Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any

> > debate on the thread, only supporting views. I

> > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox

> > hunting".

> >

> > The Fox's wish has been granted.

>

> Again *Bob* you are wrong . WRONG.

>

> I did not say I only wanted supporting views.. I

> wasn't looking for ANY views. I said no debate.

>

> Again.. It was just a link to a petition for

> people who wanted to sign it.

>

> I could not of made it easier to understand.

>

> The thread was in the LOUNGE. Where all the 'Bad'

> guys are sent. It should not of been closed.

>

> It was closed because of some ones personal

> political view.

>

> Like anyone who respects and supports Animal

> Liberty /rights has to be some kind of Radical

> 'Lefty' Anarchist.

>

> DulwichFox



Here you go Lou...

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a wonderful irony.. Two people bemoaning the

> strangulation of debate and free speech - stemming

> from a thread where the OP dictated the terms of

> what was and wasn't allowed.


Im bemoaning nothing, I take my gitmo lounge jumpsuit deportation on the chin and handle it like a man*



* i.e. reregistering under another name

I understand the reason but think the locking action was wrong.


Nobody who starts a thread has the right to dictate the terms of others posting on it so I had assumed anyone who had an opinion would ignore DF's bleating about "no debate" and go ahead and debate it anyway. Isn't that what usually happens?


In any case problem is easily solved by DF, or anyone else who wants it, starting a thread debating the whole tedious business (I say tedious because much as I suspect I should care I really don't).


Or we could start an EDF martyrs thread as there seems to be a growing band...

Anyway, let's see if it's possible to discuss the potential lifting of the foxhunting ban 'without discussing foxhunting', just for the hell of it.


I was always under the impression that there was a sort of unwritten parliamentary rule that successive opposing governments wouldn't act regressively (with regards to legislation introduced by the previous government) - on the grounds that if they did, it would start to resemble a feuding couple the morning after a flaming row - with one wanting the radio on in the morning and the other not. More so than usual, I mean.


The fact that this is even being considered only underlines what it's all really about: one in the eye for the townies to avenge one in the eye for the toffs, like a victorious football team waving their silly oversized cup around to moos of delight from crowds of cock-a-hoop morons.

What I actually said in the original post...


This is not a thread to discuss Fox Hunting but a chance to express any apposing views and sign the petition.



That is very different from what some people are saying.


The subject has been discussed at length before (like Pizza) and we do not NEED another debate.


It was a Public Information thread pointing to a petition in view of the new government's intention

to repeal the Fox Hunting Ban.


DulwichFox

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have heard it suggested that the whole fox

> hunting thing is a bit of a ruse to distract

> people from all the other stuff the government are

> up to.

>

> And judging by social media it's working today

> extent.


We have just suffered 5 years of Cameron and know where his priorities lay.

The Fox Hunting thing is a little bonus for his mates in the House of Lords..


.. and the Country Alliance..


Whoops.. You tricked me there.. almost got me debating the issue..


Foxy

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Pedant*



Well you did say "I could not of made it easier to understand".


Whereas in fact - by simultaneously declaring it "not a thread to discuss fox hunting" but also with "a chance to express apposing views" - you actually made it completely impossible to understand.


On the pedant front, you'll note I haven't picked up on spelling and grammar - but when the overall meaning lost through poor wording, I think it's a fair cop. Even your clique were confused.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any debate on the thread, only supporting views. I

> > quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox hunting".

> >

> > The Fox's wish has been granted.

>

> This


In that case, I take it back then Foxy. It seems you *do* make the rules around here.


Poor judgement, DC. Really poor.

Goodness sake..


R.D. Lush. Loz.


How dull your lives must be if all you have to talk about is Foxy's spelling grammar thread wording.


I will be going on holiday soon and I won't be coming on here.

Will you all still be talking about it when I get back in 8 weeks time.?


It's laughable.


Get out and about. Go for a beer. Chill. Go on holiday.


I my self spend far to much time here. but I do get out walking most days and I'm out and about every night.


Foxy.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I got the impression the thread was for anyone who

> agreed that fox hunting was bad and could talk

> about it being bad and sign the petition if you

> wanted.

>

> Louisa.


Yes Lou. That's about it. I just did not want to discuss it again.


Was expecting people so say 'Thanks for the link - Signed :) '


Strange thing was that no one came back in support of hunting.


Their concern was more of a technical error in the wording, grammar and spelling of my thread.


Quite often people go on about negativity without making any positive comments of there own.


Just lose the will to live sometimes :)


Foxy

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Doesn’t seem that simple   according to fullfact that’s a net figure   ” The £21.9 billion was a net figure. Gross additional pressures totalling £35.3 billion were identified by the Treasury, and approximately £13.4 billion of these pressures were then offset by a combination of reserve funds and other allowances. The additional pressures identified were as follows: 2024-25 public sector pay awards (£9.4bn) ”   I don’t think Labour have set expectation that changing government cures all the ills. In fact some people on here criticise them for saying exactly opposite “vote for us we’re not them but nothing will change because global issues”   I think they are too cautious across many areas. They could have been more explicit before election but such is the countries media and electorate that if they were we would now be stuck with sunak/badenoch/someone else with the 14 years of baggage of their government and infighting  the broad strokes of this government are essentially along right lines  also loving ckarkson today “ Clarkson: Your claim that I bought a farm to avoid taxes is false and irresponsible.  BBC: It’s your own claim.  Clarkson: What’s that got to do with anything?” and by loving I mean “loathing as much as I ever have”    
    • BBC and the IFS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o From BBC Verify:   Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said Reeves "may be overegging the £22bn black hole". What about the rest of the £22bn? The government published a breakdown, external of how it had got from the Treasury's £9.5bn shortfall in February to the £22bn "black hole". It said that there was another £7bn between February and the actual Budget in March, as departments found out about new spending pressures and the government spent more on the NHS and the Household Support Fund There was a final £5.6bn between then and late July, which includes almost a month when Labour was in power. That was largely caused by increases in public sector pay. It was the Labour government that accepted the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), but they said that the previous government should have budgeted for more than a 2% increase in public sector pay. Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn." It isn't this at all. When you run on an agenda of change and cleaning up politics and you put all of the eggs of despair in a basket at the door of the previous government you better hope you have a long honeymoon period to give you time to deliver the change you have promised. Look at the NHS, before the election it was all...it's broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and the implication was that Labour could fix is quickly. Then Wes Streeting (who is one of the smarter political cabinet members and is clearly able to play the long game) started talking about the need to change the NHS before the election - he talked about privatising parts of it (much to the annoyance of the left). He was being pragmatic because the only magic wand that is going to fix the NHS is massive reform - it's broken and has been for decades and throwing money at it has just papered over the cracks. Now Labour talk about the NHS needing 10 years of healing for there to be real difference and people are saying....what..... Words in opposition are easy; actions in government are a lot harder and I fear that given the structural issues caused by Covid, the energy crisis, the war in Ukraine (and now maybe a massive US/China trade war if Trump isn't bluffing) that we are heading to constant one-term governments. I don't think there was a government (and correct me if I am wrong) that survived Covid and in a lot of countries since Covid they have had regular government change (I think what is playing out in the US with them voting Trump in is reflective of the challenges all countries face). Labour massively over-egged the 14 years of hurt (who could blame them) but it is going to make things a lot tougher for them as they have set the expectation that changing government cures all the ills and as we have seen in the first 90 days of their tenure that is very much not the case. Completely agree but the big risk if Farage. If Labour don't deliver what they promised or hit "working people" then the populists win - it's happening everywhere. Dangerous, dangerous times ahead and Labour have to get it right - for all our sakes - no matter what party we support. P.S. Lammy is also one of the better Labour front-bench folks - he just is suffering from Labour's inability to think far enough ahead to realise that some posts might come back to haunt you...but in his defence did anyone really think Americans would be daft enough to vote him in again....;-)
    • My cat has been missing since Sunday evening 17th November he is British short hair male cat colour black with grey stripes. medium to large in size. He is easily identified by a large tooth missing on the top left of his mouth.  He lives in Upland Road just near the roundabout at Underhill Road. His name is Jack but he  only answers to Puss Puss please call me on 0208 299 2275 if you see him.   thank you Linda  
    • I think this could go on endlessly, so I suggest we finish it here!  But why don't you  track down the makers of the sign? Which hopefully has amused a lot of people, as well as brightening my bus journey. Tell  them that their directions to Dulwich are not only wrong, but they do not seem to know where the "real" Dulwich is 🤣 I'm sure they will be delighted 🤣  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...