Proving you’re not a police state is not proving a negative! If you weren’t a police state, you’d have refutations for the points I’ve made and tangible evidence for the measure of freedoms of your people (on the standardized global indices therefor). You don’t! And though you, personally, not having refutations is not proof of a police state, it’s not you who don’t have them; it’s the country itself. People are jailed because someone else whined about them. People are jailed for quoting Churchill. There is no metric of illegality to your laws; anything is potentially illegal. You don’t have freedom of speech, you’re surveilled constantly, and you have no assurance of privacy or security of your home.
But as I can criticise the the government without fear and do a whole host of things that would be impossible in a true police state…
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
Proving you’re not a police state is not proving a negative! If you weren’t a police state, you’d have refutations for the points I’ve made and tangible evidence for the measure of freedoms of your people (on the standardized global indices therefor). You don’t! And though you, personally, not having refutations is not proof of a police state, it’s not you who don’t have them; it’s the country itself. People are jailed because someone else whined about them. People are jailed for quoting Churchill. There is no metric of illegality to your laws; anything is potentially illegal. You don’t have freedom of speech, you’re surveilled constantly, and you have no assurance of privacy or security of your home.
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
I'm not afraid that once again you are totally and utterly incorrect.
You may have this weird fetish about the UK being a police state but it is not.
You say that Apple cannot compete unfairly when they have a monopoly. So it is allowed to compete unfairly as long as Apple has no monopoly?
I do not want to split hairs here, I just still do not see that something is considered unfair when by some metric you have a monopoly, while the exact same behavior is ok when the metric says you do not have a monopoly. Like I pointed out before, let's say you have one subscriber before the metric calls you a monopolist and you can do what you are doing. With the very next subscriber it suddenly is not ok then.
This is in consequence what you (or the anti-trust laws) say?
Next, assume Apple reaches monopoly. Then, if Apple would split off their subscription service and subjects it to the same rules then basically it has not discriminated any competitor, yet the 30% constitute moving cash from one pocket within Apple Holding (or whatever) to another. Then that would be ok again?
Spotify is not the issue for me. IMO they do not have a case here, also for the reasons you pointed out.
I just think that this anti-trust thing is not consequent, and certainly not objective, since terms such as "unfair", "monopoly" are not based on an objective metric.
Let's say I am a farmer and have the only shop in town to sell food. Other farmers ask me to sell their goods through my store and I say "Fine, you will have top split the money with me according to my terms". Then this is not allowed by anti-trust because I have a monopoly although it is MY store?
And if I make a great product (and through this in addition I create a business opportunity for my competition!) I loose sovereignty when my competition s**ks and has an inferior offering, just because I happen to reach monopoly?
I do not follow this.
Actually, I do not know how Microsoft really established their monopoly, but I do not care and to me they could have bundles whatever they like with their stuff. Simply, because I had always a choice and made it by buying from the competition.
If one day iOS would reach monopoly because of the quality (difference) then it reached this by choice of customers who then should be protected by stimulating weaker competition?
So if AppleWatch soon would dominate the wearables market then their Store policy is abusing?
Where i DO see the need for regulation is in the case where I as customer never had a choice in the first place. For example, a monopoly of electricity provider, internet provider etc. If I have a choice, then of course, it would be nice, if all is cheap, ideally for free, but that is not how it works. And why should there be a right e.g. that you can have Spotify on your iPhone at the same price like any other service? If you do not like it, don't take it.
What makes something fair and unfair is whether there's a monopoly or not. It's fair for Apple to have Safari preinstalled as the default browser in OSX because OSX is not a monopoly. But it's unfair for MS to have Internet Explorer preinstalled as the default browser in Windows because Windows is a monopoly. When Apple does it, it only affects 10% of the computer users. When MS does it, it affects 90% of the computer users. If you want to market a competing browser, MS would be competing unfairly but not Apple. That's because the computer user market is considered one market and MS controls 90% of that market. It doesn't matter if Apple has a monopoly with OSX. OSX by itself is not considered a "market". The "market" is computer desktop OS's. Just like Mercedes is not a "market". Mercedes is only a small part of the automobile market. Along with Ford, BMW, GM, Toyota, Nissan, etc. And none of the auto makers, that competes in the automobile market, have a monopoly in that market. But Ford has a monopoly with their Mustang, GM with their Corvette, BMW with their M5, etc.. And all of these autos have a lot of proprietary parts that can only be purchased from the makers of the car.
So Apple has a monopoly with OSX and MS has a monopoly with Windows. But OSX is not a monopoly in the OS market. But Windows is. Therefore, MS must play under different rules. Not because they have a monopoly in Windows. But because Windows is a monopoly in the OS market. MS, with their monopoly in the OS market, can severely limit the choices of 90% consumers in that market with practices that are considered anti-competitive only because it's done when one has a monopoly.
Your farm shop scenario would only be relative if you not only had the only shop in the area, but you also control all the land in the area so that your competitors can not build their own shop to compete with you. Otherwise, you don't have to let them sell their goods in your store at all. They can build their own shop or they can make a deal with you to sell their goods in your shop and you charge rent and/or take a commission.
But if you do control all the land in the area and won't let any of your competitors build their own shops, then some government agency can forced you to let competitors sell their goods in your store. You can still charge them but it must be fair and not anti-competitive. There is nothing wrong or illegal about having a monopoly. What you can't do is abuse that monopoly with anti-competitive practices that limits the choices of the consumers. And that would include not letting your competitors compete against you in your own store, if there are no other means by which your competitors can offer more choices to the consumers.
MS was not found guilty of having a monopoly. They were guilty of abusing their monopoly with anti-competive practices. MS was making it difficult for Netscape, the most popular browser at the time, to compete with Internet Explorer. MS would rig Windows to make Netscape browser slow, buggy and hard to install while favoring their own Internet Explorer. They were also giving away IE for free, (while Netscape was charging a small fee for an upgraded version. They had a free version), made IE nearly impossible to uninstall, and forced PC makers into not including any other browsers if they wanted to sell PC's with Windows pre-installed. This essentially put Netscape out of business. These are anticompetitive practices when you have a monopoly in the OS market. This limited the choices for 90% of the computer users because competing browsers could not compete in Windows nor survive on Apple OS market share alone. And IE ending up on over 80% of the Worlds desktops.
So if iOS ever reach the monopoly status that Windows has in desktops, Apple would have to let their competitors compete in iOS. But Apple would not be required to give iOS away to other hardware makers. Which means that even if consumers wants to use one of Apple competitors product, they still need to purchase a device with iOS from Apple. Remember, MS isn't going broke because they're forced to let their competition into Windows. That's because in order to use any of their competitors product, the computer user still has to have a computer with Windows installed.
One would think that Google is nearly a monopoly with Android because it's on over 70% on the World's mobile OS devices and they should come under scrutiny for any anti-competitive practices. Even though Google don't charge for using it. But not all Android is Google Android. All the Android devices in China are Google free. So are devices from Amazon. Even though Google likes to lump all Android devices into one for market share purpose, the only devices that really matters to Google are the ones with Google Android. Which most likely account for less than 50% of the mobile OS market. But that's still twice the marketshare of iOS.
Proving you’re not a police state is not proving a negative! If you weren’t a police state, you’d have refutations for the points I’ve made and tangible evidence for the measure of freedoms of your people (on the standardized global indices therefor). You don’t! And though you, personally, not having refutations is not proof of a police state, it’s not you who don’t have them; it’s the country itself. People are jailed because someone else whined about them. People are jailed for quoting Churchill. There is no metric of illegality to your laws; anything is potentially illegal. You don’t have freedom of speech, you’re surveilled constantly, and you have no assurance of privacy or security of your home.
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
Have you read our press? They criticise the government, and viciously, almost daily. We have a vocal opposition. There are no substantive rules against forming new political parties, from far right to far left, as long as they don't indulge in hate speech (we had the blackshirts, so we've done that and it left a bad taste).
I can leave the country on a dime, and could back whenever I want, and there's no problem at all (maybe if I went to Syria, but that's a bit special).
So, though the police have some intrusive powers, that they use occasionally, it's not a police state.
But more to the point, this is not a thread about the UK being a police state. If you're really dying to talk about it so much (and your preassembled bulleted list really suggests that you are), then start a new thread.
You may have this weird fetish about the UK being a police state but it is not.
I guess if you say it enough times that makes it true, huh.
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
Originally Posted by spheric
Also, for a police state, their doing a terrible job of oppressing and killing their citizens. Much worse than, say, the United States.
You’re just trolling now.
Originally Posted by singularity
Freedom of expression
You can be jailed for months for saying things the government doesn't like.
You can't refuse service, or refuse to hire who you want for whatever reason you choose, the government believes they're entitled to work they apply for.
You can be jailed for 21 weeks for uttering a word against a protected class (non-whites and muslims), who can then go on and molest a 12 year old and be given a police caution all the while crying about how oppressed they are.
Child A (2000) was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A. a caution after sleeping with a 12 year old
You can be arrested for saying something ANYBODY at all, literally anyone finds offensive in the slightest. Even if it's a quote from Winston Churchill.
I see now that you didn't preassemble a list of random dissatisfactions with British liberties, I wholeheartedly apologise. Instead you cribbed the whole list off a blog - http://gizmonaut.net/bits/police_state.html
3. Keep waiting. I didn't ask for this debate and don't want this debate. I also think this debate is stupid and engaging in it would be pointless because it's you.
I see now that you didn't preassemble a list of random dissatisfactions with British liberties, I wholeheartedly apologise. Instead you cribbed the whole list off a blog - http://gizmonaut.net/bits/police_state.html
Comments
Proving you’re not a police state is not proving a negative! If you weren’t a police state, you’d have refutations for the points I’ve made and tangible evidence for the measure of freedoms of your people (on the standardized global indices therefor). You don’t! And though you, personally, not having refutations is not proof of a police state, it’s not you who don’t have them; it’s the country itself. People are jailed because someone else whined about them. People are jailed for quoting Churchill. There is no metric of illegality to your laws; anything is potentially illegal. You don’t have freedom of speech, you’re surveilled constantly, and you have no assurance of privacy or security of your home.
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
You may have this weird fetish about the UK being a police state but it is not.
So let me try to think this through.
You say that Apple cannot compete unfairly when they have a monopoly. So it is allowed to compete unfairly as long as Apple has no monopoly?
I do not want to split hairs here, I just still do not see that something is considered unfair when by some metric you have a monopoly, while the exact same behavior is ok when the metric says you do not have a monopoly. Like I pointed out before, let's say you have one subscriber before the metric calls you a monopolist and you can do what you are doing. With the very next subscriber it suddenly is not ok then.
This is in consequence what you (or the anti-trust laws) say?
Next, assume Apple reaches monopoly. Then, if Apple would split off their subscription service and subjects it to the same rules then basically it has not discriminated any competitor, yet the 30% constitute moving cash from one pocket within Apple Holding (or whatever) to another. Then that would be ok again?
Spotify is not the issue for me. IMO they do not have a case here, also for the reasons you pointed out.
I just think that this anti-trust thing is not consequent, and certainly not objective, since terms such as "unfair", "monopoly" are not based on an objective metric.
Let's say I am a farmer and have the only shop in town to sell food. Other farmers ask me to sell their goods through my store and I say "Fine, you will have top split the money with me according to my terms". Then this is not allowed by anti-trust because I have a monopoly although it is MY store?
And if I make a great product (and through this in addition I create a business opportunity for my competition!) I loose sovereignty when my competition s**ks and has an inferior offering, just because I happen to reach monopoly?
I do not follow this.
Actually, I do not know how Microsoft really established their monopoly, but I do not care and to me they could have bundles whatever they like with their stuff. Simply, because I had always a choice and made it by buying from the competition.
If one day iOS would reach monopoly because of the quality (difference) then it reached this by choice of customers who then should be protected by stimulating weaker competition?
So if AppleWatch soon would dominate the wearables market then their Store policy is abusing?
Where i DO see the need for regulation is in the case where I as customer never had a choice in the first place. For example, a monopoly of electricity provider, internet provider etc. If I have a choice, then of course, it would be nice, if all is cheap, ideally for free, but that is not how it works. And why should there be a right e.g. that you can have Spotify on your iPhone at the same price like any other service? If you do not like it, don't take it.
What makes something fair and unfair is whether there's a monopoly or not. It's fair for Apple to have Safari preinstalled as the default browser in OSX because OSX is not a monopoly. But it's unfair for MS to have Internet Explorer preinstalled as the default browser in Windows because Windows is a monopoly. When Apple does it, it only affects 10% of the computer users. When MS does it, it affects 90% of the computer users. If you want to market a competing browser, MS would be competing unfairly but not Apple. That's because the computer user market is considered one market and MS controls 90% of that market. It doesn't matter if Apple has a monopoly with OSX. OSX by itself is not considered a "market". The "market" is computer desktop OS's. Just like Mercedes is not a "market". Mercedes is only a small part of the automobile market. Along with Ford, BMW, GM, Toyota, Nissan, etc. And none of the auto makers, that competes in the automobile market, have a monopoly in that market. But Ford has a monopoly with their Mustang, GM with their Corvette, BMW with their M5, etc.. And all of these autos have a lot of proprietary parts that can only be purchased from the makers of the car.
So Apple has a monopoly with OSX and MS has a monopoly with Windows. But OSX is not a monopoly in the OS market. But Windows is. Therefore, MS must play under different rules. Not because they have a monopoly in Windows. But because Windows is a monopoly in the OS market. MS, with their monopoly in the OS market, can severely limit the choices of 90% consumers in that market with practices that are considered anti-competitive only because it's done when one has a monopoly.
Your farm shop scenario would only be relative if you not only had the only shop in the area, but you also control all the land in the area so that your competitors can not build their own shop to compete with you. Otherwise, you don't have to let them sell their goods in your store at all. They can build their own shop or they can make a deal with you to sell their goods in your shop and you charge rent and/or take a commission.
But if you do control all the land in the area and won't let any of your competitors build their own shops, then some government agency can forced you to let competitors sell their goods in your store. You can still charge them but it must be fair and not anti-competitive. There is nothing wrong or illegal about having a monopoly. What you can't do is abuse that monopoly with anti-competitive practices that limits the choices of the consumers. And that would include not letting your competitors compete against you in your own store, if there are no other means by which your competitors can offer more choices to the consumers.
MS was not found guilty of having a monopoly. They were guilty of abusing their monopoly with anti-competive practices. MS was making it difficult for Netscape, the most popular browser at the time, to compete with Internet Explorer. MS would rig Windows to make Netscape browser slow, buggy and hard to install while favoring their own Internet Explorer. They were also giving away IE for free, (while Netscape was charging a small fee for an upgraded version. They had a free version), made IE nearly impossible to uninstall, and forced PC makers into not including any other browsers if they wanted to sell PC's with Windows pre-installed. This essentially put Netscape out of business. These are anticompetitive practices when you have a monopoly in the OS market. This limited the choices for 90% of the computer users because competing browsers could not compete in Windows nor survive on Apple OS market share alone. And IE ending up on over 80% of the Worlds desktops.
So if iOS ever reach the monopoly status that Windows has in desktops, Apple would have to let their competitors compete in iOS. But Apple would not be required to give iOS away to other hardware makers. Which means that even if consumers wants to use one of Apple competitors product, they still need to purchase a device with iOS from Apple. Remember, MS isn't going broke because they're forced to let their competition into Windows. That's because in order to use any of their competitors product, the computer user still has to have a computer with Windows installed.
One would think that Google is nearly a monopoly with Android because it's on over 70% on the World's mobile OS devices and they should come under scrutiny for any anti-competitive practices. Even though Google don't charge for using it. But not all Android is Google Android. All the Android devices in China are Google free. So are devices from Amazon. Even though Google likes to lump all Android devices into one for market share purpose, the only devices that really matters to Google are the ones with Google Android. Which most likely account for less than 50% of the mobile OS market. But that's still twice the marketshare of iOS.
EDIT: Oops, missed the new page. Never mind then.
Proving you’re not a police state is not proving a negative! If you weren’t a police state, you’d have refutations for the points I’ve made and tangible evidence for the measure of freedoms of your people (on the standardized global indices therefor). You don’t! And though you, personally, not having refutations is not proof of a police state, it’s not you who don’t have them; it’s the country itself. People are jailed because someone else whined about them. People are jailed for quoting Churchill. There is no metric of illegality to your laws; anything is potentially illegal. You don’t have freedom of speech, you’re surveilled constantly, and you have no assurance of privacy or security of your home.
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
Quote:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9
Article 10Freedom of expression
1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That is not a valid metric in and of itself, and it’s also patently false in Britain.
Have you read our press? They criticise the government, and viciously, almost daily. We have a vocal opposition. There are no substantive rules against forming new political parties, from far right to far left, as long as they don't indulge in hate speech (we had the blackshirts, so we've done that and it left a bad taste).
I can leave the country on a dime, and could back whenever I want, and there's no problem at all (maybe if I went to Syria, but that's a bit special).
So, though the police have some intrusive powers, that they use occasionally, it's not a police state.
But more to the point, this is not a thread about the UK being a police state. If you're really dying to talk about it so much (and your preassembled bulleted list really suggests that you are), then start a new thread.
Proving you’re not a police state is not proving a negative!
I guess if you say it enough times that makes it true, huh.
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
You’re just trolling now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9297324/Tube-passenger-jailed-for-21-weeks-after-video-of-her-racist-rant-went-viral.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18251807
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27186573
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25265794
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-man-jailed-16-months-racist-rants/story-21146421-detail/story.html
You can be jailed for months for typing things the government doesn't like.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/city-footballer-jailed-sending-anti-muslim-7067656
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jailed-over-facebook-status-raises-questions-over-free-speech/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27696446
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29695846
You aren't allowed to carry a weapon to defend yourself only use what is around you at the time.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186911/Knives_and_offensive_weapons_information_GDS_FAQ.pdf
http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/tackling_crime/protecting_you/personal_safety/protecting_yourself.aspx
You can't refuse service, or refuse to hire who you want for whatever reason you choose, the government believes they're entitled to work they apply for.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/guidance-for-all/pre-equality-act-guidance/guidance-for-service-providers-pre-october-2010/what-the-law-says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010
We have a banned movie list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_the_United_Kingdom
You can be jailed for 21 weeks for uttering a word against a protected class (non-whites and muslims), who can then go on and molest a 12 year old and be given a police caution all the while crying about how oppressed they are.
Child A (2000) was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A. a caution after sleeping with a 12 year old
Sources: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089
People are banned from visiting the UK for having different beliefs or opinions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/antiground-zero-mosque-campaigners-pamela-geller-and-robert-spencer-barred-from-entering-britain-to-speak-at-an-edl-rally-8675251.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/12/geert-wilders-fitna
You can be arrested and jailed for years for looking at images the government doesn't like
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_Kingdom
Historical artefacts worth thousands are destroyed because they're considered illegal weapons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11101639/WW1-machine-gun-found-in-mans-garage.html
Mass surveillance on the public
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom
Your home can be invaded by policemen at any time without a reason if you own a gun, what happened to an Englishmen's home is his castle?
http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/exclusive-unannounced-police-visits-legal-gun-owners-begin-40860
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/19/london-calling-uk-gun-owners-now-subject-to-surprise-warrantless-firearm-storage-inspections/
You can be fined £700 for tearing up the Koran
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-27244205
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26389242
You can be arrested for saying something ANYBODY at all, literally anyone finds offensive in the slightest. Even if it's a quote from Winston Churchill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10792895/Election-candidate-arrested-over-Churchill-speech.html
This doesn’t exist.
So, though the police have some intrusive powers, that they use occasionally, it's not a police state.
Because you say so.
So, again, you have absolutely nothing substantive and cannot prove me wrong.
I do owe TS an apology!
I see now that you didn't preassemble a list of random dissatisfactions with British liberties, I wholeheartedly apologise. Instead you cribbed the whole list off a blog - http://gizmonaut.net/bits/police_state.html
Great research and attribution there TS.
you cribbed the whole list off a blog
1. Nope.
2. Fallacy.
3. Still waiting for you to disprove anything stated.
1. So the identical text is just a coincidence?
2. Prove it.
3. Keep waiting. I didn't ask for this debate and don't want this debate. I also think this debate is stupid and engaging in it would be pointless because it's you.