Loz

Worst (and completely unnecessary) cover version: American Pie - Madonna.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard someone on LBC calling for Corbyn to the charged with treason in all > seriousness. It's quite breathtaking. Someone in the Guardian called for that General who criticised Corbyn's stand on using Trident to be charged with treason. Stupidity is everywhere.

We're about to get a new mortgage and this is the first time we've done a pure remortgage, rather than a buy/sell remortgage. What are people's experiences with conveyancing? Nationwide offer a free conveyancing service, but a quick internet trawl suggests that it can be pretty iffy with quite a few hidden costs. Anyone remortgage lately and have an idea of costs and discursements (do you need to do searches, etc??) and whether cheapie conveyancers are OK?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TE44 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Around two thirds of those affected are disabled according to figures. But very few of those would have required house modifications, as per Otta's post. Government figures say that there are 11.6 million disabled people in Great Britain.

That original Observer article made DHFC fans look awful. Represented in print by a bunch of unlikeable hipster political onanists.

Filing a police report allows police to identify hot spots. So, yes, it might not do you personally any good, but it may help others in the longer term.

I think the IT Crowd portrayal of Anonymous was particularly spot on. A bunch of teenage keyboard bullies.

240v, Seabag. We're not in the US.

The free speech person in me agrees that she should never have been arrested. The schadenfreude person in me laughed like a drain to see someone so unpleasant being hoist by their own petard.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point with the police is that if you hold > beliefs that present a heightened risk to the > public that you won't be able to impartially > enforce the law (which is the legal requirement), > then you can't be put in that position of power. > Those that don't believe all people are equal > cannot be entrusted to enforce the law equitably. > Its common sense, not political exclusion. But there are many parts to that rule that deal with people who have been convicted of race crimes. But 10-15 years ago, people joined the BNP for many reasons, not all of them racist (worries about immigration levels being one of them). And while there are/were, no question, people with racist attitudes in the BNP, reflecting that against each and every member of the BNP political party is guilt by association. Tarring them all with the same brush has got to be classed as political exclusion.

What institution? It was an old bungalow.

PMQ day. This week Corbyn was pretty boring. Tried to re-use last week's successful tactic (indeed, the exact same question), but Cameron was far too streetwise to get cornered twice. He then tried to use public questions again, and that was as ineffective as the first time. He really needed to push Cameron on the growing junior doctors debacle, but it was only vaguely touched upon. Tom Watson had a poppy this week, but the real scene-stealer was the woman sitting behind Angela Eagle, who seemed to be sporting a orange and black version of the Mr Blobby outfit.

0.6 acres, all of which has a street frontage. That's valuable land. The 'shed' is irrelevant (in fact, it would have been figured in by the buyer as a cost for demolition, not an asset.) A better question would have been why Southwark don't build a number of properties itself on the site.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Being racist is a choice, albeit often a learned choice. The same is true for > sexism and homophobia. Frankly, for someone who claims to have worked in the diversity and > equalities sector I am astounded by your whole line of reasoning I dunno - sexism, racism and a lack of understanding about diversity seems to be common trait for Diversity Officers of late...

From the OP: Having now read the post, in what universe did you expect those words to "provoke a sensible debate and discussion"??

You can edit your posts, aerie.

I agree with Jeremy. We have many limitations on speech in the UK, both legally and through some really quite limited social mores (that twitter mob again). Granted we have freer speech than quite a few countries, but we do not have free speech. Not at all.

But McCarthyism, at its core, was American society's (at the time) belief that communism was morally wrong. You have a list of things that are currently deemed morally wrong. Why is it different? Why do we believe that McCarthyism was wrong, but this modern day version of McCarthyism is OK? Especially as all the things you list are rather haphazardly enforced. And this rather goes to the nub of this entire thread, because these days they are generally 'enforced' by the professionally offended twitter mob. Thus Tim Hunt is hounded out of his job, but Diane Abbott (who has said things, IMHO, worse than Hunt did) is left alone. There is no constancy. In fact, there is serious inconsistency. For instance, Julie Burchill, who would fail your list of bad beliefs with her remarks on transexuals, would be free to join the police force (age requirements notwithstanding). The other curiosity about the police's list is that one of the proscribed organizations is the BNP - a completely legal political party. So if you legally run for parliament for the BNP, you are immediately banned from being a policeman. How, in any sane system, is that valid? Especially as I am pretty sure some joined the BNP about 10-15 years ago (when they were regularly winning council seats) for reasons other than racism. (Just to note that I have absolutely no love for the BNP, et al. This purely down to freedom of political thought - even for those I fundamentally disagree with.)

That is correct - you must stop if you hit a dog (and a small list of other animals often found on a farm). If necessary, you must leave your details and, if you are the animla's owner, you must give your details to the driver. Plus you must report the accident to the police. Curiously, if you hit a cat you can drive on (well, at least according to the law). But why would you not stop? It will almost certainly be deemed the animal's fault, so not only would you not be responsible for the dog's vet bills, but you would find out who the owner is and they (or their pet insurance) are financially responsible for any damage to your car.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are good reasons why ureasonable views are not tolerated, as everyone knows. What's > interesting is that your list, gender, nationality, sexuality are all things that are > accidents of birth, and cannot be changed, except in certain circumstances. A way of thinking on the > other hand is learned. But who judges what is acceptable and what is not? Your description is pretty much the basis of McCarthyism.

Is he willing to accept joint custody? That way, he'd be responsible for childcare on 'his' days.

Over in Ealing, they charge for large item removal AND have an annual extra charge (60 quid!) for garden waste recycling - and not a free food recycling bags in sight, ever. You might be ruled by mad people, but their is much more madness elsewhere.

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was told by the security guard that the basket contained some raw steak, tea bags, and sweets. > Sounds like a basket of food a skint dad may have taken when pushed to the limits by a Govt that is > trying to cut IN WORK benefits. Sounds like a basket of someone who doesn't do the shopping very often.

I have to say, Corbyn was far more effective today, now he's dropped the 'ask the people' stunt. (Though the two tory questions taking the piss out of it was amusing.) Corbyn's calm approach worked quite well and, with a meaty issue like tax credits, it meant he could doggedly re-ask questions of Cameron.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two million new jobs (700,000 of them zero contract) has not seem a 2 million reduction in the unemployment > figures. Most of those jobs have just replaced other jobs lost through cuts and market forces. Cameron has > nothing to boast about. Actually, Blah Blah, the stats show a pretty good picture for Cameron. From Full Fact https://fullfact.org/live/2015/apr/employment_facts-42729 But, according to Full Fact, there are only 700,000 zero hours contract in total (or 2.3% of the total), so I rather doubt they are all new ones as you claim. I'd say the actual number of the 2m new jobs that are zero hours would be more in the area of about 50,000, but that is just extrapolating from the 2.3% figure. https://fullfact.org/economy/election_2015_jobs-43422 Also, the "2 million new jobs" figure comes from the election, and covered the period when the coalition was in power. When they started in 2010, the unemployment figure was 7.9% and by the time of the election this year that was down to 5.6%. But, you are correct in saying that 2m has not come off the unemployment figure - that dropped from 2.5m to 1.85m. (Source for that is a sodding big spreadsheet from the ONS website).