diable rouge

How you access each bedroom (separately) and provide a window for each bedroom is a good starting point...

David Allen Green on top form this morning...:) This evening the officers' committee of the Titanic will move an amendment that the iceberg must move away from the ship. "This sends a clear signal to the iceberg that we are determined to carry on," said Officer Brady.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+ > policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with > riot shields - for some reason my flat was the > point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs > closed so I wandered and watched the looting of > East Dulwich Road Tesco's. I think it was from that Tesco's that one of the looters posted a pic of himself that went viral, all moody gangsta stylee showing off his ill-gotten gains...a large bag of rice. I guess a man can't live off plasma screens alone...

Don't worry, the Red Scarves will see them off...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47022456 I'm waiting for the Tighty Whiteys to take off...so to speak.

Correct Jenny, I inadvertently missed out 'committee' after emergency, Cobra was how it was written in the ST piece though. I'll correct the quote so it looks like malumbu is talking poppycock ;-) Here's more...https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1089459695331524610

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > *Sticks hand up in the air* > > > > I'd like to ask Cat if he felt it wasn't > possible > > at the time of voting to have a detailed plan > of > > what Brexit entailed, does it now make sense to > > have a second vote now that there is a detailed > > plan?... > > Yes. It certainly does. But, in the interest of > public harmony (which we have a distinct lack of > already), I don't think it would be wise for one > of the options to be..rescind article 50/remain > (again not because I personally would cry if the > result was reversed (remember i've said both > options have their positives and negatives), but > other leavers certainly would and I worry that a > swing in the in vote would create significant > social unrest - probably more than leaving). So it > would probably be advisable to have a vote on > options to Leave....ie may's deal, no deal or > extend article 50.... Surprised to see you play the 'civil unrest' card, especially as one who has been advocating the so-called positives of No Deal which is commonly believed will lead to civil unrest and possibly deaths, and across a greater cross-section of the population too, not just a small minority of Yaxley-Lennon types opposed to a 2nd ref. It appears the Gov in it's preps for No Deal certainly think so as this snippet from the Sunday Times highlights... Britain is preparing to declare a state of emergency and introduce martial law in the event of disorder after a no-deal Brexit, according to officials who say the Cobra emergency committee will be able to deploy the army to quell rioting. That's quite a thing to say about the UK in 2019. It doesn't read like ''public harmony'' to me, it's more like we are at war. And what do these threats of Leavers opposed to a 2nd ref turning to the far right and civil unrest say about Leavers? The Remain side after the ref didn't turn to extremes, they've embraced democracy, campaigned peacefully, and held huge marches without any trouble. If Brexit happens Remain will become Rejoin and the democratic campaign will continue. And when did we as a country start pandering to threats of extremism? Should we pander to Islamic extremists too? Only having Leave options in a 2nd ref is some statement, and it also panders to this perceived threat of more extremism if we don't, even David Davis has said that '''When a democracy can't change it's mind it ceases to be a democracy''...

*Sticks hand up in the air* I'd like to ask Cat if he felt it wasn't possible at the time of voting to have a detailed plan of what Brexit entailed, does it now make sense to have a second vote now that there is a detailed plan?...

What alex said, I didn't think it answered the question. And as it was a specific question to Cat from alex, and Cat's reply was specifically addressed to alex, I stayed out of it...

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and then hope we get some adults in to > negotiate better on the actual trade deal with the > EU. What were you saying about delusional?...

FA Cup this weekend, Premier League back mid-week, will post fixtures on Monday...

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > not seen much firm evidence of Britain tearing itself apart > France looks in as least as much turmoil as us right now Make up your mind...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And then there was the young woman I saw > interviewed who said she voted for Brexit because > it sounded like Biscuit. How about Brexit the breakfast muesli bar, packaging looks good but inside it's stale and crumbly and guaranteed to give you the shits...

From the BBC...Theresa May has told MPs attempting to delay Brexit that it would not "solve the situation"... says Theresa May who recently delayed the process by a month. What have we done to deserve this shower of shite...

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2) This is all moot now anyway, as no one who has > moved here as an EU citizen whether 15 years ago > or 2 years ago should have any problem anyway > other than filling out a few forms. Try saying that to the Windrush Generation. On the subject of ''can't control the EU component'' in your response to snowy, there is something called the '3-month directive' which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after 3 months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves. For some reason successive Govs haven't used it. Since the referendum non-EU immigration, which incidentally was more than EU immigration pre-ref, has increased further, while EU immigration has dropped. The UK economy relies heavily on immigration and the reality of ''taking back control of our borders'' will actually be replacing an EU immigrant with a non-EU immigrant, yet Leave voters were led to believe it meant lowering immigration per se. As I've mentioned before, for Brexiters immigration 'control' was simply a convenient stick with which to beat the EU...

To be fair Cat, as you yourself posted earlier, you do have 'other options' to remain here should FOM end, with those safety nets you weren't really voting against your own self-interest...

Cat, apologies for getting it wrong about your EU citizenship, what a tangled web you weave...:)

2200...

Mr Corbyn is being found out. His six tests for a Brexit plan are rightly dismissed as impossible to meet. His demand that the?prime minister take no-deal off the table rings hollow when he refuses to throw his weight behind a viable alternative. He is starting to look like just another politician gambling with people?s lives for his?own advantage. Part of an excellent piece in the FT...https://www.ft.com/content/a88bcee2-1d5d-11e9-b2f7-97e4dbd3580d

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, a dozen or so immigrants in south east > London is hardly a statiscally acceptable number > so I could be wrong. Plenty are worried such as this group...https://twitter.com/the3million Let's not forget Brits in the EU too. All citizens should've had their existing rights ring-fenced as part of the WA...

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dropping the fee was welcomed but what our EU > > friends are still annoyed about is that they > have > > to apply not register. Applications could be > > refused. > > > > Post Windrush, you?d think the powers that be > > would know better. > > Im one of your EU friends. And I'm not annoyed in > the slightest. Of course, I don't speak for the > whole EU....so just consider me a case study. You don't speak for TheCat either, he's Australian...:)

Week 20 points... Week 20 table...

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, so long as they pay to stay then it?s not > true. But as even JRM said this morning, that?s > grossly unfair and should not be happening. > If they don?t pay, then by definition they won?t > have settled status and will have to leave at some > point. I think the point DR (and Mogg) is making > is that it?s a pretty dishonourable way of going > about things in terms of people who have lived and > paid taxes here, to tell them they have to stump > up the cost of staying if they want to. > ?65 may not be much to many people, but the > principle is what matters here. Exactly, it's nothing to do with the now withdrawn cost (that's +?400m down the swanny in admin costs by the way), it's the principle of asking them to register in the first place, and the consequences if they don't should we Brexit...

From today, people who have lived in the UK working and paying taxes, some for decades, some having married UK citizens and having UK children, are losing their right to stay here in their homes, with their friends/families, and have to apply and pay for "settled status" or risk being deported after Brexit. How long before we hear a policeman in the street asking to see someone's 'papers'. I hope you're proud of yourselves Leave voters...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > HP, that all relates to Building Regs, Sue is > > concerned about planning permission which is a > > separate issue. > > This Gov guide states that 'rebuilding' comes > > under development that requires permission... > > > https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-req > > > uired > > That then begs the question is what Sue's doing > > rebuilding or simply a repair? > > It always pays to call the planners and > discuss, > > and if they say PP is not needed, get it in > > writing... > > > The whole of my effing bay is to be rebuilt, and > as it's an insurance job I'm assuming they know > about PP and such. Don't assume anything, you will be responsible if it's wrong, not them...