The UK government has no problem being openly authoritarian when it wants to, without hiding it behind other policies. Whether or not you think it's bad policy (I think it's mixed), I think this is genuinely about what it claims to be.
The truth is the vast majority of British citizens (70%+) support this. Actually, support for the Online Safety Act went up in the year after it was implemented. People you talk to online are not representative of public opinion as a whole. British society is very pro-"protecting children", which is what this is advertised as.
A lot of old people think a social media ban will bring back the good old days of their childhood where kids went outside. A lot of parents don't want to tell their kids "no" to social media because of "peer pressure", instead of just telling their kids to find better friends.
Only a small proportion of the population recognises this is about control. No major political party will speak out against this as they know being against it is a vote loser.
This is a decent salary for a heritage job. It is a very poorly-paid sector. On building sites with archaeological excavations, the person driving the digger is likely to be paid more than the archaeologists, who probably have postgraduate degrees.
How can you be sure? How can you get the information to know whether or not your children's toys, your medicines, your electic equipment, wall paint, food, and everything else you consume or use is safe?
You can't. So... abstain from everything? Make everything yourself - how will you have time with a job? Will you know the food you grow is safe and that your ground isn't polluted with things you can't test for at home? How about the equipment used to make that food - is the metal in that plow made of lead? Is the engine on the tractor safe?
Your due diligence is only possible because other people - usually with specialized education and/or experience - have made laws and standards to keep you safe. You don't have to personally check everything.
You are believing a lie, then, and seem to have missed the point.
You simply cannot have the knowledge to know if everything is safe - no matter what your specialty, there are things you'll have to just trust others for safety. Sure, you might buy a lead test kit that someone else has made, but the only way to know that the test kit works is to monitor your family for lead poisoning unless you have specialized knowledge. And if you have that specialized knowledge, it'll come at the cost of other specialized knowledge. You can't personally know if that bridge you drive on is safe AND know about the metal in your plow AND know if the light bulb you bough is a hazard AND know that your antibiotic matches the label on the box instead of it being that one you are allergic to AND know all the other stuff is safe.
Everything requires trust in products or services unless you have information.
I used the plow as an example in a list of things to illustrate the varied information you need to verify things and to illustrate that you can't simply do research on everything. Maybe you missed that?
You can't trust the company making the lead test kits any more than you can trust General Mills. How would you know the tests are real, especially without a regulating body to verify that stuff?
What if it isn't General Mills and Cheerios? Do you test everything that comes in contact with your food? What is in their plows?
You aren't just testing the Cheerios. You are just choosing to trust one thing instead of another and you simply cannot have time to test all of the Cheerios in addition to the other things in life.
There are markings that certify that some things are safe according to some standards. You are not in a situation to know what actually is safe or to be able to test it (really, you are not; if you think you are, go talk to your nearest electrical engineer, chemist, or molecular biologist who will provide you several examples of the limitations of your knowledge and abilities). Therefore, trusting those certifications is important, and companies that falsify them must be punished so they stop doing so. It’s not complicated and that’s the whole point of the procedure (and the fine).
I was a child at the time and I absolutely remember her getting adulation and celebrity. The may have faded from a lot of memories since, but at the time she was definitely recognised
I was an adult and other than being on the obvious shows like Blue Peter and newsround, there was nothing. You'd expect a knighthood or a peerage, all she's got is an OBE. England football team in 1990 got a parade through London for getting to the semi finals, and our first astronaut got...nothing.
This would make sense if they were an airline and only need to maximise profits. An artist – even one who really wants to make as much money as they can – still needs to think about other things, like atmosphere (that gig with one very rich person won't be much fun), and happy fans. If she sells all tickets at $10k each then maybe she'd clear the market, but she'd piss off a lot of fans, so maybe there won't be as much demand next time.
There's a very easy solution. Put the name of the owner on the ticket. Limit the number of tickets per person. Verify the identity before entering the premises. Allow the resale at face value via the organiser's platform. Allow to resell your ticket at face value to a specific person, for the case where the friend who bought the tickets six months ago is suddenly sick.
I don't know why this is being made to look like an insurmountable problem. We're talking about multi-billion dollar companies, organising billion dollar tours.
> If she sells all tickets at $10k each then maybe she'd clear the market, but she'd piss off a lot of fans
If I was conspiracy-minded, I'd say blaming "the scalpers" would be a very convenient way of dodging responsibilities while taking a cut.
> Allow to resell your ticket at face value to a specific person, for the case where the friend who bought the tickets six months ago is suddenly sick.
This allows scalping.
And then, since scalping is not prevented, all that these measures really accomplish is to theatrically increase the burden for everyone else.
What utopia? Each person can buy a maximum of 4 tickets. A ticket has a name on it. You can't use it if it's not yours. To change the name on the ticket, you need to go through the official platform, where you can only resell it for at most face value.
It's not exactly a project Manhattan level of breakthrough we're talking about here. The incentives to scalp are vastly reduced. Sure, I could buy four tickets and resell three of them, but I would still need to physically go to the venue to walk people in. It just doesn't scale.
I mean, the phrase "Zig to Rust port of Bun" makes little sense even to many professional developers. They may know Rust, might have heard of Zig, very likely don't know what Bun is.
So the fact that this gets any attention at all says something.
reply