Dogkennelhillbilly

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn has made a speech on Security - and it > wasn't bad. > > The old guy thrives in this type of campaign - May > (probably will still win) but she made a mistake > here. As someone who always voted (with one regrettable exception) for Labour: I believe strongly in Labour's ability to take this bump in popularity and somehow mess it all up.

"If drugs affect someone so much that they pick up a knife and hurt someone, then personally i think it's extremely stupid to let it go so lightly." What exactly do you want to happen? Imprisonment? Kicked out of university? Barred from ever working as a surgeon if she ever actually applied to do so (bearing in mind "James Sturman QC said his client's dreams of becoming a surgeon were 'almost impossible' as her conviction would have to be disclosed")? Be specific. "Her behaviour is extremely unsettling. Out of control...there is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has." No shit. Hence the criminal conviction and the requirement to stay abstinent from drugs. PS trust the Daily Mail to find a way to illustrate this story with a woman in a swimsuit.

It was all mead when I started boozing...

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > it's a different level when your dabbling becomes > a habit where you are using it as mitigating > evidence for physically injuring someone. It wasn't mitigating evidence for physically injuring someone. She pled guilty. "I'm not a fan of 'promising career' being the reason for leniency" It wasn't the reason for leniency. It was one of a number of factors the court considered before handing down the sentence.

" I do appreciate the fact he makes a point of separating his personal beliefs from legislation/governance" He didn't vote for gay marriage to become law because of his religious objections. It is Lib Dem codswallop that Farron separates his religious beliefs from his voting.

I know, I linked to them on the previous page ;)

You're not suggesting anyone reads anything more than the headline and the first two sentences of the Daily Mail's article, are you? But I have so many strong opinions already!!!

bgw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 0801 the morning after 22+ people are murdered in > Manchester and the Crown and Greyhound tweets: > "It's official! We'll be waking up with a brand > new pub June 19th! So put it in your diary & let > the countdown begin!" > > Great to know that some combination of that pub's > management/ Mitchells and Butler have such > humanity. Come off it, you plonker. Even you don't actually believe this twaddle.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > interesting to read some 'readers' letters' > agreeing with the stealth tax if there is enough > money in the estate and why people should expect > to hand down their property to their children. > > Is this based on envy? It could be based on the perfectly reasonable belief that - the care has to be paid for, the money has to come from somewhere, and big wodges of unearned inheritances are a good enough place to start.

That's very sweet. Est 1978 (on the sign in the photo) - putting that is a tradition that should be brought back.

I've never gone back to the carpet shop since they sold me a bit of Axminster and it was terrible in a fondue. (Just kidding - they've been perfectly nice and helpful to me the two times I went in. And I'm a surly old git to begin with).

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An > uneducated public who mirror a 'she's just like > me' misrecognition. Not really much different from > what secures Erdogan, Putin, or other reactionary > types. Your judgment on British, Russia and Turkish politics is very poor.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth of that is 'in a two-party system' which > is also therefore its error. I don't entirely understand your comment but would also point out that the Lib Dems don't have a strong identity in Wales or Scotland either, which are not two party systems. Neither are euro elections.

"not so much that they're heading in the wrong direction, but they need a charismatic leader who can give the party some get-up-and-go, a stronger identity" It's hard to have a strong identity when you're a centrist party.

Read the sentencing guidelines: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf First offence, minor injury, lack of premeditation, remorse, good character, steps taken to address addiction, isolated incident, pled guilty at first opportunity to avoid expense and victim's trauma at trial... there are objective reasons why she is a candidate not to be imprisoned. We also don't know about the context of the offence. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of good reasons to imprison her: I'm not going to be any safer if she's in prison and I'm going to have to pay for it.

"The UK does well on measures of income, wealth, security and environment, less well on work-life balance, education, skills, and housing. There is a considerable gap between the richest and poorest ? in the UK the top 20% of the population earn nearly six times as much as the bottom 20%." But, you know, money's not everything, so they might be really happy!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emily Thornberry absolutely demolished Michael > Fallon on Marr today Brilliant. She even said > B@ll**ks. > > He was at a party with Assad but couldn't remember > - she did :) > > Reminds everyone that Fallon is not to be trusted > https://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/09/camerons-co > medy-cabinet-of-incompetents-michael-fallon/ Emily Thornberry's old boss shut down the corruption investigation into BAE Systems to protect the Saudis. Emily Thornberry's old boss started an illegal war in Iraq that killed 100,000 people. Emily Thornberry's new boss believes any old piss from Hamas to the IRA. If Fallon weren't such a wet fish, that would not have been a very dramatic revaluation.

And then if you didn't like their answer, what would you do?

How would you propose to confront them?

Stupid OP, for self-evident reasons.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "How will labour buy back all the companies > that > > were privatised?" > > > > The rail network is all publicly owned. The > > private companies operate as concessionaires for > a > > time limited period. As I understand it, Corbyn > is > > just proposing to let the franchises expire and > > then not re-tender it. > > What about the rolling stock? That's all privately > owned. Just carry on leasing it, I suppose. Prices have never been lower, apparently.

"How will labour buy back all the companies that were privatised?" The rail network is all publicly owned. The private companies operate as concessionaires for a time limited period. As I understand it, Corbyn is just proposing to let the franchises expire and then not re-tender it.

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DKH, > The National Interest restriction is designed to > limit foreign take-overs. Which, if anyy, of the > french utilities are foreign owned? > > Here's an interesting study.. > > https://www.ft.com/content/ff76b7de-8e22-11e6-8df8 > -d3778b55a923 Exactly - you're the one claiming that you're not upset because they're foreign and yet your fix is to place restrictions on foreigners, and the only reason you can give for why France is better than the U.K. is because they don't let foreigners do stuff...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > basically the 'rigged' society narrative is > exactly the same sort of ignorant populism that > UKIP gave us pre-Brexit and once more largely > given by public school educated, marxist tossers > from Islington. It's impressive that you manage simultaneously to believe: - society is not rigged - it's ex-public schoolboys that set the discourse

angel_lemarchand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly and Loz > I'm a professional photographer and I have to > carry consent forms and get them signed to release > photographs of members of the public. It's also > expected to ask permission (and also courtesy!). I > am getting tired of people waving cameras and > phones in my/ other people's faces as they please. Good for you - but you don't have to get consent to take photos of people in a public place. This is not a police matter. They have much better things to do than mediate the squabbles of misinformed dog lovers and camera-wielding dog moaners.