JoeLeg

Mr Pedantic would like to point out that - as far as we know - Begum has not committed treason under our current definition. This is rather the point of Javid opening up the question of what should constitute ?treason?. That said, she?s shown no remorse over her behaviour or allegiances and seems only to want to avoid having a third infant die in the hellhole she occupies. Now I feel personally that the child has committed no crime and should be allowed to come here; it is the offspring of a British citizen and is currently somewhere that no child should have to be. Begum herself should be arrested upon landing and interrogated, and if she is found to have committed a crime she should be imprisoned. The child is the complicating factor. It does not deserve to suffer the sins of the parent, but unless she agrees (highly unlikely) it cannot be separated from her and we will have to face that. Otherwise she could frankly stay where she is.

Given that he?s actively positioning himself to take over from May, I?d say ?hardly surprising? is my initial thought. It?s like his own little Falklands... Less sarcastically? Well, when were the current treason laws written? Are they relevant to the modern world? Talking about them isn?t a bad thing so long as it?s done sensibly. So I?d say both pragmatic and opportunistic. Plus just because an MP talks about something hardly means they?re actually going to do anything...

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that's a strange video, not least because it > appears to have been filmed on his commute. > > I think his main issue is that tenants were > missold when they entered into the lease. If so > then he will need more evidence about the > marketing that went on at the time. Otherwise it > looks like a landlord exercising their rights at > the end of the tenancy; if tenants don't like that > (and I can see why they wouldn't) then they > shouldn't enter into the 5-year lease. There?s a lot of (former) tenants of Emterprise who allege that they were outright lied to, both during the application/negotiations and subsequently. A pub in Balham took them to court claiming that Enterprise had tampered with equipment designed to measure how much beer they were selling. They won. What I would say is that no one should touch Enterprise with a barge pole.

What I know about property law could fit on the back of half a stamp, but doesn?t a freehold trump everything else? Or is it that Jaime owns the land that the pub stands on, but somehow the business itself is separate? I need someone to explain it to me slowly using brightly coloured crayons...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anna Soubry- Born in Lincolnshire, MP for Broxtowe > an area that voted LEAVE- the woman has lost touch > with her roots and constituents...good riddance > Still, having been a barrister AND a journalist- > double whammy in the libturd stakes And yet Kate Hoey is allowed to ignore the fact that 70% of HER constituents voted Remain? Let me see if I understand your ?logic?... - MP voted Remain, but constituents voted Leave, MP is duty-bound to support Leave. Ok, yeah, fair enough - I see where you?re coming from on that. They work for us and so on. - MP voted Leave, but constituents voted Remain (by a far greater margin than the overall result), MO is duty-bound to lecture those constituents about how wrong they are and then ignore their opinions. Um, hang on...isn?t that exactly what you objected to for so many years, and isn?t that completely twisted? And massively hypocritical? Yes. Yes it is. Oh, and look - ?libturd?. Your term of abuse for anyone who disagrees with you. I bet you looked fetching in your yellow vest. Funny how they say people get more right-wing as they age, eh? ?Libturd?...dear oh dear...

To be fair the trade deal with Japan is still on the table, although I suspect we?ve burned some goodwill. China is always tricky territory, both literally and figuratively, although Williamson has to know that which makes his comments even more bone-headed. All that said, it doesn?t bode well for the idea that we?re good negotiators.

No problem, you?re welcome. I?m here all week, try the veal and tip your server.

You seem obsessed with the raw number. It means nothing on its own. The percentage is the important factor. If you won by just one vote it?s massive of three of you voted, not so massive if 30 of you voted, and pretty small if 300 of you voted, and so on and so on... It may sound impressive to you, but not to a lot of other people.

uncleglen Wrote > > (It was a racist question smacking of > bigotry )....who funds the Mayor of London Office, > who funds Tfl and who is therefore ultimately > going to pay the cost of extra staff for an event which is actually quite a good thing but I?ll take any opportunity to have a go at Sadiq because I just don?t like him and there?s nothing conceivable he could do to change my mind etc etc.... Look, Glen mate, have that computer looked at will you? Again I?ve fixed your post, no charge, but it keeps posting something different to what you really wanted to write. I?m abusy guy and I can?t be constantly checking your work. Maybe use the ?preview? function first? Have a good day!

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure what you are trying to say JoeLeg or what > YMMV means? > > Leave voters voted to leave the EU by over one > point two million voters in 2016 so that is not a > 'skin of their teeth vote'. Well, given how many people actually voted, and the fact that the Leave campaign used some pretty dodgy arguments, and that Nigel himself declared that it wouldn?t be over if Remain won by 52%, I feel pretty comfortable agreeing that it was a very slim majority for Leave. Cummings himself said that the ?Turkey? lie alone got them in the region of 650,000 votes. The vote is over, Leave won (and is merrily f?ing it up and blaming everyone else), but they didn?t win by very much st all.

Really? Why? It was a pretty close vote, and there were some pretty dodgy claims made by the Leave campaign. I?d say ?skin of their teeth? is fairly close to the truth. YMMV, as the yoof say...

I loath Tebbit with every fibre of my being...and yet there?s a grain of truth in that statement, sometimes people expect the world to come to them - unfortunately in the context of the time it was spoken it?s pretty bad, and even today it?s by no means true that anyone and everyone can up sticks and hunt down employment elsewhere. E

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On 23rd June 2016 a very slim majority of the PEOPLE had the final > say based entirely on a protest campaign run by very rich people who will not lose anything if Brexit goes badly, and founded on the basis that it?s easy to be against something when you aren?t required to come up with an actual solution to it ...stop reading the 'Express'.....the trouble is with hard Leavers > is they thought they don?t actually have to have a plan because > some of them (NOT ALL) live in areas where NO-ONE really cared about the fact that while London et al can certainly be accused of being an echo chamber, parts of the U.K. are still backward socially and are rife with outdated prejudices and beliefs, including an instinctive distrust of foreign people, but they refuse to admit thisanout themselves. They also seem to have a lot of British people who are quite happy to remain on benefits while refusing to take hard jobs that then go to immigrants, such as hospital cleaners/porters. > (it?s amazing how hard it is to be gay or black in some parts of the UK, but that?s ok because apparently they know more about real life than us here in London) because of the EU > single market rules, which won?t seem so bad once Trump gets his savage one-sides trade deal which will flood us with cheap American products that subsequently increase pressure on the NHS that will have been half-sold to American healthcare! ..of course if it all goes wrong they?ll still blame the EU because it stuck up for itself. Blitz spirit! Plucky Britain! Traitors talking down the country! Your spellcheck must be playing up Uncle, fixed it for you, no charge...😉

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really get Christians or Christianity. I > mean, if you believe the whole bible word for > word, and use it as some sort of definitive moral > code, then you must be incredibly naive, and you > almost certainly have some rather bigoted views. > > If, on the other hand, you pick and choose the > bits you like, and just treat it's assorted > anecdotes as some sort of loose guideline... then > what's the point? You've apparently already > decided that your own morality takes precedence. I think one of the main problems with the Bible is the division between Old and New Testament teachings. The Old Testament seems far more logical when viewed in terms of a survival guide for life on a harsh and unforgiving land filled with people who didn?t really understand human nature. The New Testament seems to be centredred mostly on the idea that people had strayed from the message of love and faith and needed to be abit nicer to each other. Christianity, like all religions, has schismed many times over the years - American evangelicals see the CofE as near-heretics for their modern stance, and as for Catholics...don?t get me started. People are still arguing over whether it?s ?Thou Shalt Not Kill? or ?Thou Shalt Not Murder? (again, parts of the USA are strangely keen that it be the latter!). In light of all this I think the Bible, like any religious text, can never be more than what the individual interprets it to be. Just one of many reasons why theocratic regimes are f?ing bad...

Leave it up, if only as a reminder that those who profess to understand the deeper meanings of Christ really only use it as a justification for their own fears and hatreds. John 13:34, Mathew 7:1. Those two passages alone show up the inherent hypocrisy in the OP. But there?s no arguing with religious zealotry. Organised religion is at the heart of so much that has gone wrong in this world. I remember the words of my uncle, a retired Presbyterian minister whose faith was formed in the furnace of El Alamein, who said after officiating at my fathers funeral that he had no time for ?organised religion?, much preferring ?disorganised religion?, where people talk between themselves and develop their faith as they see/feel best. Faith, he maintained, is an individual thing. The OP can do one, frankly.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No deal here we come! I think that may be the > plan. > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/13/k > icking-up-dust-little-sign-of-progress-in-uk-eu-ta > lks?CMP=twt_gu I think there?s certainly a lot of people who want a No Deal. There?s this image of us being this plucky little nation that always punched above its weight, and anyone who expresses concern is told they?re ?talking down the country?. There?s certainly a narrative being pushed in social media and parts of the press that the EU is bullying us and refusing to be reasonable. Personally I think it?s far more that the U.K. went into this far too early and has made a hash of it. I?m very uncomfortable with the way the groundwork has already been laid for the idea that this is STILL all the fault of the EU, and that we?d have a great deal if it wasn?t for those pesky kids in Brussels. I?m also really not sure I buy this narrative of there being lots of Remain voters who have decided that because of how the EU have ?treated us? We should go for No Deal, like they?ve had some kind of Damascene conversion. I believe the ERG has wanted No Deal all along, as has the DUP, and a lot of the public simply believes either it?ll be ok in the end, and/or the medium term pain will be worth it. I guess we?ll see...

Penguin68 > > I think you'll find she is hated because she stood > up to the police unions and, more particularly, > because she tried to stop indiscriminate stop and > search. As Home Secretary she would have been > bidding for more funds - it was Osborne and the > Treasury taking them away. No spending Minister > tries to reduce their spend unless forced. Their > spend is how they judge their worth. It was the > stop and search move which really rankled - which > she did for the best reasons as that was still a > practice where discrimination against minorities > could be exercised by the Met. And was. Now I?ve got no argument with the fact that she took on the unions and dealt with S+S; absolutely it was an issue rife with discrimination. However, she was Home Sec when the funds got reduced, and frankly I - personally - feel she carries the can for that. The Treasury is too easy a target. She was in charge, she?s responsible.

goldfinger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another stabbing in Peckham last night, where are > the bloody police. This government needs to focus > on bring back the police and stop talking about > BREXIT. There are too many families grieving and > too many young lives taken away. My condolenses go > to all those families. Now we are scared to send > our kids out when its dark, what is this world > coming to that we have to live in fear because the > government do not care about daily life. Bring > back the Police on the roads. This. Very much this. A report out today states that 90% of police officers feel they are undermanned. I frequent a couple of forums with a fair number of serving and former police officers on it and they put it in much blunter terms. Theresa May is openly loathed by the rank and file police (and also by the higher ups though on the quiet) because she gutted them financially when she was Home Sec and now they have to carry the can for rising crime. It?s undoubtable that we need the police (and the other emergency services) funded much better, though unfortunately that might not necessarily have stopped this senseless attack. Apologies for thread drift, but there is an undoubted link between cutting police and rising crime.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joeleg do make sure to read whole article > (cholera) rather than becoming fixated on being > right, who knows you might learn something. I did read the whole article. I > missed you asking about cholera in Uk, that is > assuming you did not add it in one of your 4 > edits. I didn?t add it in an edit. You just didn?t read the original post properly. I see a pattern emerging. In the link it explains the connections > globally along with many reasons before vaccines > how it died out at times. I am not in the habit of > selective reading to prove i am right best left > to the reader to decide whats of interest, this > was a link that was neither for or against > vaccines, its a while since Ive read about that > disease, i found it interesting. I am at a loss to understand what that has to do with medical understanding of cholera being at the heart of the fight against the disease, but ok. > In regards to links, hands up I don't always read > them, as I have in the past, i cannot at this > moment find actual figures, as to cases in india, > > But link gives some info,and hands up I havent > read all that either, its being a political > concern and a huge issue for years. I've read > conflicting information regarding the fewer cases > in US and UK, without a mention of India, > > https://www.scidev.net/asia-pacific/disease/news/o > ral-polio-drops-linked-to-paralysis-in-india.html That?s another link you haven?t read properly, isn?t it? It does not oppose vaccination against polio, rather it suggests that the use of an oral vaccine as opposed to injections is responsible for the rate of paralysis and advocates a move to an injection-administered vaccine as safer. And I?m still waiting for those answers. I?m going to bed now, perhaps I?ll check back on this thread or perhaps not. Your constant dodging of direct questions is tedious at best but typical of an anti-vaxxer who can?t explain science.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Says you Rendel that wasn't aware of > acknowledgement of vaccine damage through the > payment scheme. Exactly how many claims have been made? Set against how many vaccinations issued? To make it easy Rendell pulled the figures for you earlier. They?re not exactly...large. Have you any idea of the figures > involved in India. Do enlighten us. Be sure to use a source that actually backs you up.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joeleg, incase you may have not noticed I do not > care how stupid you see me, I realise I am not > always clear, and my English not great, but hey > that won't stop me from deciding for myself > regardless how stupid you choose to see me. It?s nothing to do with your command of language, and everything to do with the fact that you didn?t read the very clear stats in your own link. I can?t help that you don?t check your sources. Here?s a link to the NVIC who you worship. I would?ve used the CDC but you don?t believe a word that trained, experienced doctors say because apparently you?ll never need medical care. So here?s the NVIC using EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBERS AS THE CDC. Numbers which demonstrate a collapse in cases of measles among children after widespread vaccination. https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Measles/measles-history-in-america.aspx But what do I know? Maybe it was because of phases of the moon or something. Aaaaanyway, I?m still awaiting your answer on why a lot less children die from diseases like polio and measles and so on since the advent of vaccines, and I?m still awaiting your link to proof of a 2017 outbreak of cholera in the U.K.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I meant the cholera link, the point is Joeleg said > child mortality had decreased, that is > questionable, whatever that shows it will not be > an isolated cause, which seems to be a problem for > people who like to blame, and like to create us > and them situations then talk of paranoia as if > looking from a distance. There?s literally nothing I can say that will make you look any stupider than you do right now.

That is in no way an answer to the point, and you are deluded if you think it is. You know full well before the advent of vacinnes a lot more children died of measles et al than they do now. ETA - Also, you haven?t actually read that ONS link properly, have you? ?However, over the past 30 years, the rate of decline of the infant mortality rate has varied, with the decrease between 1996 and 2006 being half as much as was recorded between 1986 and 1996. In contrast, the decrease in the past 10 years was higher than that of the decade before (Figure 1). Since 1986, when the rate was 9.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, there has been a 60.4% fall in the infant mortality rate in England and Wales.? Have a look at it again. There?s also a graph of that helps.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh and by the wsy I think 2017 kas cholera > outbreak. Link please.

Still not addressing the point about child mortality declining since the introduction of vaccines.