JoeLeg

I wish I could disagree with you...

In fairness we should remember that so much of why we read over the next twelve months will be both sides leaking and briefing in an attempt to shore up public opinion under their position. It surprises me not at all that German politicians are telling Irish ones that the British don't know what they're doing. It may be true, it may not. Your wider point about the general idiocy of politicians these days is inarguably true I feel, but I'm wary of such strident positions being posted in the media, it smells too much like people trying to gain position in the talks.

Thatcher at least BELIEVED in what she was doing. I stand opposed to almost everything she did, but I respect the fact that she truly believed in the path she walked. As you say, not something that we see much of these days.

Read it or don't KK. You might be surprised...

Interesting post KK - pm'd you.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First of all, don't you ever correct my English. > We all have word search on our phones, sometimes > it goes bossiness. Secondly, you are a total snob. > You won't even relate to this...snobs never do. > Look back on your previous posts and comments. If > you would like to discuss your manner in some kind > of elf group meeting, I'm up for it. I'm guessing > you're not. Don't you ever try to belittle me on > this forum again. Do it face to face. Looking > forward to your pm with a suggestion of a meeting > place.. You really don't like it when people disagree with you, do you? You feel free to insult others posting styles but when you get called into question...well, how dare other people think that you might be wrong! Snob? Look in the mirror. You call me nasty? Look, I have no time for this idea that online everything must be sweetness and light; you've just show yourself that you can't hold yourself to the standards you expect in others. You don't like robust discussion? Stop going online.

You accuse me of being rude?! Suggest you re-read your own post - politeness returns politeness etc I said I was interested in how you responded to the idea of wrongful conviction in a death penalty case. Feel free to twist words around to make yourself feel clever and superior. All you're doing is avoiding the question. Latest mate, can't be arsed with you.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't need to answer feck all mate. I'm not here > to justify anything ! > You can await all you want, that's not on me. Ok, be a cunt then. You hold a strident point of view, I ask you a pertinent question, you behave like a wanker. Whatever, fuckwit.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think if you intentionally burn someone's face > off with acid, a stranger who had no chance of > anticipating or defending themself, then you've > just resigned from society. Not for a year, 10 > years, but forever. > That's my view, based on how abhorrent these > crimes are. It's not self-defence, it's not a > fight where someone picks up a weapon, it's > innocent members of the public doing their normal > thing and being mutilated. > I don't care what 'century' that makes it, I care > about the person on the street and their safety > from this kind of crime. I've always been upset by > violent crimes on innocents and that won't > change. > If these attacks were paid back with death for > those proven guilty I believe they'd die-out. > I don't care what background someone's had, I > don't care if they'd had tough parents, I don't > care how bad their day's been. If you obtain acid > to maim someone then know you're risking your > remaining days to do so and don't squeal when > you're caught. > I don't care about the morality or who says what. > That's what I'd like to see, I am pissed-off about > this and don't necessarily think my solution is > perfect, but that's what I'd like to see. And I'll > pull the trigger happily (or pour the acid back in > the face of the offender, I don't feckin care). > Feck the bullshit pussy-ass high-fallutin > 'logical' arguments about knives and everything > else. > This crime deserved death. Other crimes, > debatable, but this thread's about > aceeeeeeeeeeeeeed innit. Well of course you're entitled to your opinion, and certainly you hold it passionately. At least you'd be willing to carry out the courage of your convictions. I still think you're massively wrong, and I await with interest you're answer to the very real risk of wrongful conviction.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Conscription doesn't have to be active military. > It can be any national service and it would be > great if one were created to instill some order. Now this I agree with, but the idea that it is done to "install order" makes me nervous. That kind of language smacks of the 1930's. Such service has to be more about making people understand that society is a collaborative effort which requires a certain amount of compromise and teamwork. An airy-fairy pipe dream on my part perhaps, but it serves no purpose if it does not teach anything useful. It can't just be about restrictions, is has to be visionary and empowering as well. > > TA for offenders only. Oh please. For starters it's called the Army Reserve now and has been for some time. Also I suspect you don't understand the role of the modern AR, or the needs of the regular forces. We need trained soldiers, not more part timers (though they are valuable), and giving an offender the chance to be prt time soldier is pointless. > > Would never dream of letting them out with real > guns. I don't know if you've ever tried to leave a military base with a weapon when not on deployment, but it's not exactly easy. Not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but the Army tends to have its weapons under tight control, and those same weapons are very hard to come by on the black market. Certainly if you mess around with one on base you're going to military prison. The Army is actually very good at teaching people what firearms are like.

Dude, that's pretty rude. I know you're trying to be helpful but come on - he's on here, admitting mistakes and telling people how he intends to fix them. He's being open to criticism and feedback. And you're questioning his ability? That's hardly fair. Give him some time to get the job done. I'm no fan of M+B but to me he sounds like he at least wants to try and make it work. Maybe read your post again and ask yourself if that's how you meant it to come across?

(post removed - Admin)

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > or conscription. Conscription into the military is a terrible way to deal with these things. As Fox pointed out, the services don't actually want people like this. Interestingly in America it's not unknown for offenders to be given a choice between jail and joining up. It's a subtle difference but an important one, and often works. Perhaps it should be considered here? I don't know.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Time for capital punishment to step back in a > while. Yes. Because taking society back the the 16th century is a sure-fire way to deal with this. Even Albert Pierrepoint did not believe it prevented anything. You really believe it would help?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fasci > sm > > the 1.1 'in general use' just about sums up what > fascism is.....and the left are guilty of those > things just as much as the right Hush, I'm trying to listen to the grown-ups talking.

Why don't you tell us why we shouldn't be concerned?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rh you are only quoting those that are actually > convicted- tip of the iceberg... > https://fullfact.org/europe/over-here-and-under-ar > rest-are-romanians-responsible-90-atm-crime/ > how many are still on the loose? > You definitely didn't entirely read the whole link! > oh yes what about the Chocolate fiasco A) 'Fiasco' is massive hyperbole and B) it describes a victory for shit chocolate. Hardly a ringing endorsement of U.K. production. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/678141.stm > and the french boycott of British beef > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/f > rance/1409136/France-likely-to-escape-paying-beef- > ban-fine.html Ancient news. Got anything current?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Democracy. Don't be fooled by Gina Miller and her > like. Dark forces are at work there Oh come on now - let's leave (haha, just my little pun there) conspiracy nonsense to one side. The vote is done, the result is accepted by both main political parties, and the supreme court made it plain that it was not going to be drawn on the core issue of Brexit; the 'realpolitik' is that this is happening, and anyone who thinks they can somehow stop it is a deluded fool. I would aver that anyone who believes it can be stopped - by anyone - is just as deluded. Dark forces? Well, maybe they'll spend the next 40 years trying to change it back. Churchill ahd it right on democracy. > > Rendelharris > > Personally I expected the Remain camp to win. I > thought with all the 'warnings' of Armageddon > people would err on the side of caution. > Fortunately the British people are braver than I > hoped. If Remain had won I would have accepted the > vote as I believe in democracy. I would have > shrugged my shoulders and thought to myself 'don't > come crying to me if it all goes pear-shaped' Much like the attitude of most Remain voters, with the added complication that if it does all go pear-shaped we get to go along for the ride, as do my children and everyone else's.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > My faith in democracy has also been shaken to the > core by the bitter backlash of some remainers who > don't seem able to accept the result of a > referendum they participated in. No. No, no, no, no, no.... Just hang on a moment. At the risk of engaging in my favourite hobby and repeating myself, we live in a democracy. Every time there is a vote, an election, a choice in something, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. People who lose, in a democracy, have to accept that. It's part of living in a society that doesn't involve 5am alarm calls from the secret police and having a press that is allowed to print things others don't like. It's one of the main reasons that I, as a Remain voter, woke up that morning, saw the result, complained loudly for several days (alright, weeks if not months) then took a deep breath and remembered that this is part and parcel of not living in an unpleasant part of the world. I don't get everything I want and I share this land with others who sometimes win when I lose. However, people who lose are allowed to complain about the outcome. And they're allowed to try and change it, provided that work within the established legal framework. That, too, is part of living in a democracy. And I would note that on this issue there is no serious (or even semi-serious) belief that Brexit can actually be derailed; that's tinfoil hat territory. It's why I have no truck with this whole "defying the will of the people" rubbish. We're still the people, and now we're all in it together, and while I'll probably never stop believing that this was a mistake, I'm not about to turn my back on this country. I don't think all Leave voters are racists, I don't think they are all idiots. I'm an adult and I work with people on things that we can find common ground on and try to compromise on the rest. Anything else is anarchy. Doesn't mean there won't be a lot of arguments on the way though...

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the whole JoeLeg I agree with most of that. > Lord a' mercy, a Remainer and a Brexiter finding common ground. There's hope yet! > 1. Yes many menial low paid jobs are done by > non-British people. There should be an open debate > on this, people and politicians are too frightened > to address it. Dole and housing benefit play a big > part for Brits. I'm unemployed with rent paid etc. > If I work in an old people's home, pick peas in > Lincolnshire, fruit in Kent I lose some benefits, > not worth my time. You don't hear the tories, > Labour or other parties talking about this, too > scared, no votes in it. It's not the EU's fault we > have this situation and that many EU migrants fill > these positions. Agree entirely. > > 2. Your second point. Similar to above. However, > foreigners will work for less pay and employers > certainly will pay the minimum they can get away > with and to hell with tax payers who pay for tax > credits. Tax payers should not be required to > subsidise companies paying low pay (see scandalous > gig economy scams here). None of this is he EU's > fault with the exception that the southern > countries of the EU cannot provide jobs for their > own people because Germany has them over a barrel > repaying debts to German banks. People from poorer > EU countries will migrate here for low wages which > are actually higher than they can earn in their > own countries. Yes, the wages are higher than where they come from, but the UK is not alone in that by a long chalk. They come here because they can get the jobs, and those employers will take the workers who actually DO the job properly, which, yes, goes back to my first point and I accept I'm largely repeating myself. > > 3. Your third point wanders about a bit. Yes, I know...Mea culpa. However, > I agree that a good number of Brexiteers see > immigration as a very serious problem which I > think is unfair. What must not be forgotten though > is many parts of Britain are suffering. No jobs. > High streets with shops closing being filled with > charity shops. Libraries closing and so on. The EU > got the blame for much of this in the Referendum > quite unfairly. I actually thin immigration IS a problem in many parts of the UK, but I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater was the solution. I would've preferred successive govts to recognise that they are running the whole country, not just the big cities, but they've done what they've done and here we are. > > The point was people voted for change. The roots > of this may go back before the Thatcher years but > in areas where the coal pits and factories closed, > for example, nothing replaced them. The > Blair/Brown years and Cameron/Osborne regime > changed nothing. > > Remaining in the EU, as it is currently configured > will change nothing. Germany is booming but nearly > everyone else is chugging along. Spain, Italy, > Portugal Greece and Cyprus are in intensive care. > Migration from Africa will get worse. The EU needs > to integrate more to survive, co-ordinate taxes, > create an army. > > Brexit is the only rational course I think it would've been better to stay in and force change from inside, because I agree change is needed. However, here we are. Brave new world indeed. My fear is that the 52% will have a disparity of ideas over "which Brexit" they voted for, and there will be continued anger from those who don't like what comes out in the wash. I'm far from convinced that this will solve anything, though if in ten years time we have near-full employment, a thriving (proper) apprenticeship scheme, solid British manufacturing and services being sold across the world and still manage to be outward-looking and inclusive in our nature, then I'll happily eat my words.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see the problem JoeLeg. I'm not > anti-immigration but would prefer > controlled/selective immigration which we can't > have while full members of the EU. I have never argued with the idea that uncontrolled immigration has some serious flaws and am not about to start now. I do however have a firmly-held belief that there are many jobs which are menial, low-paid and generally undesirable and which are not, on the whole, currently staffed by UK-born individuals. I have heard no coherent argument for changing that, and yet such people are commonly seen as the main culprits of taking jobs away from British people. > > You're rightly concerned about shortages in your > area. No problem, under selective immigration let > more people you need in but say no to hundreds of > thousands of others with no beneficial skills that > the EU insists we must let in. That's fine. Would you please conduct a UK-wide campaign to explain that to a lot of other people as well? I have no problem, and never have done, with the idea that a person must get a job within, say, three months of arriving here, but economic migrants go where they can get jobs. Why are those jobs not already being done by British people? Please don't give me the line that foreigners will work for less pay - minimum wage is the same for everyone, and companies will pay what they can get away with. > > Some of the scum of Europe has been allowed onto > to our shores, gangsters, drug dealers, people > traffickers and so on. We don't need people like > that. Well, it's hard to argue with such a straw man argument, so of course I won't bother, but I don't think they've been the main problem (and of course we're very good at growing our own scum). It's about jobs, and financial security, and always has been. People want to earn money and provide for their family and be successful. As humans we're very good at looking around for people to blame for problems of our own making. Immigration need to be handy deftly and with care - there's too much 'blunt talking', a lack of nuance and compromise; I hear the voice of the braying mob demanding a closure of the borders and a rejection of immigrants, and yet they seem unable to understand quite why those immigrants are here in the first place! If the jobs weren't here, neither would they be. People need to be more open-minded about this issue.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's up to people like you and me JoeLeg. The > world is changing fast. If you've given up already > and are a nervous wreck it doesn't bode well for > when your job is replaced by a robot. Interesting way of putting it. I don't think being nervous about future events is the same as being a nervous wreck, but your definition may be different to mine. I'm a chef, so I don't imagine my job will be replaced by robot any time soon. I do wish I could get a few working for me though, because recruitment since the referendum has become disastrous (and I don't use that word lightly) throughout the whole hospitality industry. I know people in major hotel chains, people in Michelin-starred kitchens, people in pub companies, as well as contacts in the agencies. They al say the same thing - the quantity of EU applicants has dropped noticeably, which is a problem in an industry where 80% of staff (yes, 80%) are non-UK. Interestingly, according to a regular customer of ours who runs a major London hospital, that figure is similar in the NHS. I would happily employ an entirely UK-born kitchen team, but they just don't seem to want to enter the industry. I like a fast-changing world, and I'm not so filled with hubris as to believe we are on an inevitable course to disaster. I'm always open to debate and being persuaded; however, I do not buy the idea that things will automatically be ok when we leave. Politicians have a long history of screwing things up, and given how big an issue, for example, immigration was in many voters minds, I'm astonished by how many people seem to think it will simply be ok. Christ, even David Davis is playing it down. But I've posted ad nauseam my opinion on this so won't bore you with it again. Just spare us the 'don't worry, it'll be fine' rubbish. It smacks of condescension and ridicule.

> > Years ago Loz, people feared sailing towards the > horizon meant you'd fall off the earth. In fact, > if it was wasnn't for fearless Brexit-like types > prepared to take a risk the Antipodes would never > have been discovered and they're be no Dame Edna. > > Remainers are a bit like early cartographers - > Here be Dragons You do use some odd analogies sometimes... Those explorers risked only themselves, and there are as many (if not more) tales of disaster as success. Brexit is taking an entire nation on an unprecedented journey. Stop telling those who disagree with you that they have to take you on blind faith. Accept that this entails elements of tremendous risk, and that others are free to voice their fears. Honestly, I got so fed up a Leave voters basically telling me "it'll be alright, what's the worst that could happen?" What, like have a binary vote that then puts total power in the hands of a few people who have to negotiate everything in a very short space of time having nothing to base it on and hope for the best? Yeah, can't imagine why I'm so nervous...You're taking EVERYONE with you, and promising it'll be ok. It'd better be, mate...

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Okay, fair point JoeLeg but I think you'll agree > there are many people trying to undermine Brexit. > > Now, the whole thing seems quite simple to me. > Firstly, it's becoming clear Michel Barnier, the > EU chief negotiator, is an irrelevant patsy. We > should refuse to talk to him. In the last 48 hours > Guy Verhofstadt and another member of the European > Parliament you'll never have heard of have > threatened to veto practically everything. > > Solution? I do have an idea how we could wrap up > all negotiations and trade deal well before > Christmas but I suspect you wouldn't like it They might be trying but they won't succeed, and I am firmly convinced that too many people are still fighting the referendum of a year ago and not focusing on moving forward; that goes for BOTH sides. We live in a democracy, we had a vote, one side lost. The other side won and now the ball is in their court, but the losers still get to complain (now fairs fair, Farage et al have been complaining for nearly half a century, so you don't get to tell the other lot that they have to shut up and be quiet - democracy, remember?). That`t's not the same thing as derailing the whole process which any reasonable person will tell you is simply not going to happen. We're all in it now, and anyone who voted Remain, lost, got annoyed for a while and then moved on (like me and frankly quite a lot of us) is now allowed to have an opinion. This is not the same as standing in the way of 'the will of the people' (of whom we are part, remember?). Just because we lost doesn't mean you can tell us to shut up. You call us Remoaners (which is as juvenile as all the other names used by both sides), but that inherently postulates the idea that because we disagreed with you last year all our thoughts and beliefs are wrong and should be discounted. But you can't tell 48% of the population that they have no say. You have an idea, I'm sure. Feel free to share it, maybe I'll feel free to disagree with it (democracy, remember?), and in a couple of years time no matter what has happened there will be very little change to immigration, business will have dictated most of the terms of whatever deal we get, all sides will spin it as a victory, and frankly nothing will have changed for the ordinary person in the street. That's my prediction, but what do I know? And farmers will still be on subsidies.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with most of what you said JoeLeg (except > the EU bit) > > Yes, we need to pay a true cost for food. I buy my > milk from a milkman (glass bottle etc), 89p a pint > if I remember but the supermarkets sell 4 pints > for ?1. Am I a fool? Well, I doubt it, but somehow I suspect eve that .89p is undervaluing milk. Still, nice to know there are still milkmen around. > > I'm going to watch the Panorama programme at > 8.30pm on farmers and Brexit so will get back to > you then. Feel free, but I maintain the essential issue has very little to do with Brexit or anything other than the fact that people don't understand what farming actually is, or why their kebab is so cheap, and why it shouldn't be. > > I hope there's lots of footage of peasant French > farmers wearing berets with yellow Gauloise fags > in the corner of their mouth standing next to huge > tractors more suitable for American prairies - > claiming poverty and wondering how flash boy > Macron with Louis XIV pretensions is going to > subsidise their lifestyles now they're due to lose > Britain's Billions What happens on the continent is irrelevant to the problems we face here. This is about - IMO - the culture in this country that thinks food should be cheap. It shouldn't. It should affordable, but the idea that a chicken should cost ?5, for example, is retarded.