(June 24, 2016 at 10:45 am)madog Wrote: You can advertise a straw, which can be used to snort cocaine, you can even advertise it ...

?? What kind of logic is that?  You can also advertise cars, which can be used to drive to a cocaine dealer.  You can also advertise wallets, which can be used to hold money with which to buy cocaine.  You can also advertise mirrors, which can also be used as a surface for cocaine snorting.

What's the point of your statement?

(June 24, 2016 at 10:42 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 10:36 am)madog Wrote: Commercial communication is a very broad term .... as Google and others are finding out .... You write about a product and communicate it, it is a commercial communication ..... What you should be looking at is the word "promote" 

Note the term commercial communication isn't set in stone and is being raised in many cases that involve legislation from European Directives on information society's 

If every one just looked at Directives and legislation and said Oh look at those two words we are OK we would soon be in the shit 

If you look at the post I just made, you'll see that on the UK government website explaining the legislation, writing about a product is not commercial communication, unless it's written about in a promotional way (that is, with the aim of selling it). Plus, reviews / discussions are exempt from the laws.

You are fear mongering over a non-issue.

If you look further the UK have, in their own words, tried to introduce the EU directives in a soft a touch manner as possible ..... but the actual legislation is as harsh as the EU directed, they just intend to implement it as soft as possible ....

When I was in high school I loved the idea of government by referendum. I soon came to hate it when I realized elected representatives were using it to duck accountability on politically charged decisions and that votes were determined by money and campaigns which appealed to voter's emotions. I routinely vote against any referendum issue (and we get a lot of them in California), unless it is something really pressing which I fear the gutless cowards in the state house will fail to deal with otherwise. Spineless bastards.

(June 24, 2016 at 10:47 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 10:45 am)madog Wrote: You can advertise a straw, which can be used to snort cocaine, you can even advertise it ...

?? What kind of logic is that?  You can also advertise cars, which can be used to drive to a cocaine dealer.  You can also advertise wallets, which can be used to hold money with which to buy cocaine.  You can also advertise mirrors, which can also be used as a surface for cocaine snorting.

What's the point of your statement?

Exactly ... An electronic cigarette isn't only used for nicotine, it is just a device like a car .... It in fact has other uses, one of which is vaping liquid without nicotine ....

(June 24, 2016 at 10:50 am)madog Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 10:47 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: ?? What kind of logic is that?  You can also advertise cars, which can be used to drive to a cocaine dealer.  You can also advertise wallets, which can be used to hold money with which to buy cocaine.  You can also advertise mirrors, which can also be used as a surface for cocaine snorting.

What's the point of your statement?

Exactly ... An electronic cigarette isn't only used for nicotine, it is just a device like a car

(June 24, 2016 at 10:47 am)madog Wrote: If you look further the UK have, in their own words, tried to introduce the EU directives in a soft a touch manner as possible ..... but the actual legislation is as harsh as the EU directed, they just intend to implement it as soft as possible ....

If a law can be implemented "as soft as possible" without any backlash from the EU, then it's not a harsh regulation. Harsh regulations would be ones which are mandated to be implemented in a particular way, not ones which use wishy-washy language that member countries are free to interpret however they want.

(June 24, 2016 at 10:42 am)TubbyTubby Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 10:38 am)robvalue Wrote: I think I heard something about the taxpayer.

Drama tax now.

Ooh heck, don't like the sound of that. I pay enough as it is and £250B split between us would be a bit of a kick in the nuts.

Interestingly, not heard anything from Georgie O today.

I hope I'm wrong about that. But other than just printing money, I don't know what the plan is. They could always sell off the... no, they already did that. What about the... sold! Shit.

Get this!

Post Brexit, UKIP wants tariff-free access to EU single market

Is this for real?!

(June 24, 2016 at 10:52 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 10:47 am)madog Wrote: If you look further the UK have, in their own words, tried to introduce the EU directives in a soft a touch manner as possible ..... but the actual legislation is as harsh as the EU directed, they just intend to implement it as soft as possible ....

If a law can be implemented "as soft as possible" without any backlash from the EU, then it's not a harsh regulation. Harsh regulations would be ones which are mandated to be implemented in a particular way, not ones which use wishy-washy language that member countries are free to interpret however they want.

Take that up with the UK government not me .... They have implemented the EU directive word for word virtually and stated they will implement it in a soft touch manner?

The problem is that is OK until the government change 

(June 24, 2016 at 10:48 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: When I was in high school I loved the idea of government by referendum.  I soon came to hate it when I realized elected representatives were using it to duck accountability on politically charged decisions and that votes were determined by money and campaigns which appealed to voter's emotions.  I routinely vote against any referendum issue (and we get a lot of them in California), unless it is something really pressing which I fear the gutless cowards in the state house will fail to deal with otherwise.  Spineless bastards.

I see your point WTW, but I like the referendum voting.  While yes it does take the "accountability" from the representative, I view it more as this issue is so divided and has far reaching impact that it must be left to the people to decide.  How many issues or decisions are made by our representatives that we wish we had a say in?  There are some bills that are passed that are widely unpopular but because the party of representatives has a majority it was able to pass.  The system has flaws but I applaud the referendums that leave the decisions in the hand of the voters that are impacted as opposed to the representatives who "represent" themselves.