robbin

While it is technically illegal for a child to cycle on the pavement, I don't think they can be prosecuted if below the age of criminal responsibility (10 years old). I see in Camden the Police have said (earlier this year) they will no longer prosecute anyone riding on the pavement unless there is a particularly good reason to do so. I think that was a reaction to the perceived dangers of cycling on the road. Personally, I think cycling on the pavement is ignorant and potentially dangerous (and certainly always dangerous on corners). It also gives decent cyclists a bad name with some people who cannot distinguish between decent cyclists and idiots.

Jaywalker, taking condescension and pretentiousness to new levels in 2017.

You mean 'person'? Sorry to hear that. It can be extremely annoying and dangerous for people to cycle on the pavement and there's no excuse for riding on if you collide with someone.

Sorry. Father Christmas - ?60 bn

You forgot the following additional revenue streams... Collecting teeth from Tooth Fairy stockpiles and selling on market - ?6.3 bn Lucky Heather - ?9.6 bn (or ?19.6 bn - Diane to confirm) Attendance tax for admission to test matches (home supporters only) - ?4.1 bn Free drinks (Mon-Weds) for Momentum members (-?86 m) Compulsory flat charge for Unison non-members - ?5.1 bn Sales of Peckham Spring Water - ?12 bn Sorted.

I agree with your reasoning, of course. But, the point is I think his ratings are so dire that it's not a case of most people just thinking he might not be more fitted to the premiership, many actually hold him in a degree of contempt. I have no idea how (or if) you plan to vote, but having read your posts from not long ago about JC, saying you were "sick of him" that he has an ego "the size of Bournemouth" and that Labour was "stuck with him" it sounds like if you were to vote Labour (unless you have radically changed your mind) it would not be because he was leader, but in spite of that fact? If so, I'm in the same boat as you - if I was to vote Labour as I have done in the past, I would have to say it would very much be in spite of JC being leader, not because he is leader. I can hardly imagine his shambolic style actually running this country, negotiating with other nations and making difficult decisions, but then again the likelihood of that actually happening is so close to zero as to make me feel I could safely vote Labour without that scenario ever coming to pass. Arghh, isn't that 'the Trump effect'?!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't think he's good - I'd rather he wasn't > Labour leader - but tell me, on what opinion poll > do you base the assertion that most are planning > to vote for Labour in spite of him? I'm not aware > of polls asking that sort of question... I didn't base it on any specific opinion poll, just on a common sense reading of circumstances. For example, if the vast majority of his own MPs consider he is not up to the job (the no confidence vote) then that strongly suggests (as well as everything else I have read) that many of those MPs are hearing on the doorsteps in their constituencies that he is a vote loser and that their voters might still vote Labour but not because of him. If you want some polling input, here's something from the Guardian a few weeks ago - " Fewer than half of Labour voters think Jeremy Corbyn would be the best prime minister, according to a poll for the Observer that finds the Conservatives remain the most trusted party on all key issues except the NHS. Research by Opinium suggests that given a two-way choice between Corbyn and Theresa May, 14% of voters would choose the Labour leader, compared with 47% for the prime minister. Among Labour voters asked the question, 45% said they would like to see Corbyn in No 10. Twenty-eight per cent of those questioned said they wanted neither Corbyn nor May. The Conservatives were the most trusted to lead Brexit negotiations among 35% of respondents, a figure unchanged from March and up from 30% in January. This compares with 12% for Labour, the same figure as March, but down from 13% in January. So, among Labour voters, if less than half (45%) would like to see Corbyn as Prime Minister (a pretty astonishing statistic in itself), does that not strongly suggest that they are voting Labour in spite of him, not because of him?

National Geographic Kids, perhaps. Games, quizzes, cool pictures of animals etc. Or any of the children's cartoon/TV programme characters with 'free' tat stuck to the front cover. They love that too.

33% for an opposition at this stage is embarrassingly bad Rendel. Most of those people are voting Labour in spite of him - not voting for him, as you say. Jeez - the vast majority of his own MPs recently voted that they did not have any confidence in him! You may think he's good Rendel, but suggesting somehow that he has a lot of support (based on that 33% figure) flies in the face of reality and seems rather out of character for you.

Well, to be fair, most people do consider him to be a laughing stock!

Who says that about the BBC? I thought the most common complaint was that they are too metropolitan left wing bubble orientated? In support of that criticism it is often said that is why they cram the Question Time audience with people from the left wing metropolitan bubble! You know, the sort of people much in evidence in 'the Lounge' ; )

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > "...in Bourdieu's language, the original Marx (and > Lukacs) hope was that 'workers' are the only ones > who do not misrecognise the socio-economic for > what it is: a system of symbolic violence in which > privilege is transmuted to sociodicy (the illusion > that one's privilege is warranted, achieved by > solipsistic acts of self-justification...)" Classic! Only on the EDF!!! BTW thanks for providing a bracketed explanation of the difficult to understand big words for us. Much appreciated.

You can break it down and try to rationalise it however it suits you best Rendel, but that doesn't necessarily make the sums add up. Your 3.5% of total tax revenue is a nice way of disguising the reality, but if you are hoping to raise an extra 3.5% of the total (100%) from just 5% (the top bracket), with a 5% or 10% tax rise and another slice from corporation tax, it doesn't take a genius to see that might not be as simple as your statistics try to make it out to be. Btw, if I am asked to pay 50% on my income, in keeping with others I am highly likely to stick more into my pension, so Jezza won't get that part of it. If you do (which I doubt) you shouldn't think it is all that simple. Check out the Institute for Fiscal Studies and see what they think the additional revenue might be from those suggested tax rises. It is possible it will come out to zero. It might be more, but it's very difficult to predict. What is not difficult to predict is that our debt is highly likely to increase even more. Maybe more debt is fine for oldies, but maybe not the future generation - suppose it depends on where your priorities lie. And as for Trident - the Labour manifesto is to keep it! But, to keep it while removing any actual value as a deterrent with the Prime Minister (trying to keep a straight face writing that) saying he would never actually use it! Now that's getting full value for our most expensive asset! Scrap it or use it as a deterrent - don't pay for it and not have any deterrent - a small child could come up with a better strategy than that.

Ah yes, a quarter of a trillion. No problem, I'll just get my cheque book...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emily Thornberry absolutely demolished Michael > Fallon on Marr today Brilliant. She even said > B@ll**ks. > > He was at a party with Assad but couldn't remember > - she did :) > >Wow, her memory must have improved! Last year she couldn't remember the name of the French Foreign Minister (when Shadow Foreign Secretary!) or that the president of South Korea is a woman! I wonder why Lady Thornberry of Islington has taken to saying "boll**cks" - maybe she thinks it might lure back the lost votes of the white van drivers of Kent!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd ask what they intend to do with the > photographs. If they plan to post on social media, > print, etc. then they'd need your consent. Why? Under what law? Have I missed some new statute?

Enough screeching Loz. While you may be right that you have a far higher IQ than I do, I suspect you may not have been on the receiving end of the sort of racism that I have in the past. Had you been, maybe you would also be sensitive to hearing other peoples' unacceptable comments defended as just being their 'right to free speech'. All I'm saying is that unqualified 'free speech' of the sort you appear to advocate (and as the US academic Chomsky advocated) seems to me to be outdated, discredited and potentially dangerous. Society's moral compass has shifted in recent years and laws have changed to match. Those changes are designed to prevent people from spouting certain bigotry in this country (and in others), under cover of claiming it is their right to 'free speech'. Whether you like it or not, there IS a line. If someone crosses it, no matter what theories some American academics might have, they may be breaking the law, just as they are offending people. So, you go ahead and quote Chomsky - and his support for the rights of holocaust deniers and the unqualified right to 'free speech', if you like. I'll still not agree with the concept of completely unlimited 'free speech' no matter how many times I'm told I'm thick. As we both know each other's views now, I don't think there's any need for another rude late night reply from you.

Do calm down Loz and yes, you are wasting your time posting a diversionary quote from some other posting (which I was not referring to) from an academic who is well known for supporting the 'free speech' of holocaust deniers. I get it, you think a person's right of free speech extends to anti-Semitic content just as it does to remarks about white van drivers. You are entitled to your point of view. I'm entitled to disagree with it.

rendelharris Wrote: > > I just need something about Polish builders who > live in council flats for a full house in > uncleglen bingo! On a lighter note, this gets my vote for best post of the week!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are > > some people who would readily be apologists for > > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but > they > > are in a small minority, I would venture to > > suggest. > > That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I > took a view that he was entitled to free speech - > not that I in any way agreed with anything he > said. Because that's how free speech works. You did indeed mention 'free speech' but free speech does not excuse anti-Semitism or racism (at least not in my eyes - or in the eyes of the criminal law). But you then went further and posed this question... "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 may be wrong, but that seemed to me to go well beyond just saying Ken has a right to free speech and suggested that what is offensive, in this context, is all just a matter of someone's point of view - by using what I thought was a an offensive/crass comparison. When I pointed out the difference between white van drivers and victims of the holocaust, you didn't respond for 14 days. To be honest, I sort of expected some sort of recognition that the two are in no way comparable. That would have been fair enough - we can all write stuff we may later think could have been put better or differently. Instead you appear to stand by what you said while expressing indignation about what I wrote. I think that's a shame, but I'm sorry if I offended you.

Indeed, but decent voters won't like anti-semitism. It's not just offensive to Jewish people (I'm not Jewish, but it offends me). So, it's not just a matter of comparing the number of Jewish voters with the number of Muslim voters. That also presupposes that all Muslims are anti-Semitic, which I do not believe to be the case. Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are some people who would readily be apologists for Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they are in a small minority, I would venture to suggest.

So, is Ken an asset or a liability in this election?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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'll ignore the 'play the ball not the man' quip. I've been pondering your question, Loz. Taking one of your comparator examples - What might be the difference between white van drivers and Jews that makes "some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not"? I'll do my best to suggest an answer to your question. In recent history, one group was subjected to state organised genocide - almost an entire population 'shipped' in animal trucks/containers to 'camps' specifically designed for their torture, medical experimentation, rape, starvation and murder by gas or other means. 1.5 million innocent children (with our without their anguished parents) were murdered and at least another 4.5 million defenceless civilian men and women met the same planned and organised fate. All in the space of a few years - stopped only by a world war and the destruction of the people and organisation responsible. The other group - white van drivers - well, maybe the occasional Labour toff from Islington might post the odd patronising tweet about them, but I think when it comes to comparing the two groups' 'worthiness of Twitter outrage', as you put it, I think the answer would be obvious to any right minded person. Just my opinion though - it is obvious that others hold a different view, or vigorously defend the right of others' to do so.

Then that puts you in a small minority, I think, Loz. I think any proper objective view of what he said and the context in which he said it, leads to only one conclusion. Oh, and the fact that you say he has said some rather unpleasant things about Jews in the past doesn't in any way affect your view of the context? On the question of context - he was speaking in defence of Naz Shah and what she said. The yet further problem is that Naz Shah came out and profusely apologised (fair play to her) and accepted she made anti semitic remarks and had failed to understand anti Semitism and its effect. She was still suspended but is now back and speaks out against anti Semitism.

Verhofstadt (who the BBC reports has never held a job other than as a politician) has written a number of books, including The United States of Europe (2006), The New Age of Empires (2008) and Emerging from the Crisis: How Europe can Save the World (2009). Rather puts his comments in context. He clearly still doesn't 'get' that his version of the federalist EU and the way the EU was being run might have played any part in what happened. It's all just 'stupidity' on the part of others, in his mind.