Earl Aelfheah

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're transmitters disguised as cameras. One for > each hemisphere of your brain. Beaming > subconscious thoughts from our lizard overlords. > They need to keep us cattle docile by divide and > conquer - if you don't immediately start wearing a > heavy-bottomed pan* on your head when you're near > them, you'll be susceptible to ideas like > "outsiders are bad"; "People from other > neighbourhoods are a threat to your lifestyle"; > "Your territory is being invaded and changed for > the worse". You will develop irrational phobias - > of random things, like estate agents, or > croissants. > > Be vigilant! > > > *p.s. I recommend Le Creuset. If you are > instinctively horrified, I'm afraid it's already > too late. Ha!

That's a shame, I didn't realise it had been closed because of noise complaints (seems a little unreasonable considering how long it's been there).

muffins78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my line of work and it has been the case with > my three previous employers, they have a standard > reference which confirms the position of the > individual, and their start and end dates. > Nothing more than that. > > The reason been is if the information outside the > hard facts is incorrect or becomes incorrect, the > company who gave the reference could be liable (or > something)! These companies are big names, so > they will know why they are doing, what they are > doing! I hope this helps!! It does depend on the industry. If it's standard practice to give a basic reference then fine. In sectors where a very basic reference is unusual, it could in itself be viewed as 'negative'. Honestly the best thing is just to make sure that what you say is factual and can be objectively justified.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's just a camera, attached to a battery, > recording to a hard disk and very similar to ones > used to record traffic data in the past, but if > you really want to know for sure, just ring the > council. That's no fun. I want to speculate about an elaborate conspiracy.

The question is often asked as to why people focus their criticism disproportionately on Israel, as opposed to say Iran. The answer is exactly as Taper says, that we hold Israel to higher standards, they are supported by Western governments and that it may be possible for Western governments and politicians to influence Israeli policy (as an ally of ours). So yes, it's unbalanced, but I don't think that in itself signifies antisemitism.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pro-Palestine-Anti-State-Of-Israel has been a > leftie 'given' for as many years as I can > remember, but let's be honest, Ken's lost the plot > on this one. > > There might have been some kind of point in there > (more of a historical footnote than a point I > suppose) - but the attempt at making it and, worse > still, trying to turn it into anything of value or > worth that somehow means something in the current > debate defies belief. This ^

Wow, that really is shocking.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It just so happens that the Right To Buy was first > in the 1959 General Election Manifesto of the > LABOUR Party (Labour lost though)- which only goes > to prove that the fascist left LIE and LIE... Jeez Unclglen, your constant fury and obsession with 'the left' is almost pathological. Have a cup of tea and a nice sit down.

That's pretty outrageous, must be a nightmare for the families involved.

This is another good summary imo: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-ken-livingstone-naz-shah-jeremy-corbyn-a7006176.html I think Ken should be kicked out of the party personally. He's too divisive a figure and his bringing Hitler into a rebuttal against allegations of antisemitism, is pretty bizarre and unhelpful. That said, there is a lot of mischief making on the part of Guido et al. and I don't buy the accusation that there is some bigger problem with the Labour Party being antisemitic generally.

Thanks Jah. I agree with everything in that statement.

It's not illegal to give a negative reference, as long as it's factual

Instead of a minimum wage, perhaps we ought to be looking for a maximum wage (as a multiple of average earnings for example). Dunno.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just saw on Twitter (Jim Waterson) > > "Ken Livingstone is in a toilet and the British > news media are camped > outside the door asking if he agrees with Hitler" An episode from a Chris Morris show, surely.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, being extremely critical of Israel's > policies is one thing, but a lot of the left > simply think Israel shouldn't exist. These people > are feckin morons because Israel DOES exist, and > whatever you think about how it came about, it's > there now and we'll only ever move forward if we > accept that and get on with finding solutions > rather than harping on about past screw ups. Is that true. I think a lot of people say Israel, when they mean Israel's policies (which acutally I may have done above), but that's just slightly sloppy language, I think people know what is meant. I haven't heard people on the mainstream left calling for the dissolution, or annihilation of Israel.

I actually think John Mann was pretty out of order, regardless of ones views on Livingstone. I think Ken has lost the plot personally, wading into a fire clutching a bucket of petrol to throw over it. Although it seems to be his MO nowadays. Why anyone would start talking about Hitler supporting Zionism in a discussion about antisemitism is beyond me. It's ridiculously clumsy and ill judged. That said, I am not sure this mean he's an antisemite or a racist. I'm not even sure I accept the idea that 'the left' have a particular problem with antisemitism. The left is extremely critical of Israel of course as are many others.

Here's a good summary of events https://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/how-the-internet-reacted-to-ken-livingstones-most-disastrous?utm_term=4ldqpgm&bftwuk#4ldqpgm

Apparently John Mann may be suspended too for his rant against Livingstone. Blimey.

.

This is about the fullest account of what he actually said that I have found https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/discrimination/news/74365/ken-livingstone-bbc-radio-london-israel-lobby-tries

What do people make of Ken's latest unwelcome ramblings? I didn't hear the interview and haven't managed to actually find a transcript of what he said, so don't really want to rush to judgment. That said, from the snippets of conversation quoted on social media it all looks rather worrying.

Thanks Londonmix, I've PM'd you.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clear purpose- surveillance- it's the world we > live in But it says "This unit cannot identify faces or vehicle registration plates" on it.

reminds me if the 'are you thinking what we're thinking' wink and nudge campaign of michael howard. Nasty.

I don't like it. Cameras going up in the early hours with no warning or clear purpose.