Loz

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Correction Rendel > > Northern Ireland is not part of Britain. It is > part of the United Kingdom. As such, technically, > NI citizens cannot be British although > geographically they reside within the British > Isles On that basis, neither can people on the Isle of Wight, Hebrides, Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair points, but they assume Corbyn will let them > - they need the agreement of Labour to get to 66%. Not true. There are two way to force an election: a) get 66% agreement b) pass a vote of no confidence in the government. So the Tories could attach a vote of no confidence to a bill in a "pass it or we have an election" scenario. Which is why I always thought Corbyn was silly in agreeing to an election, as he would have forced the Tories to pass a vote of no confidence in themselves.

(one quick post...!) Best result possible. The Tories' hard Brexit is dead (maybe even Brexit itself), but Corbyn's irresponsible spending plans don't see the light of day either. Lib Dems back in (partial) control of the balance of power. May will be gone soon. If she doesn't go voluntarily, then she'll be pushed. Labour still don't have a lot to celebrate. In footballing terms, they were expected to lose 10-nil, but they only lost 5-nil. They question is: have they peaked? If the Tories were gamblers, they'd stand back and let Corbyn take over, because it is going to be an utter shambles for whoever moves into No 10. But I suspect Tory gambling days are over for a while... Unlike the others here, I can see us back to the polls within a year or so. All it takes is for whoever gets the reins of power to turn a commons vote into a vote of no confidence and we're back to the booths. Governing with a minority government is difficult, if not impossible.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't seen Loz for a while..... Still occasionally lurking, but I've been flat out juggling a number things for the past few weeks with barely a moment to myself, so I banned myself from posting on the EDF as it can be such a time thief, and I had none to spare. Annoyed at missing the cut and thrust of the pre-election, but needs must. Having an election night off, so I may get a few posts in, but I still have another week or so of self-banishment.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used the word abject poverty on purpose - going > to bed hungry may be a 'relative' measure to you > but it is reality to the hungry person. But 'abject' is a meaningless, undefined phrase, especially as you then used the stats for relative poverty. And 'relative' does not necessarily indicate someone is "going to bed hungry". That would be 'absolute poverty'. But I suspect you well know that using 'absolute' would disprove your initial argument that "it is not true to say that they have delivered a decline in hunger", since absolute poverty in the UK has roughly halved over the past 20 years.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is not true to say that they have delivered a > decline in hunger - there are over 4 million > children still in abject poverty in this country, Correction: in relative poverty. A measure that arguably doesn't actually measure poverty and is just about impossible to solve. More importantly, whilst 'relative poverty' has stayed fairly constant over the past two decades, 'absolute poverty' has been falling steadily. For instance, if over the next year we have a boom and managed to doubled every household's wage/salary, there would still be about 4m children in 'relative poverty'. If we doubled it again the following year, we'd still have the same problem. The 'absolute poverty' figure would drop, though. Ironically, the last time the 'relative poverty' figure dropped significantly? The year following the 2008 crash. The reason? Because we all got poorer. If that's not a glaring fault in the measure, what is? > Of course the 'capitalists' [vultures] will scream & yell that they will go away & take their investment with them - good riddance. Because when there are no jobs and nobody has anything to eat, that is one of the few times 'relative poverty' could actually fall to zero.

I wish that would happen, jaywalker, but sadly I just can't see it coming to fruition.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > angel_lemarchand Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz > > I'm a professional photographer and I have to > > carry consent forms and get them signed to > release > > photographs of members of the public. It's also > > expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). > I > > am getting tired of people waving cameras and > > phones in my/ other people's faces as they > please. > > Good for you - but you don't have to get consent > to take photos of people in a public place. This > is not a police matter. They have much better > things to do than mediate the squabbles of > misinformed dog lovers and camera-wielding dog > moaners. Careful DKB, pointing out that the OP is wrong and perhaps should know the law concerning their profession apparently constitutes 'passive aggressive behaviour'. Presumably this is based in the same logic that says pointing a camera at someone in a public place constitutes a criminal offence.

angel_lemarchand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz > I'm a professional photographer and I have to carry consent forms and get them signed to release > photographs of members of the public. It's also expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). I > am getting tired of people waving cameras and phones in my/ other people's faces as they please. Yes, but you wish to use the photos for commercial reasons, which changes things as far as the law is concerned, but even then there are many limitations (else every press photographer would have an almost impossible job). If you are taking them on a commercial basis, you need no consent in a public place. Nor can you stop them posting them to social media. You might get them on libel, depending on context. You might get them on a charge of harassment. But trying to get someone charged with taking a photo of you in a public place will get pretty short shrift. As you are a professional photographer, I'm really surprised you don't know this.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For example, if you post a pic of your colleague being drunk at a festival, and it leads to them losing > their job, then you could be held liable for damages. I'm not sure that's a great example, Saffron. I can't believe that would stand up in court.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You do know that Cameron/Osborne borrowed ?555 billion between 2010 and 2016, while Labour > borrowed ?430 billion in the previous thirteen years? This is true, though it is also worth noting that Labour borrowed ?230m of that ?430m in the last two years of their term.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is true the Tories borrowed more. > > if we're going to be objective.... Oh dear. Richard Murphy is the king of dodgy numbers. Take this doozy... http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/05/17/the-only-way-to-cut-government-debt-is-to-increase-government-spending-2/ Here he argues that giving a newly unemployed private sector person a made-up public sector job is pretty much cost free. The first person commenting spots the major error straight away, but Murphy soldiers on. There are quite a few more minor mistakes as well, like including child benefit on one side, but not the other. This article seemed to make a disappearance from his site for a few years. I am rather pleased it is back. He is also the man behind the original, infamous 'huge tax gap' calculation. Here he takes the cunning route of taking HMRC numbers and multiplying them by various random numbers and coming up with a really big number. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/22/new-report-the-tax-gap-is-119-4-billion-and-rising/ Frankly, I wouldn't trust him calling out numbers in a church hall bingo game. "And the next number is ... two little ducks... forty three thousand two hundred and eighty six"

If you do call the police, they will (or, at least, should) only tell you that people photographing you in a public place is entirely legal.

I've just read the 'leaked' manifesto. I think Corbyn has actually given up. He seems to have gone for the old 90's Lib Dem strategy of 'let's just chuck any old s*** in - we're not going to get elected so we'll never have to actually implement any of crap anyway'.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sharply rising energy bills (the cap causing a collapse in > investment) I don't think it will. They are only capping the standard variable rate, so what it will do is put the energy price up of anyone who has been smart enough to switch suppliers on a regular basis.

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's not going to end well > > > > And will get worse as the Tories will push through the revised constituency boundaries when/if they > get back in. It will be more of an uphilll struggle then. To be fair, they are currently rather unfairly biased towards Labour. Under the current boundaries, Labour can get a majority with a significantly smaller vote share. (Let's not get into the weaknesses of FPTP). I'm not actually sure why the government of the day gets any say in this, anyway. The Boundaries Commission should be completely independent.

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am no xenophobe. ... and yet you seem to have it in for certain investors on the basis that they are not from this country. > In deference to your comments I have amended my text to "Inward Investment". Is that OK? Not really. That's just a synonym. It would be a bit like UKIP changing all their literature from 'immigrants' to 'people who travel from other places to live here'. It's kind of missing the point. I'm still at a loss as to why you seemed determined to pin all the blame on foreigners... sorry, 'inward investors'.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except unlikely though it may be both Tories and > LibDems could make inroads in that majority and > nothing can be taken for granted these days. The > more you're trying to persuade me otherwise, the > more stubborn I'm becoming! Ha, ha! I suspect that if you are prepared to hold your nose in June and vote for Corbyn's Labour, you'll always vote Labour, no matter how good the arguments against it are.

But you are in a constituency that will, barring the Tory getting a 30%+ swing, re-elect your MP. So, as far as seats go, your vote is pretty much useless.

So why did you use the phrase 'foreign investment'? Those pesky foreigners and all that?

It's not a matter of seats; it's a matter of vote share. If the Lib Dem vote share jumps - especially in London - that is the message. Look at the hassle UKIP increasing its vote share to 14-15% caused. Imagine if the Lib Dems started polling 20% in urban areas. And anyway, never say never ... look at what happened in the Richmond by-election - a 23,000 majority overturned. It can be done.

Honestly, nxjen, if you are anti-Brexit I just can't see how you could vote for anyone other than the Lib-Dems. I agree Farron is not inspiring at all but, frankly, none of the leaders are, are they? But a good showing for the Lib Dems would send the message that there is still a lot of support for staying in Europe. A vote for Labour doesn't send that message. And a vote for Labour is, sadly, a vote for Corbyn and increases his chances of staying Labour leader after the election.

Interesting that you should pick up on 'foreign' investment. Because home grown investment companies would have done it differently? All sounds a bit UKIPish to me.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Borky Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I think I will depart now. > > > > > > It is quote shocking how uninspired the > > responses > > > are these days. > > > > "These days"? You've only been on here since > last September! > > Probably a well-known multi-poster-reincarnate... And one that rhymes with the current name, I'd guess.

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The circle is complete. My work here is done. You keep promising that. Yet you are still here.