Loz

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > That is an entire non-sequitur, BB. A consensual > > relationship (even if one or both are married) is > > not sexual misconduct or harassment. > > That may be but it is not a good benchmark from > which to have any moral compass on sexual > misconduct imo. You are travelling a dangerous road when you conflate unconnected issues like that. In that case, do you think Harman's previous 'issues' with the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 70's means her views on sexual misconduct are dismissable as well? And who would be left after such glass-house-stone-throwing analysis?

Given the nails at two angles, I'm guessing this was a small baton from inside a wooden box.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "She was said to have alleged that between five and seven years ago he made a crude remark when > she said she had cold hands. ?I know where you can put them to warm them up,? he allegedly said." That is making a mockery out of the current issue. I've no doubt that there are more than a few in the house of commons that need to be bought to justice and better processes need to be in place, but raising thoroughly underwhelming stuff like this does nothing to help.

Save yourself the danger of installing programs from the internet and just use a web site like https://www.filesuffix.com/en/

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had to baulk at Edwina Currie going at Harriet > Harman on This Week and claming there was very > little sexual misconduct or harassment in > Westminster. Yes that would the same Edwina Currie > that had an affair with the married John Major of > course. That is an entire non-sequitur, BB. A consensual relationship (even if one or both are married) is not sexual misconduct or harassment. I saw that 'This Week' section - neither Currie nor Harman came out of it with much credit.

Is it just the photos in the papers today, or does Gavin Williamson look a little too much like Alan Partridge?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The Met's budget is set by the Home Office and has > been cut year on year ever since the Tories took > office in 2010. Not true. At least not in cash terms. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40354815

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He clearly has something in his past he wants to stay in his past. Not going to happen. Because at the moment it looks that he's lost his job for an incident that even Julia Hartley-Brewer is saying is trivial. Either more has to come out, or May is going to look like she has massively over-reacted.

Seems like you want your cake and eat it. Either you want a driveway and for Southwark to police keeping it clear or you don't. It's a public road. You can't have your own private piece of parking on it. I'm surprised the council hasn't put lines over it already - assuming you did get council permission to drop the kerb?

To be fair on Robbin, you do have a quite surprisingly small Google footprint. Personally, I think you are a little naive using your real name. When I started using the internet back in the 90's, I used my real name right up until someone I crossed swords with online tracked me and rang me at my work to verbally abuse me. Certainly, even on this forum, I've had someone rather creepily ask to 'meet me in person'. There are a lot of nutters out there. Using your real name is essentially 'doxxing' yourself.

If the BBC has over-reacted, then I can only imagine that the Guardian is probably calling for his goolies to be cut off.

Has anything ever changed one iota because of a 38 degrees petition? At least the Parliament petition site can force them to respond and/or debate the issue. Mind you, the supposed 'reasoning' behind their name - "38 Degrees is the angle at which snowflakes come together to form an avalanche" - still gives me a good laugh.

I think your sarcasm detector is faulty, kibris.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rumours Catalan President has flown to Brussels > (in exile) > Rebellion, sedition, and provocation charges? Ridiculous. If a Catalan equivalent of ETA rise, they will only have the Spanish PM to blame.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > - if the PM was so confident in the majority of > > Catalonians wanting to stay, why did he violently > > stop the referendum? > > > > Most of the "unionists" (or whatever the official name is) didn't > vote as advised by their parties as it was an illegal referendum > in their view. Not quite an answer to my question.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is Trump losing the plot completely or is this > possibly fake? > Must be fake - that would be headlines.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > > Now, I don't know if the person mentioned is one of those doing this. I don't know > > her at all. Maybe either RH or UG can say. > > Yvette Williams MBE (UG's 'stirrer') is a policy > advisor on equality and diversity to the Crown > Prosecution Service. You said that before. That didn't answer my question. And why do you keep putting MBE after her name? That's a bit weird.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ultimately we are stronger united than divided, and its human nature to band together in tribes. > Yes, I think on the whole I agree that any constitution needs an opt-out clause, but they > need to be really carefully written, and therein lies the danger. Oh, I agree fully. Thus my 'qualified majority' stipulation. Anything of this magnitude (and like Brexit) should require an increased majority - say 60% or even two-thirds. That was Cameron's big mistake.

Gaynor Hill Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hey no worries think maybe I was being a bit sensitive with the whole employer thing at the end > of the day it's the employer progative > Thanks though > Gaynor No, it's really not. They should not be asking your age.

OK, after an almighty mess caused by two politicians that just refused to talk to each other, surely new elections are the way forward. The Catalonian guy just has to use it as a referendum. If he wins, the Spanish PM is going to look like he's made a massive political miscalculation. But it leads to so many questions. - if the PM was so confident in the majority of Catalonians wanting to stay, why did he violently stop the referendum? - if the Catalonian leader is so confident in the majority of Catalonians wanting to go, why doesn't he grab this new opportunity for a pseudo-referendum? Personally, I think Catalonia would have been mostly happy with a bit more autonomy but it has now turned into a stupid game of brinkmanship. As a side issue, I think it is a complete human rights violation that any constitution does not allow a region to break away, should they democratically (with a qualified majority) choose to do so.

Sorry Gaynor, I was writing that as you posted and again taken things off at a tangent. Sorry.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, those are some pretty bad comments that RH > has used as examples. Really? One of them read so innocuously that RH had to add an 'explanatory' note. And as for Grenfell, well it's hardly news that there are some political groups trying to leverage the Grenfell tragedy for political reasons and to make the inquiry terms include issues much wider than just the issue of the building, the fire and what led up to it. Now, I don't know if the person mentioned is one of those doing this. I don't know her at all. Maybe either RH or UG can say.

They are hardly smoking gun examples, either. Look, I know as much as anyone here that UG posts more than his share of utter bollox and usually not from a healthy viewpoint. And when UG does go off on one, as he does, it's right to call him out on it. Hell, I've done it myself. But there is more than a bit of playing the man and not the ball of late when it comes to his posts.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I object to the assumption that because I grew up in East Dulwich (back when it wasn't the same kind > of place it is now) I have no life experience. So yes, I jumped at that. Understandable, Joeleg. But you are normally one of the more measured and thoughtful posters here, so your sudden jump to calling UG a bigot just seemed a bit OTT in the situation.

At the risk of making UG look good (and frankly, it would take more than this) people do jump on his posts and read more into them than he writes. Now, UG does, quite rightly, get a good e-kicking for some stuff he writes, but I thought JoeLeg did, surprisingly, kick off rather abruptly in the post further up the page. Also, RH's example of 'bigotry' (calling someone a stirrer) is pretty poor as well. If that's all that classes as bigotry these days, nevermind 'hateful bigotry', we've lost the real meaning of the word.