Loz

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really don't know what the Labour Party stands for any more. Well, that is less contentious, at least. As a guess, its main stance is being firmly and steadfastly against getting elected.

Well, I generally prefer to examine what was actually said, rather than who they are. Play the ball and not the man, so to speak. Many people say stuff to entirely for effect and to get people offended, quite a few of them in the Labour party (and other parties, of course). Not a pleasant personality trait, but hardly unusual. It's a basic 'skill' for just about every newspaper columnist and many political campaigners on both the left and the right. But as you asked before, robbin, had he said similar remarks about other groups, what would have been the reaction? You asked about black people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex white van drivers? I suspect there would be wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on the group in question. What makes some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not?

I still don't see this as being 'antisemetic' as such. He expressed a view on history. Maybe not quite historically correct, and maybe not completely correct. Certainly not politically correct. But was it actually abusive? Where does an allowable, different view on history end and antisemitism start? It's not as if he has denied the Holocaust happened. I don't agree with Ken at all, but I have to go with Voltaire and ask: what ever happened to freedom of speech?? And, to quote the usual response to this, this is hardly shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. The caveat here is that Ken has actually said some rather unpleasant stuff about Jews in the past.

Though as the incident has passed, it will be one child's word against another.

I probably shouldn't laugh at this, but some train driver's rather batty mum gets interviewed by the local rag for reasons I can't quite comprehend. Obviously an extraordinarily slow news day in Hertfordshire. He's going to cop a hell of a ribbing if the boys at the depot work out who he is... http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/140mph-virgin-train-set-for-hertfordshire-lines-is-dangerous-says-the-mother-of-one-of-the-drivers/story-30241431-detail/story.html

London is the biggest city in Britain. After that it depends how you look at it. Greater Manchester is bigger than Greater Birmingham, but Birmingham is bigger than Manchester. Of course, that also depend on how you consider London. London is generally seen as one city, but the City of London itself is tiny.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To give you the benefit of doubt Loz, I can with a rational hat on, see why the EU might be wise no > to take sides in an international dispute over sovereignty. > > But don't forget what we're dealing with here - a body that ordered the plunder of People's bank > accounts in Cyprus. > > Say no more Well, I certainly didn't that little tangent coming...

Quids, I know you are *really* stretching this to try and make this more than it is, but it just not the same. Border controls are not the same as forcing people to move countries. ETA: what is jaywalker on about?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway nice to see the good old EU using > Gibraltans as bargaining chips - where's the > outrage EDF or are we inconsistent and > hypocritical in our hate on this sort of > disgusting behaviour - moral high ground lost EU > (not a surprise given their form/integrity though) Gibraltar itself itself is not on the table, just the border with Spain, no? And considering Spain has been a law unto itself as far as the Gibraltan border is concerned even whilst Britain has been in the EU, surely this is just business as usual anyway?

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu, Wales voted for Brexit. > > God knows why. I think malumbu was going for some sort of irony. But, if that wasn't the case, so did Cornwall. And then they was shocked to find Brexit means they have lost ?60m worth of annual EU finding.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You do know that's a Photoshop amendment of the > Leave bus, not a real bus?! Ha ha. I can't believe someone had to actually say this.

I'd add: Goal 3: No trade deal talks until the issue of the exit cash has been finalised.

Just parking this here....

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whats happening is the EU is taking the lead on setting the agenda here. Have they not heard of > conceding minor points to win the big ones :) And, after a week of dithering by May, the EU is today taking the lead on establishing the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lloyds of London (NOT to be confused with Lloyds > > bank)is a bunch of insurance brokers sitting in a > > building in the square mile- where they work from > > does not matter. All that matters is that the > > 'names' underwrite the risks. The building is > > horrible and started the trend of vile > > architecture dominating the London skyline > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London > > I don't suppose anybody did confuse them with > Lloyds Bank, do you? However, to say that from > where the brokers do their work doesn't matter is > nonsense: the average broker salary at Lloyds is > around ?150,000, so for every one they send abroad > that's around a ?60,000 loss to the UK exchequer. > OK, they're only planning to send around a hundred > to Brussels at present, so that's "only" ?6M in > lost tax/NI revenue, but if that's replicated > across the city we're talking many billions lost > in direct revenue, plus their purchasing power. It > matters rather a lot, the UK economy is heavily > shored up by London's position as one of the > world's most important financial hubs, when they > go elsewhere we all lose out. Not to mention a *lot* of jobs lost. Both directly and indirectly.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I might be wrong, but I thought the "ridiculous scaremongering" was referring to when we leave > rather than when we vote/trigger. True, though the collapse in the value of the pound was pretty immediate following the vote. But bad stuff is happening already in the wake of the triggering of Article 50. Today, Lloyds announce 1 in 7 jobs are off to Brussels. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39441035

The generally accepted rule is, if there are fewer people in your property than there are bedrooms, you probably will be better off with a water meter.

If it pops out of a drawer, can you still move it in front of the TV?

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > > I'd happily own up to 3b. And not being British > > or Irish, that's a view from a relative neutral. > > Unfortunately I have to say, also relatively uninformed. You watched nothing from the other > side of the planet - you probably saw selected snippets & read carefully sanitized bits & pieces > in the Murdoch & Black dominated press that served their Wall Street & other money centre masters > well. Please don't try to tell my what my information sources are - either now or 30-40 years ago. I actually come from an area where Murdoch did not tread, so you just don't know anything about me. Guessing doesn't work. And please give up with the Occupy 101 horsecrap. You generally ruin some otherwise good points every time you wallow in it. But, yes, maybe it does make me relatively uniformed. But also untainted and unbiased. > I grew up in Ireland in those times. Great, in a way. That makes you very informed, but also deeply unneutral. So, informed or unbiased? Which is better? Well that's a matter of opinion, I suppose. We'll probably agree to disagree on that one. [snipped some interesting stuff] > The people directly affected on both sides cannot forget but they can forgive or at least ignore it and bear > the scars silently so the next generation can grow in hope for a better shared future. It takes time & we > all have to share the burden of recovery. I think I read once there is a memorial in Hiroshima that says, "Forgive, but never forget". Seems apt here as well. > Telling someone to move on is just stupid so-called new age crap - telling them you > understand their pain is civilized and helps the healing process. I don't actually recall telling you to move on.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship516 > > I admire your efforts in getting the EDF to give a toss what the government did, but they don't. > > They fall into the following categories > > 1) Don't believe and won't believe that the state did these things > 2) Believe, but don't care that the state did these things > 3) Those that say it was justified, or "both sides did terrible things" - forgetting that the state > is not supposed to take sides, but to protect all groups within society equally I'd happily own up to 3b. And not being British or Irish, that's a view from a relative neutral. And having watched the whole vicious, violent goings-on by all players in this mess from the other side of the planet, that was much my view then, too. All sides were in the wrong. Even when, on the odd occasion one of them were in the right, they did something mindless and violent to negate that. The point is: it seems slightly missing the point to have a long debate about who was less of a violent arsehat. Whether you are a slightly less of an violent arsehat or a slightly more of an violent arsehat, it's worth remembering that, either way, you are still an violent arsehat.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nice piece of cut and paste, but it does not > back > > up your assertion that the British Army were > > involved in that particular bomb. > > I suppose this counts for nothing.... > > The 2009 book Killing For Britain, written by former UVF member 'John Black', claimed that the > British undercover unit known as the Military Reaction Force or Military Reconnaissance Force > (MRF) organized the bombing and helped the bombers get in and out of the area. Well, I give that as much credence as you (and I, for that matter) would give a book by a British Army person that blamed it all on the UVF.

I thought the 12 sides was in homage to the 12 stars on the EU flag?

Nice piece of cut and paste, but it does not back up your assertion that the British Army were involved in that particular bomb.

Err, yes. I know. I think you got up on the wrong side of the bed, rrr.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately history tells us that the car bomb was devised & deployed first by the Loyalist side, > provided with the necessary materials from British Army supplies... > > 4 December 1971 - McGurk's Bar bombing Did you make the bit in bold up??