Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: General politics discussion thread
UKFF > Main > Off Topic
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88
Kiffy
Not quite gladstone, he's not allowed to discuss it, others aren't allowed to goad him into discussing it, the rest of the board wasn't banned from mentioning it.
Whether or not he used the title, he was discussing it, I just responded. You could probably get him and david suspended if you desperately wanted to though.
Devon Malcolm
QUOTE (Kiffy @ Oct 26 2011, 16:20) *
Not quite gladstone, he's not allowed to discuss it, others aren't allowed to goad him into discussing it, the rest of the board wasn't banned from mentioning it.
Whether or not he used the title, he was discussing it, I just responded. You could probably get him and david suspended if you desperately wanted to though.


I'd say that you are quite blatantly goading him. Plus pretty much everyone else has avoided using those letters in the spirit of fairplay. Except you. Tsk.
Oldy
Why can't you talk about them? A bit shit, that. Censorship of a group of any sort just for discussion is ridiculous.
Kiffy
Hee, bless you gladstone. Dead mike posted this

QUOTE (Dead Mike @ Oct 26 2011, 9:08) *
It seems you have a very 'pick & mix' attitute to the EDL. As soon as anyone points out any instances of violence, thuggery or in this case, proposed violence you seem to admonish it & distance yourself. Surely as a 'member' of a group you're either in or out? Daz suggested several think tanks & alternatives to the EDL yet you seemingly ignored him. It's the equivalent of being a member of the boy scouts & saying 'I don’t agree with the camping, bob-a-job week or all the badges but I like the shorts & woggles…….I'm a proud scout'.



You'll notice with the edl letters included, which may or may not have been goading him. Then mickey answered, which he's not allowed to do.
Then I responded to his point, which was at no point banned.
I didn't goad him into talking about it, I pointed out the lies in what he was talking about, which he was already doing.

I know you're not a big fan and you got a bit of sand in your vagina cos I haven't really been impressed with any britporn.
But do try and think about what you're writing, cos if it's bollocks, I'll point out it's bollocks, and then you'll look silly.
MMMkay?
Ronnie
QUOTE (Oldy @ Oct 26 2011, 16:30) *
Why can't you talk about them? A bit shit, that. Censorship of a group of any sort just for discussion is ridiculous.


Because several unrelated threads in the space of a few days descended into nothing more than back-and-forth about the group. Mickey must have made dozens of posts about them.

It's not permanently banned but he needs to go through a stage (30 days, I think) of not mentioning them to provide some form of respite for the other discussions that would otherwise have been waylaid. No-one is allowed to goad him into either.
Devon Malcolm
QUOTE (Kiffy @ Oct 26 2011, 16:32) *
Hee, bless you gladstone. Dead mike posted this

QUOTE (Dead Mike @ Oct 26 2011, 9:08) *
It seems you have a very 'pick & mix' attitute to the EDL. As soon as anyone points out any instances of violence, thuggery or in this case, proposed violence you seem to admonish it & distance yourself. Surely as a 'member' of a group you're either in or out? Daz suggested several think tanks & alternatives to the EDL yet you seemingly ignored him. It's the equivalent of being a member of the boy scouts & saying 'I don’t agree with the camping, bob-a-job week or all the badges but I like the shorts & woggles…….I'm a proud scout'.



You'll notice with the edl letters included, which may or may not have been goading me. Then mickey answered, which he's not allowed to do.
Then I responded to his point, which was at no point banned.
I didn't goad him into talking about it, I pointed out the lies in what he was talking about, which he was already doing.

I know you're not a big fan and you got a bit of sand in your vagina cos I haven't really been impressed with any britporn.
But do try and think about what you're writing, cos if it's bollocks, I'll point out it's bollocks, and then you'll look silly.
MMMkay?


I'm not talking about Dead Mike, though. I'm talking about you. Plus, besides, that's not a very good example seeing as though at no point did Mike call Mickey 'thick' is it now? Like I say, though, I'm not talking about him and therefore it is irrelevant.

See, I'll admit that I think you're shit and you don't know anything about anything, really, yet you seem to think that I've developed a grudge against you recently because you don't like something I do like (despite the fact that I pointed out that you were in fact contradicting yourself a bit there, but we'll gloss over that like you did in the other thread). But that really isn't the case at all. I've always thought you are shit, deliberately contrary and, when the mood takes you, a white knighting white noise git.

But that's just me, though!
David
QUOTE (big mickey @ Oct 26 2011, 14:59) *
Because there is no need for violence, and the majority of the group are against it.
And to be fair we are nowhere near as violent as its made out. If we were we'd have been delt with.

The thing is Mickey, from what you've posted in the various off-topic threads it would appear that you don't entirely buy into the whole EDL gig. Would you agree with me on that?

I can't help but wonder if there aren't other political parties out there that would provide a better platform for you? If you don't condone the violence you really aren't going to get anywhere with the EDL.

It's a bit like an Irish Republican in the 80's claiming to be a supporter (or member) of the IRA, but refusing to condone the violence they carried out. It was always possible to be an Irish Republican without taking it that one step too far.

Couldn't you simply be an English nationalist without being attached to a group as odious as the EDL?
Kiffy
And that's fine old boy, a valid and reasonable opinion.
Nonetheless, david asked him about the edl, he spoke about them, dead mike asked something else, mickey made up some lies about them being non-violent, and I pointed out those were lies. That's not me goading big mickey into talking about the EDL (which wouldn't be allowed) that's mickey talking about the EDL already (which isn't allowed) and me noticing it.
Now I figured that you'd have the mental capacity to see that, and therefore it followed that if you were saying it was something else, it'd be down to your dislike of me for being shit and deliberately contrary (rather than accidently contrary, which is always embarassing). But I am happy to admit I may have entirely misjudged that, and you may just be a bit slow.
Keith Houchen
QUOTE
A senior Liberal Democrat has described a proposal to scrap unfair dismissal and allow managers the right to sack unproductive staff without explanation as "madness".

In a report seen by the Daily Telegraph and commissioned by Downing Street, the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft suggests British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so companies can sack them and find more capable replacements, saying this would boost economic growth. The document has generated a furious response from trade unions.

Downing Street declined to comment on the contents of the report other than to say it was not "a final document".

But Norman Lamb, chief adviser and parliamentary private secretary to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said taking away protection from unfair dismissal would damage the economy because it would increase workers' fears that they could be arbitrarily sacked.

Lamb, a former employment lawyer, said: "I think it would be madness to throw away all employment protection in the way that's proposed, and it could be very damaging to consumer confidence.

"What we are talking about here is every single employee in the land being in a position where their employer could arbitrarily terminate their employment – and the impact that could have on consumer confidence, fear of losing your job, would potentially be very damaging. I just think it's also not right to throw away that sort of scheme of protection."

He warned that the "law of unintended consequences" could mean staff who criticise or challenge their employers could be dismissed as a result, pointing out that existing laws already enable employers to get rid of staff where there is clear evidence of underperformance.

"The existing law gives employers far more rights than many actually recognise, and it's easing the way to use those existing rights much more easily that I think is the right way forward," he added.

David Cameron's official spokeswoman said the government was committed to reforming employment law as set out in the coalition agreement.

"We are going to review it so that employers and employees can ensure they have maximum flexibility whilst protecting fairness and providing a competitive environment that we need for enterprise and growth," she said.

Unions hit out at the Beecroft proposal. Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, said the leaked report showed the true face of the "nasty" Tory party, while the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the proposal was based on an "ideological prejudice in favour of removing employee rights" and disputed his suggestion that the British economy suffered from a significant problem with slacking.

Beecroft claims that, under current legislation, workers are allowed to coast and employers are fearful of expanding their businesses because new staff could prove unknown quantities who are impossible to sack.

He suggests the introduction of "compensated no fault dismissal", which would allow employers to sack staff with basic redundancy and notice, but admits that a problem with the proposal is that employers could fire staff because they "did not like them".

According to the Telegraph, Beecroft writes: "While this is sad, I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from the change."

The document, dated 12 October, says the "terrible impact of the current unfair dismissal rules on the efficiency and hence competitiveness of our businesses, and on the effectiveness and cost of our public services" was a major issue for British enterprise.

He claims making it easier to sack underperforming staff would boost employment rather than increasie unemployment because businesses would be likely to grow as a result of becoming more competitive.

But Kenny responded: "That a well-heeled Tory venture capitalist should want the Tories to make it easier for workers to be sacked without comeback does not surprise the GMB after what the private equity owners did at the AA. There, they were brutal in sacking 4,000 of the 10,000 AA workers without mercy when they took over.

"This report shows the true face of the nasty Tory party who are, in fact, the political wing of the rich and the elite. That is why Tories have yet to make any move to curb the greed of bankers and financiers who had to be bailed out with billions of pounds of public funds."

Sarah Veale, the TUC's head of equality and employment, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that Cameron should throw the report straight in the bin.

"I really do wish the government would stop going on about how if you reduced employment protection laws somehow that would make the economy boom again and create growth – it is absolute rubbish," she said, adding that it was not fair for employers to get rid of workers on a "whim".

"This is just trying to reinvent history and make up myths about employers being dragged through the tribunals all the time," she added. "There is very, very low litigation in this country."

The CIPD said there was no evidence that watering down workers' rights would create more jobs.

John Philpott, the organisation's chief economist, told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast: "I think actually what we're hearing on this issue is largely based on prejudice rather than any evidence – ideological prejudice in favour of removing employee rights.

"If you look at our productivity problem, it's due to poor investment, poor training and poor management. And if anybody can actually find me chapter and verse evidence that there's a big problem of slacking in the UK economy, I'd be very interested to see it."

However, John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, called on the government to act on Beecroft's proposal "without delay".

Longworth said many firms report that existing dismissal rules and the fear of costly tribunal claims stop them from taking on staff.

"Over 70% of firms see dismissal rules as burdensome to their business. At a time when we need all the business growth we can get, these fears must be removed quickly," he said. "This new dismissal route will bring confidence to employers, and boost productivity in the workplace, which is good for employers, employees and the economy."

But the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, accused the government of being "in thrall" to the business lobby and the right wing of the Conservative party.

"With every day they remain in office, this country becomes a more unhappy and unequal place," he said.

"UK workers are already the cheapest and easiest to sack in the European Union. Now David Cameron plans to take the nation further back to the dark days of hire and fire. That is not in any way a plan for growth – it's a pathway to workplace misery and a demoralised and less productive workforce."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oc...nfair-dismissal

A Team Leader in my office thought this was a good idea and he would welcome it. I asked what if they dismissed him, would it be a good idea then? He said that he is productive so it wouldn't happen to him. I asked him to prove his productivity in a format that shows it, he said he couldn't due to the nature of his job and then looked a little bit scared when it dawned on him.
Kiffy
Yes, the major problem with the current recession and unemployment crisis we have is that not enough people have been sacked.
Bravo coalition government, bra fucking vo.
neil
Was gonna ignore this, but then after having to read Kiffy's awful posts I decided to suspend him for the EDL goading anyway. Fucking hell is he dross.
PowerButchi
QUOTE (neil @ Oct 26 2011, 17:49) *
Was gonna ignore this, but then after having to read Kiffy's awful posts I decided to suspend him for the EDL goading anyway. Fucking hell is he dross.


The King Of Swing
QUOTE (Keith Houchen @ Oct 26 2011, 17:18) *
QUOTE
A senior Liberal Democrat has described a proposal to scrap unfair dismissal and allow managers the right to sack unproductive staff without explanation as "madness".

In a report seen by the Daily Telegraph and commissioned by Downing Street, the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft suggests British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so companies can sack them and find more capable replacements, saying this would boost economic growth. The document has generated a furious response from trade unions.

Downing Street declined to comment on the contents of the report other than to say it was not "a final document".

But Norman Lamb, chief adviser and parliamentary private secretary to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said taking away protection from unfair dismissal would damage the economy because it would increase workers' fears that they could be arbitrarily sacked.

Lamb, a former employment lawyer, said: "I think it would be madness to throw away all employment protection in the way that's proposed, and it could be very damaging to consumer confidence.

"What we are talking about here is every single employee in the land being in a position where their employer could arbitrarily terminate their employment – and the impact that could have on consumer confidence, fear of losing your job, would potentially be very damaging. I just think it's also not right to throw away that sort of scheme of protection."

He warned that the "law of unintended consequences" could mean staff who criticise or challenge their employers could be dismissed as a result, pointing out that existing laws already enable employers to get rid of staff where there is clear evidence of underperformance.

"The existing law gives employers far more rights than many actually recognise, and it's easing the way to use those existing rights much more easily that I think is the right way forward," he added.

David Cameron's official spokeswoman said the government was committed to reforming employment law as set out in the coalition agreement.

"We are going to review it so that employers and employees can ensure they have maximum flexibility whilst protecting fairness and providing a competitive environment that we need for enterprise and growth," she said.

Unions hit out at the Beecroft proposal. Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, said the leaked report showed the true face of the "nasty" Tory party, while the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) said the proposal was based on an "ideological prejudice in favour of removing employee rights" and disputed his suggestion that the British economy suffered from a significant problem with slacking.

Beecroft claims that, under current legislation, workers are allowed to coast and employers are fearful of expanding their businesses because new staff could prove unknown quantities who are impossible to sack.

He suggests the introduction of "compensated no fault dismissal", which would allow employers to sack staff with basic redundancy and notice, but admits that a problem with the proposal is that employers could fire staff because they "did not like them".

According to the Telegraph, Beecroft writes: "While this is sad, I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from the change."

The document, dated 12 October, says the "terrible impact of the current unfair dismissal rules on the efficiency and hence competitiveness of our businesses, and on the effectiveness and cost of our public services" was a major issue for British enterprise.

He claims making it easier to sack underperforming staff would boost employment rather than increasie unemployment because businesses would be likely to grow as a result of becoming more competitive.

But Kenny responded: "That a well-heeled Tory venture capitalist should want the Tories to make it easier for workers to be sacked without comeback does not surprise the GMB after what the private equity owners did at the AA. There, they were brutal in sacking 4,000 of the 10,000 AA workers without mercy when they took over.

"This report shows the true face of the nasty Tory party who are, in fact, the political wing of the rich and the elite. That is why Tories have yet to make any move to curb the greed of bankers and financiers who had to be bailed out with billions of pounds of public funds."

Sarah Veale, the TUC's head of equality and employment, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that Cameron should throw the report straight in the bin.

"I really do wish the government would stop going on about how if you reduced employment protection laws somehow that would make the economy boom again and create growth – it is absolute rubbish," she said, adding that it was not fair for employers to get rid of workers on a "whim".

"This is just trying to reinvent history and make up myths about employers being dragged through the tribunals all the time," she added. "There is very, very low litigation in this country."

The CIPD said there was no evidence that watering down workers' rights would create more jobs.

John Philpott, the organisation's chief economist, told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast: "I think actually what we're hearing on this issue is largely based on prejudice rather than any evidence – ideological prejudice in favour of removing employee rights.

"If you look at our productivity problem, it's due to poor investment, poor training and poor management. And if anybody can actually find me chapter and verse evidence that there's a big problem of slacking in the UK economy, I'd be very interested to see it."

However, John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, called on the government to act on Beecroft's proposal "without delay".

Longworth said many firms report that existing dismissal rules and the fear of costly tribunal claims stop them from taking on staff.

"Over 70% of firms see dismissal rules as burdensome to their business. At a time when we need all the business growth we can get, these fears must be removed quickly," he said. "This new dismissal route will bring confidence to employers, and boost productivity in the workplace, which is good for employers, employees and the economy."

But the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, accused the government of being "in thrall" to the business lobby and the right wing of the Conservative party.

"With every day they remain in office, this country becomes a more unhappy and unequal place," he said.

"UK workers are already the cheapest and easiest to sack in the European Union. Now David Cameron plans to take the nation further back to the dark days of hire and fire. That is not in any way a plan for growth – it's a pathway to workplace misery and a demoralised and less productive workforce."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oc...nfair-dismissal

A Team Leader in my office thought this was a good idea and he would welcome it. I asked what if they dismissed him, would it be a good idea then? He said that he is productive so it wouldn't happen to him. I asked him to prove his productivity in a format that shows it, he said he couldn't due to the nature of his job and then looked a little bit scared when it dawned on him.


Same old party then looking out for the rich few while leaving the rest of us to rot if the Lib Dems had any dignity they would sack this rotten Government off.
John Galt
Going back a while to the Dale Farm eviction, there's a Panorama documentary on now and there's something which I don't get about this. It's probably been talked about but they interviewed a woman who was talking about how this is the first place she's been with electric lights, combine this with the fact they've been there for a decade and I really don't understand why they don't just buy houses. This way of life just makes no sense to me at all.
David
QUOTE (John Galt @ Oct 27 2011, 20:30) *
Going back a while to the Dale Farm eviction, there's a Panorama documentary on now and there's something which I don't get about this. It's probably been talked about but they interviewed a woman who was talking about how this is the first place she's been with electric lights, combine this with the fact they've been there for a decade and I really don't understand why they don't just buy houses. This way of life just makes no sense to me at all.

Just because it doesn't make any sense to you doesn't mean they should simply knock it off and get with the program, does it? If they wanted to buy houses and live like the rest of us they would have.
Kiffy
Plus buying house's isn't quite that simple, deposits are lots of cash, on top of which you need good credit to get a mortage or buy somewhere. And living on the road doesn't give you great credit, cos by their records yoo don't exist.
And being given a bedsit on the council somewhere (if they'll house you at all, which as a traveller they won't be bending over themselves to do) really isn't the same.
Dynamite Duane
DELETED POST.
Mr.Showtime
It looked like you were about to have a go at him for not following through with his political beliefs...but instead you have a go at him because he doesn't have a bit of cardboard on his forehead saying 'I'm a Homo'?!
tom
QUOTE (Dynamite Duane @ Oct 28 2011, 13:15) *
Oh yeah, if you scroll down to the bottom (no pun intended) it links him to the list of gay politicians.

LOLLLZZZ!!!!1111

You fucking suck. I suppose it's some sort of gay conspiracy; next thing you know, you'll be one of the Heart Throbs, or perhaps Pat Patterson, right? rolleyes.gif

Damn Those Gay Catholics
King Pitcos
QUOTE (Dynamite Duane @ Oct 28 2011, 13:15) *
I pose the question if you are Catholic is it contradictory to be gay?

Yes. But you rarely have a choice in being either of those things -- nobody chooses their sexuality, and any adult catholic by necessity lacks the ability to evaluate religion and choose accordingly. But what the fuck has any of that got to do with the EU? Are you just wanting to discredit the fella's political opinions because he's a "bog-brained papist" and a "woofter" or what?
tom
I'm actually more scared that Duane has a son; although I'm obviously just slow-off the mark in terms of learning that fact
Dynamite Duane
I've obviously wasted my time here, completely misunderstood...

Ronnie
36 years after the arrival of the Sex Discrimination Act we're finally seeing it reflected regarding lines of succession. Following discussion between the heads of the 16 countries which comprise the Commonwealth there has been agreement that a female will no longer be bumped down the line of succession by a younger brother. The heads also agreed that the ban on royalty marrying Catholics needs to go.

Whether one's a monarchist or, like me, republican in nature, I think it's pretty clear that this is righting a couple of very obvious wrongs.
Kenny McBride
The Catholic thing is a complicated issue. A Catholic entering a mixed marriage by necessity has to try to raise the children as Catholics. If the heir to the throne marries someone who then raises his or her kids as Catholics, the implications for the established Church Of England are pretty serious. I don't care if the CoE collapses because William's kid falls in love with a left-footer, but the CoE might well feel differently. I'll be extremely upset, though, if some sneaky settlement is negotiated whereby the Catholic partner would have to agree not to raise the kids as Catholics, as that's forcing them to abandon a fairly major part of their religion's teaching.

It's pretty much a no-win situation. The sad part is that the Catholic bishops have campaigned for it without really thinking about what the real implications are, or rather, what the realpolitik is.
Chest Rockwell
QUOTE (Ronnie @ Oct 28 2011, 13:28) *
36 years after the arrival of the Sex Discrimination Act we're finally seeing it reflected regarding lines of succession. Following discussion between the heads of the 16 countries which comprise the Commonwealth there has been agreement that a female will no longer be bumped down the line of succession by a younger brother. The heads also agreed that the ban on royalty marrying Catholics needs to go.

Whether one's a monarchist or, like me, republican in nature, I think it's pretty clear that this is righting a couple of very obvious wrongs.


Really?

I'm struggling to find a reason to give a shit on any level.. Any I don't mean that to sound dismissive, but the royals don't live in the real world; nothing that happens to them has any bearing on or relation to us.
JNLister
There's also a third change which says that the monarch's descendants no longer have to ask permission to get married, which was a rule introduced in 1772.

Rather bizarrely, the first time that law had any effect was when the Duke of Clarence (later King William IV) shacked up with an Irish actress but didn't marry her because he knew he wouldn't get permission as she was the wrong sort.

Had he been able to marry her, the monarchy would have passed down via the child they had together, and the current king would be their great-great-great grandson.

A Mr David Cameron.
Ronnie
QUOTE (Chest Rockwell @ Oct 28 2011, 16:11) *
Really?

I'm struggling to find a reason to give a shit on any level.. Any I don't mean that to sound dismissive, but the royals don't live in the real world; nothing that happens to them has any bearing on or relation to us.

It's rooting out instutionalised sexism and religious discrimination at the highest level of our society. It doesn't sway my conviction that, since God didn't put them there, the Royal Family shouldn't have their role but, given that they do, I prefer that it's at least not buffetted by discrimination.

To bring it down a level, I have no chance of being prime minister, but I'd be appalled if we had a rule saying that non-whites couldn't have that role. If such a rule were repealed I'd be happy, as I am with this one.
Chest Rockwell
Fair enough. But the PM analogy is a bit off in that it's specifically being that one level further removed that makes it so irrelevant to me.
Glen Quagmire
QUOTE (Chest Rockwell @ Oct 28 2011, 16:53) *
Fair enough. But the PM analogy is a bit off in that it's specifically being that one level further removed that makes it so irrelevant to me.

Not that much. IIRC the Prime Minister cannot be a Catholic either. One of the reasons Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after he left office and that were Ian Duncan Smith as Conservative leader were to have won a General Election there might have been a constitutional crises (of course there was pretty much no chance of IDS getting into that position).
King Pitcos
QUOTE (Ronnie @ Oct 28 2011, 16:43) *
It's rooting out instutionalised sexism and religious discrimination at the highest level of our society. It doesn't sway my conviction that, since God didn't put them there, the Royal Family shouldn't have their role but, given that they do, I prefer that it's at least not buffetted by discrimination.

Fair play on the sexism bit but, considering the head of the royal family is the head of a specific religion, it's silly to expect religious equality there. It doesn't make any sense for the reasons Kenny pointed out.
Ronnie
QUOTE (King Pitcos @ Oct 28 2011, 20:27) *
Fair play on the sexism bit but, considering the head of the royal family is the head of a specific religion, it's silly to expect religious equality there. It doesn't make any sense for the reasons Kenny pointed out.

What would be the difference between Catholicism and any other religion, though? There's no legislation barring any other religion. Or is it purely that you can't have the spouse of the head of the English Church being in thrawl to another man who is head of another religion? What about buddhists with the Dalai Lama etc?

Actually, doesn't the fact that the Queen is head of her own religion really underline how hokey it is? One king wants a divorce, the Pope won't grant it, so he takes advantage of frustration amongst elements of the populace at the selling of pardons etc and declares his own religion the true one. And 450 years later people still sign up to it.
King Pitcos
QUOTE (Ronnie @ Oct 28 2011, 21:24) *
QUOTE (King Pitcos @ Oct 28 2011, 20:27) *
Fair play on the sexism bit but, considering the head of the royal family is the head of a specific religion, it's silly to expect religious equality there. It doesn't make any sense for the reasons Kenny pointed out.

What would be the difference between Catholicism and any other religion, though? There's no legislation barring any other religion. Or is it purely that you can't have the spouse of the head of the English Church being in thrawl to another man who is head of another religion? What about buddhists with the Dalai Lama etc?

Kenny's explained why it doesn't work with Catholicism -- because the only possible outcomes of such a union are either A) the Catholic half of the marriage neglecting their Catholic duties by failing to raise their children in that faith, or B) the offspring, upon taking the throne, is somehow simultaneously a Catholic and Head of the C of E.
Ronnie
See what you mean.

All the same, that's dependent on the individual being ultra stringent in how they apply their Catholicism. It should be for the individual to say "Sorry, I can't marry you because ..." rather than be told "You're going to be excluded because you're a Catholic." I'm sure there are plenty of nominal Catholics who break the rules every day; my other half has eaten meat in every meal today in spite of having recently been told that meat's a no-no on Fridays.

And going back to the point about Catholicism being singled out: We don't say "CofE-ers can marry the monarch subject to having proven that their hymen is intact" because otherwise they would be in violation of the no-sex-before-marriage demand of their religion.
JNLister
UKIP's treasurer tries to make a point at a climate change debate. When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.
patiirc
QUOTE (JNLister @ Oct 29 2011, 2:37) *
UKIP's treasurer tries to make a point at a climate change debate. When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.


The lass who is 2 down from the UKIP bloke is fit, mind thumbs-up.gif

Terribly irrelevant , but it made the whole thing watchable as the Treasurer was being shot down
KrAzY
That was painful to watch haha. I think its ok for him to hold that view but he should at least be able to back it up!
ozzfan
QUOTE (JNLister @ Oct 29 2011, 2:37) *
UKIP's treasurer tries to make a point at a climate change debate. When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.


Bless, Diet-BNP actually think they're real politicians, don't they? Silly buggers.
Keith Houchen
QUOTE (JNLister @ Oct 29 2011, 2:37) *
UKIP's treasurer tries to make a point at a climate change debate. When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.

Can you name some of the posters on this board and their style of argument that he is paying tribute to?
JNLister
I'd say it's a blend of Duane's "I'm just putting some information out there for you to think about" and HappHazard's mix of very strongly held beliefs interspersed with incredibly basic questions that show he's done no research whatsoever, followed by a change of subject.

To be fair, Duane does at least name "sources", crackpot or otherwise.
Keith Houchen
Boo, I was hoping for a "I can't be bothered to remember them".
Astro Hollywood
That is a fantastic clip.
JNLister
QUOTE (Keith Houchen @ Oct 29 2011, 13:40) *
Boo, I was hoping for a "I can't be bothered to remember them".




confused.gif
bobbins
QUOTE (JNLister @ Oct 29 2011, 2:37) *
UKIP's treasurer tries to make a point at a climate change debate. When questioned it soon becomes clear he's paying tribute to some of the posters on this board and their style of argument.

laugh.gif Monbiot was desperate to destroy that guy before he was cut off.

On the monarchy secession, it just highlights how daft the whole thing is. Favouring a first born child is just as arbitrary and ridiculous as favouring a male child.
David
An interesting read, and some sobering facts about us "all being in this together".

QUOTE
Pay for the directors of the UK's top businesses rose 50% over the past year, a pay research company has said.

Incomes Data Services (IDS) said this took the average pay for a director of a FTSE 100 company to just short of £2.7m.

The rise, covering salary, benefits and bonuses, was higher than that recorded for the main person running the company, the chief executive.

Their pay rose by 43% over the year, according to the study.

Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking in Australia, said the report was "concerning" and called for big companies to be more transparent when they decide executive pay.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the pay increases were part of a "something for nothing" culture, since the stock market had not risen to match them.

A statement from IDS said that that figure suggested that "executive largesse is evenly spread across the board".

Base salaries rose by just 3.2%, although that was above the median rise recorded by IDS this week for average pay settlements of 2.6% for private sector workers.

The latest consumer price inflation figures showed inflation at 5.2%.

Directors' bonus payments, on average, rose by 23% from £737,000 in 2010 to £906,000 this year.

Around two-thirds of FTSE 100 companies are global operations, for whom the UK is a small part of their operation, including mining giant Rio Tinto.

The Unite union has called executive pay "obscene" and has called for shareholders to be given more power to hold directors accountable.

The union's general secretary, Len McCluskey said: "The Government should strongly consider giving shareholders greater legal powers to question and curb these excessive remuneration packages.

"Institutional shareholders need to exercise much greater scrutiny and control of directors' pay and bonuses.

"It's obscene and it shows that the City has learnt nothing during the financial troubles of the last four years."



"I think it is very hard to justify these sorts of pay increases," Deborah Hargreaves, chair of the High Pay Commission, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"When you think the average pay is going up 1% or 2%, it's not even meeting price rises. These pay packages have become so complex that executives don't even understand it themselves.

"We have got a closed shop here and someone needs to break it open."

Brendan Barber, the TUC's general secretary, said: "Top directors have used tough business conditions to impose real wage cuts, which have hit people's living standards and the wider economy, but have shown no such restraint with their own pay.

"Reform should start with employee representation on remuneration committees, which would give directors a much-needed sense of reality."

Steve Tatton, who edited the IDS report, said: "Britain's economy may be struggling to return to pre-recession levels of output, but the same cannot be said of FTSE 100 directors' remuneration."

Mr Tatton said that while closer scrutiny of pay awards was expected in future, "remuneration committees will have to make sure that they are able to provide full and thorough justifications for the bonuses awarded."

The King Of Swing
Reminds me of a recent episode of Panorama when one Manager was asked if he would take a %20 pay cut like his staff were expected to (in the care industry) and his answer was simply no that wouldn't solve the problem.

In this together my arse.
David
Anyone read this?

QUOTE
Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might affect his private interests.

Since 2005, ministers from six departments have sought the Prince of Wales' consent to draft bills on everything from road safety to gambling and the London Olympics, in an arrangement described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" over public policy. Unlike royal assent to bills, which is exercised by the Queen as a matter of constitutional law, the prince's power applies when a new bill might affect his own interests, in particular the Duchy of Cornwall, a private £700m property empire that last year provided him with an £18m income.

Neither the government nor Clarence House will reveal what, if any, alterations to legislation Charles has requested, or exactly why he was asked to grant consent to such a wide range of laws.

Correspondence seen by the Guardian reveals that one minister wrote to the prince's office requesting his consent to a new bill about planning reform because it was "capable of applying to ... [the] Prince of Wales' private interests".

In the last two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to draft bills on wreck removals and co-operative societies, a freedom of information request to the House of Commons has revealed. Between 2007-09 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning.

MPs and peers called for the immediate publication of details about the application of the prince's powers which have fuelled concern over his alleged meddling in British politics. "If princes and paupers are to live as equals in a modern Britain, anyone who enjoys exceptional influence or veto should exercise it with complete transparency," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives in Cornwall. "The duchy asserts that it is merely a private estate. Most people will be astonished to learn that it appears to have effective powers of veto over the government."

"We should know why he is being asked and the government should publish the answers," said Lord Berkeley, who was last month told to seek Charles' consent on a marine navigation bill. "If he is given these powers purely because he owns land in Cornwall it is pretty stupid. What about the other landowners who must also be affected by changes to legislation?"

Revelations about Charles' power of consent come amid continued concern that the heir to the throne may be overstepping his constitutional role by lobbying ministers directly and through his charities on pet concerns such as traditional architecture and the environment.

A spokesman for the Prince of Wales would not comment on whether the prince has ever withheld consent or demanded changes to legislation under the consent system. "Communications between the prince or his household and the government are confidential under a long-standing convention that protects the heir to the throne's right to be instructed in the business of government in preparation for his future role as monarch," he said. Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel and now parliamentary lawyer at Berwin Leighton Paisner, said: "It is something of a nuclear-button option that everybody knows he is not likely to push. But like the nuclear deterrent, the fact that it is there, influences negotiations."

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, said it was "an affront to democratic values" that citizens had no right to know whether Charles was insisting on changes to bills. "We know Charles has been lobbying ministers, but this is evidence he has the power to instruct them to alter their plans and that gives him leverage," he said.

Source: The Guardian

So much for the royal family being nothing more than a tourist attraction with very little say on how things are run, eh?
Dynamite Duane
Anyone on here got involved with the Occupy movement in their city/town? I popped down to Bournemouth Town Hall to show my support last Wednesday. Good atmosphere, chatting to them about why they are doing it. It pissed down with rain though, brave people.

Occupy Bournemouth short Documentary vid
Keith Houchen
QUOTE
The home secretary, Theresa May, has ordered Muslims Against Crusades, an Islamist group which is planning to disrupt Friday's Armistice Day ceremonies, be banned from midnight.

The organisation, which burned two large poppies near the Royal Albert Hall in London on Remembrance Day during the minute's silence last year, is a renamed successor to the already banned Islam4UK and other proscribed organisations. Anjem Choudary is a leading figure in both groups.

The immediate ban is part of the government's new drive to proscribe organisations that glorify terrorism in addition to those having direct links to terrorist groups.

The ban will make membership of Muslims Against Crusades a criminal offence.

May said: "I am satisfied Muslims Against Crusades is simply another name for an organisation already proscribed under a number of names including Al Ghurabaa, The Saved Sect, Al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name."

A parliamentary order was laid at Westminster on Thursday morning implementing the ban.

The group has often clashed with the English Defence League since it was set up last year. It has staged a pro-Bin Laden rally outside the US embassy. On the anniversary of 9/11 its members burned US flags and chanted through megaphones outside the embassy, disrupting a minute's silence by mourners at the nearby September 11 memorial garden.

A statement on the group's website said this year's Armistice Day would be marked by "a total lack of silence" by the Muslim community in Britain to highlight the continuing "atrocities" in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "brutal torture concentration camps of Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib".

The "hell for heroes" protest planned for Friday was also scheduled to take place outside the Royal Albert Hall.

Choudary of Muslims Against Crusades said the decision was a "bid by the government to cover up the truth".

He said he did not know if a "hell for heroes" demonstration against Remembrance commemorations would now go ahead.

Responding to the ban, he said: "I think it is an abject failure of democracy and it is a victory for sharia Muslims. The truth is something the government would rather silence."

The Home Office said the decision was based on an assessment of the group's involvement in the glorification of terrorism and the evidence that it was another name for an already proscribed terrorist organisation.

The ban, which has been evoked under the Terrorism Act 2000, also makes it a criminal offence to "arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing, or to carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation"..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/10/m...crusades-banned
KrAzY
I've never really understood why these extreme Muslims live in the UK if they hate it so much.
Keith Houchen
QUOTE (KrAzY @ Nov 10 2011, 18:17) *
I've never really understood why these extreme Muslims live in the UK if they hate it so much.

Because they were born here?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.