rendelharris

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's true Corbyn hasn't said > > he'll ban all young Muslims from leaving the > > country, and ban any who do (even if they're > > British born and bred) > > No, that trio have been more up for banning MI5 > and armed Police, or did you choose to 'forget' > that abject insanity? Can you point me to anywhere Corbyn said he'd ban armed police or Mi5 please Robbin, because Google doesn't come up with anything.

I can think of several words, amongst them pathetic, desperate, childish and stupid. Daily Mail cartoons, eh? What a fantastic contribution you make to debate. It's true Corbyn hasn't said he'll ban all young Muslims from leaving the country, and ban any who do (even if they're British born and bred) from returning, nor intern Muslims on Lundy Island and only let them go if they agree to be tattooed with Muslim symbols on both forearms - all things you want, apparently - but not everybody thinks that's a bad thing.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Kickers are > either loved or reviled by their forwards > (depending on how much running to and from they > have to do while fly-halfs swap kicks). Yep, when I moved to back/2nd row in my later years there was a lot of "if you're going to kick it we're going to keep it for ourselves" going on!

Not sure I'd play Wynn Jones or Davies, and Owens and Best are about neck and neck, the other five seem fair enough.

Brighton doesn't have a Green council, it's Labour minority.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I were to blame anyone it would be Sexton for > the garryowen which led to lost possession and > their try. Those high balls just seem like 50/50 > so much of the time. Why risk losing the ball? A > kick for terratory would have been a better > option. Or, I could blame Best for that last line > out throw though I don't know for sure that he > didn't throw it where he intended to and it was > the jumper's mistake. > > I can't see Nowell getting near the test team but > apart from him I didn't see anyone have a poor > game. Agree with all of that, the pack were generally good but not outstanding (with the exception of Marler who I thought was poor when he came on and conceded an idiot penalty trying to crawl through the bottom of the ruck holding the ball), the backs were competent but not sparkling (except as you say, Nowell who just lacks the required pace and Williams for idiot behaviour) - just everyone a bit too just competent. Kicking has long befuddled me - we've got possession on our 10m, shall we keep it and drive on or give it to the oppo on their 10m?

Ladbrokes were offering 3/1 on Trump and 1/5 on Clinton the day of the US election, and 3/1 on Brexit with Remain odds-on, so they're not always the best indicators.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh dear. It's that time of year again when us > Welsh take the blame :( Gatland's from NZ by the > way. > > Lions didn't really play that badly. Saturday > important now. I'm not blaming the Welsh! Except for Liam Williams, he was lucky to get away with the first hit in the air, to do a second one a minute later was idiotic and deserved the card.

Wow, if there's a better try than that Blues one on 74m this tour it'll have to be something special.

Blues have started the second half better, look like they've got real belief. Lions still look tired and devoid of ideas.

Stone me GG, I knew you were a hateful rightwinger but I didn't realise you're actually a Nazi. You want to tattoo people who haven't been found guilty of any crime, yes? Just as the Nazis did with Jews. You want to restrict freedom of travel for British citizens based on their religion, yes? Just as the Nazis did with Jews. You want internment without trial for suspects based on their religion, yes? Just as Nazis did with Jews. You want to abolish laws which guarantee our freedoms because of your perception of a threat from an "enemy within"? Just as the Nazis did with Jews. Your opinions are utterly filthy. Note to admin - happy to be banned if the above is beyond the pale, already seriously considering whether one should countenance breathing the same metaphorical air as Green Goose.

Don't get me wrong Quids, I'm not saying Corbyn wasn't an utter twat to do what he did - but I regard May's cosying up to the Saudis as just as bad, indeed worse as she's giving Britain's imprimatur to the pretty heinous wrongs of the Saudi regime. The thing about realpolitik is that it removes any moral dimension and also has a habit of biting one in the arse when the winds shift: it was realpolitik to sell arms to both the Iranians and Iraqis during the 1980s and that didn't work out so well, did it?

I find this odd as I'm sure that in the first election I can really remember (1979) there were far more election posters in windows (and people used to put them on stakes in their front gardens as well) than today and that the numbers have been steadily diminishing ever since. I'm not saying anything for or against displaying posters, but I'm sure the idea that people didn't put them up in the good old days is false. I can remember party activists would knock and if one said one was voting for them they'd offer one a poster, haven't experienced that for many years.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She went as Prime Minister of this country - she > didn't appear on their state media as a non-entity > MP condoning the west and taking money for her > appearance. Ah, so it's OK to act immorally and consort with murderous regimes when representing the country but not as a private individual. Gotcha.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and meanwhile Corbyn took fees of the State Media > of a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, > because the regime is an enemy of the US, (far > more recently than the 80s too)...sometimes > actions speak louder than words eh Rendel To me to you indeed...and Mrs May's last trip overseas outside Europe, just two months ago, was to a country where homosexuals can be stoned to death and where women can be beheaded for adultery, a country not only consistently at the bottom of human rights tables but one well known for its covert support of terrorism through members of its extended royal family. She went there to profess the UK's friendship for the country and to try to flog it British-made weapons to be used in its illegal airstrikes against civilians. She was so chummy with them she was awarded The Order of King Abdulaziz, given to those considered to have offered "meritorious service to the kingdom." To you...

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this for real? > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2 > 0,file=262071 No, fake, or at least nobody seems to have found a solid attribution - but on the other hand in 1988 the Thatcher government was passing Section 28 which ordered that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." As May was at that time Chair of Education at Merton council it's fair to assume she supported that legislation, especially as she voted against the repeal of Section 28 when she was an MP in 2003. In the interests of balance she said in 2010 she'd had a change of heart over LGBT issues and if she had to vote again over several issues she would vote differently (she voted against same sex adoption and equalising the age of consent as well).

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Expanding on JohnL's point above I thought, how > much will it cost to watch those 'known to > police'? > > *gets back of a fag packet and writes down the low > end estimate numbers* > > 2,000 on the watch list (an estimate given by the > head of Met Police on the radio at the weekend) > > Per individual, say, 10 police - 2 officers > watching them for 24 hours means 3 lots on an 8 > hour shift) + 1 support/control/backup = 7 police > > 7 police x 2,000 watchees = 14,000 x ?20,000 > (basic police starting salary) = ?280 million per > annum in wages. > > And that's not taking into account the > recruitment, training, equipment, detention etc > > Conclusion: Watching and knowing an individual is > easy for me to relate to therefore I initially > thought it's cheap and easy however policing them > is a complex kettle of fish which costs lots of > money, at least ?280 million a year. Having said > that, that new resource won't stop street > robberies and city fraud which I should be more > concerned about because they are more likely to > affect me and those around me. Well, from 2010-2015 17,000 police posts were cut, along with 15,877 support staff and 4,587 PCSOs - more than enough for your watch list requirements (which seems about right). There have been several "get your retaliation in early" posts above suggesting that anyone relating police cuts to these attacks is somehow having a go at the police or even in one case "being disrespectful." In terms of the police reaction at the time it couldn't have been better - an amazingly swift and effective job by highly skilled and courageous officers, doubtless saving dozens of lives. But notwithstanding what's been written above, it is relevant at least to investigate if the ability of the police to monitor and preemptively intervene in the case of known potential terrorists has been handicapped by the loss of manpower, both frontline and clerical. That's not disrespectful or sanctimonious, it's just common sense to ask if we have the resources to guard against these sort of attacks and if we don't (as many police officers are saying we don't) deciding what we're going to do about it.

There's no need for alternative routes though Abe - moving these barriers to the outside rather than the inside of the cycle lanes would create instant popup segregated cycle lanes, at no extra cost, with an enhancement to cyclist safety, no diminution in pedestrian safety and no inconvenience to the motorist. Who loses?

Well isn't that sweet of you. I can assure you I'm very happy though, I just get my happiness through beer, bicycles and blues rather than through excessive consumption (except of beer and bicycles).

I expressed myself poorly: I meant they don't make pedestrians any safer when placed between pavement and cycle lane than they would if placed between cycle lane and road. Looking at the pictures there also seems to be a double whammy as the barriers appear to be taking up a good two feet of the cycle lane width, so they're pushing cyclists into an area where they're more likely to be hit while at the same time ensuring that the consequences of an accident will be more severe.

Here's the full story: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-terror-attack-cyclists-voice-concerns-over-unsafe-security-barriers-on-capitals-bridges-a3557326.html It seems a perfectly fair question to ask why the barriers haven't been placed between the cycle lanes and the road, protecting both cyclists and pedestrians, rather than between the cycle lane and the pavement as they have been, which does indeed increase the risk for cyclists of being crushed against the barriers without enhancing safety for pedestrians at all.

Ah, hadn't heard him say that Alan, thanks. So really the team composition for these first two games doesn't really give any clues as to his test team thinking. I see what you mean about the rule seeming artificial, but then all rules are artificial to some extent I suppose. Maybe I'm biased as I played much of my early rugby on the wing (not due to scintillating speed, more on a "safest place for him" basis!) so it played to my advantage - if I'd been a halfback I'd probably have been against it. I believe in the early game a mark could be made anywhere on the field, later it was changed to inside the 22 only. I could see problems if it were removed, as I think we'd just see an endless series of Garryowens aimed to drop on the 5m line instead of running the ball - there's enough belting downfield as it is (in my opinion) without removing one of the rules that discourages it.

One of those good and one bad, I think. Being allowed to take a penalty to touch and get the lineout in the red zone I think is good; it discourages the side leading (in a close game) from committing penalty offences when out of goalkicking range, for example ending a potential break with an illegal tackle. The catching with one foot in touch rule I thought was good, it was there for kicks outside the 22. Firstly, it encourages skill on the part of the kicker if they're going for a bounce into touch, not only demanding the right length but good placement, and also as it's consistent with the rest of the rules in that if a player is touching ball and line at the same time, the ball is out of play regardless of its physical position. I can't really see a need to change it, and I admired the skill and quick thinking needed to execute the "catch in touch." Not a major thing, but can't really see why it needed changing.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, while I don't like or agree with what UG > posts, I'm not sure the personalabuseometer needs > to hit that level does it? It makes you sound > quite nasty and abusive, which I'm sure is not the > case. I'm guessing you would never dream of > speaking so abusively to someone in the pub or the > street? If you did, I'd be very surprised, not to > mention a little shocked. Yes, actually it does. Uncleglen persistently posts deeply unpleasant anti-immigrant stuff on here which goes way beyond decent debate (that's why it's so obvious what he's up to with the above post, someone else one might give the benefit of the doubt, him, no). If someone spouted the same stuff as him to me in the pub I would most definitely tell them I thought they were a hateful person, though I doubt he and his ilk have the courage to propagate their nonsense beyond the safe anonymity of the internet. This stuff needs to be called out and described as what it is: hateful and hate-stirring.