iPlayer and Android phones

[Jeff Layman]

Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?

The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or
register) on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox
set as my default browser. I've tried setting the phone to other default
browsers, but iPlayer will still only allow me to open it in Chrome. I
never use Chrome and have removed all permissions from it. If I tap on
iPlayer's "Privacy" panel on its opening screen instead of signing in,
it does then open the privacy statement in Firefox, and allow me access
to all of iPlayer via that page (as I'm apparently already signed in to
the account). The BBC News app has no privacy panel available so access
is only via Chrome.

Do others have this issue with iPlayer?

--

Jeff

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?

infrequently on phone/tablet/androidtv

> The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or register)
> on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox set as my default
> browser.

after it launches chrome, you can press [...] and choose "open in firefox" that
works for me, I signed-out and back in again to check.

> I've tried setting the phone to other default browsers, but iPlayer
> will still only allow me to open it in Chrome.

youtube plays the same trick to force you into chrome, but it also has an "open
in firefox" option.

[Max Demian]

When I open the app it doesn't involve a browser AFAICS. (I also log
into iPlayer with Chrome to delete programmes from the Watch List as
that doesn't seem to be possible in the app.)

--
Max Demian

[Andy Burns]

Martin wrote:

> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
>> The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in
>

> I think that justifies a formal complaint

I just uninstalled all chrome updates, did a force stop and disable on chrome.

Then I went into the iplayer, signed out and back in again, with chrome
unavailable, it didn't complain, it didn't use my defined preferred browser
(firefox) it used a username/password prompt built-in to the iplayer app.

[MB]

On 03/07/2022 09:27, Martin wrote:
> I think that justifies a formal complaint, but I am not sure to who. Shame UK
> left the EU because then you had somebody to complain to.

Not sure what it is to do with the EU though they do tend to stick their
nose into everything.

There is "Contact the BBC" link at the bottom of every BBC webpage and
the following has a a tab for complaints with online message, postal
address, telephone etc etc.

But I doubt whether complaints from foreigners will carry much weight,
they should be made through the company or organisation that is
supplying the feed to BBC programmes because are the ones who have a
contract with the BBC.

[Jeff Layman]

I've asked the BBC to comment on the default to Chrome.

I'm running Android 11 and there is no option to uninstall Chrome or
even disable it. There was even no option to force a stop, but I
uninstalled all updates and "Force stop" was no longer greyed out. So I
tapped it, and got the usual warning about it misbehaving. I then opened
the iPlayer app fully expecting what happened. It defaulted to Chrome,
and in "App settings" Chrome was active again! If Chrome is again
stopped and I return to the already open iPlayer app, and tap "sign in",
it reports that sign in or register is temporarily unavailable and to
try again later. If I try again, up pops Chrome. :-(

Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)

--

Jeff

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry

I bet it begins

"To meet the demands of a competitive, multi-channel environment ..."

They're supposed to have the licence fee to let them be different, if they've
convinced themselves they need to be the same as other broadcasters, they don't
deserve the fee.

[MB]

On 04/07/2022 10:59, Martin wrote:
> The EU looks after users interests.

Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.

"Foreigners" = people living outside the UK so not paying for the TV
Licence. I don't think the BBC has any responsibility to provide people
with the BBC services once they move abroad.

[Java Jive]

On 04/07/2022 13:45, MB wrote:
>
> Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.

We weren't before, we were ruled from London, then as now.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Jeff Layman]

On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Je...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> <snip>

>> Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
>> the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
>> take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
>> really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)
>

> If you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC.
>
> If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
> they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
> obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi
> channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.

I've just received a reply:

"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users
to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled
we fall back to the built in WebView. This won’t differ even if a user
has selected a different default browser.

If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back."

Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign
in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather
app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an
Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a
fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option
is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the
iPlayer app call it reopens.

--

Jeff

[Ian Jackson]

In message <t9uv1u$3ddf9$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes

>On 04/07/2022 13:45, MB wrote:
>> Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.
>
>We weren't before, we were ruled from London, then as now.
>

And the Scots don't like it!
--
Ian

[Jeff Layman]

On 06/07/2022 11:40, Martin wrote:

> Why does the android version need a password to use BBC Sounds wifi radio, when
> the Win10 version doesn't and why is there no way of create a new password when
> the old password has been forgotten?

No idea, but careless, inconsistent coding comes to mind.

> At least you got a relevant answer, even if we think that what they are doing is
> not sensible. I never got a sensible answer when I asked when wifi transmitted
> for BBC Sound would be stable enough to risk buying wifi radio. I was so near to
> buying a radio that was made obsolete by the BBC. Roberts couldn't modify the
> wifi radios it had sod because they didn't have enough memory.

I've replied back with this, and wonder what the response will be:

"Firstly, I am afraid that your point about Chrome being used because of
its Custom Tabs is at least a year out-of-date. Even the developers of
Chrome itself state in their overview at
<https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/> that "Custom
Tabs is a browser feature, introduced by Chrome, that is now supported
by most major browsers on Android."

Secondly, Chrome is a system app in later versions of Android and cannot

be uninstalled without rooting or use of a fairly complicated procedure

using adb. With my Android 11 phone, I cannot even disable it. I can
force it to stop, but as soon as I tap on the iPlayer app sign-in it
causes Chrome to restart.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could I refer you to the BBC's
"Privacy Notice" (at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>). This
starts with "We take your privacy very seriously. And so should you.".
In that case, it seems ironic that Chrome is forced upon iPlayer app
users as it is well accepted to be the most privacy-invasive browser
around. Perhaps you could explain why the iPlayer app's privacy notice
at
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/about-bbc-iplayer-and-our-policies/app-privacy-notice>
is different, and does not include the "We take your privacy very
seriously. And so should you." statement (which, strangely enough, opens
in Firefox, not Chrome, from the iPlayer app).

I do take my privacy seriously, which is why I have raised this issue
with you. I can sign-in to other Android apps without using Chrome, and
should be able to do it with the iPlayer app."

You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their
activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.

--

Jeff

[MB]

On 06/07/2022 11:24, Martin wrote:
> Apparently the Welsh, Northern Irish and the North of England don't like it
> either.

And many of the Scot don't like being ruled by a bunch of crooks in
Edinburgh, similarly many Welsh don't like Cardiff etc etc.

[Java Jive]

So you keep claiming, as usual without providing any evidence
whatsoever, whereas in actual fact the SNP have had the largest share of
the popular vote in Scotland for a significantly long time now, which
proves beyond doubt that you're wrong.

More generally, the fact that you feel you just have to keep preaching
your personal political biases thereby degenerating every thread you can
into a sewer for your own shit reveals you to be a bigoted ignorant
dumbfucker with little in the way of good manners and even less sense.

[Jeff Layman]

On 07/07/2022 10:43, Martin wrote:

> I look forward to seeing their response.

Came in today:

"You do not need to uninstall Chrome, you can simply disable it. If you
cannot disable it like you said, then that is something you have to take
up with the manufacturer, as it's not something we can help you with
unfortunately.

The first privacy page you listed is a collection of all the privacy
FAQs specifically related to the BBC account. The 2nd page you listed is
a single FAQ dedicated for the BBC app's privacy notice so this is why
they are not identical.

We appreciate the information about the Custom Tabs feature being
supported on most Android browsers. I will make sure this feedback gets
seen on our dedicated feedback reports for iPlayer and this gets seen by
the iPlayer Product Team."

I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult
it is to stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make
its use de rigueur. I suppose the final paragraph might introduce a
possibility of opening the iPlayer app to other browsers, but I'm not
holding my breath. I'm also rather puzzled by the "privacy" statements
explanation. Is there a question (FAQ or otherwise) on the iPlayer
privacy page I linked to? It still doesn't explain why there needs to be
two separate statements.

> Very good!!

>>
>> You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their
>> activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.
>

> They probably use Chrome themselves. Insisting that users use Chrome too, saves
> them from testing their software with other browsers. Their testing is less than
> 100% like most software nowadays.

They probably just want to see if what they want to do works with
Chrome. If it does, that's all they need to know as it has such a large
share of the browser market.

--

Jeff

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult it is to
> stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make its use de rigueur.

In the past, devices had a separate component AndroidSystemWebView which was a
separate minimal functionality browser that could be embedded in apps.

<https://developer.android.com/reference/android/webkit/WebView>

Eventually, around android v4.4, Google got fed-up of maintaining Webview as
well as Chrome, so Webview became Chromium based just like Chrome is Chromium
based (whether or not webview has access to the Chrome's cookies etc, I don't
know, hopefully not).

If the BBC is not prepared to use the user's preferred browser, they could use
Webview in all cases, the fact that they prefer to use Chrome, and only
fall-back to Webview if Chrome is disabled probably tells you that they can link
more data from cookies etc about a user's viewing habits with general
web-browsing across phones/tablets/desktops :-(

[Jeff Layman]

Sadly, that appears to be the case. So much for "we take your privacy
very seriously"!

--

Jeff

[Indy Jess John]

On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:

> UK was never ruled from Brussels

Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.

That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.

He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>
>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>
> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
> where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.

Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.

> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.

Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that
after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything except
distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
were changed, so would I.

The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.

> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.

Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.

[Indy Jess John]

Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.

Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the
Maastricht Treaty.

Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.

No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.

After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.

Jim

[Java Jive]

But he didn't comply with *ALL RELEVANT* UK law, and that was the point.

> Also it wasn't a democratic choice.  It was a condition of accepting the
> Maastricht Treaty.

It was a democratic choice to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.

> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
> of them would lose their seats if he did.  His rebels gave in and
> approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
>
> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
> legislation passed under duress.

Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
'democracy' works. If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
UK? It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>
>Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>paper.

I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.

Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?

Rod.

[Norman Wells]

Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.

A much more common type of calculation was simply adding up the total
of what was being spent on items in a shop. The shopkeepers would do
this using the same skills that everyone was routinely taught in
school, often totting up the items on a notepad on the counter in
front of you, so there was nothing to stop you checking their working
as they went, if you wanted to, reading it upside down of course. We
just got used to this way of working because that's the way it was.

Then cheap calculators became available and we all got lazy.

Rod.

[Indy Jess John]

True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by *years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.

>  If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
> then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
> of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
> UK?  It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
> that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
>

You are going off at a tangent. Read what I said above. I made no
comment whatever on the EU's governance.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

£50 18s 7d

Jim

[Figaro]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>
>>
>£50 18s 7d
>
>Jim

??? 3x17=51

[Indy Jess John]

Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.

The correct answer is £62 16s 7d

Give yourself a pat on the back :-)

Jim

[Norman Wells]

On 11/07/2022 11:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>>>>
>>>> Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>>> paper.
>>>
>>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>>
>>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>>> have a machine to do them for you?
>>
>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>
> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.

I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

[Jeff Layman]

On 11/07/2022 13:54, Norman Wells wrote:

>> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
>> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
>
> I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
> pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

Were you referring to £sd or brains?

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> ??? 3x17=51
>>
> Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.

Are you Capt Mainwaring?

> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
> Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
>
> Jim

--

Jeff

[Norman Wells]

On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:

That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.

[williamwright]

On 11/07/2022 09:41, Norman Wells wrote:

If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.

Bill

[Robin]

and get short shrift if £3 13s 11d is the price after the half-crown
discount for buying a baker's dozen or more


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Java Jive]

On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2022 00:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2022 23:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
>>> legislation passed under duress.
>>
>> Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
>> tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
>> attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
>> 'democracy' works.
>
> True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
> trusting politicians.

True democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the world, we are talking about
UK democracy as it existed and still exists in the UK.

> They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want");

But since then with the UK shooting itself in the foot by leaving the
EU, the political landscape has radically changed, and therefore there
is some justification for demanding a new vote.

> and the people
> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by *years* of Parliamentary
> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
> MPs who want to reverse that decision.

Because they see if for the mistake it was.

> That's also the way UK
> 'democracy' works, and it stinks.

Maybe, but if you believe that then you can't keep claiming that the UK
is any more democratic than the EU, which, as quoted below, just one of
any number that I could have chosen, you have frequently claimed in the
past.

>>   If you don't think that was a democratic choice, then why are you
>> and others always comparing the EU's governance to that of the UK, and
>> complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the UK?  It seems
>> to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting that the EU's
>> governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
>>
> You are going off at a tangent. Read what I said above. I made no
> comment whatever on the EU's governance.

You can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Previously in
this very same thread you have criticised the European Parliament as
being undemocratic, as in, for just one of many possible examples ...

On 10/03/2022 16:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.

... and now in effect you are stating much the same sort of thing about
the UK Parliament, so you have contradicted yourself.

[Java Jive]

On 11/07/2022 14:09, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>>> <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>>
>>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ??? 3x17=51

I think the above subthread has rather proved my original point!

>> Yes.  I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
>> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
>>
>> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
> That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
> common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.

+1

[Indy Jess John]

On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
> Because they see if for the mistake it was.

It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance
agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.

I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
agree to differ on this.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 11/07/2022 14:09, Norman Wells wrote:

I am perfectly capable of doing that sort of arithmetic using my brains,
but the challenge was to use a calculator. It is something I rarely do,
so I had finger trouble.

Jim

[Figaro]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:17:28 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
>Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
>
>Jim
>

Ok but it was a bit awkward!

For the given example it can be done mentally or with paper and pencil
£3 x17 = £51
13s x17 =10x17 +3x17 =221s /20 £11 1s
11p x 17=(1s - 1p) x17 =17s -17p = 15s 7p
so adding it all up
£62 16s 7p

[JNugent]

*You* might agree to that...

[Indy Jess John]

:-D

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 11/07/2022 14:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Because they see if for the mistake it was.
>
> It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
> referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance
> agreement.  Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
> anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.

Remainers simply knew all along that it would be as bad as it has turned
out to be, after it was simply political-economic common sense. Stop
blaming others for your own piss-poor judgement.

> I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
> will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
> agree to differ on this.

We will agree to differ, but that doesn't make you right ...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/08/six-charts-that-show-how-the-uk-economy-is-in-crisis

... or even still part of a majority ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/25/one-year-on-most-voters-say-brexit-has-gone-badly

[MB]

On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:

> True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
> trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people

> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years* of Parliamentary

> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
> MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
> 'democracy' works, and it stinks.

The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get the
"wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.

[Java Jive]

Yet another bigoted anti-EU claim made without a shred of evidence in
support, so I presume, as on all the previous occasions, that you're
just lying.

[Max Demian]

On 11/07/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
>>> trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
>>> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
>>> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
>>> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years*  of Parliamentary
>>> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
>>> MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
>>> 'democracy' works, and it stinks.
>>
>> The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get
>> the "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.
>
> Yet another bigoted anti-EU claim made without a shred of evidence in
> support, so I presume, as on all the previous occasions, that you're
> just lying.

From memory, they did that with Denmark's accession to the EU and RoI's
agreement of Maastricht. (I think they renamed the "agreement" in the
latter case.)

--
Max Demian

[williamwright]

On 11/07/2022 14:24, Robin wrote:
>> If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.
>>
>
> and get short shrift if £3 13s 11d is the price after the half-crown
> discount for buying a baker's dozen or more

I'd continue to barter.

Bill

[Indy Jess John]

Of course it has gone badly. That was the Remainer intention all along.

By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing
constructive to say.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

Didn't they have three goes with Denmark before they got the answer they
wanted?

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 11/07/2022 19:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2022 16:49, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 11/07/2022 14:56, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
>>> referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent
>>> severance agreement.  Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version
>>> to get anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.
>>
>> Remainers simply knew all along that it would be as bad as it has
>> turned out to be, after it was simply political-economic common
>> sense.  Stop blaming others for your own piss-poor judgement.

[snip]

> Of course it has gone badly.  That was the Remainer intention all along.

Paranoid conspiracy theory.

> By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing
> constructive to say.

So why are you making them, as in your other-planet remarks about
Remainers above?

[Java Jive]

On 11/07/2022 17:25, Max Demian wrote:

So that was the Danish government's doing, not the EU's

> and RoI's
> agreement of Maastricht. (I think they renamed the "agreement" in the
> latter case.)

No, you seem to be confused, it ratification of the Lisbon Treaty that
required two Irish referenda, as far as I have been able to discover,
the Maastricht one passed first time. Wrt the former, read the actual
sequence of events here, and note again that this was the Irish
government's doing, not the EU's.

[Java Jive]

On 11/07/2022 19:51, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> Didn't they have three goes with Denmark before they got the answer they
> wanted?

Again, Danish government's doing, not the EU's.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:54:31 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>>> Have you tried multiplying Ł3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?

>>
>> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
>> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
>
>I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
>pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

I've still got mine, and it still works (more or less).

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic
calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
feature of them.

For those who needed it.

When I worked in telly, I recall seeing a catalogue entry for a
"timecode calculator", basically a calculator that could add and
subtract time intervals in hours, minutes, seconds and frames, and
could be set to any of the standard frame rates, 24, 25 or 30, with or
without "drop frame" (for American colour TV), but I never saw anybody
actually use one. All the production assistants seemed to work out
their timings either using pencil and paper, or in their heads.

I guess if you have to do something a certain way, and have to do it a
lot, you simply get used to it.

Rod.

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 07:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic
> calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
> feature of them.

Is "Are You Being Served" where they get an older person in the men's
section and he totals up long lists of £-s-d amounts in his head?

[Indy Jess John]

On 11/07/2022 20:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 19:49, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> Of course it has gone badly.  That was the Remainer intention all along.
>
> Paranoid conspiracy theory.

Or fact, depending on which side you are on.

>
>> By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing
>> constructive to say.
>
> So why are you making them, as in your other-planet remarks about
> Remainers above?
>

Remainers are a class of people; "ad hominem" is a specific person, of
which you and not I have resorted to.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 09:01, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 23:09:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>>>
>>>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
>>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
>>>> (paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
>>>> take precedence.
>>>
>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.

>>>
>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>>> Directive.
>>>
>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and

>>> paper.  No-one I know misses either.  An old family friend found that
>>> after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
>>> previously it had been beyond her.  I use SI units for everything except
>>> distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
>>> so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
>>> were changed, so would I.
>>>
>>> The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
>>> the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
>>> is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
>>> bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
>>>
>>>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>>>
>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
>>> was therefore rightly convicted.
>>>
>> Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
>> was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
>> his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
>>
>> Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the
>> Maastricht Treaty.
>>
>> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
>> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
>> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
>> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
>> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
>> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
>> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
>> of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
>> approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.

>>
>> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
>> legislation passed under duress.
>

> That's how democracy works in UK.
>
>>
>> After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
>> discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
>> important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
>> Parliament, they would still have been operative.
>
> So other than UK going part metric which other regulation is bad?

The one that came to mind first of all was the Working Time Directive.
It was proposed under "Employment" until the UK said they had a veto on
that category, so it was finally passed as a Health and Safety Directive
to which the UK had no veto.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 07:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic
> calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
> feature of them.
>
> For those who needed it.

I was a programmer in the days of £SD and there were standard
subroutines to call for multiplying and dividing money.

Jim

[Andy Burns]

Indy Jess John wrote:

> I was a programmer in the days of £SD

Back when we had a major textiles industry in Leicester, I worked on systems
that variously handled quantities in dozens and/or singles

> and there were standard subroutines to call

ditto, of course knowing which other systems used which units was important

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 21:23:51 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>
>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>
>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
>> where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.
>>

>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>>

>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>

> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.

The UK Government had no choice. The mistake they made was mentioning
the veto during the proposal stage.

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 12/07/2022 09:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 20:35, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 19:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>>> Of course it has gone badly.  That was the Remainer intention all along.
>>
>> Paranoid conspiracy theory.
>
> Or fact, depending on which side you are on.

Facts need to be backed up with evidence, you have provided none, so,
until you do, it's just another paranoid conspiracy theory.

>>> By the way, ad hominem attacks are always a sign you have nothing
>>> constructive to say.
>>
>> So why are you making them, as in your other-planet remarks about
>> Remainers above?
>
> Remainers are a class of people; "ad hominem" is a specific person, of
> which you and not I have resorted to.

It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.

To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the messenger
for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is just
another irrational political religion.

[Andy Burns]

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Figaro wrote:
>
>> £62 16s 7p
>
> I'm sure if we'd kept British money into the age of the electronic
> calculator, the ability to do sums like this would be a standard
> feature of them.
>
> For those who needed it.
>
> When I worked in telly, I recall seeing a catalogue entry for a
> "timecode calculator", basically a calculator that could add and
> subtract time intervals in hours, minutes, seconds and frames, and
> could be set to any of the standard frame rates, 24, 25 or 30

My school calculator handled fractions and could use angles in degrees, minutes
and seconds, If decimalisation had never happened, we'd have calculators that
handled money internally in 1/960th of a pound

[Max Demian]

Barter, or haggle?

--
Max Demian

[Jeff Layman]

On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:

> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.

Has anybody?

I think upthread we've mentioned Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
the UK in terms of having a referendum, but has there ever been an
EU-wide referendum about an EU matter (not just a national referendum
about an EU matter or matter affecting only that state)?

I can't remember one, BICBW. Was there one before the UK joined in 1972?

--

Jeff

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.

Why did "it make" sense?

It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
pounds then why should it concern anyone else?

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.

> Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly
> articles in the DT.


As opposed to the lies in propaganda from Brussels?

I remember years ago when I used to regularly buy a newspaper, there was
a column which regularly found errors in promulgations from the EU.
Their own people did not seem to understand the rules they expected
everyone to obey!

[Java Jive]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003

"Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC is a European Union law Directive and
a key part of European labour law. It gives EU workers the right to:

at least 28 days (four weeks) in paid holidays each year,
rest breaks of 20 minutes in a 6 hour period,
daily rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours;
restricts excessive night work;
at least 24 hours rest in a 7 day period;
a right to work no more than 48 hours per week, unless the member
state enables individual opt-outs.

It was issued as an update on earlier versions from 22 June 2000 and 23
November 1993.[1] Since excessive working time is cited as a major cause
of stress, depression, and illness, the purpose of the directive is to
protect people's health and safety. A landmark study conducted by the
World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization
found that exposure to long working hours is common globally at 8.9%,
and according to these United Nations estimates the occupational risk
factor with the largest attributable burden of disease, i.e. an
estimated 745,000 fatalities from ischemic heart disease and stroke
events alone in 2016.[2] This evidence has given renewed impetus for
maximum limits on working time to protect human life and health."

So let's see how 'bad' this has been in practice, shall we?

In the past, some of the most notoriously over-worked people were junior
hospital doctors, but now ...

https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/articles/european-working-time-directive

"The regulations

These regulations created measures designed to protect the health and
safety of workers and aim to ‘improve health and safety at work by
introducing minimum rules for employees relating to daily and weekly
rest periods, rest breaks, annual leave entitlements, length of working
week, and on night work’.

Some groups of workers were initially excluded from these regulations,
including doctors in training but from August 2004, the provisions of
the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) applied to doctors in
training also. This means ensuring that doctors in training can work
safely and effectively without excessive workloads that might compromise
patient care."

... and more generally ...

https://www.bfwh.nhs.uk/onehr/hr-policies-advice/working-time-directive/

What else?

https://driverhours.co.uk/working-time-directive/

"The Working Time Directive Rules for Drivers:

What is the weekly maximum?

The total number of hours worked cannot exceed 60 hours within any fixed
week.

What is the maximum weekly average?

Over the WTD period, usually 17 or 26 weeks, you must average no more
than 48 hours per week.

I.e. Your hours should be monitored each week for 17 weeks. At which
point you add them all together and divide the total by the amount of
weeks within the period. This result must be no more than 48 hours.

What are the daily driving limits?

You cannot work for more than 6 accumulative hours without a break. As
defined by the Drivers hour’s laws, a break must be at least 15 minutes
in length in order to qualify as a break.

If you are to work between 6 – 9 hours, then you must accumulate 30
minutes of break across your shift."

So this seems to be an example of EU legislation making us all safer
than UK legislation might otherwise have done, and yet you're
complaining about it? Nothing demonstrates the irrationality of the
Brexshit religion greater than that.

And than this ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row

"The Brexit opportunities minister is pushing for the laws carried over
after Brexit to expire by a “cliff-edge” deadline of 23 June 2026,
marking 10 years since the EU referendum."

So what he's trying to do is, regardless of the merit or otherwise of
each and every law, repeal them all by a given deadline.

It's an irrational religion based on divisive populist xenophobia,
always was, and always will be.

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 09:28, Martin wrote:
> Wasn't it because the majority wasn't within the agreed limits? Having
> referendums was the Dutch parliaments decision not the EU's. If UK had set
> similar limits on the Brexit referendum, UK wouldn't have left the EU.

I remember one POTUS (Clinton?) was trying to encourage the UK to stay
in the EU. Someone wondered what Americans would say if a parliament in
Venezuela could produce laws they had to obey, the dollar was replaced
by the Peseta with new Federal Reserve in Panama, a court in Cuba had
supremacy over US courts etc etc.

[Java Jive]

As already pointed out several times, this is how UK 'democracy' works,
so your previous railings against the European Parliament accusing it of
lack of democracy are hypocritical.

[Java Jive]

Because having differing units is a con-man's charter.

[Java Jive]

On 12/07/2022 11:09, MB wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 09:04, Martin wrote:
>>
>> Can you give some examples? I've never voted in an EU referendum.
>> Please say you don't believe all the other lies Boris wrote in his weekly
>> articles in the DT.
>
> As opposed to the lies in propaganda from Brussels?

Yet another EU-phobic claim made without any supporting *EVIDENCE*, so,
until you provide some, we shall assume that, like all the rest, it's
just more lies.

> I remember years ago when I used to regularly buy a newspaper, there was
> a column which regularly found errors in promulgations from the EU.
> Their own people did not seem to understand the rules they expected
> everyone to obey!

So you should be able to provide examples then, but again fail to do so.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <36jnch96sj6mhmchh...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated the
> calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you have a
> machine to do them for you?

It matters if it means you have no real understanding and that makes you
prone to being more easily diddled and mislead.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Phil_M]

On 11/07/2022 17:05, MB wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
>> trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
>> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
>> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
>> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by*years*  of Parliamentary
>> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
>> MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
>> 'democracy' works, and it stinks.
>
> The EU like to work on that principle with referendums, if they get the
> "wrong" result they keep trying until they get the "right" result.

I remember Farage saying that if they didn't win this time, they would
keep pushing for another referendum as soon as possible.

Phil M

[Java Jive]

On 12/07/2022 11:14, MB wrote:
>
> I remember one POTUS (Clinton?) was trying to encourage the UK to stay
> in the EU.  Someone wondered what Americans would say if a parliament in
> Venezuela could produce laws they had to obey, the dollar was replaced
> by the Peseta with new Federal Reserve in Panama, a court in Cuba had
> supremacy over US courts etc etc.

Exactly, irrational xenophobic fear-mongering so typical of supporters
of Brexshit.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:44:48 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <36jnch96sj6mhmchh...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated the
>> calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you have a
>> machine to do them for you?
>
>It matters if it means you have no real understanding and that makes you
>prone to being more easily diddled and mislead.
>
>Jim

Misunderstanding can happen with any system. I remember once
presenting in a shop two items, less than one pound but more than
fifty pence each, and two pound coins to pay for them. I hadn't even
had to think about it in numerical detail, but the till jockey asked
for "two pound something", presumably having miskeyed the amounts, and
it took some time to explain to her why it couldn't be right. The
logic seemed simple to me, but maybe it wasn't obvious to someone who
had become so accustomed to allowing the machinery to do it as to have
abandoned the effort of thinking.

Rod.

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:

> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.

I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
you did make an ad hominem attack.

>
> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the messenger
> for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is just
> another irrational political religion.
>

To use your own words that point of view "needs to be backed up with
evidence, you have provided none".

I know you won't admit you lose, this quote is for the enjoyment of
everybody else, and I will leave the conversation there.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

I think we joined and then had a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in.

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>
> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
> you did make an ad hominem attack.

I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers. If you
don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

>> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>> messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>> just another irrational political religion.
>
> To use your own words that point of view "needs to be backed up with
> evidence, you have provided none".

You don't seem to have noticed that you supply the evidence of that
irrationality with every post you make on the subject.

> I know you won't admit you lose, this quote is for the enjoyment of
> everybody else, and I will leave the conversation there.

Others joining you in thinking that Remainers are the cause of the many
failures of Brexshit may not be quite as guaranteed as you assume: for a
start, it would entail admitting publicly that Brexshit has indeed been
the failure that it has, which is something that the religion's most
devout adherents seem to find very difficult to do.

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 13:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Misunderstanding can happen with any system. I remember once
> presenting in a shop two items, less than one pound but more than
> fifty pence each, and two pound coins to pay for them. I hadn't even
> had to think about it in numerical detail, but the till jockey asked
> for "two pound something", presumably having miskeyed the amounts, and
> it took some time to explain to her why it couldn't be right. The
> logic seemed simple to me, but maybe it wasn't obvious to someone who
> had become so accustomed to allowing the machinery to do it as to have
> abandoned the effort of thinking.
>
> Rod.

That reminds me of a business trip to London, where I arrived at the
station for my train back home to discover it had been cancelled and I
had to wait for the next one. I went along to Burger King and ordered a
hamburger and a cup of coffee. The till was broken. The till jockey (a
great description!) told me the till wasn't working and had 4 goes at
adding two numbers together. Meanwhile my burger and coffee were getting
cold because they wouldn't be handed over until paid for, so after the
4th go I gave the correct amount I should be charged and I handed over a
£5 note. Then there were 3 goes at telling me what change I should get,
none of which were right. Then the tannoy announced my train and what I
was being offered was only 10p too much so I took it and went for my train.

I wondered on the journey home how much money Burger King would have
lost while the till was broken.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 11:06, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2022 08:57, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> because it made sense and govt. agreed with it.
>>
>> Why did "it make" sense?
>>
>> It was only to satisfy bureaucrats, if vendor and customer both prefer
>> pounds then why should it concern anyone else?
>
> Because having differing units is a con-man's charter.
>

Quite! I was brought up to understand pounds and ounces and suddenly
all weights were in kilogrammes and grammes. I also have an old house
where everything is sized in feet and inches and it became a real
problem finding replacements in imperial measures. A door latch
mechanism in metric made the hole for the spindle not quite in the right
place for the existing handle. Mail order from America was my salvation.

I transferred grocery shopping to shops that were wise enough to put
signs on the goods which said how much it was per kilogram but also had
(in smaller characters because that is what the law insisted on) the
equivalent price per pound. I could do the arithmetic in my head but
didn't see why I should have to.

A lot of the independent shops had a conversion chart behind the counter
so that when a customer asked for 3/4 lb of something (mince in the
butcher's for instance) they knew to weigh out 340g on the scales. They
acquired most of the elderly to shop there because "the people serving
knew what they meant".

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>>
>> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting that
>> you did make an ad hominem attack.
>
> I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers.  If you
> don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Hee hee! The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
You are *so* predictable.
>

[Jeff Layman]

Yes, but that comes under the category of "an EU matter affecting only
that state (and carried out by that state)". I don't know of an EU-wide
referendum on any matter - all decisions on such are carried out by the
EU politicians.

--

Jeff

[NY]

"Indy Jess John" <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:tak2hu$22lho$1...@dont-email.me...

> Quite! I was brought up to understand pounds and ounces and suddenly all
> weights were in kilogrammes and grammes. I also have an old house where
> everything is sized in feet and inches and it became a real problem
> finding replacements in imperial measures. A door latch mechanism in
> metric made the hole for the spindle not quite in the right place for the
> existing handle. Mail order from America was my salvation.
>
> I transferred grocery shopping to shops that were wise enough to put signs
> on the goods which said how much it was per kilogram but also had (in
> smaller characters because that is what the law insisted on) the
> equivalent price per pound. I could do the arithmetic in my head but
> didn't see why I should have to.
>
> A lot of the independent shops had a conversion chart behind the counter
> so that when a customer asked for 3/4 lb of something (mince in the
> butcher's for instance) they knew to weigh out 340g on the scales. They
> acquired most of the elderly to shop there because "the people serving
> knew what they meant".

I wish I'd been a decade or so younger, so I was brought up to use metric
units instead of imperial ones for estimating, because calculations all in
base 10 are so much easier than calculations in every base under the sun
except 10.

I have no problem buying in metric rather than imperial. When I used to ask
for "four ounces of sliced ham" I didn't mean 4 +/- 1/100 oz, so converting
that to 110 g was not a problem: I didn't think "I used to ask for 4 ounces,
now I have to ask for 113.4 grammes - what a stupid number" - I simply
rounded it to a sensible equivalent.

If you can do the calculation in our head, rather than having a lookup table
of 1, 2, 3, 4 etc ounces to equivalent in grammes, you are better at mental
arithmetic than I am, but then I've always been crap at mental arithmetic: I
need a pencil and paper (or a calculator).

I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz = 1
pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.


The problem comes when even conversion between two different imperial units
is a non-integer. When I was helping my dad install a hot water cylinder, we
wanted to estimate how heavy it would be. We only had a tape measure
calibrated in inches and we had no calculator. Volume = pi r^2 l - easy
peasy - let's assume pi=3 for a rough answer. OK, so I have a volume in
cubic inches. Now what? How do we convert that to gallons - because we knew
that a gallon of water weighs about 10 lb. Not a f-ing clue, not even to an
order of magnitude. We had to convert the linear measurements to
centimetres, get an answer in cc, divide by 1000 and that's your answer in
kg.

In case you were wondering, there are 277.419 cubic inches in a UK gallon or
231 in a US gallon. Hmm, I'd always thought that a US gallon was *exactly*
4/5 of a UK gallon (16 as opposed to 20 fl oz) - maybe UK and US fl oz are
defined differently. Fancy a system where the conversion between linear and
volumetric measurements is either an obscure integer or an even more obscure
decimal number depending on which side of the Pond you are.


Shops should not be compelled to sell exclusively in metric units, but they
should rely on an ever dwindling proportion of the population who actually
wants to use imperial.

[Max Demian]

Those regulations you have quoted only affect us. We can make our own
that say the same thing or are better (or suit us better).

--
Max Demian

[Java Jive]

Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that right:
I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own ad
hominems. You continue to act like a child. You are *so* predictable.

[Norman Wells]

On 12/07/2022 17:36, NY wrote:

> I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz =
> 1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.

Well, one out of three anyway.

[Java Jive]

They were the UK's implementation of an EU wide directive, and when we
were still part of the EU, they didn't only affect us, but every country
in the EU, as they still do for those countries now - the point was
that EU legislation created both a *safe* and a *level* playing field
for all alike, so that, just as an example, UK bosses could not unfairly
over-exploit their workforce to obtain a competitive advantage for their
products over others originating elsewhere in the EU.

> We can make our own
> that say the same thing or are better (or suit us better).

On the contrary, reread the last point in my post above, the intention
of the most radicalised xenophobes in the government seems to be to junk
them all, regardless of their actual *WORTH*. Note that if we did so,
we'd be likely to incur even greater difficulties in trading with the EU
thereafter, because we would be breaking the aforementioned safe and
level playing field, and this might well be seen as a further breaking
of our agreement with them, over and above the existing intent to break
the NI protocol, and thereby incur increased tariffs in retaliation.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes

>
>To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>just another irrational political religion.
>

What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?

The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.
--
Ian

[Java Jive]

Exactly, but now, as predicted from the start by anyone who understands
anything about politics/economics, the shit's hit the fan, they need
someone else to blame, so they blame the people who told them from the
start just what sort of intractable mess it would turn out to be. The
blaming of Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is simply the latest
brainless irrationality that the whole stinking cesspit has always been
mired by.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes


>
>To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>just another irrational political religion.
>
What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
go badly?

The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
is happening.

--
Ian

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 12:07, Martin wrote:
> The column was written by Boris. The EU kept a public file of te lies he wrote.

I think the newspaper did similar with the lies from Brussels.

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 14:43, Indy Jess John wrote:
> That reminds me of a business trip to London, where I arrived at the
> station for my train back home to discover it had been cancelled and I
> had to wait for the next one. I went along to Burger King and ordered a
> hamburger and a cup of coffee. The till was broken. The till jockey (a
> great description!) told me the till wasn't working and had 4 goes at
> adding two numbers together. Meanwhile my burger and coffee were getting
> cold because they wouldn't be handed over until paid for, so after the
> 4th go I gave the correct amount I should be charged and I handed over a
> £5 note. Then there were 3 goes at telling me what change I should get,
> none of which were right. Then the tannoy announced my train and what I
> was being offered was only 10p too much so I took it and went for my train.

A work colleague's wife worked at a local establishment and was very
familiar with their credit card reader. She was in a shop one day when
the shop assistant was having problems with the credit card reader.

She told her enter something like #12*567 (random number from me as no
idea what was used). It burst back into life, much to the amazement of
the shop assistant!

[MB]

On 12/07/2022 21:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
> go badly?
>
> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
> is happening.

But the people in the EU who fund some of them can arrange for
unnecessary delays etc which can blamed on BREXIT.

I saw news report earlier about the EU building an 8 million euro
bunker. I thought it was going to be the long anticipated EU
Führerbunker but at only 8 million euro, I think it is just an
overpriced SCIF.

[Java Jive]

Like this for example, which paints a rather different picture than you
are implying, and, for The Spectator, is an unusually balanced contribution:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lies-and-liars-of-brexit

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 16:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 14:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2022 13:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/07/2022 10:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hypocrisy whatever else you choose to call it.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that is as near as I am likely to get to you admitting
>>>> that you did make an ad hominem attack.
>>>
>>> I made one about you after you had made one about Remainers.  If you
>>> don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
>>
>> Hee hee!  The usual change of direction to avoid admitting it.
>> You are *so* predictable.
>
> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that right:
> I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own ad
> hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so* predictable.
>

But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of
people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
work of George Boole?

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 12/07/2022 21:51, MB wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 21:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
>> go badly?
>>
>> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
>> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
>> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
>> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
>> is happening.
>
> But the people in the EU who fund some of them can arrange for
> unnecessary delays etc which can blamed on BREXIT.

Again an EU-phobic claim made without supporting evidence, so as usual
will be regarded as a lie until such evidence is provided.

> I saw news report earlier about the EU building an 8 million euro
> bunker.  I thought it was going to be the long anticipated EU
> Führerbunker  but at only 8 million euro, I think it is just an
> overpriced SCIF.

SFA to do with Brexshit.

[Java Jive]

On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
>> right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
>> ad hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so*
>> predictable.
>>
> But ad hominems are against a specific person.

Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.

> I commented on a class of
> people, not an identifiable single person.

So effectively you insulted a whole class of people, most of whom are
unknown to you, and which therefore you can have no justification for
making sweeping assumptions about, let alone blaming them for something
which they cannot possibly have done, all of which is worse than
insulting just one person whose own statements condemn him as being
rather stupid, which is what I did.

> Can I recommend you read the
> work of George Boole?

Can I recommend that you:

1) Learn to admit when you're wrong;
2) Look up the meaning of hypocrisy;
3) Learn to base your views on *EVIDENCE*;
4) Stick to what you said you would do several posts ago, viz:

Stop wasting everyone's time by arguing a point that you cannot possibly
win.

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 20:06, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <tajfuj$20oc3$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes
>
>
>
>>
>> To blame Remainers for the failure of Brexshit is to blame the
>> messenger for the message, and is the surest sign yet that Brexshit is
>> just another irrational political religion.
>>
>
> What I can't understand is how have Remainers been able to make Brexit
> go badly?

The referendum was won by those who wanted Brexit, and if Parliament had
got behind the result, a decent severance would have been possible.
However, Cameron promised to deliver the result of the Referendum
whatever it was, and resigned instead as soon as he found out that the
outcome was not the "Remain" that he expected, and his successor was a
Remainer too. The Remainers had the majority in Parliament, and that
fact encouraged the EU's negotiators to foil attempts to undermine their
control. Thus the Remainers encouraged the EU to be awkward, and they
could block in Parliament the Brexit legislation that the public thought
they would get after winning the referendum. Teresa May was a remainer
tasked with the job of delivering Brexit and she negotiated with an EU
that wanted to punish Britain for daring to want to leave, and so
between them they cobbled together something that the press were
describing as Brexit In Name Only because it didn't break the EU ties,
and they blocked that four times too, and they blocked the "No Deal"
last resort. Effectively they adopted a "The answer is No, whatever the
question" attitude to retain the status quo for as long as possible.
That was the driver for the outcome that Brexit would go badly.

After Teresa May ran out of options and resigned, the leadership contest
was won by Boris, and he managed to get a waiver from Cameron's Fixed
Term Parliament Act by using his right as a newly appointed Prime
Minister to threaten asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and order a
General Election unless he was given permission by Parliament to call a
General Election.

By claiming he had an "oven ready" deal he managed to get a large
majority at the General Election that followed. However, being Boris
his oven ready deal was an exaggeration because negotiating a very
different deal would have taken years, so what he had was just May's
BRINO, with an added concession that the EU and the UK could mutually
agree alterations to it. The EU has refused to amend it at all so no
changes could be agreed. That is why Northern Ireland is nominally part
of the UK but it remains in the EU Customs Union.

>
> The process of Brexit has been (and still is being) handled entirely by
> the Government, which owes its 2019, 80-seat majority to its firmly
> pro-Brexit manifesto. While the Remainers can grumble and criticise till
> they're all blue in the face, they have little or no control over what
> is happening.

What was actually needed was a Parliament with the guts to follow up
Teresa May's mantra that "No Deal is better than a bad deal" and vote
for a No Deal. Britain buys more from the EU than the EU buys from us
so it would have hurt the EU's budget far more than it would have
damaged ours. Faced with that reality the EU would then be trying to
salvage something from the wreckage rather that remaining in the driving
seat. But neither the Remainers in the other parties nor sufficient of
the newly elected Conservatives were prepared to vote for a No Deal, and
that effectively killed some of the benefits that Brexit could have
delivered.

Some benefits have been delivered. Trade Deals have been made with other
countries which would never have been possible under EU rules, and if
the coronavirus pandemic hadn't interfered with world trade that would
have brought a Brexit dividend in cheaper goods in the shops by now. It
was the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine that wrecked that
ideal, not Brexit itself.

The other benefit is that Britain had a Covid vaccine available in bulk
and was delivering it to the UK population long before the EU had a
vaccination policy; and with their "Punish Britain" attitude they
claimed that the Astra Zeneca vaccine was unusable and by buying it and
then refusing to use it they condemned many of their citizens to an
avoidable Covid death, while removing from the market the available
stocks that could have been supplied to poorer countries and so
increased their death rates too.

There are other complications remaining from the half in and half out
situation we are currently in, but the above will give you a flavour of
how we are where we are, and how different it might have been if
Parliament had got wholly behind the referendum decision.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/07/2022 23:27, Java Jive wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 23:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 12/07/2022 17:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeez, you're so fucking incompetent that you can't even get that
>>> right: I ADMITTED IT, stating that it was in retaliation to your own
>>> ad hominems.  You continue to act like a child.  You are *so*
>>> predictable.
>>>
>> But ad hominems are against a specific person.
>
> Surprising as it may seem to you, Remainers are actually people too.

But ad hominems are against *specific* people.

>
>> I commented on a class of people, not an identifiable single person.
>
> So effectively you insulted a whole class of people

Yes I did. But that is *not* an ad hominem attack like the one you
made. Which is what I have said all along, and I say it again.

The Remainers are entitled to their opinions and I support their right
to have them. What I don't support is their continued attempts to
overturn or interfere with a decision made by the majority of those who
responded to the referendum.

Jim

[Owen Rees]

Indy Jess John <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class of
> people, not an identifiable single person. Can I recommend you read the
> work of George Boole?

I found “The Laws of Thought” rather heavy going and I am still only half
way through. I do not remember anything in it that seems relevant to the
current discussion. Did you mean some other work of his?

Other authors have written things that are more relevant I think.
Schopenhauer for example.

[Indy Jess John]

Ted Heath, who took us into "The Common Market" knew at the time that by
joining the UK would eventually be committed to be part of the EU's
united states of Europe model. But the 1972 referendum question was
whether we wanted to stay in "The Common Market" with the trade benefits
that would bring. There was no suggestion of any loss of sovereignty at
that time, it was merely a trade deal, which is why the answer was that

we wanted to stay in.

The EU as it exists today was formed by the Maastricht Treaty. John
Major promised a referendum on any treaty that resulted in a loss of
sovereignty, but he lied!

Jim