Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Thanks Michael - hope nothing I write is going to put people off using HoL in any way they see fit - not my intention to create or enforce any rules, I'm just giving my reaction to a politically-motivated post.
I know you shouldn't feed the trolls it's just that this guy seems like a regular person and I honestly am mystified why anyone would remain anonymous if, like almost all of us, they enjoy HoL as an exchange of views that builds relationships. I actually do know some of the regular posters (met them at the excellent HoL socials) and those with soubriquets seem to have started because it felt right at the time and now couldn't be bothered to change.
Pace OAE, I think it does harm us a bit if the fakes grow in number. The appalling hate-tweets against women for instance would be fewer were people attaching their real names. There seems to be something about anonymity that gives people a licence to abuse our trust in their good faith and generally to misbehave. The law is catching up with them though.
There's a European and local election coming up in May, then a general one next year. I hope we'll have a chance to be open and truthful about why we're voting whichever way we're voting, and thus how we can help improve things.
It just felt to me as if rent-a-mob chimed in to rubbish the object of their disdain and that wasn't good.
I'd like everyone on HoL who doesn't need protection to come out of the closet - the more real people here, the better. I presume that, if you do express negative political views anonymously, they're not worth reading.
-
Permalink Reply by LSquared on
-
Interesting that you mentioned "the appalling hate tweets against women" from the perspective of the men protected by anonymity rather than the women liberated by it.
-
-
-
Pace OAE, I think it does harm us a bit if the fakes grow in number.The appalling hate-tweets against women for instance would be fewer were people attaching their real names.
Pace "Chris Setz", si praenomine cognomineque quam "Chris Setz" post partum poenas dedissem, nomen calami vel belli statim mihimetipsi assumpsissem.
Senectutis Emporium (Eques Equo Privato Primi Classis) . . . and if Mark Pack is still looking for a Roman blind expert . . . ?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Posting a real (if rather flattering) picture of myself was my decision as one of the main reasons I originally started using this site was to get to know neighbours so the picture helped with that. However, if people don't want to I perfectly understand.
I think that this site is very good at policing itself and people posting any offensive, obscene or threatening are quickly dealt with by the online community.
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
I think a wise technological solution would be a button that allowed to show your true identity to people you felt you trusted after knowing them online for a while but also to ensure that google couldn't grab all your posts and link your daily musings with your true identity (unless of course you wanted too).
Maybe the question would be 'your neighbour would like to get to know you a bit better, would you like to show them your real life profile and for them to see yours - yes or no?'
Maybe there could be an option to also share the nick names of others you have 'trusted' with your new 'trusted neighbour' to help build trust circles with others quicker.
If you make a million from the idea, remember me. :-)
. -
-
-
Thanks Michael & Happy New Year.
-
-
Theresae Sen. Emp. salutem.
As Chris had descended to the level of an old ablative Latin tag in my regard I hoped he might respond to my suggestion that if I had been subjected just after birth to the supreme penalty of a given name and surname such as 'Chris Setz', I too would have immediately assumed for myself a nom de plume or a nom de guerre. (I, somewhat romantically, chose calami over styli or plumae since calamus (reed) could also mean an arrow or a shepherd's pipe as well as a pen.)
Di te incolumem custodiant. Bene vale -
Senectutis Imperator (Knight Equestrian, Ist Class)
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
APPRECIATE your thoughtful contribution FPR. Unfashionable? Yep, guilty as charged!
The matter of party funding crossed my mind too. It's a fraught subject, big enough to be the topic of another thread.
I suspect that some Labour supporters imagine that it is only the wicked Conservative Party that accepts money from Big Business and ends up in their pocket. I think The Mail performed a public service with their well-researched article, by demonstrating that the Labour Party has been at least as venal as any other.
In the early 2000s, there was little-to-no public pressure for a slackening of gambling laws. Pressure came from the "industry".
I reckon that £400,000+ must have helped to assuage any moral qualms the Blair administration may have had about loosening the legislation.
The Mail article in effect, offered an explanation where explanation was needed, as to why the Gambling Act came about in 2005 and why, in the long run, there are now so many betting shops, especially in poorer areas.
Commentary in yesterday's Times compared former Labour Leader Neil Kinnock favourably with Ed Milliband. The thesis was, that Mr Kinnock told his party what it needed to know, rather than what it wanted to hear. However, gambling policy is far from being the only last-government-legacy that the current Labour leader needs to recognise and confront.
Given the accusations of hypocrisy that Mr Milliband has faced in this regard, I hope that he will not be detered from improving and pursuing his – potentially constructive – policy on FOBTs.
Even if he does not become Prime Minister, could he not yet offer on this issue – belatedly and imperfectly – leadership that has long been lacking?
(The government's push in 2004-06 to promote gambling interests nationally, also had its local counterpart. One Haringey councillor publicly advocated a casino at our charity Alexandra Palace. As a former Executive Cabinet Member for Regeneration, he presented his Casino Proposal to fellow Cabinet Members. They turned it down.Mysteriously, permission for precisely such a use was later promised by the 'Mayor and Burgesses' in the then-secret, now-infamous, Lease to Firoka. Save for High Court action in 2007, the council's promise would be in force today).
-
-
I think a very public statement along the lines of "We made a massive mistake in changing the gambling laws and this is what we intend to do about it" might help a tad!
-
-
I think I read somewhere that Ed Milliband plans to allow the councils to chose how many casino machines or shops are allowed in the borough. This would be an interesting solution if it worked properly.
Harriet Harman seems to be on a one woman crusade also to put the issue right and she genuinely seems personally mortified that her signature was anywhere near that gambling act after seeing the repercussions it has had and in no unclear terms expressed her belief that labour made this mess and they need to sort it out.
I expect it will be a key policy for the next election, I also have high hopes that Ed might bring in sweeping changes to the funding of political parties because of the difficulty he got into with union funding personally when challenging his brother.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I think I read somewhere about something called a search engine which lets you look things up and find out facts - e.g what party leaders have said on public issues. Maybe I'm wrong though.
-
-
Nice to have a friendly councillor around, always a pleasure x.
I was right on both counts no?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/20/labour-ban-fixed-odd...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/aug/05/labour-mistake-gambling-l...
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
