P.O.U.S.theWonderCat

Thanks Teddy. Jay, I'm going for c and/or d. I find the government's response astounding to be honest. I do understand what their logic was in trying to keep it within the executive and don't necessarily think it was sinister, but her apparent failure to understand the fundamental basis of the constitution and both the executive's and parliament's duty to uphold the separation of powers is very worrying.

True but since when has whether you're in a recession or not had anything to do with whether the GDP comes from primary or secondary industries?

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought parliament already had a say on June > 9th.when554 MPs voted against 53 MPs .to let the > British people. Vote on staying or > leaving the EU.the government then spent 9million > pounds of tax payers money saying a result either > way would be binding.leaflets were sent to every > home .stating unequivocally. This is your decision > .the government will implement what you decide. I must admit I don't recall any politican saying the result would be binding. It would be very surprising given what the Referendum Act 2015 actually says, and what was briefed to Parliament. I do recall them saying that there was no going back once we decided to leave, but that's not quite the same thing. Whether or not this was deliberately murky language that they knew could be interpreted as either the referedum or the actual leaving of the EU (i.e. the Art.50 trigger) is a matter of conjecture. If you are able to point me to where any MP said the referendum was legally binding, I happy to stand corrected. In any case, this judgement does not prevent Brexit from happening. It determines that it can't happen behind closed doors, with secret terms that we don't find out about until its too late. I would have thought the average Leave voter would be equally happy with this, as otherwise they could find leaving wasn't what they thought it would be either.

The judgement is a really interesting read. I also agree that those who are claiming that it somehow undermines the validity of the Brexit vote or that we should "just get on" with leaving haven't read it. I also find the DM attack on the judges downright sinister. If we're going to question the impartiality of the judges (who like all lawyers are trained to distinguish between evidence, inference and opinion) because we don't like what they've said, or suggest that parliament can somehow be avoided in a process that will disenfranchise us of our rights, we may as well throw out the rule of law, tear up the Magna Carta and go back to absolutist monarchy or a fascist regime.

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shaggy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And your point is? > > My point is this - at no stage was it indicated to > the electorate that Parliament would then debate > the outcome - it was clearly stated, again, "This > is your decision. The Government will implement > what you decide". Such was the naivety and > arrogance of the ruling elite (on both sides of > both Houses) that they did not contemplate the > effects of a Leave vote. A question was asked, an > answer was given, now the goal posts are being > jiggled about in a frantic attempt to appease that > ruling elite.... > I'm sorry if I wasn't air headed enough for you > first time round, I do hope this clarifies that I > am, indeed, a really stupid girly.... The government are going to implement what you've decided. However, unless we want to fall back to WTO standards which would be disastrous for the country, parliament still needs to decided how we are going to exit.

Well, since you are self-identifying as one of the folk who just make stuff up - where is your evidence for the statement that the whole world is in recession?

BNG, I suspect you're right. I still can't quite fathom whether they are lazy, thick or genuinely delusional though. I mean, we live in the age of the internet - how hard is it to even make a basic attempt at verifying a belief?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha Ha Ha Ha.... Ha Ha Ha Ha.. > > They all laughed at Christopher Columbus > When he said the world was round > They all laughed when Edison recorded sound.. > > Thank God we have people willing to take a stand > whilst those around them mock.. > Without them nothing would ever be acheived. > > DulwichFox You are missing the point Foxy. Those people all didn't rely on supposition but supported their views with evidence. As opposed to making crap up because it fits your world view.

Politicians making stuff up is nothing new. It's the new levels of delusion on the Clapham omnibus that disturbs me.

I'm not cut out for it, I've decided. Where there always so many people prepared to make random sh&t up and assert it as fact?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why would they want to come to work in a > country > > facing recession where > > a very nasty anti-immigrant sentiment has been > unleashed? > > Where... ? It may of Highlighted a nasty > anti-immigrant sentiment that has existed for > decades. > but it has never detered people from other parts > of the world wanting to come here. > > The Whole world is in recession.. take a look at > the USA. and the rest of Europe.. > > DulwichFox. The whole world isn't in recession. The US GDP is expected to have risen by the end of this quarter, for a start. If you're going to post such ridiculous assertions, verify them. I don't deny that the nasty sentiments have existed for some time, but Brexit has "legitimised" the open expression of it in an unprecedented way. Reported hate crimes are up 41% post-Brexit (see, for instance: https://www.ft.com/content/9b2ec1a6-912c-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78). Many current immigrants (my family included) have experienced anti-immigrant hostility since the referendum and are reconsidering our future here. Don't delude yourself. Just because you aren't experiencing doesn't mean it's not happening Foxy. Edited to include quote.

Why would they want to come to work in a country facing recession where a very nasty anti-immigrant sentiment has been unleashed?

pop9770 Wrote: > I pm?d them to ask them to leave me alone to stop > them hounding me on every post and every comment > there?s no law against that. No, there is no law against that. But the point is that there is no law against the way the other posters were acting either - and yet you objected to their behaviour. You clearly don't like some things even when they are legal. Neither do the people on this thread who don't like the baker using the term gyppo. > Shouldn?t they have put his tweet in context and > taken his position and background into > consideration? The people on this thread have taken his comments in context. If he had said "Those gyppos were very friendly. Nice to have them around", one might think it was a very odd thing to say given that most people regard "gyppo" as an offensive term, but the context would be evidence that it wasn't intended rudely. However, instead, he used it with other language that strongly infers he meant it to be insulting.

You are being deeply disingenous Fazer. You clearly object very strongly to people doing legal things - otherwise you wouldn't have started PMing people telling them to leave you alone for disageeing with you. Whether or not a term counts as racist abuse legally is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The question is whether the baker intended "gyppo" as an insult/derogatory term from a moral perspective. If you don't think it's an insult, and don't think the baker thought it was an insult, why are you getting so worked up? Surely if your view represents the common moral view, then no-one else will care that a handful of people on EDF thought otherwise.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What counts is the Law, morals help decide those > laws until they are turned into law then morality > is open and meaningless in absolute terms. > > I asked is it illegal to use the term Gyppo and if > so why is it not illegal to use the term Frog > that's a reasonable question! It's not illegal for one to refer to a poster trying to justify the use of a term that is as clearly derogatory as "chinky" or the n world as batsh1t f**king mental either. Does that mean you won't object to me calling you that?

Because it would have been a complete waste of money in terms of capital improvement, natch. Not really rocket science, is it? And that was net of VAT, materials, and was for an extremely basic build (e.g. no electrics/plumbing/render etc.). Add architect and structural engineer on top and it starts looking very expensive per square metre for very little increase in utility.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legally - for the purposes of this case - she > consented. End of. Er, no, that's not what the case determined. The verdict means that there was not sufficient evidence to determine either that she hadn't consented or that he didn't believe she had consented. Her consent wasn't proven to have happened. Statements like this show exactly why this case is highly worrying.

I was quoted 25K for a basic single storey side return extension without the kitchen refit for 3m x 1.2m. Needless to say, I didn't proceed.

Indeed. I'd like to know what Grok does for a living to explain his rudeness.

cn150 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm thinking of starting a new political party - > it will be centrist, pro-Europe, pro-electoral > reform, and strong on tolerant social values, with > a focus on the environment. Anyone interested? Isn't that the Lib Dems?

My official title is "Managing Associate". It has been suggested that this is the level just above "Coping Associate".

You've done my trick, Mick - read too quickly and without thinking... Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You don't need to help the poor to be a charity > in > > the legal sense. Again, people are conflating > the > > common usage of "charity" with a legal charity. > > Who are these "people" you talk about?

Sorry - clearly read too quickly and with too little thought.

You don't need to help the poor to be a charity in the legal sense. Again, people are conflating the common usage of "charity" with a legal charity.

Why not leave a polite note on their windscreen? They may not have intended to be so long or be aware of the fumes.