robbin

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.

Another deluded fool! (Verhofstadt, not Corbyn) Oh, er, hold on...

I reckon that if someone made comments as deliberately inflammatory as Ken's but about black people, the left would be falling over themselves to call them racist (and quite rightly so, in my view). It's amazing how many apologists there are out there when it comes to anti Semitism. There's also double standards - for example, some of the apologists for anti semitism would be the first to say how awful it is that Brexit has caused an upsurge in overt racism and wouldn't seem to recognise there was any sort of a contradiction there.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually I'd put the score at > > EU-27 2 UK 0 > > at the moment > > Goal 1: The attempt by TM to link security to > trade as an own goal > Goal 2: The obvious dummy over Gibraltar which has > now been brought and no doubt counts as a > concession How about (1) Angel Merkel unequivocally stating EU will not even start trade negotiations until all agreements concluded on 'disentangling' and the blackmail money paid. Then 48 hours later the EU backs down and dilutes this to a position of no trade negotiations until 'sufficient progress' made on disentangling. Potentially very different. Clearly a deliberately different form of words and position. Mentioning security is an obvious point - why is that an 'own goal'. That's absurd. It is something the UK brings to the table and the EU knows it. It's been put out there, then backed away from. That's negotiation - the position has been planted and will be borne in mind as we go forward. In a similar vein, why is stating that if we come out of Europol there might be consequences 'blackmail', but it's not 'blackmail' for the EU to say pay us 50 billion in cash or we won't even discuss trade? Get real, seriously. It's negotiation and posturing - get over it, or at least recognise it for what it is! As someone who negotiates for a living, I would respectfully suggest that you shouldn't get too excited about things said one day to the next, particularly as its a 2 year (probably far longer) process and it hasn't even started yet. Also there are so many individuals playing to the cameras and their own constituents and varied agendas that you have to expect all sorts of stuff to be said.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is that such crap, Robbin? in November the > Office for Budget Responsibility published its > estimate that the government would have to borrow > exactly that figure - ?58.7BN - to cover the costs > of leaving the EU. You can disagree with that by > all means but you can't just dismiss it, it's not > some figure pulled out of the air. Note also that > the prediction was just to cover the negative > economic effects and doesn't include any "divorce > settlement" payments, which most experts seem to > be agreeing will end up somewhere between > ?20-?40BN. Well, for various reasons - principally because the bus message is just the latest in another bit of misleading cherry picking of figures that is misleading because it is one side of an equation (and let's face it you don't get much from just one side of an equation). By this, I mean "the cost of" (on the bus) clearly implies that is the actual cost - whereas it is in truth more like just the liability - not the liability less the savings/benefit. The annual net saving to the UK (saving of net contributions - i.e. after rebate and payments back in subsidies, grants etc.) will be between about 5.3 billion and 9 billion (the 5.3 billion being the Remain camp's worst case scenario, the 9 billion being the OBR's upper end figure). Within a decade that mounts up to a lot of saving to set off against the 'cost'. All I'm saying is you can't just ignore the savings and talk of the costs (well, you can, but that's hardly going to lead to an intelligent or informed debate). But then I'm sure the bus message is meant to shock and fool the unwary. In addition, while you are perfectly correct to point out that the OBR estimated this gross expense in November 2016, it quite fairly noted it was an unusually uncertain estimate. It also noted it was based on (what turned out to be overly pessimistic) forecasts for GDP growth which have, since then been very substantially bettered. It was also out on inflation forecasts. I'm not saying the OBR figure is nonsense, or that the economic outlook might reverse and go downhill. These are uncertain times. Many would not have predicted the economy would be so strong as it has been since June 2016 (many on here are, it seems, willing things to go the other way - which I find really odd and quite depressing, as we are all in this together). Mind you, some of those people still probably cling to the view they previously excitedly espoused on here that Jeremy Corbyn was the future (you know, a bit like phone cards). They were way out on that too. What I am saying is that the painting of one figure on the side of a bus (which is plainly not the actual cost, when everything is taken into account) is crap. It is as misleading as the other ridiculous bus message from the Leave campaign in June. So no, I don't dismiss the OBR figure out of hand. I prefer to look at it in its proper perspective and ascribe to it its true meaning. It's the bus message I was commenting on.

What a load of crap! That's even more misleading than Boris' bus (and that's saying something). I'm refraining from posting on this thread because there's no point - several people here are desperate to see an economic disaster unfold and will be terribly disappointed if the destruction of their own country doesn't come to pass. Others will simply pick and choose whatever they want (or failing that, simply make stuff up) - no balance. But the bus pic is in a different category - just plain daft!

If you painted a face on it, it would resemble Jean Claude Junker after lunch.

Damn that red giant!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reality of the unknown, voted for by me and others > like me, becomes ever clearer. We still have our > membership card for a while, but the captain and > crew are helping us pack up our little survival > kit into our small lifeboat- preparing to sail off > into the big wide ocean. I hope when we finally > are caste adrift we don't encounter too many > storms, because this little boat we are preparing > feels kinda knackered, seen better days. Gulp. > > Louisa. What, the fact there might be some uncertainty or upheaval never occurred to you before you voted leave? I know you sometimes like to be a bit of a wind up merchant, but I don't believe you are that na?ve or that ignorant - quite the contrary. Are you secretly wishing you had the courage of your convictions - rather than immediately giving in to all the hysteria in the bubble (the EDF being a bubble within that bubble)? Now, it turns out that almost every disaster that had been predicted has not materialised and in fact the markets and economy generally have improved since the referendum. No emergency budget (within a month) with massive tax rises, no crashing property market, no third world war - and before the usual suspects jump in with 'the pound has crashed' exaggeration, it is true there has been a significant reduction in what was a rather over-valued pound, but that cuts both ways as we are seeing - sure there's a potential inflationary downside in the short to medium term particularly, but there's also major benefits - a substantial increase in tourism, hotels sold out, restaurants busy, local businesses in London busier, exporters doing way better than before. I'm not saying it is all going to be roses, but so far so good (albeit we have not left yet - obviously I just mean in comparison to the ridiculous scaremongering scenarios predicted for this stage) and there may well be as many opportunities as threats. It's just going to be different. It's neither one or the other, black or white, good or bad - its a very complex combination of good and bad. It's bound to be difficult and painful at times and/or in some respects, but in others it is likely to be better. There's only one thing I am confident about, which is that those who constantly complain about the referendum result are not going to help matters moving forward and will only make themselves miserable. You are not getting another referendum - time to look back, recognise that you were bombarded with lies about looming disaster (just as you were with lies the other way about 350m for the NHS) and try to get some perspective. If you are still buying-in to the messages from those same people (the Osborne types) who have now been proved to have been completely wrong and/or lying, then you need to have a word with yourself because you are still being taken in. I'm not suggesting you strap on rose tinted goggles, but be very wary of the messages of doom coming from people who have been proved wrong (and not just a bit wrong) already. If, by the way you do still believe what that well known newspaper editor George Osborne (and his ilk) say about Brexit, then I have some swampland in Florida that's going for a really good price - the market's just about to take off - get in quick!

Yes, but Juncker is a deluded old geezer who is way past his sell by date. It may be correct that the EU has been blamed for (some) of Britain's ills that it had no part in, but he's just trying to distract from the obvious point that in a haze (whether of booze or smug overconfidence, makes no difference) he's led the EU down the wrong road of being a federalised super-state, without the member states being capable of being joined together in that way (at least in the foreseeable future) and without the proper informed consent of their populations. It might suit one or two member states, but that's it. He balls'd it up as much as anyone else by sticking two fingers up at Cameron (with Cameron's ridiculous two day 're-negotiation') which sent a loud message to the electorate here that we could go and swivel so far as the unelected EU leadership were concerned! The backlash to that and his other policies was Brexit. I didn't particularly want Brexit (although I never believed the scare stories about the sky falling in), but I reckon its pretty obvious that old arrogant alleged p*ss-head played a major role in our departure from his version of the EU. I reckon he has quite a bit to answer for - he's done the EU no favours and ought to have had the self awareness and decency to resign after the Brexit vote, given the seriousness of his failure. But, given he's not accountable to any electorate, I suppose it's no surprise he's decided that's not a course he needs to take. Therein may lie a clue to part of the problem.

Maybe someone should start a petition?

Ha ha ha! You do know there was a referendum on this? Last year.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > ------------------- > > One thing in favour of the householder is that > > anyone convicted of a crime such as attempted > > illegal entry would have to ask the convicting > > court for permission to sue the householder for > > the damages incurred in the commission, > permission > > which would be most unlikely to be forthcoming. > > Where does that remarkable provision reside? It's in the 2003 CJA but it only addresses situations such as self defence (i.e. when a crime is being or just about to be committed - not really applicable to putting glass or nails on a wall). The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 is the one which provides for the duty of care to trespassers (the 1957 OLA being concerned with lawful visitors).

Quite right! All this armchair warrior nonsense should be ignored - it could easily get you maimed or killed. I mean, hair spray, in a fight with four muggers coming at you - really?!! You might get one - if you are lucky. Then his three mates would mess you up for it. But, you probably wouldn't even get one of them. The effective 'range' of a can of hairspray is a few inches before it disperses too much and that's before you even start to factor in any breeze, which, by the way may just end up blowing it into your own face! Oh, and you need time to get it out, get the top off and check in the dark to see which direction the nozzle is pointing in! By then you would be picking your teeth up off the floor. As for carrying a knife - get a life!

Or a variation is to set up a straw man - say someone said something or holds a point of view (which they never did) and roundly criticise them for it! Doesn't matter they never said it - what you said they said is so wrong, they must be wrong. Right?

Exactly. But someone has been wiretapping somewhere - its a disgrace - and other stuff is like wiretapping anyway.

It's the rise of fake information. Just say something false, then keep saying it until it gets repeated and starts to gain credence. If someone points out it's false, then just switch tack and say something like "well whoever is charging ?7.50 wherever they are..." as if what you are saying is not false (somewhere) - therefore trying to leave the impression it's not 'really' false!

Oh, Louisa! Maybe leave the keyboard alone after 7pm?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm definitely going to keep going there now I > > know there's no danger of hearing Louisa > moaning > > in the background! > > > > I've been to Peckham - good if you like mobile > > phones ringing, people talking, teenagers > > swearing, uncomfortable seats and sticky > carpets. > > A few quid cheaper though and close to > McDonalds > > if that's what floats your boat. I'm happy > with > > Oddono's. Each to their own. > > Don't think anyone associates any of the above > with the cinema in Peckham, but hey some people > like to think they're better than everyone else by > going to a poncy cinema and poncy ice cream shop > so they can feel good about themselves. And guess > what, that's fine too! Just admit, rather than > putting down people who might want to save a few > quid rather than waste it on trying to be seen > spending money. Very absurd behaviour. > > Louisa. Brilliant! Quite brilliant!