Loz

Did you put that together AM? If so, bravo!

Not had a bank refuse a fake coin, but they are pretty hot on fake notes.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw 'Greek style salad cheese' in Sainsburys the other day. 'Feta' has protected designation of origin status. Ironically, after Brexit they might be able to call it Feta.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am just waiting for the "....doomed to repeat > it" quote. I've a few likely candidates in mind. As in "Those who eat too much garlic bread are doomed to repeat it"?

Getting back to the original point, are you saying all UKIP voters are racially intolerant?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does being a tolerant nation mean being tolerant > towards the intolerant? I'd presume not... But then, does that also make you intolerant as well? It's a vicious circle...!

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I misunderstanding something about this Mick? UKIP got the best part of 13% of the vote in the > last election. That's a lot of the vote and doesn't show intolerance. I thought he meant tolerance towards those that voted for them. "UKIP voter" has become a bit of a pejorative. But then so has 'Sun Reader', 'Daily Mail reader' and 'Guardian reader'.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you ready to hand back the 6 counties then? Sort of. We've decided to give them to Scotland as a leaving present.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scottish nationalism is focussed on self governance, and dominated by left > wing policies. All the 'left wing' policies are why, though I can see why Scotland could/should break away, they'll never be able to afford it. And Brexit support was based largely on self governance, so that's not always a good thing either.

As I said a couple of days ago, although I am critical of McGuinness' early life, he played a crucial role in the peace deal and it was extremely brave (indeed, life endangering) of him to actually come to the table. And I love the fact that he and Ian Paisley became such good friends in the end. It was truly one of life's great ironies!

Well, I have noticed that the behaviour you describe normally occurs when someone tries to justify and/or romanticise the behaviour of said terrorists, using words like, "A man who spoke out against the abuses of a minority, who took up arms when talking failed, who killed horribly for a purpose he believed to be justified by abhorrent abuses by the state, who risked his life for a fair society"

Ah, makes more sense now. Well, you have gone from "the killing of innocent people by the state" to "collusion", rather quickly. Which rather leads to sticky ground as there was arguably a fair bit of unofficial collusion between the IRA and the RoI government as well, especially within the Gardai. But, at least the British PM 'fessed up and apologised, following its own investigation. That is more than the allegedly once-IRA Chief of Staff McGuinness ever did.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, > I don't think the British Prime Minister would > stand up in Parliament and make a public apology > for the state collusion in the killing of a > specific person, if there was even a hint of that > person being a member of the IRA. You're going to have to explain that one, MM - I don't follow the reference.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But surely MM, the logical extension of your > > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as > > legitimate soldiers against the British state, > > then the British state would have equal > > entitlement to use force in return, as they would > > any attacking army? > > Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing of > innocent people by the state? being the subject of > my post above. Of course not. But I do wonder how many of those being claimed as 'innocent civilians' were actually members of the IRA? I doubt we'll ever know the answer to that one. And how many 'legitimate targets' of the IRA were no such thing, from civilian cooks (who happened to work at an army base) right up to the retired Mountbatten (not to mention the 14- and 15-year-olds also on board).

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Anyway, this is all muddying the waters - > > McGuinness is believed to have ordered the death > > of many a civilian. > > What are your sources for that comment Loz? I'm not sure I should really have to justify the word 'believed', but... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/martin-mcguinness-took-ira-victims-secrets-grave-say-families/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39337760 http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/victims-reject-mcguinness-claims-that-ira-did-not-target-civilians-1-5657196 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/martin-mcguinness-dies-enniskillen-bomb-victims-son-will-remember-sf-chief-as-terrorist-35551326.html

But surely MM, the logical extension of your argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as legitimate soldiers against the British state, then the British state would have equal entitlement to use force in return, as they would any attacking army? Anyway, this is all muddying the waters - McGuinness is believed to have ordered the death of many a civilian.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We've only got three songs, we've only got three > songs, we've only got three songs. To be fair, that's two songs more than the Barmy Army.

We just bought a new bed and when browsing, I found the memory foam mattresses a bit 'dead'. We ended up getting a pocket spring mattress. Was fun getting it upstairs, though.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For a long time he was part of the problem. Then he wasn't. He did some terrible things, for which > he never expressed any regret. I don't think he should be lionised. ^^ This. Although I recognised McGuinness' crucial role in the peace deal and his bravery to actually come to the table, he has never actually repented for his crimes. I rather wish he's left a document answering the numerous questions he has refused to answer over the last 20 years, but I somehow doubt it.

In the spirit of taking something positive out of this, a thank you to the police and emergency services. Truly awesome people. And a hat tip to that Tory MP. I would like to hope that, in the same situation, I'd react in the same way but who knows until it actually happens.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to be honest, it irritates me when I see people applying make up on the train or bus. I > have no idea why; it's completely irrational and if anything I should be impressed they manage to > get it on without it going everywhere. It'd be fun if you were the bus driver though... a slight touch of the brake/accelerator just at the right time and she'd be off to work looking like Heath Ledger's version of the Joker.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Loz > > Current deficits must be judged against the overall Total Public Debt as each years borrowings > to service Current Deficit is added to the Total Public Debt. The Total Public Debt to GDP ratio > is recognized as the most relevant measure regardless of other economic performance criteria > as this is the reality that we will always find ourselves in. (Referring to the bit I bolded) By whom? That seems to be one of those vague statements people trot out to justify figures they like. Source please. And anyway, as you can see from the wildly changing GDP figures over the last 10 years, it is hardly a "reality that we will always find ourselves in". It's a good long-term measure of debt-affordability, but a pretty useless short term measure, especially when GDP figures are so erratic. > In 13 years from 1997/8 to 2009/10, the Labour Government increased debt from ?347 billion to > ?1030 billion - an average of ?52.5 billion per year. > > In the 5 years from 2010/11 to 2014/2015, the Coalition Government increased debt to ?1,554 > billion - an average of ?104.8 billion per year. And most of those Labour years were global boom years. As I said (and you haven't commented on), you were quite happy to allow the Labour party to blame the increase in national debt to the global crisis, but not extend the same courtesy to the Tories. You also haven't commented on the main point I made - which your own figures back - that Labour spent in the boom years when we should have been paying off the debt. [snip] > You could say that what Gideon was about after 2015 was correcting the excesses of the coalition > government by making unwarranted benevolent transfers from the sick, disabled, the poor to his > own privileged class - they have rewarded him well with a top job in the city & a sinecure editorship > from the Russian oligarch plus various speeches to the various well-off chattering classes. You could say that, but again you would sound like someone more driven by politics than economics. I am neither a Labour or Tory voter - so all your political angst-ridden waffle won't cut it with me. Stick to economic facts - at the moment you are just trotting out your political beliefs and trying to justify them with a bunch of rather unconnected figures. Where have you shown data for these "unwarranted benevolent transfers"?? That has absolutely sod all to to with national debt figures, whether measured directly or as a percentage of GDP. And you still haven't said what Labour would/could have done differently, apart from borrowing and spending. Or even, since you are so concerned about the national debt, how would you bring the figure down?

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In 1997 when New Labour came to office the National Debt stood at 42% of GDP. Even though > the government embarked on sorting out investment in the NHS & Education by 2002 this had dropped to > 35%. From then to 2008 the ratio increased gradually to 47.4%. In the following two years it > increased to 55% & 68% respectively for reasons the we all have come to understand. > > Contrary to the propaganda of Cameron & Osborne, the labour Government left the economy & the > fabric of the UK in reasonable good health. They had improved education, health & housing much of > which has been/is being torn down by the coalition & the current mob. The real failure of all of > labour since 2010 is allowing them to put the idea across that Labour left the country in an economic > mess - the opposite is the truth; it is the coalition & the conservatives that have created > the mess and created an imbalanced economy & a very divided society. Interesting that you will happily allow the Labour party to blame the increase in national debt to the global crisis, but not extend the same courtesy to the Tories. The problem with using the 'percentage of GDP' measure is that GDP has varied quite wildly over the past 10 years. Let's have a look at actual deficits, rather than total debt. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/ukgs_chartDp01t.png We can see that, even during the pre-2008 boom years, Labour were still running deficits, instead of paying off the debt. That is where Labour can, quite legitimately, be criticised. Post crash, the budget deficit skyrocketed to ?50 billion in 2009 and ?103 billion in 2010. In the subsequent recovery the deficit has slowly declined, reaching ?40 billion in 2016. Looking at percentage of GDP, as you have, gives a vastly different picture. There is a lot that Osborne did wrong, but trying to get us to spend within our means, especially in the aftermath of 2008, isn't one of them. Yes, he could have done it better, but what would Labour have done? Borrowed and spent more? So, I suspect your criticism is based more on politics than economics. It certainly reads that way.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please can we not use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Yep, when people stop doing it.

Well, here's a cute picture of a kitten.