pk

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't followed the story closely, but as I > understand it: Andrew was close friends with > Epstein and spent a lot of time with him at his > various properties / on his yacht, where young > girls (we are told), were a bit of a fixture. Many > of these girls were coerced / controlled by > Epstein and at least one says she was paid to have > sex with Andrew whilst she was still a teenager. > Andrew defended Epstein despite clear evidence of > his crimes. > Andrew's attempts to address questions about his > own behaviour left a strong impression in the > minds of many that he had things to hide. This is > why some people don't necessarily want to be > associated with Andrew. > Andrew has not been charged with anything, but he > has been asked to retreat from the limelight as a > result of all this. It seems pretty fair enough to > me. He seems to be under less sustained pressure > than Meghan Markle, whose main 'crime' seems to be > the fact that she is mixed race and has the > temerity to come from the US. I agree with most of this

At best, the man is very very stupid

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk I think other forum users can come to a > reasoned conclusion on who is correct here. I have > provided two sources which show the Lib Dem?s > ahead by a country mile, in enough constituencies > to influence the outcome of the election in > London. The facts are laid out in two sources > provided above, I suggest you go away and re-read > them both, and then get back to me with a > thoughtful and coherent response, rather than a > reactionary ?let?s have a go at Louisa just for > the sake of it? response, which is getting boring > on this forum. I was correct, and it was based on > fact. > > Louisa. pathetic

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was correct in saying the Lib Dem?s are indeed ahead by a country mile, in a > significant number of seats . Mathematics clearly > isn?t a strong point for you. > > Louisa. you didn't say that and you've provided no source to support that (just one that showed that what you actually said wasnt to be true) perhaps you could break down these complicated sums that you've been doing with your superbrain that you suggest (based on no facts, unsurprisingly) are above my head?

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk all the polling, private and public points > towards a significant surge for the Lib Dem?s. > They are clearly substantially up on the previous > election, which will have a significant impact in > marginal constituencies. The impact could be > significant in certain targeted seats. Both Labour > and the Tories will be knocked back into third > place, based on this poll, in a significant number > of seats. > > Louisa. That isn?t leading by a country mile tho, so I guess we?re agreeing that you were wrong

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve not made anything up. You do understand how > first past the post works right? > > I do you do understand that third isn't 'leading by a country mile' right?

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loutwo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The Lib Dem?s are a country mile ahead in > > London > > > polling at present. > > > > > > I haven't seen anything to suggest that LD is > > leading anything by a country mile > > > > are you making this up or have you got a > > (credible) source? > > https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-repo > rts/2019/11/05/labours-london-lead-slimmer-2017 > > According to YouGov, Labour has sunk by almost 15% > on the 2017 count, and almost all of that has gone > over to the Lib Dem?s. Tories are static. > > Louisa. according to your YouGov source LibDems are third hardly 'leading by a country mile' in fact it says labour are leading in London by 10%! I guess you made it up then (or you can't read very well)

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loutwo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The Lib Dem?s are a country mile ahead in > > London > > > polling at present. > > > > > > I haven't seen anything to suggest that LD is > > leading anything by a country mile > > > > are you making this up or have you got a > > (credible) source? > > Guardian - but it looks like they're letting the > tories in :( > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/16/e > lection-2019-london-polls-show-lib-dem-surge but that doesn't show them leading anything?! let alone by a country mile!

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Lib Dem?s are a country mile ahead in London > polling at present. I haven't seen anything to suggest that LD is leading anything by a country mile are you making this up or have you got a (credible) source?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > But as rahrahrah says, the simpler the > better. I don?t agree

I don't remember all schools being equal and all schools being good ever because they weren't and never will be (not least 'cause not all parents/pupils would define 'good' in the same way, and neither should they)

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > hpsaucey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > The whole system is too complicated and > > > frankly, > > > > then more complicated it is the more it > tends > > > to > > > > advantage those with the resources to > > navigate > > > > that complexity. Why not just have a simple > > > system > > > > of kids going to their closest / > > neighbourhood > > > > school and then put all that wasted time > and > > > > energy into making each school the best it > > can > > > > possibly be? > > > > > > > > > Yay - this!!!!! Such a waste of > > time/money/energy. > > > > > > People with resources to move closer to a > > > preferred school simply chucks some other > poor > > > sod's child out of the school's intake. Make > it > > > local and make it good! > > > > > > HP > > > > how does 'making it local' deal with the issue > of > > people moving close to a school in order to get > > in? surely it does the opposite? > > > > (bearing in mind that schools don't/can't have > > infinite capacity) > > Erm - you make them all good, (the best they can > be as rahrahrarh said). Then you minimise the need > for people to move for school purposes only. > Scrap faith schools and ditto single sex and > private. Go to your local co-ed school! that's a bit oversimplistic/naive tho isn't it?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The whole system is too complicated and > frankly, > > then more complicated it is the more it tends > to > > advantage those with the resources to navigate > > that complexity. Why not just have a simple > system > > of kids going to their closest / neighbourhood > > school and then put all that wasted time and > > energy into making each school the best it can > > possibly be? > > > Yay - this!!!!! Such a waste of time/money/energy. > > People with resources to move closer to a > preferred school simply chucks some other poor > sod's child out of the school's intake. Make it > local and make it good! > > HP how does 'making it local' deal with the issue of people moving close to a school in order to get in? surely it does the opposite? (bearing in mind that schools don't/can't have infinite capacity)

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why don't they just promise to massively increase > wages and put everyone on a 3.5 day week like they > did last time around > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/16/averag > e-gp-now-works-35-days-week-just-one-20-trainees-p > lans/ > > and cause crises everywhere ou know that link does say what you seem to be suggesting it does?

FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't seem to understand the concept of a > personal opinion. so you think that when he says "the actual truth and actual FACTS" he means opinions (that have no basis in facts) I do you agree with you however that what he says clearly isn't based on facts

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well, at least everyone knows that now there is a > personal risk of being named and shamed so it may > be a motivation to pick up your dog's poo. or that there's risk that an anonymous person hiding behind a keyboard will post a picture of someone that you don't and make allegations that you've got no idea whether they're true on not I don't think that it's appropriate

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The comment about flying planes into buildings is > obviously sarcasm if you bothered to read it > properly katanita....SpringTime just took their > tactics to the Extreme...btw someone renamed them > Exhibitionism Rebellion So what do you think of the 11,000 scientists from more than 150 countries calling out a climate emergency? They?re just exhibitionists too? And just you and the Donald and fact-phobic his mates have got it right? Or can you accept that there?s a genuine issue and that campaigners are rightly trying to raise the profile?

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of the protestors are not living off-grid, > which is proper and positive rebellion. of course they're not, just as you're not even tho the crisis impacts you as much as it does them

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SpringTime wrote > "Are you sure they're a bunch of crusties > UncleGlen?" > I said they 'include' a bunch of crusties.... > That is an insightful article you quoted ST... > I think yer average XR activist would say they are > protesting on behalf of the non-white people who > suffer more from climate change, n'est-ce pas? the article is rubbish in fact based reporting: "A global group of around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392 are these 11,000 experts from more than 150 countries virtue signalling lefties too? or is possible that they might actually know something about it?

I think that it'd be definitely be right to reduce giving leaflets to people who haven't asked for them, but I'm sure it wont stop entirely as an aside but still on politics and the environment, I've always thought that creating barriers to trading with your closest neighbours has got to be bad for the environment surely a Spanish orange has a lower footprint than one from say Florida? but that doesn't seem to be talked about much

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fishbiscuits Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Objecting to faith schools is "intolerant"? > > Really? Why support a practice that actively > > segregates communities? > Precisely- and not just communities- I've worked > in several 'faith' schools and they actively > discriminate against LGBT So you strongly object to faith schools But you?re happy to take their money and to work their You see any hypocrisy in that?

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, disagreeing with faith schools is NOT the same > as being intolerant of religion. That's a very, > very strange thing to say. > > Nobody is preventing you from believing whatever > the hell you want. It's all good. But it is just > that... a BELIEF. It has no place in education. > > I am - as you may have guessed - an atheist. But > would not want my daughter to go to a school where > kids were told that there categorically is no god. > It's for her to decide, and if she ever wants to > practice a religion, she is welcome to do so in > her own time. > > Diversity is a good thing, yes. But faith schools > actively discourage diversity, by preventing your > children learning and socialising with children off > different religions. They segregate communities. Are you also sick to the stomach of single sex schools? And private schools? And schools that operate any sort of selection process other than a pure lottery? Cause surely they too actively discourage diversity too?

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Objecting to faith schools is "intolerant"? > Really? Why support a practice that actively > segregates communities? Being sick to the stomach that some taxes are used to allow sone children to be educated in a faith school is definitely intolerant, of the religious beliefs of others Diversity is a good thing

in their day. my kids and still today many, many kids have a lot of fun at Halloween to me, that is a good thing (as their fun doesn't really cause any suffering for anyone else)

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fishbiscuits Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >> > Yes. totally agree, but unfortunately we are all > still inadvertently helping to perpetuate the > mythology through our taxes helping to pay for > 'religious' schools- it makes me sick to my > stomach. (sorry -off topic) how intolerant (and OTT)