Originally posted by Geoff Parkstone
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Election Year or Fear!
Collapse
X
-
Well you can and most people do in point of fact, indeed I go further and say that many people judge other people by standards, which they are under the illusion they hold to, but in reality don't. The fact that 40% of those picked up by the Police in last summer's riots in which most claimed they were protesting about the threat to women, girls and children, had prior contact with the Police including convictions for offences of violence and abuse against women girls and children demonstrates this.Originally posted by Geoff Parkstone View PostYes but that depends on your definition of morality which won't necessarily accord with others' definitions. For example an EFL supporter may consider it immoral to allow what in their opinion might be excessive immigration.... You can't judge others by your standards - you're not a god that makes the rules
But in general I take your point, that somebody might be against immigration (excessive of course depends upon a definition as to what that means) which is reasonable, up until the point that they include unproven and inaccurate terms which demean the immigrant.
Its perfectly reasonable to be concerned about immigration, its not reasonable or acceptable IMO to then denigrate all immigrants through unproven and baseless accusations through prejudice. That surely is a standard which no reasonably civilised person would argue with?
As RA rightly says, when certain views (of whatever political leaning) cross the line into violence, intimidation etc. Or encouraging the same, that cannot be acceptable.
Comment
-
Exactly what I was thinking, but I think MA’s point is that, despite us being regularly told that ‘violence can never be justified’, sometimes it actually is.Originally posted by SithHappens View PostIn this day and age what percentage, not on here but general population, first reaction would be whip out the mobile phone?
Comment
-
As part of a menatl health reboot I'm only referring to the news for ten minutes each day, so this might have been considered by y'all in which case I'll defer.
Labour started with a ?22bn 'black hole' and described that as '14 years of Conservative mismanagament/incompetence' (choose your source). That's ?1.57bn/year
The news this eve suggests Labour are now sitting on a ?50bn black hole, after a year of government. My maths says a) that's an increase of ?28bn, b) that's ?28bn/year and c) that makes them 17.83 times as incompetent as the previous administration. Am I missing something?
Comment
-
Yes your missing that the £40bn or £58bn or whatever the forecaster's say is over a 10 year period and a forecast or guesstimate!Originally posted by Andy_Faber View PostAs part of a menatl health reboot I'm only referring to the news for ten minutes each day, so this might have been considered by y'all in which case I'll defer.
Labour started with a ?22bn 'black hole' and described that as '14 years of Conservative mismanagament/incompetence' (choose your source). That's ?1.57bn/year
The news this eve suggests Labour are now sitting on a ?50bn black hole, after a year of government. My maths says a) that's an increase of ?28bn, b) that's ?28bn/year and c) that makes them 17.83 times as incompetent as the previous administration. Am I missing something?
These figures are meaningless, as indeed to an extent was the claim about a £22bn "black hole" and change according to what's happening in the world and indeed who is making the assumptions. Its a bit like the so called "fiscal rules" which are more made up BS, designed only to portray the government as fiscally responsible to those wise souls who buy and sell government debt.
Of course much of what affects these forecasts are outside any governments control, Trump's tariffs, Russia invading Ukraine Israel bombing Iraq etc. etc. I stand to be corrected but I don't believe any Chancellors forecasts on debt have been met since WW2.
I did read something the other day, that one of the best ways to raise revenue, which would help Council services would be to revise property tax, specifically Council tax, so that those in £million plus properties don't pay the same as some one in a £350K house. Property is less easy to hide than other assets.
Comment
-
I struggle to work out how these people who are obviously so dim, make their money, I mean Great Yarmouth is 120 miles from the Kent coast and Channel and 200 miles from the Dutch coast, how exactly did he think a boat with migrants would get there?Originally posted by SithHappens View PostRupert Lowe getting all worked up on x.com over a small boat full of immigrants coming into Gt Yarmouth,turns out it was a team of rowers raising money for charity lol
Comment
-
Interesting decision today to find Ricky Jones not guilty over his call for the throats of demonstrators to be slit.
One wonders how saying something verbally on video as opposed to writing a tweet is different. Obviously referring to Lucy Connolly.
I think most agree Connolly should be punished it's the severity of the punishment that's been argued about. But how do we get her getting the punishment she did vs no punishment at all, both for calling for people to be killed.
I'd argue as a councillor he had more responsibility to consider his words than a member if Joe bloggs public.
Comment

Comment