JoeLeg

This might actually get me to visit the Village, have to admit a liking for their sandwiches. I think they?re not bad. If it sends local snobs into fits of apoplexy at the sale of Tottenham slices then so much the better!

> > (Is it sexist then?) There are plenty of > rage-filled ranty men and women out there of all > races- David Lammy is a good example And so are you. > > As far as the undercover cops are concerned- > anyone who is undermining decent society by > breaking the law and putting young people in > danger DESERVE to be infiltrated if that's what > gets the job done....and, of course, WE demand > that the job gets done! You sound more and more like Oswald Mosley with every post. ETA - if you had half an ounce of awareness, you?d know that NOBODY has objected to the principle of undercover work. That?s a straw man set up by you alone. What they had trouble with was the lies told by police officers in the course of that work and the extent to which the Met tried to cover it up afterwards. This isn?t about covert operations per se, it?s about the trustworthy ness of the police. You once said you only read Private Eye. If so then you should be more au fait with the highly questionable police antics in these cases.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know its loltastic and shizzle, but > underestimate the stubborn fury of out of London > leave voters* at your peril - this isn't going to > go away and many would like to see it enacted > irrespective of cost and impact. London is the > mega city one to their cursed earth - there is > nothing they would like more than to teach it a > lesson. things are arguably grimmer up north than > they have been since the last century. > > Whilst we fret about our avocado smash supplies > and finding a new aupair, many, many decent people > who have no faith in the gerrymandered political > system any longer are up against it on a daily > basis & our catcalls of ignorant racist and bigot > are hardly likely to build any support in the > short term. > > the EDF can be a bit of a echo chamber sometimes. > > * and I didn't use the gammon word either, as it > pretty offensive apparently. rofl. You?re right about all of that and I?ve been saying it for some time. However... Quite a few of those problems are NOTHING to do with the EU, but rather a political system designed to give the impression of control by the voting public while really being nothing of the kind. Yes, many many people have been screwed over, but Europe is not always the reason. Note I say ?not always?. I agree the EU has a lot of problems, but a lot of those who voted Leave are now often expecting some kind of utopian deliverance. When nothing really changes in their day-to-day lives, who will they blame? An awful lot of what is wrong with us, we did to ourselves. Also, Leave voters need to recognise that there ARE those who voted that way because of bigoted reasons. Not many, I?m sure, but they shout the loudest in debates and drown out a lot of reasonable voices. Pretending there are no racist Leave voters is like pretending there are no Remainers who believe all Leavers are racist. Twats on both sides are still stifling sensible debate. And yes, the EDF is an echo chamber at times. So are all those little towns outside London where they hate us and the EU. We need to start talking more.

While of course it?s his property and his business what he does with it, I?ve always wondered why he holds onto it in such a ramshackle state? If it?s because he wants to let his kids inherit it, surely some kind of maintenance would be beneficial? Each to their own of course. Personally I don?t object to the visual nature of it, I?m just perplexed as to why it?s like that when there is no perceptible upside to it.

...wow...

I don?t really understand why Trump/?Murica thinks the rest of the world won?t feel free to retaliate with tariffs. Trudeau isn?t popular within Canada, but most Canadian citizens are rallying behind him over this; they?re furious at Trumps attitude towards Canada, and all he?s doing is succeeding in shoring up Trudeau, who was floundering somewhat. Yes, Trudeau stabbed Trump in the back, from one point of view. Quite why Trump is surprised that someone finally pushed back is beyond me.

Sounds a lot like something that originated in the legal department. To be honest actually I?m surprised they ever accepted stuff that wasn?t PAT-tested.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A couple of small points regarding the NHS. > > Most of us pay National Insurance, so you can't > say the NHS is free. We pay for it. > Free *at the point of delivery* is the issue. Of course we have to pay for it, everything is to be paid for somehow.

Keano mate, Don?t go putting words in my mouth now, we both know you?re not that kind of guy. My point is that if America gets its claws into our healthcare system we will come to regret it. May has stated the ?NHS is not for sale?, but she?s flip-flopped on so much that I?m not sure I believe her. Of course we need to have a serious and very honest national conversation about the future of our healthcare, but that?s for us to do, and if we sell parts of it to one of the most avaricious pharma-businesses ever known then we lose everything. The examples you give are extreme indeed; before we even get to those issues (and we?ll have to) there?s the fact that modern medicine is far more expensive than many people realise, and there?s not enough trained professionals to do it at the moment, because it isn?t something anyone can just drop into. When my wife was recovering from an operation for something that was killing her, I had a surprisingly frank chat with a junior doctor who said he wished they were allowed to tell people how much everything cost, in the hope that they would start to understand how lucky we are. He also bemoaned the fact that otherwise intelligent and reasonable adults would turn up at hospital expecting some kind of magical, painless cure for things, and become upset when they were told that lifestyle, diet and attitude adjustments would be part of their recovery. Too many people just don?t understand how complex and financially draining it is. And the staff are all terrified of making a mistake. I believe very strongly that healthcare needs to be free at the point of delivery. No system - none - is perfect, and what worked in the 50?s in plainly not fit for purpose now. I?m on genial terms with the director of a major London hospital, and his wife is a senior nurse at another major London hospital; both of them absolutely agree that the debate needs to happen, but politicians are too concerned with saying the wrong thing so they issue general platitudes but refuse to be tied down on actual policy. It infuriates them both. The NHS has saved my mums life twice, my wife?s life once, and safely delivered both our kids as well as helping me. And it cost nothing. When we are sick we should not, in the modern world - no one should - be having to worry about paying for it. There are some things that government needs to run for the benefit of all, and healthcare is one of them. Yes, the NHS has a lot of problems. But they are our problems to deal with. If Brexit inadvertently results in compromising our ability to fix this, then it will have failed us.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which is precisely why we shouldn?t have had a > referendum in the first place. If we had referenda > on everything we would have capital punishment and > many other ills. > > Agreed. Very very very much agreed.

Wherever we are in the queue, we?re going to get screwed by them. Kiss goodbye to the NHS in any reasonable form because a non-negotiable stance from Washington is that we have to open it up to US healthcare business. Not convinced that May will hold her ground on this matter, even though she claims the NHS is not for sale.

Look, people can march as much as they like, but realistically we all know it?s not going to be put to a public vote again. I think marches etc are fine for purposes of keeping public pressure on government, but I hope no one is kidding themselves that it will actually to any kind of referendum, plebiscite or vote. Nor should it, to my mind (and everyone is free to tell me I?m wrong). We elect officials to lead the country, and this is part of it. The final deal will be so complex that there?s no way the whole of the voting public can be expected to comprehend it in enough detail to render a considered vote. That?s not to call people stupid, just that this is a sodding complex issue way beyond the realms of Twitter. I?m still really angry that the govt has been so idiotic thus far, and part of me hopes the whole thing is a clever Trump-esque ?method in our madness? scheme, and not the amateur hour it appears to be so far. We?re going to be arguing about it for a long time regardless...

So much Nimbyism... Sad. Really sad that people are blowing this so out of proportion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I think there?s plainly issues with the effect the noise had on the closest residents which does need to be addressed much better if they?re considering a repeat, but as for the rest? Nimbyism.

Whatever dude...And don?t compare me to the EDL. I?m not debating with someone like that.

Loz wrote > Apart from the glaring error of your first three > words, an insult that is specifically applied to a > certain race is, by definition, a racist insult. > The insult even alludes to a skin colour. QED. ?Gammon? is not racist. It really isn?t. It?s juvenile and idiotic but it doesn?t refer to all white people. It refers to what supposedly happens to someone?s blood pressure when they get angry, which can apply to any member of the human race. > > I notice that those who disagree with me haven't > actually made any actual argument that it's not > racist, just the very weak 'defence' that 'they' > use insults as well, so it's OK. Which is a bit > like saying that assaulting someone who may > possibly have assaulted someone else is somehow > OK, rather than the ever-descending-circle of > madness is actually is. No, what I said was that the very people who are targeted by that phrase have been using insulting language towards those who disagree with them for some time now, language which I have argued against and been told (not by yourself, I should point out) is perfectly acceptable. It?s hardly surprising that a counter-phrase has been created, and personally I feel both sides should refrain. As I said in another thread, most debate these days has descended to the level of adolescent playground insults, and here we have s perfect example. > > I don't much like the views of Brexiteers either, > but 'gammon' is still a racist insult however much > you try to justify it. I didn?t try to justify its use. And I sill dispute the racist nature of it. ?Gammon? is far more - I would say - of a class/age/political issue insult.

Many of those who object to the use of ?gammon? have had very little trouble with ?snowflake? and ?libtard?. Sauce for the goose, methinks. I?m not really sure what they were trying to achieve; like Saffron says, many people were already aware of the facts of the cases concerned, and no one is surprised that undercover police (or any police) have abused their power. The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad is no more (thankfully), but corruption is unfortunately still with us. There must surely be better ways to highlight it than such as this. It just seems so...amateur, like they were really just trying to provoke for the sake of it.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lush has a long history of activism.there is > plenty out there if you could be arsed to google > it. I think this was crudely done though, like they left it to the intern to figure out. The essential message got lost behind what looks like a blunt attack on all police officers. Activism is good, this was stupid.

There?s some real Nimbyism going on here.

(Edited because, you know what Rendell, you're absolutely right. Thanks for the moment of clarity)

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be honest, it's more that I find your muddled > logic and convoluted posts incredibly tedious. > Sorry. This is exactly the problem. Attitudes like this are exactly the problem. I suspect there?s many areas on which I and QD will never agree, but I?m at least willing to talk and debate on things that need it. When you dismiss people like that it?s essentially ?no-platforming?, a remarkably childish way of dealing with disagreements. Too many of us, on both side of any debate, have just stopped listening to the other side. That has to change. Can you explain where his logic is muddled and convoluted? Because it seems pretty clear to me.

Precisely. When moderates and centrists refuse to have difficult conversation like immigration and segregation, they automatically cede the debate to the extreme edges. Reasonable, tolerant people suddenly find themselves accused of all sorts of nonsense and have no way back in. Is there a problem with immigration? Well, a lot of people seem to think so, so we should be talking abut it. But we don?t, so only the idiots get airtime, and they make tremendous headway before anyone else has realised the race is on. ETA - I was responding to an erudite and reasonable post from flocker who has now deleted it, not sure why.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't believe I named anyone. Whatever then...juvenile.

Hey, seriously, RPC, did you just accuse me of right wing, extremist views?

I?m sorry, are you including me in that?

Quia Differt Wrote > > Then that is to your eternal credit as it amazes > me how many people don't want to hear or see > inconvenient things. > > That?s true on both sides of the debate. Again, the internet is filled with people making claims that they don?t have to back up. The ?left? - whatever that is these days - is constantly being told it lives in a little echo chamber/bias bubble, but I?d say that near enough everyone is doing that. > > Doubtless that is true but doesn't, almost, > everyone do that ? Well yes, doubtless. But it doesn?t make his footage any less suspect. > > Fortunately no race war but an increasing number > of Towns and areas segregated more and more on > cultural and religious grounds which I thought was > the complete opposite of what we would want and > were trying to achieve. > > Besides Luton ther's > Leicester,Oldham,Burnley,Blackburn, Huddersfield, > Bradford and numerous others. Segregation is a massive problem, and not one that - IMO - has evolved as a result of government policy, but more out of government indifference. For many years Spitalfields had road signs in Bengali as well as English, and Chinatown of the 70?s and 80?s has similar in Cantonese. Were these bad ideas? Probably not. Throughout UK history we?ve had enclaves, local diaspora?s, call them what you will. Intergration into British society was a gradual thing - first generation immigrants probably kept within their groups, but the kids thought of themselves as British. Generally there wasn?t a problem. It?s hard for me to know when the balance tipped. The segregation we see in some towns is a issue now, but I don?t think it occurred out of any active policy on anyone?s part; just nobody really notices until it went too far. My personal feeling on immigration has always been ?Pay your taxes and obey the law and everything will be cool.?, which I reckon covers pretty much everything. The reason Yaxley et al wind me up is because they claim to want a sensible debate on immigration and integration - which I fully agree we need, not least because everyone is now so entrenched at the extremes of the issues which is never a good thing - but because that isn?t where they want to finish. The details contained within the political statements of people like the EDL, BNP and even the Football Lads Alliance are pretty extreme, which is ironic given how they claim to be anti-extremists. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube videos, they?ve all taken away the need for peer review, the ability to challenge ideas. Now a theory, a rumour or a claim, however outlandish, can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. Moreover, due to the instantaneous nature of the ability to post such stuff, no one has to stop and think before saying it; people can and are reacting fast. Now there?s a place for that, but also there?s a time to stop and think before opening your browser, and too many don?t. And then there?s the simple fact that a lot of people believe something just because it?s online and tallies their worldview. Debate on this issue has descended to the level of adolescents shouting cod psychology at each other in the schoolyard.