Two-Thirty
Jul. 3rd, 2008 11:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksYou know that, when the dentist says: "you might want to take some Nurofen tonight and tomorrow", that you are likely to be in for a pretty unpleasant time. As lines go, it's on a par with "you might experience a little discomfort here".
And so, when I heard those words after the fitting of the lower brace on Tuesday, I was not looking forward to the next couple of days.
Unusually, the main area of aching came from the upper teeth, with the strain on the two back left teeth charged with dragging the canine down its final quarter of an inch, causing protests on a par with a hairy cat being presented with the opportunity to take a large bath.
The bottom teeth at the front are merely reacting with a minor moan when I try to eat.
Indeed, eating is a process requiring significant preparation and willpower. If I don't lose weight over the next couple of days, I doubt that I ever will again.
_____________
Nothing exemplifies the dichotomy of "freedom" and "safety" than Devon & Cornwall Constabulary's response to a planned Facebook-organized party on Torbay beach.
At the heart of this lies a philosophical problem for the police. Just what are they for? Are they there to uphold the law? Or is their purpose something greater? I make no moral judgments here. I just observe that the police themselves (or, rather the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and the police commander of Torbay) seem to have a view that the function of the police is not to uphold the law, but to uphold "order". These are subtly different concepts.
The problem arose when Facebook became abuzz with a planned gathering at Torbay beach. This brought a reaction not far from sheer panic at Devon & Cornwall police, and their first move was to threaten to apply for a 24-hour alcohol ban throughout Torbay (i.e., use the media rather than the courts). I'm not sure what this was meant to achieve, apart from piss off publicans and shopkeepers, but it was enough to bring the matter to national attention. In essence, the police wanted to do something about it because here was a public event over which they had no control. And the police hate the concept of that. It contravenes their concept of "order". Any gathering needs to be organised.
Unfortunately, there's no law in the UK that states this has to be the case. The law in question is the Public Order Act of 1986. This refders to all marches as "processions" and gatherings as "assemblies".
Now, this is where it gets interesting and you have to wonder whether English law might be treading close to contravening the European Convention of Human Rights. The 1986 Act defines a public assembly as being of 20 persons or more. However, the Anti Social Behaviour Act of 2003 (Section 59) reduces this number from 20 to, er, two. Yup, if you and your mate are standing in a park talking about the weather, this constitutes a gathering that is subject to the Public Order Act.
Wat rights do the Police have under this legislation? Well, quite a lot, actually. Prior to 1994, although the police had a power under the Public Order Act to impose conditions on static assemblies, and to use their general legal powers to preserve the peace to stop an assembly from taking place, there was no formal power to prohibit assemblies in advance.
This wasn't good enough for the police, so in 1994 we got sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act. Trying to avoid the legalese into which any discussion of the law tends to fall, this essentially gave a police officer power to apply to the council to ban a "trespassory assembly", consent to which needed to be signed by the Home Secretary.
But none of this seems to apply to a beach party. Indeed, the legal grounds for Chief Supt Chris Singer saying that "This planned event is an illegal gathering and there are serious concerns for public safety," strike me as spurious. It isn't a demonstration, it isn't a trespassory assembly, and it could only be defined as "riot" if "12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose, where the conduct of those persons (taken together) would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for his personal safety" (1986 Act, section 1).
All of this is irrelevant in practical terms, because the organisers of the event caved, and cancelled the party. Which is a pity. Because although the D&C Constabulary threatened to apply for an alcohol ban, they didn't actualy do so. And although Singer said that it was an illegal gathering, he didn't say exactly why or how. If it had been tested in the courts (and, if the courts had backed the police, if it had been taken to the European Court of Human Rights) we might have got a decent ruling on what are and what are not the rights of peaceful assembly on public property.
______________________
And so, when I heard those words after the fitting of the lower brace on Tuesday, I was not looking forward to the next couple of days.
Unusually, the main area of aching came from the upper teeth, with the strain on the two back left teeth charged with dragging the canine down its final quarter of an inch, causing protests on a par with a hairy cat being presented with the opportunity to take a large bath.
The bottom teeth at the front are merely reacting with a minor moan when I try to eat.
Indeed, eating is a process requiring significant preparation and willpower. If I don't lose weight over the next couple of days, I doubt that I ever will again.
_____________
Nothing exemplifies the dichotomy of "freedom" and "safety" than Devon & Cornwall Constabulary's response to a planned Facebook-organized party on Torbay beach.
At the heart of this lies a philosophical problem for the police. Just what are they for? Are they there to uphold the law? Or is their purpose something greater? I make no moral judgments here. I just observe that the police themselves (or, rather the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and the police commander of Torbay) seem to have a view that the function of the police is not to uphold the law, but to uphold "order". These are subtly different concepts.
The problem arose when Facebook became abuzz with a planned gathering at Torbay beach. This brought a reaction not far from sheer panic at Devon & Cornwall police, and their first move was to threaten to apply for a 24-hour alcohol ban throughout Torbay (i.e., use the media rather than the courts). I'm not sure what this was meant to achieve, apart from piss off publicans and shopkeepers, but it was enough to bring the matter to national attention. In essence, the police wanted to do something about it because here was a public event over which they had no control. And the police hate the concept of that. It contravenes their concept of "order". Any gathering needs to be organised.
Unfortunately, there's no law in the UK that states this has to be the case. The law in question is the Public Order Act of 1986. This refders to all marches as "processions" and gatherings as "assemblies".
Now, this is where it gets interesting and you have to wonder whether English law might be treading close to contravening the European Convention of Human Rights. The 1986 Act defines a public assembly as being of 20 persons or more. However, the Anti Social Behaviour Act of 2003 (Section 59) reduces this number from 20 to, er, two. Yup, if you and your mate are standing in a park talking about the weather, this constitutes a gathering that is subject to the Public Order Act.
Wat rights do the Police have under this legislation? Well, quite a lot, actually. Prior to 1994, although the police had a power under the Public Order Act to impose conditions on static assemblies, and to use their general legal powers to preserve the peace to stop an assembly from taking place, there was no formal power to prohibit assemblies in advance.
This wasn't good enough for the police, so in 1994 we got sections 70 and 71 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act. Trying to avoid the legalese into which any discussion of the law tends to fall, this essentially gave a police officer power to apply to the council to ban a "trespassory assembly", consent to which needed to be signed by the Home Secretary.
But none of this seems to apply to a beach party. Indeed, the legal grounds for Chief Supt Chris Singer saying that "This planned event is an illegal gathering and there are serious concerns for public safety," strike me as spurious. It isn't a demonstration, it isn't a trespassory assembly, and it could only be defined as "riot" if "12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose, where the conduct of those persons (taken together) would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for his personal safety" (1986 Act, section 1).
All of this is irrelevant in practical terms, because the organisers of the event caved, and cancelled the party. Which is a pity. Because although the D&C Constabulary threatened to apply for an alcohol ban, they didn't actualy do so. And although Singer said that it was an illegal gathering, he didn't say exactly why or how. If it had been tested in the courts (and, if the courts had backed the police, if it had been taken to the European Court of Human Rights) we might have got a decent ruling on what are and what are not the rights of peaceful assembly on public property.
______________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-03 09:02 pm (UTC)Here's a poker question for you to ponder. It doesn't affect you because you have a main income. I was thinking of all those so-called "poker professionals", the full-timers who have cast aide rationality to live a dream. Especially, the pluggers online and in the smaller cardrooms.
With the economy going TU and at least rampant inflation or stagflation round the corner, I was wondering how these full-timers plan on keeping their heads above water.
After all, poker game ROI does not inflate. A $3-$6 or $10 NL or whatever does not offer more return than past years. In real terms, such poker games earn you less and less in real terms year on year because of expense inflation.
To make more money to make ends meet, you either have to take more risks at your usual level with the attendant increase in variance until you take on a a bank busting level of risk. Alternatively, you have to move up the levels whereupon you hit another barrier in that you don't have the typical bankroll to cover the limit.
Would be interesting to hear what others think. My guess is that the so-called full-timers are not immune from the realities and, all of a sudden, a steady job (no matter how dull) offers security over precarious lifestyle.
Rainy days ahead. Old age beckons. Penniless souls who couldn't keep up with inflation.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-04 11:36 am (UTC)Poker inflation
Date: 2008-07-04 12:43 pm (UTC)1) With, in your words, the economy going tits up, it becomes harder to make a living playing poker. But it becomes harder every where else as well. This is probably self-balancing. If a player could make $20K a year last year but could make $30K somewhere else doing something equally enjoyable, then he would change jobs. This year, he's only making $10K a year playing poker but can make $15k a year at the other job. So, he still changes jobs.
Alternatively, if last year he could make $30K at poker and $20K at the other job, he would stick to poker. This year (because there is less money about), he can only make $15K at poker, but his prospects in the other job have dropped to $10k. So, once again, he sticks to poker. Although net income falls, opportunity cost across the whole economy doesnn't change. Like everyone else, your standard of living declines.
2) Now, on the inflation point, it's a general fact that the quality of player is a function of average income. So a £100 buy-in game today is about the same quality as a £20 buy-in game in 1979. The only problem with this is that inflation is a smooth process, whereas poker levels are discrete. The net result is that you end up playing at a "lower" level than you were playing (in real terms) for some time, before taking the "leap" to the next level. The averagge quality of your opponent remains constant, but you spend long periods with the average declining slightly until you have to jump to the next level to try to maintain the same income level. Then the average quality of opponents jumps suddenly, only to recommence a long slow decline because of the impact of inflation.
I might point out that the quality of the $100 buy-in has definitely declined at euro-centric sites in the period that the euro has strengthened significantly against the dollar.
PJ
Re: Poker inflation
Date: 2008-07-04 01:12 pm (UTC)I had thought out the same answer to 1) overnight.
In answer to 2), is game buy-in a smooth (inflation tracking) progression? As far as cardrooms are concerned I don't think the £100 buy-in I remember at Russell Square in the late 90s has increased at whatever cardrooms are available now. So, if you were earning X pounds per week in 1998 then 10 years later you are earning X-inflation today.
Buy-ins don't progress with inflation. There are no £125.50p buy-ins but a jump to £250 (which was already available in the 90s), which may be a jump too far.
Another thing of note are the older players, those who "make a living" only from poker and betting. A certain Scotsman with false teeth comes to mind, who always looked rather shabby and obviously looked as though inflation had eaten into his lifestyle over the decades.
Certainly, these days poker is a young person's game. Partly because of the media portraying it as a glamorous thing to do and probably also because (all things being equal) there comes a time when lack of a house, pension and medical insurance weighs upon the player.
Think of all those old boys who played in the early LNP tournaments. They are not on TV now partly because they are not glamorous looking but also because I think they have moved on to more certain income streams.
PS - I am not being sponsored by Gamblers Anon.