to the UK. Energy is cheaper, the equivalent of the council tax is cheaper, fuel is cheaper, food is cheaper and so on. As for eating out, I don't do that in the UK so am unlikely to do so in France.
I've been travelling to this country for the best part of thirty years and have been living here part time for the past five years, so I know exactly what I am letting, myself in for. Don't lecture me on something about which you are patently ignorant - although it is unlikely that you would change...
Well, given that I can walk through a supermarket checkout with a crate full of wine and no one bats an eyelid - even less asks for ID - I don't think I'll be losing too much sleep over the matter. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the anally retentive attitude now so prevalent in Britain is absent here.
Longrider: Don't get me wrong - I think France is an excellent country with higher taxes than us(which can be a good thing cos it pays for better public services) and taxes that are less regressive than ours despite the huge VAT rate and VAT on food.
I find it dubious that the cost of living is lower over there - I found it a very expensive place to be a tourist.
The things that are cheap, are cheap because (like the USA) France is a large agricultural country in a large single currency zone which doesn't have to import as much food which impacts on their food prices (though restaurants and services can be exorbitant) and also it is a country that has a lot of available land which lowers housing costs. Apart from this France is still about 30% more expensive than Germany and the most expensive in the Eurozone.
I see that some sites are claiming that the cost of living is about 20% cheaper in France than the UK. I find this unlikely - but even if this was true a year ago - we have seen a 25% devaluation of the pound against the Euro since then that must surely have more than cancelled this out.
Anyway, good luck living over but I think you will find it expensive and more obsessed with paperwork and ID checks than us.
On average I spend in Euros in France what I would in GB£ in the UK - a tankful of diesel for example is around £40 - 50 in the UK and €40 - 50 in France. The same applies to grocery shopping. Gas is a lot less as we use butane rather than piped. Electricity and telephone are about the same.
I mentioned the council tax - I am paying around €900 including the TV licence for the Tax Fonciere and Tax Habitiation as compared with over £1000 for the council tax and another £100 or so for the TV licence in the UK and this is a larger property with a decent amount of land.
Those sites that state around 20% lower cost of living aren't so far out - although I've seen 25% quoted. The devaluation of the pound has affected my earnings when transferred into Euros, but I am still spending less here than in the UK for everyday items - even taking the exchange rate into account.
Yes, French bureaucracy can be frustrating as we discovered when buying the house, but overall, the lack of surveillance and quality of life balance this out.
Stop Press. The European Court has ruled in a unanimous verdict that the retention of the DNA of unconvicted people is in breach of article 8 of the ECHR. The words they used are completely damning and are a complete humiliation of the authoritarians in the Labour party.
"In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society....Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case"
Have you read the ruling? No of course you haven't. Fortunately the ECHR is made up of rational men and women who decide matters on evidence and not the hyperbole of authoritarian nutters.
stephen: I admit I haven't read the ruling - but I have heard reliable reports that 850,000 people will now have their DNA records erased. It is inevitable that some of these people will commit crimes like rape and murder and instead of being instantly identified and easily captured will remain a danger to the public for longer and probably kill and rape again. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? How it is authoritarian to do something that protects potential victims at no practical cost to law-abiding people? How does storing someone's DNA harm them in any practical sense? The fairest thing to do is to store everyone's DNA so that everyone is treated equally.
It is inevitable that some of these people will commit crimes like rape and murder
That is pure scaremongering. Shall I tell you why the government lost. It was because it was unable to construct a credible case that the retention of samples would lead to many additional convictions. The police will still be able to take DNA samples at point of arrest and compare them with samples taken from crime scenes. This accounts for virtually ALL the cold case clear ups using the DNA database. They will still be able to use DNA to eliminate the innocent but they will no longer be able to retain the samples on the insulting and abusive assumption that that innocent person might go on to commit a serious crime in the future.
You say that being on the database causes a person no harm. Not true. Ask the numerous people who have already been fingered for crimes they didn't commit, such as the 14 year old boy who was blamed for the Omagh bombing. Of course they all had alibis but that didn't stop them being arrested, transported across the country and interrogated before being released. For the individual there is no benefit whatsoever in being on the database and for society there is only mininal benefit in additional clear up rate.
The fairest thing to do is to store everyone's DNA so that everyone is treated equally
Not a hope. The court did not consider it was an issue of discrimination. It considered it a violation of the privacy protocol, article 8. A universal database would be an even bigger violation than the current database.
The next thing to challenge will be the National Identity Register and unauthorised data sharing between government departments.
As far as I am aware the UK government was unable to show that any convictions were as a result of the retention of the DNA samples of unconvicted persons. So the answer is zero. If you think otherwise, prove it. The UK government couldn't.
Actually, as the developers have stated several times, it's pro-libertarian, as the chaos started then Andrew Ryan gave up his principles.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. We don't like her much. she didn't like us much.
ReplyDeleteTHAT said, Bioshock is a bloody good game.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that's it.
I think I can survive without bewaring. A puerile video game isn't going to bother me any.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is a waste of time reminding you about Mill and Locke? Yes, I thought so. Still, if you think shooting people who disagree with your politics a good fun, well, who am I to gainsay you? Says more about you than DK or I.
Longrider - its a video game - not real life!
ReplyDeleteAs for Mill and Locke, what was their high score?
"its a video game - not real life!"
ReplyDeleteI didn't suggest otherwise. I find video games as tedious as football - mindless dross.
Like I said, says more about you than me. Puerile, childish, and, frankly, ignorant. No change there, then, eh?
I look forward to the first time the french police stop you to produce your ID, and don't forget to fill in all those lovely french forms when you contribute to their near 50% tax/GDP ratio. What is their VAT rate again? 25%? No wonder it is so expensive over there.
ReplyDeleteGet with the program Harding, Bioshock has been out for over a year and is nothing like you or the author of that so-called review seem to think it is. Maybe you should try actually playing the game before spouting off about it, it has one of the best and most intelligent storylines I have seen in a game.
ReplyDeleteI will be paying tax and NI in the UK under the dual taxation arrangements.
ReplyDeleteIf I was paying tax in France, my tax bill would reduce as more of my income would be taxed at the lower rates.
Overall, the cost of living in France is around 25% lower than the UK.
Still, don't let facts get in the way of your snide remarks, eh? You never have, yet.
Longrider: I look forward to hearing your moans about how expensive France is once you start living there.
ReplyDeleteUnless you are loaded, don't eat out very often.
Housing is cheaper but that is simply because they have a lot of land - it is a big country. Apart from that you'll find yourself constantly skint. Oh and don't forget your medical bills!
Neil, just because you don't do your research, it doesn't mean that others are equally foolish.
ReplyDeleteWhen I talk of the cost of living, I am talking not about house prices, but everything. Just ask yourself, why so many people choose to do as I have and move to France and commute back to the UK. Energy is cheaper, the equivalent of the council tax is cheaper, fuel is cheaper, food is cheaper and so on. As for eating out, I don't do that in the UK so am unlikely to do so in France.
I've been travelling to this country for the best part of thirty years and have been living here part time for the past five years, so I know exactly what I am letting, myself in for. Don't lecture me on something about which you are patently ignorant - although it is unlikely that you would change...
Longrider: I wish you all the best over there. Just don't get asked for ID, ha,ha!
ReplyDelete"I wish you all the best over there. "
ReplyDeleteThankyou
"Just don't get asked for ID, ha,ha!"
Well, given that I can walk through a supermarket checkout with a crate full of wine and no one bats an eyelid - even less asks for ID - I don't think I'll be losing too much sleep over the matter. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the anally retentive attitude now so prevalent in Britain is absent here.
Longrider: Don't get me wrong - I think France is an excellent country with higher taxes than us(which can be a good thing cos it pays for better public services) and taxes that are less regressive than ours despite the huge VAT rate and VAT on food.
ReplyDeleteI find it dubious that the cost of living is lower over there - I found it a very expensive place to be a tourist.
The things that are cheap, are cheap because (like the USA) France is a large agricultural country in a large single currency zone which doesn't have to import as much food which impacts on their food prices (though restaurants and services can be exorbitant) and also it is a country that has a lot of available land which lowers housing costs. Apart from this France is still about 30% more expensive than Germany and the most expensive in the Eurozone.
I see that some sites are claiming that the cost of living is about 20% cheaper in France than the UK. I find this unlikely - but even if this was true a year ago - we have seen a 25% devaluation of the pound against the Euro since then that must surely have more than cancelled this out.
Anyway, good luck living over but I think you will find it expensive and more obsessed with paperwork and ID checks than us.
On average I spend in Euros in France what I would in GB£ in the UK - a tankful of diesel for example is around £40 - 50 in the UK and €40 - 50 in France. The same applies to grocery shopping. Gas is a lot less as we use butane rather than piped. Electricity and telephone are about the same.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned the council tax - I am paying around €900 including the TV licence for the Tax Fonciere and Tax Habitiation as compared with over £1000 for the council tax and another £100 or so for the TV licence in the UK and this is a larger property with a decent amount of land.
Those sites that state around 20% lower cost of living aren't so far out - although I've seen 25% quoted. The devaluation of the pound has affected my earnings when transferred into Euros, but I am still spending less here than in the UK for everyday items - even taking the exchange rate into account.
Yes, French bureaucracy can be frustrating as we discovered when buying the house, but overall, the lack of surveillance and quality of life balance this out.
Stop Press. The European Court has ruled in a unanimous verdict that the retention of the DNA of unconvicted people is in breach of article 8 of the ECHR. The words they used are completely damning and are a complete humiliation of the authoritarians in the Labour party.
ReplyDelete"In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society....Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case"
Lets Blast Those Libertarian Loons?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Paulie is that he can't tell a libertarian from a liberal or even the hole in his arse.
stephen: This court ruling will condemn dozens to death and Paulie makes perfect sense to me and I can find my own a-hole.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the ruling? No of course you haven't. Fortunately the ECHR is made up of rational men and women who decide matters on evidence and not the hyperbole of authoritarian nutters.
ReplyDeletestephen: I admit I haven't read the ruling - but I have heard reliable reports that 850,000 people will now have their DNA records erased. It is inevitable that some of these people will commit crimes like rape and murder and instead of being instantly identified and easily captured will remain a danger to the public for longer and probably kill and rape again. What part of this is difficult for you to understand? How it is authoritarian to do something that protects potential victims at no practical cost to law-abiding people? How does storing someone's DNA harm them in any practical sense? The fairest thing to do is to store everyone's DNA so that everyone is treated equally.
ReplyDeleteIt is inevitable that some of these people will commit crimes like rape and murder
ReplyDeleteThat is pure scaremongering. Shall I tell you why the government lost. It was because it was unable to construct a credible case that the retention of samples would lead to many additional convictions. The police will still be able to take DNA samples at point of arrest and compare them with samples taken from crime scenes. This accounts for virtually ALL the cold case clear ups using the DNA database. They will still be able to use DNA to eliminate the innocent but they will no longer be able to retain the samples on the insulting and abusive assumption that that innocent person might go on to commit a serious crime in the future.
You say that being on the database causes a person no harm. Not true. Ask the numerous people who have already been fingered for crimes they didn't commit, such as the 14 year old boy who was blamed for the Omagh bombing. Of course they all had alibis but that didn't stop them being arrested, transported across the country and interrogated before being released. For the individual there is no benefit whatsoever in being on the database and for society there is only mininal benefit in additional clear up rate.
The fairest thing to do is to store everyone's DNA so that everyone is treated equally
Not a hope. The court did not consider it was an issue of discrimination. It considered it a violation of the privacy protocol, article 8. A universal database would be an even bigger violation than the current database.
The next thing to challenge will be the National Identity Register and unauthorised data sharing between government departments.
stephen: "virtually" - that word speaks volumes - come on, how many people will have to be raped or murdered?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am aware the UK government was unable to show that any convictions were as a result of the retention of the DNA samples of unconvicted persons. So the answer is zero. If you think otherwise, prove it. The UK government couldn't.
ReplyDelete