@koiwaicoffee Edano was never in the LDP. Maybe you're mixing him up with Ichiro Ozawa or Yukio Hatoyama
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"the odds are no worse than before the accident. It is illogical to say it was acceptable before 2011 and unacceptable after."
The anti-nuclear people's thought is that the people were wrongly assessing the odds before 2011. If they'd known the actual probability they wouldn't have wanted the nuclear power stations running then, either.
That said, the fact that people have revised their view of the probability of an accident makes the actual probability of an accident (as opposed to the perceived probability) lower after 2011 than it was before, because people will be trying harder to avoid one.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
@taj, I don't know about the situation when they first opened the account but Mizuho must have known for a long time that they were dealing with a bitcoin exchange, because they were doing huge amounts of remittances for them. I heard (can't confirm it's true) that at one point half of all Mizuho's international remittances were for Gox. But running a bitcoin exchange isn't illegal, and the FSA seem to have said quite clearly, both before and after the bankruptcy, that Gox didn't need a banking license to do what they were doing. Whether or not we think that's the right position for the FSA to take, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Mizuho to take their word for it.
Based on the recording that got leaked it seems like the eventual attempt to shut the account down was prompted by: 1) US banks giving them trouble over their remittances. 2) A minor money-laundering thread that came out of the Silk Road investigation, which involved people with accounts at Gox and resulted in a high-profile arrest.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
They should adjust the prefectural boundary to move Shirakawa out of Fukushima into Tochigi, that way all the people who are worrying about eating food from there would be happy and safe.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
@wipeout, if you're directly affected by this you might want to talk to your local paper as well. Every local paper in the UK would probably be quite happy to run a story on the lines of this one, but with the names and pictures changed to those of a local person who went to local school X etc etc etc.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I've thought this all along; the irony of targetting people from a "rich" country like Japan to keep out, married to BRITISH citizen...
Actually that doesn't quite capture the full irony of it, which is that the policy is keeping out the British citizens too, and the British citizens it keeps out will be counted in the numbers Cameron uses to "prove" the success of his policy...
5 ( +5 / -0 )
@wipeout, You probably have a constituency where you were last registered, or where your family lives. You could write to either of them - they won't know how long you've been outside the UK, and I doubt they'd check the electoral register either, as they have better things to do and people come on and off it between elections in any case. There's no rule about who's allowed to write to what MP, and even if they don't want your vote they'll want your family's votes.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
@sushilover, it may not be possible for the UK to close the Surinder Singh route. The ability to move around within the EU with your family is a core part of the single market. The UK can't do anything like that unless it leaves the EU, and probably the EEA too.
As I mentioned up-thread, one of the main reasons the UK government are hitting families from outside the EU so hard is that it's one of the only migration categories that they can actually do anything about.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
What's happened here is that David Cameron wanted to look like they were doing something about immigration, so he made a target based on net immigration, ie the difference between the number of people coming in and the number going out. The hitch is that he hardly has control of any of the things he'd made a target about, because the main drivers are British people retiring to warmer, cheaper countries and EU people coming into Britain to work, which can't be restricted because the UK is in the Single Market. People were probably imagining that he'd be stopping low-wage people from poor, non-EU countries moving to Britain to work, but Gordon Brown had already done that back in 2008 when he realized the immigration issue was killing him with working class voters, so there wasn't much low-hanging fruit left for Cameron to pick.
That meant the new rules had to fall on the very limited number of people he could control, people coming in from outside the EU with their families. Cases like the one described here are a big win for David Cameron, because his net immigration numbers include the British person and both the kids, so he's keeping four people out of the numbers he'll fight the election on.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
OK, I'm going to have a go at answering kurisupisu's questions.
Where is the logic in once again sending plumes of radioactive material up into the air,this time over the WHOLE of Japan?
The logic is that they're stuck with absolutely masses of very slightly radioactive debris from the tsunami, which has to go somewhere, and they don't have enough landfill space for it.
Where is it the accepted scientific practice of spreading radioactive material (that is already on the ground) in aerial emissions, after a nuclear disaster to wider areas?
The accepted scientific practice is that you set limits for how much radiation it's safe to emit, and if the stuff you want to burn is below those limits, as it is here, it's OK to burn it.
Why is it necessary for radioactive material to be spread in the air to fall on crops,be ingested and breathed in?
Because the radioactive material is mixed with the debris, which they need to get rid of.
How can it be the duty of the Japanese to allow themselves to become contaminated,become ill and suffer birth defects when there is no need?
That's not going to happen, because they won't put enough radioactive material in the air. The duty of areas that weren't clobbered by the tsunami is to help the areas that were.
In Japan, if I by chance receive a related illness due to radioactivity I may be denied treatment by a hospital! This is happening at present, and will continue?
If we become sick due to radiation poisoning where are the specialists to treat the people?
You're not going to get sick due to radiation poisoning.
Blending radioactive debris (why?) and then incinerating it will still produce the same emissions into the environment!
Why has the government ignored expert opinion on the dangers of doing this from their own scientists?
What is the redress for illnesses due to radioactivity spread by these burnings?
You don't need redress for something that isn't going to happen.
-5 ( +4 / -9 )
Snarking at the author aside, Olympus's problems seemed to start when their career optics-company managers weren't making enough money making optics products, and let a bunch of financial whizzes from Nomura Shoken through the door.
I wonder if a lot of their problems, and the economic problems the rest of the world has had over the last few years, don't come down to too much power being given to people who are experts in things called "Business" and "Finance" and not enough to people who are experts in the thing their company is actually supposed to be making.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
At least one of the people who just got arrested for his role in he Olympus fraud went to business school. Hisashi Mori, the guy who took Woodford's phone off him and told him to get the bus to the airport, went to NYU Stern in the US. And somewhere called Hitotsubashi in Japan, which the writer of this article may have heard of.
But maybe they've revised the curriculum since then?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Long-term planning is important, but if your renewable targets are based on things happening in 2030 after all the people involved in spending money on them have retired, that's a good sign you're not taking the thing seriously.
Unbundle production and distribution and let solar producers get power to customers? No.
Multi-decade boondoggles to PUT SOLAR PANELS IN SPACE? Of course.
1 ( +2 / -1 )