I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
Yes that makes sense except I don't see how much further we would be from what we have today (Remainer in No.10, etc). The ERG would presumably make demands of Javid but, as with May today, he is first of all a Remainer, and second of all, would be PM and hence not, I hope, at liberty to accede to some of the bonkers demands that they would try to make. So what would be the point of the ERG endorsing it if they got nothing more than they are already getting, whatever that is?
It puts Gove into number 11, Javid is not an ideological remainer and would be a much more pragmatic and decisive PM than May. I think if he went in and walked the route of Brexit as the City would like it (what Robert, myself and other leavers on here have proposed) they would probably live with it as long as the end goal was being completely out within a few years and no open-ended commitments to the CU or SM are made (as May seems ready to do).
Javid has already spoken out against the customs union, a few times so that will help win over the moderate sceptics (which make up the majority of the MPs and members) and enough of the ERG to not put forwards a challenge despite coming out for remain, IMO.
I also think getting Hammond out of number 11 (and Gove in) would count as a huge win for the ERG, which is why if Javid and Gove run a joint ticket they get most of the party behind them.
I would be a lot happier with Gove in number 11 than number 10. I think he has the intellect to seize the problems of the Treasury and our absurd tax system. I think he would also be more ambitious about housing and infrastructure and slightly less anxious about the deficit. Hammond is really steady as you go and that is not what is needed if this country is to maintain its dynamism.
Javid has worried me for a bit because he has often seemed a little lacking in critical analysis of a problem or substance (he was disappointing at Business) but he would be a better frontman choice than Gove. The ideal would be if Javid/Gove could get Osborne back inside the tent as well. We are desperately short of real talent in front line politics in this country.
May and Hammond need to win big next week on all of these votes. If they don't their time may well be up.
George Osborne - the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
Real talent.
Hammond's satisfaction ratings on that ConHome poll were APPALLING.
I regularly forget that we have a chancellor; so quiet is the Treasury now...
It's a good day for people who want to throw their money away investing in Gove. It's also a good day for investors in Rees-Mogg, since they can now increase their investment at a lower price.
Meanwhile, here is what the government should announce.
1) Full Brexit cannot come with an open border in Ireland or with a continuation of the FTA. Full Brexit means Hard Border. The signatories of the Good Friday Agreement did not envisage Brexit.
2) The border in Ireland is an international one between sovereign countries. Just as the British side in cross-Channel trade relations is a matter for the British government, not for Kent County Council, so is the British side in matters concerning the Irish border. The British government will not be held to ransom by the DUP.
3) ALTERNATIVE A
i) Since Brexit brings consequences for British-Irish relations that were not made clear at the time of the referendum, there should be another British referendum with a Remain option. The RoI of course has a special relationship with Britain but it is an EU member state and that relationship will become less special if Britain leaves the EU. The British people must decide whether or not they want that.
ii) If the result of another Brexit referendum is again Leave, then the people of NI need to decide whether they want free movement with GB or free movement with the rest of Ireland. Therefore in that event the British government will propose that referendums on Irish reunification should be held on both sides of the Irish border. That will of course need to be agreed with the Irish government.
ALTERNATIVE B
There should be separate referendums in GB and NI. In GB the question should be Remain versus Leave. In NI the question should be Leave Britain and Stay in the EU or Stay in Britain and Leave the EU. And if GB votes to leave the EU whereas NI votes to stay in the EU, then it will be up to the people of NI to decide whether they want full independence (after which they can apply for EU membership) or, subject to RoI agreement, to join the RoI.
It is a truly pathetic British government that cannot stand up to the DUP and soon people are going to get sick of it.
I'm afraid that some of those options could restart the 'Troubles'.
Yes that makes sense except I don't see how much further we would be from what we have today (Remainer in No.10, etc). The ERG would presumably make demands of Javid but, as with May today, he is first of all a Remainer, and second of all, would be PM and hence not, I hope, at liberty to accede to some of the bonkers demands that they would try to make. So what would be the point of the ERG endorsing it if they got nothing more than they are already getting, whatever that is?
It puts Gove into number 11, Javid is not an ideological remainer and would be a much more pragmatic and decisive PM than May. I think if he went in and walked the route of Brexit as the City would like it (what Robert, myself and other leavers on here have proposed) they would probably live with it as long as the end goal was being completely out within a few years and no open-ended commitments to the CU or SM are made (as May seems ready to do).
Javid has already spoken out against the customs union, a few times so that will help win over the moderate sceptics (which make up the majority of the MPs and members) and enough of the ERG to not put forwards a challenge despite coming out for remain, IMO.
I also think getting Hammond out of number 11 (and Gove in) would count as a huge win for the ERG, which is why if Javid and Gove run a joint ticket they get most of the party behind them.
I would be a lot happier with Gove in number 11 than number 10. I think he has the intellect to seize the problems of the Treasury and our absurd tax system. I think he would also be more ambitious about housing and infrastructure and slightly less anxious about the deficit. Hammond is really steady as you go and that is not what is needed if this country is to maintain its dynamism.
Javid has worried me for a bit because he has often seemed a little lacking in critical analysis of a problem or substance (he was disappointing at Business) but he would be a better frontman choice than Gove. The ideal would be if Javid/Gove could get Osborne back inside the tent as well. We are desperately short of real talent in front line politics in this country.
May and Hammond need to win big next week on all of these votes. If they don't their time may well be up.
George Osborne - the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
Real talent.
Hammond's satisfaction ratings on that ConHome poll were APPALLING.
I regularly forget that we have a chancellor; so quiet is the Treasury now...
It's a good day for people who want to throw their money away investing in Gove. It's also a good day for investors in Rees-Mogg, since they can now increase their investment at a lower price.
Meanwhile, here is what the government should announce.
1) Full Brexit cannot come with an open border in Ireland or with a continuation of the FTA. Full Brexit means Hard Border. The signatories of the Good Friday Agreement did not envisage Brexit.
2) The border in Ireland is an international one between sovereign countries. Just as the British side in cross-Channel trade relations is a matter for the British government, not for Kent County Council, so is the British side in matters concerning the Irish border. The British government will not be held to ransom by the DUP.
3) ALTERNATIVE A
i) Since Brexit brings consequences for British-Irish relations that were not made clear at the time of the referendum, there should be another British referendum with a Remain option. The RoI of course has a special relationship with Britain but it is an EU member state and that relationship will become less special if Britain leaves the EU. The British people must decide whether or not they want that.
ii) If the result of another Brexit referendum is again Leave, then the people of NI need to decide whether they want free movement with GB or free movement with the rest of Ireland. Therefore in that event the British government will propose that referendums on Irish reunification should be held on both sides of the Irish border. That will of course need to be agreed with the Irish government.
ALTERNATIVE B
There should be separate referendums in GB and NI. In GB the question should be Remain versus Leave. In NI the question should be Leave Britain and Stay in the EU or Stay in Britain and Leave the EU. And if GB votes to leave the EU whereas NI votes to stay in the EU, then it will be up to the people of NI to decide whether they want full independence (after which they can apply for EU membership) or, subject to RoI agreement, to join the RoI.
It is a truly pathetic British government that cannot stand up to the DUP and soon people are going to get sick of it.
No thanks. Both your options are unacceptable and hopefully your ideas will be rightly ignored.
In NI the question should be Leave Britain and Stay in the EU or Stay in Britain and Leave the EU.
Come to think of it, this needs to be more complicated. The options in NI could be as follows:
* Stay in Britain no matter what (so if GB votes Leave you get a hard border with RoI, and if GB votes Remain you get a lovely open border)
* Stay in Britain only if GB votes Remain, otherwise leave Britain and go independent, with NI's relationships with the EU and the rest of Ireland to be determined
Personally I'd prefer if it if Westminster brought same sex marriage to Northern Ireland first.
Have you someone in mind ?
I can recommend some venues if you do.
I'm never getting married again, once was enough for me.
A friend of mine is in a same sex relationship with an Ulsterman and it seems perverse that *I* can marry someone of the same sex as myself in my home country and he cannot.
Best not marry a Pakistani bloke then
Ah but Pakistan is not my home country. Le Royaume-Uni is.
Does Northern Ireland really want to be known as Pakistan on The Lagan?
yes but you could meet a Pakistani bloke and want to get married at his place.
I try and spend as little time with Pakistanis as possible.
Everyone one of my Mum's friends are trying to marry me off.
then you should join the OO what with all that marching they'll never pin you down
Buy a Lambeg drum and watch your cousins get dholki envy
Well, stop being seen as the f*cking party of anti-semites then.... It's in your hands.
I presume if any Tory activists/supporters feel intimidated by angry people shouting at them things they feel the Conservative party are responsible for then that is similarly the fault of the Conservative party?
It's a view I guess.....
You are continually and utterly wrong-headed on this. Some things transcend party politics: if you genuinely believe that things like anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia are wrong, then you argue against it wherever you see it, even if it is in your own party. You do not excuse it because the accused are fellow travellers.
Labour had issues with anti-Semitism - and that is according to your namesake, yet alone lots of other MPs and activists. This is partly because of the leadership's lack of action against such people.
Now, I'll guarantee you one thing: there will be anti-Semites or Islamaphobes in the Labour party. There'll be some in the Conservative party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, etc, etc.
What matters is how you react to accusations, and that's why Labour's got into trouble.
My post was about it being okay to intimidate and shout activists (or supporters) in other parties because of problems (or at least perceived) that party has caused. The post I was replying too seemed to indicate that it was okay to a Labour person so I wondered if the same applied to say the Conservative party.
I don't think it is whatever party they are in. You may disagree but I think you are utterly wrong headed if so.
I think your complaint is more a general one about anti semitism in Labour but I am not sure what exactly you are accusing me of backing... Perhaps you believe I think Labour should adopt the Tories position towards racists where you suspend them for a short time and then just reinstate them to help secure a council.
That would be utterly wrong headed, but I do not believe Labour should adopt that policy.
Edit: Unless the entire post was basically you saying the anti-semitism charge stands up enough that people can basically shout and intimidate Labour activists/supporters, it is morally justified?
I have not followed this in detail so I was wondering how exactly have Northern Rail screwed this up so badly? Did they introduce a timetable that they couldn't themselves meet or is there a problem because if it works it is a worse timetable than they had before. Is it interfacing with Network Rail that is the issue or is it all down to NR's internal mismanagement of their own business?
Right, AIUI:
The outline services to be run are agreed in advance (often at franchise time) between the DfT, the operator and Network Rail. In this case, there was going to be a large alteration to the timetables country-wide due to new trains and improved infrastructure allowing new routes. It is then up to Network Rail to devise the timetables.
New timetables come in in December and May, with the latter ('summer') timetable usually being bigger changes. TOCs are usually given three or so months notice of the broad-brush new timetable, so they can train staff up for the changes.
However in Northern's case, Network Rail mucked up the infrastructure improvements. This meant the overworked small timetabling team were making alterations to the timetable a week or two before it was due to come in. And because the infrastructure was not ready, Northern could not train the staff on the routes. (And now some guesswork: the constantly-changing emergency timetables they bought in duriing the first two weeks of chaos probably didn't help).
I have much sympathy with Northern, who really are not architects of the mess they find themselves in. The situation with GTR down south is roughly similar, but with detail differences that can be laid more at GTR's door.
The DfT are much to blame. In particular, leaving not enough time between scheduled infrastructure completion and the new services running. In another recent case during Chester, they finished the infrastructure and will be running first services over it in six months. But allegedly they wanted to show off the money they'd spent on that shiny new infrastructure...
Thanks JJ. That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't realised that Network Rail dictated the timetables. Though of course when you think about it it makes sense.
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
It was a report this afternoon on BBC news 24.The person they were speaking to said he paid to travel on a Czech Republic passport.The passport was real and the photo looked like him, but was not him.He had to hand it back , when he was through Dublin Airport.
They said the checks were less rigorous at Dublin Airport , than flying direct to UK.
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
It was a report this afternoon on BBC news 24.The person they were speaking to said he paid to travel on a Czech Republic passport.The passport was real and the photo looked like him, but was not him.He had to hand it back , when he was through Dublin Airport.
They said the checks were less rigorous at Dublin Airport , than flying direct to UK.
Sounds like the ROI need to tighten up their checks, then.
Well, stop being seen as the f*cking party of anti-semites then.... It's in your hands.
I presume if any Tory activists/supporters feel intimidated by angry people shouting at them things they feel the Conservative party are responsible for then that is similarly the fault of the Conservative party?
It's a view I guess.....
You are continually and utterly wrong-headed on this. Some things transcend party politics: if you genuinely believe that things like anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia are wrong, then you argue against it wherever you see it, even if it is in your own party. You do not excuse it because the accused are fellow travellers.
Labour had issues with anti-Semitism - and that is according to your namesake, yet alone lots of other MPs and activists. This is partly because of the leadership's lack of action against such people.
Now, I'll guarantee you one thing: there will be anti-Semites or Islamaphobes in the Labour party. There'll be some in the Conservative party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, etc, etc.
What matters is how you react to accusations, and that's why Labour's got into trouble.
My post was about it being okay to intimidate and shout activists (or supporters) in other parties because of problems (or at least perceived) that party has caused. The post I was replying too seemed to indicate that it was okay to a Labour person so I wondered if the same applied to say the Conservative party.
I don't think it is whatever party they are in. You may disagree but I think you are utterly wrong headed if so.
I think your complaint is more a general one about anti semitism in Labour but I am not sure what exactly you are accusing me of backing... Perhaps you believe I think Labour should adopt the Tories position towards racists where you suspend them for a short time and then just reinstate them to help secure a council.
That would be utterly wrong headed, but I do not believe Labour should adopt that policy.
Edit: Unless the entire post was basically you saying the anti-semitism charge stands up enough that people can basically shout and intimidate Labour activists/supporters, it is morally justified?
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
*Well banking.
any chance we could re-run Indyref ?
Brexit has made us all stale and boring
Or rerun the AV referendum, that would excite things
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
*Well banking.
any chance we could re-run Indyref ?
Brexit has made us all stale and boring
I do have a Scottish Independence thread going up in the next few days.
I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon and the Nats will say it is casus belli for another referendum.
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
*Well banking.
any chance we could re-run Indyref ?
Brexit has made us all stale and boring
Or rerun the AV referendum, that would excite things
oh how we laughed when the Nats announced a 3 year IndyRef campaign. Meanwhile the Inglesi head for year 4 on Brexit.
Thanks JJ. That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't realised that Network Rail dictated the timetables. Though of course when you think about it it makes sense.
The following is particularly noteworthy: "The decision to make the temporary change to the availability of final timetables follows discussions with train operators. It has been taken to give the greatest possible certainty to passengers across the country about the services they can expect to run."
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
It was a report this afternoon on BBC news 24.The person they were speaking to said he paid to travel on a Czech Republic passport.The passport was real and the photo looked like him, but was not him.He had to hand it back , when he was through Dublin Airport.
They said the checks were less rigorous at Dublin Airport , than flying direct to UK.
Sounds like the ROI need to tighten up their checks, then.
They are going to. Operation Gull is AIUI for EU immigration only.
England could always bring its abortion law into line with Northern Ireland's.
today's debate was one of those fun moments when people who showed no interest in the place suddenly decided to turn up to a debate
we had a party which has never had a female leader complaining about the patriarchy to a place where both parties are led by women
the DUP took the brunt of the heat on the NI assembly despite Dodds explaining they will go back in to government tomorrow no preconditions and that it's SF that have collapsed the executive
Stella Creasy ducked the invitation to stand in NI constituencies given her concern
NI secretary announced upfront that it was a devolved issue, Bercow then remembered one and a bit hours in to the debate that HMG had said its piece and that there would be no closing statement as Karen Bradley had already left.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
It was a report this afternoon on BBC news 24.The person they were speaking to said he paid to travel on a Czech Republic passport.The passport was real and the photo looked like him, but was not him.He had to hand it back , when he was through Dublin Airport.
They said the checks were less rigorous at Dublin Airport , than flying direct to UK.
Sounds like the ROI need to tighten up their checks, then.
It's been a few years now since I last flew into the UK from the US through DUB but when I did, the passport checks there consisted of a very bored-looking Garda waving me through at sight of the cover of my passport.
England could always bring its abortion law into line with Northern Ireland's.
Never mind Northern Ireland, England could bring its abortion law into line with the Republic's proposed new law, abortion only legal up to 12 weeks into pregnancy in most cases, not 24 weeks as now, with abortions up to 24 weeks only being allowed in the case of the life of the mother or serious harm to their physical or mental health or a fatal foetal abnormality. In the UK for example a serious handicap of a child if born is grounds for abortion up to 24 weeks.
Now, I'll guarantee you one thing: there will be anti-Semites or Islamaphobes in the Labour party. There'll be some in the Conservative party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, etc, etc.
What matters is how you react to accusations, and that's why Labour's got into trouble.
My post was about it being okay to intimidate and shout activists (or supporters) in other parties because of problems (or at least perceived) that party has caused. The post I was replying too seemed to indicate that it was okay to a Labour person so I wondered if the same applied to say the Conservative party.
I don't think it is whatever party they are in. You may disagree but I think you are utterly wrong headed if so.
I think your complaint is more a general one about anti semitism in Labour but I am not sure what exactly you are accusing me of backing... Perhaps you believe I think Labour should adopt the Tories position towards racists where you suspend them for a short time and then just reinstate them to help secure a council.
That would be utterly wrong headed, but I do not believe Labour should adopt that policy.
Edit: Unless the entire post was basically you saying the anti-semitism charge stands up enough that people can basically shout and intimidate Labour activists/supporters, it is morally justified?
It's quite clear what I meant.
The clearest explanation I can come up with the evidence provided is you took offence at my suggest that intimidating and shouting at Labour activists/supporters should be compared to shouting at or intimidating supporters of the Conservatives as that was the post you were replying too.
In order to take prejudice more seriously I should be in favour of people shouting at and intimidating Labour supporters/activists but not supporters/activists of say the Conservative party.
As it is quite clear what you meant and it was quite clear what I meant in the post you quoted I guess this is right.
It is an interesting point of view, I'm sure many people who go around shouting at and intimidating Conservative activists and supporters similarly feel they have morality on their side. I have to strongly disagree, people should be able to go about their lives without being shouted at and intimidated by people because of their political views. If I see a little old lady getting into her car with a Conservative sticker on it I'm certainly not going to angrily rush over bang her window and call her a racist.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
The government have been doing their job. Various disappointed parties not used to losing, inside and outside of parliament, have tried to interfere.
Negotiating treaties is not weaselling; it is the explicit constitutional right of the Government.
Explicit? Can you tell me which section of the British constitution it appears?
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
*Well banking.
any chance we could re-run Indyref ?
Brexit has made us all stale and boring
I do have a Scottish Independence thread going up in the next few days.
I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon and the Nats will say it is casus belli for another referendum.
This is rather clever. If the government is minded to ignore the customs union vote should it lose (or even indicates that it might), it is setting itself up for a repeat rebellion on this clause too, which is altogether more stringent. But if the government makes any concessions to potential rebels on the first customs union vote to head off a rebellion on this one too, the headbangers will go mad.
It doesn't make any sense (I appreciate that's a very minor drawback). The government already has the negotiating objective of trying to ensure full access to the internal market., with no new impediments to trade etc etc. So I wouldn't expect the government to oppose this amendment.
Of course it doesn't make any particular sense. But it does require the government to accept an explicit negotiating objective, with the implication that it will be held to account according to how it pursues that.
It would, I think, break new ground for Parliament to impose such an objective on the executive. Given how weaselly the government has been, it has to be said they would completely deserve it.
The government have been doing their job. Various disappointed parties not used to losing, inside and outside of parliament, have tried to interfere.
Negotiating treaties is not weaselling; it is the explicit constitutional right of the Government.
Explicit? Can you tell me which section of the British constitution it appears?
Sure. Every other treaty negotiation has been made by the executive. In our common law jurisdiction, this is the explicit demonstration.
What struck me particularly on the R4 report of this was that they accepted that the issue also applied acrodss the board to other offences, but they had no intention of reviewing cases not involving rape or sexual assault. Clearly a false rape prosecution is terrible, but why are we solely concerned with miscarriages of justice relating to rape?
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
*Well banking.
any chance we could re-run Indyref ?
Brexit has made us all stale and boring
I do have a Scottish Independence thread going up in the next few days.
I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon and the Nats will say it is casus belli for another referendum.
They need more?!
I would have thought losing over a third of their seats at GE17 would have sent the SNP the message their is no desire in Scotland for indyref2.
If not the SNP and Greens will lose their majority at Holyrood in 2021 on current polls anyway
The clearest explanation I can come up with the evidence provided is you took offence at my suggest that intimidating and shouting at Labour activists/supporters should be compared to shouting at or intimidating supporters of the Conservatives as that was the post you were replying too.
In order to take prejudice more seriously I should be in favour of people shouting at and intimidating Labour supporters/activists but not supporters/activists of say the Conservative party.
As it is quite clear what you meant and it was quite clear what I meant in the post you quoted I guess this is right.
It is an interesting point of view, I'm sure many people who go around shouting at and intimidating Conservative activists and supporters similarly feel they have morality on their side. I have to strongly disagree, people should be able to go about their lives without being shouted at and intimidated by people because of their political views. If I see a little old lady getting into her car with a Conservative sticker on it I'm certainly not going to angrily rush over bang her window and call her a racist.
Call it basic decency if you like.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
How will they get UK visa ?
Czech passport apparently. No visa would have been required.
Sounds like ROI are a soft touch on passport checks. Maybe they should be concerned about that, instead of being difficult about the NI border...
What struck me particularly on the R4 report of this was that they accepted that the issue also applied acrodss the board to other offences, but they had no intention of reviewing cases not involving rape or sexual assault. Clearly a false rape prosecution is terrible, but why are we solely concerned with miscarriages of justice relating to rape?
Perhaps they have a good idea what they might discover if they reviewed other areas.
Its clear that the current review only happened because of a few high profile cases last year.
Thanks JJ. That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't realised that Network Rail dictated the timetables. Though of course when you think about it it makes sense.
The following is particularly noteworthy: "The decision to make the temporary change to the availability of final timetables follows discussions with train operators. It has been taken to give the greatest possible certainty to passengers across the country about the services they can expect to run."
That worked well, didn't it!
Switzerland has a nationalised railway system which carries 2.5x more passengers per head of population than the UK.
Norway has a state-owned system.
So does Ireland which has ignored the EU and not split tracks from trains.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
How will they get UK visa ?
Czech passport apparently. No visa would have been required.
Sounds like ROI are a soft touch on passport checks. Maybe they should be concerned about that, instead of being difficult about the NI border...
My point was about non-EU passport holders who could not otherwise enter the UK but could under some circumstances enter Ireland and then the UK.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
Which news? If they have a passport it would be easier to simply get a Eurostar, or fly direct to the UK.
How will they get UK visa ?
Czech passport apparently. No visa would have been required.
Sounds like ROI are a soft touch on passport checks. Maybe they should be concerned about that, instead of being difficult about the NI border...
Thanks JJ. That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't realised that Network Rail dictated the timetables. Though of course when you think about it it makes sense.
The following is particularly noteworthy: "The decision to make the temporary change to the availability of final timetables follows discussions with train operators. It has been taken to give the greatest possible certainty to passengers across the country about the services they can expect to run."
That worked well, didn't it!
Switzerland has a nationalised railway system which carries 2.5x more passengers per head of population than the UK.
Norway has a state-owned system.
So does Ireland which has ignored the EU and not split tracks from trains.
I fail to see what your post has to do with mine. I was pointing out that timetabling is the responsibility of Network Rail, and that back in February they were running late with the timetabling process - I;m guessing because the planned upgrades were suffering delays.
This feeds into the rumour/accusation that some of the timetables were still not complete a week or two before the timetable change, which left f'all time for the TOCs to get ready.
Your post was about nationalised railway networks. Fair enough. However Network Rail - which appears to have been one of the roots of the current problems - is nationalised. from what we know at the moment, I fail to see how this problem would not have occurred if the TOCs were nationalised.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
As long as it doesn't involve a journey on Northern Rail. If it did it might be easier to swim.
Thanks JJ. That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't realised that Network Rail dictated the timetables. Though of course when you think about it it makes sense.
The following is particularly noteworthy: "The decision to make the temporary change to the availability of final timetables follows discussions with train operators. It has been taken to give the greatest possible certainty to passengers across the country about the services they can expect to run."
That worked well, didn't it!
Switzerland has a nationalised railway system which carries 2.5x more passengers per head of population than the UK.
Norway has a state-owned system.
So does Ireland which has ignored the EU and not split tracks from trains.
Switzerland has private rail companies beyond the main state owned, Norway has non state freight operators
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
As long as it doesn't involve a journey on Northern Rail. If it did it might be easier to swim.
On Look North it was saying that Network Rail were behind on some work , on the Manchester to Preston line.They said this was because of the collapse of Carillion earlier this year. This had a knock on effect and was causing disruption.
I've binge watched the first seven episodes of season 2 of Westworld, is it me or is season 2 a great steaming pile of pineapple on pizza?
Am I missing some subtle nuance?
Perhaps it will all come together at the end (in which case they should drop the series out all at once)? Or perhaps it's collapsing under the weight of its ridiculousness?
Personally I'm waiting until they are all out before I watch it.
The clearest explanation I can come up with the evidence provided is you took offence at my suggest that intimidating and shouting at Labour activists/supporters should be compared to shouting at or intimidating supporters of the Conservatives as that was the post you were replying too.
In order to take prejudice more seriously I should be in favour of people shouting at and intimidating Labour supporters/activists but not supporters/activists of say the Conservative party.
As it is quite clear what you meant and it was quite clear what I meant in the post you quoted I guess this is right.
It is an interesting point of view, I'm sure many people who go around shouting at and intimidating Conservative activists and supporters similarly feel they have morality on their side. I have to strongly disagree, people should be able to go about their lives without being shouted at and intimidated by people because of their political views. If I see a little old lady getting into her car with a Conservative sticker on it I'm certainly not going to angrily rush over bang her window and call her a racist.
Call it basic decency if you like.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
What struck me particularly on the R4 report of this was that they accepted that the issue also applied acrodss the board to other offences, but they had no intention of reviewing cases not involving rape or sexual assault. Clearly a false rape prosecution is terrible, but why are we solely concerned with miscarriages of justice relating to rape?
The only possible message I get from that summation, is that presumably the number of false convictions is simply too enormous a problem to address, too costly to resolve, so they'll settle for addressing the most emotive of crimes.
The clearest explanation I can come up with the evidence provided is you took offence at my suggest that intimidating and shouting at Labour activists/supporters should be compared to shouting at or intimidating supporters of the Conservatives as that was the post you were replying too.
In order to take prejudice more seriously I should be in favour of people shouting at and intimidating Labour supporters/activists but not supporters/activists of say the Conservative party.
As it is quite clear what you meant and it was quite clear what I meant in the post you quoted I guess this is right.
It is an interesting point of view, I'm sure many people who go around shouting at and intimidating Conservative activists and supporters similarly feel they have morality on their side. I have to strongly disagree, people should be able to go about their lives without being shouted at and intimidated by people because of their political views. If I see a little old lady getting into her car with a Conservative sticker on it I'm certainly not going to angrily rush over bang her window and call her a racist.
Call it basic decency if you like.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
No. You provided an explanation best fitting in with your prejudices. Still, ten out of ten for effort, and one out of ten for accuracy.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
It is impossible to stop people coming in. You just need to make it impossible to live here illegally.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
No. You provided an explanation best fitting in with your prejudices. Still, ten out of ten for effort, and one out of ten for accuracy.
You really must try harder.
It would be more honest if you just admitted you messed up originally than hiding behind some great argument you have that you must not explain. Presumably any attempt at an explanation might have an effect similar to looking a bit too closely at the Emperor's new clothes.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
No. You provided an explanation best fitting in with your prejudices. Still, ten out of ten for effort, and one out of ten for accuracy.
You really must try harder.
It would be more honest if you just admitted you messed up originally than hiding behind some great argument you have that you must not explain. Presumably any attempt at an explanation might have an effect similar to looking a bit too closely at the Emperor's new clothes.
I have no problem with admitting I messed up, but as far as I can see I have not. Your long posts trying to explain it have been quite entertaining though!
What struck me particularly on the R4 report of this was that they accepted that the issue also applied acrodss the board to other offences, but they had no intention of reviewing cases not involving rape or sexual assault. Clearly a false rape prosecution is terrible, but why are we solely concerned with miscarriages of justice relating to rape?
The only possible message I get from that summation, is that presumably the number of false convictions is simply too enormous a problem to address, too costly to resolve, so they'll settle for addressing the most emotive of crimes.
What's even more worrying is that these are just the cases that hadn't gone to trial yet. How many innocent people are in jail because of these disclosure failings whether it be for rape or anything else?
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
It is impossible to stop people coming in. You just need to make it impossible to live here illegally.
Mmmm... create a hostile environment? We all know how well that worked out.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
No. You provided an explanation best fitting in with your prejudices. Still, ten out of ten for effort, and one out of ten for accuracy.
You really must try harder.
It would be more honest if you just admitted you messed up originally than hiding behind some great argument you have that you must not explain. Presumably any attempt at an explanation might have an effect similar to looking a bit too closely at the Emperor's new clothes.
I have no problem with admitting I messed up, but as far as I can see I have not. Your long posts trying to explain it have been quite entertaining though!
You are refusing to explain your argument presumably because it was clearly flawed to begin with. That meets the definition of messing up.
I saw on the news , that illegal immigrants were paying to go through Dublin Airport .Using false passports , then by vehicle to northern Ireland , ferry to Scotland , and train to London.
They were saying this route was far easier , than Calais.
As long as it doesn't involve a journey on Northern Rail. If it did it might be easier to swim.
On Look North it was saying that Network Rail were behind on some work , on the Manchester to Preston line.They said this was because of the collapse of Carillion earlier this year. This had a knock on effect and was causing disruption.
Do not know , the validity of the claim.
Hmmm. Methinks Network Rail are being a bit odd when it comes to blaming Carillion (Note: Carillion collapsed on 15th January this year; the article below is from 11th January)
"A project to electrify the route between Manchester and Preston has been delayed for a third time - taking it back a total of two years. ... Network Rail has blamed poor ground conditions caused by old unmapped mines for the delayed completion of the route upgrade, which runs via Bolton.
Begun in 2015 and originally due for completion in December 2016, work to boost speed and capacity has been delayed three times.
The deadline was moved to December 2017 when Network Rail scrapped partners Balfour Beatty for Carillion."
So the project was already in trouble, and they moved the work from Balfours to Carillion. Whilst Carillion's collapse may or may not have hurt the project, it's clear the project was pretty f'ed beforehand.
Network Rail should just 'fess up that their management of some important project has been woeful.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
No. You provided an explanation best fitting in with your prejudices. Still, ten out of ten for effort, and one out of ten for accuracy.
You really must try harder.
It would be more honest if you just admitted you messed up originally than hiding behind some great argument you have that you must not explain. Presumably any attempt at an explanation might have an effect similar to looking a bit too closely at the Emperor's new clothes.
I have no problem with admitting I messed up, but as far as I can see I have not. Your long posts trying to explain it have been quite entertaining though!
You are refusing to explain your argument presumably because it was clearly flawed to begin with. That meets the definition of messing up.
You presume incorrectly.
I could respond in kind, but you've produced too much hilarity this evening!
England could always bring its abortion law into line with Northern Ireland's.
today's debate was one of those fun moments when people who showed no interest in the place suddenly decided to turn up to a debate
we had a party which has never had a female leader complaining about the patriarchy to a place where both parties are led by women
the DUP took the brunt of the heat on the NI assembly despite Dodds explaining they will go back in to government tomorrow no preconditions and that it's SF that have collapsed the executive
Stella Creasy ducked the invitation to stand in NI constituencies given her concern
NI secretary announced upfront that it was a devolved issue, Bercow then remembered one and a bit hours in to the debate that HMG had said its piece and that there would be no closing statement as Karen Bradley had already left.
All in all Parliament was at its colonial best
NI, the only part of the UK where you can't for vote for Jezza and Co.
That's a long screed, and utterly incorrect wrt what I meant. Please try again; this is fun!
You said it was clear and I provided the clearest explanation of what was meant given the evidence available. Given the posts aren't going to magically change and you aren't suddenly going to be replying to a different post where I am not comparing shouting at and intimidating activists of different parties I would simply be repeating myself.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
No. You provided an explanation best fitting in with your prejudices. Still, ten out of ten for effort, and one out of ten for accuracy.
You really must try harder.
It would be more honest if you just admitted you messed up originally than hiding behind some great argument you have that you must not explain. Presumably any attempt at an explanation might have an effect similar to looking a bit too closely at the Emperor's new clothes.
I have no problem with admitting I messed up, but as far as I can see I have not. Your long posts trying to explain it have been quite entertaining though!
You are refusing to explain your argument presumably because it was clearly flawed to begin with. That meets the definition of messing up.
You presume incorrectly.
I could respond in kind, but you've produced too much hilarity this evening!
Responding in kind would probably involve trying to justify or reason your arguments, that approach doesn't work if you don't really have one. Happy to amuse.
Responding in kind would probably involve trying to justify or reason your arguments, that approach doesn't work if you don't really have one. Happy to amuse.
My point was, and is, obvious. The fact you either do not understand it, or pretend not to, is an issue for you, not me. If the former, I might suggest you re-read the thread and think.
Anyway, I've got a long day tomorrow so I'm off to bed. Have fun!
Yes you have a great argument I'm sure, perfectly correct, any attempt to explain your position would simply demean the original point such was its perfection. Who can argue such logic...
Yes you have a great argument I'm sure, perfectly correct, any attempt to explain your position would simply demean the original point such was its perfection. Who can argue such logic...
Goodnight.
LOL. The problem you have is that your own position is nonsensical, and seems to start with a conclusion that I am, for some reason, a nasty or immoral person. This seems to have somewhat coloured your long screeds and stopped you seeing the obvious point I was making!
Perhaps if you started being less of a Jezza disciple you might be able to broaden your mind to encompass the obvious. I don't hold out much hope for that ...
Yes you have a great argument I'm sure, perfectly correct, any attempt to explain your position would simply demean the original point such was its perfection. Who can argue such logic...
Goodnight.
LOL. The problem you have is that your own position is nonsensical, and seems to start with a conclusion that I am, for some reason, a nasty or immoral person. This seems to have somewhat coloured your long screeds and stopped you seeing the obvious point I was making!
Perhaps if you started being less of a Jezza disciple you might be able to broaden your mind to encompass the obvious. I don't hold out much hope for that ...
My own position, the original post, was asking someone who blamed the Labour party for an activist/supporter getting shouted at intimidated for what they thought was a fault of the party would feel similarly if it was a Conservative activist supporter.
Is it a nonsensical question?
I'm not sure it is. It did seem to trigger you into a long rant though, I questioned what you problem was with my original post as your problem wasn't clear and offered some possibilities but from that moment you shut down and claimed your position was clear.
You could always try explaining your position if you are so obviously right, that is perhaps where the doubt creeps in for me. I think the problem is you aren't actually able to though, feel free to shock me and prove me wrong.
Or if perhaps if you feel like you don't have an argument we could instead trade cheap insults about intelligence based on political viewpoints.
Yes you have a great argument I'm sure, perfectly correct, any attempt to explain your position would simply demean the original point such was its perfection. Who can argue such logic...
Goodnight.
LOL. The problem you have is that your own position is nonsensical, and seems to start with a conclusion that I am, for some reason, a nasty or immoral person. This seems to have somewhat coloured your long screeds and stopped you seeing the obvious point I was making!
Perhaps if you started being less of a Jezza disciple you might be able to broaden your mind to encompass the obvious. I don't hold out much hope for that ...
My own position, the original post, was asking someone who blamed the Labour party for an activist/supporter getting shouted at intimidated for what they thought was a fault of the party would feel similarly if it was a Conservative activist supporter.
Is it a nonsensical question?
I'm not sure it is. It did seem to trigger you into a long rant though, I questioned what you problem was with my original post as your problem wasn't clear and offered some possibilities but from that moment you shut down and claimed your position was clear.
You could always try explaining your position if you are so obviously right, that is perhaps where the doubt creeps in for me. I think the problem is you aren't actually able to though, feel free to shock me and prove me wrong.
Or if perhaps if you feel like you don't have an argument we could instead trade cheap insults about intelligence based on political viewpoints.
You need to consider your own question a little deeper.
And as for long rants and insults: just look at your own posts!
The answer to the question is he obviously shouldn't feel differently, shouting and intimidating supporters/activists because of their political views is wrong.
I am not the one resorting to cheap insults because I can't explain my position. As it doesn't seem like you ever will be able to I guess we should probably end this conversation.
The answer to the question is he obviously shouldn't feel differently, shouting and intimidating supporters/activists because of their political views is wrong.
I am not the one resorting to cheap insults because I can't explain my position. As it doesn't seem like you ever will be able to I guess we should probably end this conversation.
LOL. Again, I suggest you re-read the thread. You do not occupy the moral high ground you think you do, especially wrt insults.
Sadly, your partisanship is your undoing. Step away from your persona a little and think about your position.
The constant LOLs indicate annoyance, you should have just backed down straight away and admitted a mistake rather than pretend to be right but you cannot explain why. I don't want to get into insults, mainly because I am not losing the argument so I have no need but that is literally what little children do.
The constant LOLs indicate annoyance, you should have just backed down straight away and admitted a mistake rather than pretend to be right but you cannot explain why. I don't want to get into insults, mainly because I am not losing the argument so I have no need but that is literally what little children do.
No, the LOLs mean I'm laughing. I'm unsure what amateur psychology could make you think otherwise.
As for you not wanting to get into insults: read your posts!
You often see someone getting angry in arguments online with lots of LOLs of laughing emojis, maybe you are one of those rare people that laugh happily whilst losing arguments. Also congratulations on avoiding insults in your last post, a positive step.
You often see someone getting angry in arguments online with lots of LOLs of laughing emojis, maybe you are one of those rare people that laugh happily whilst losing arguments. Also congratulations on avoiding insults in your last post, a positive step.
No, you are assuming that 'LOL' and laughing emojis mean I am angry. For the record, means smiling; happy. For some reason you seem to think it means I'm annoyed.
And congratulations in not avoiding insults in your last post, as usual.
PB is a place for discussion, often about topics that matter to people. Yes, discussion gets heated at times, but I'm rarely, if ever, angry. That's not really my nature. In fact, I often use smilies to show I'm not necessarily being 100% serious, or that I am joking.
If I get angry with you, I'll just tell you to f*** off.
I don't think I mentioned the smiling emoji, not sure there is a laughing emoji on this site it was more a general reference, perhaps I should have made that clear, or maybe just spent several posts pointing out how obvious it was whilst refusing to explain....
I did leave open the possibility you are one of those people who genuinely laughs whilst losing arguments a bit rarer but a possibility. I'm sure if you get angry you'll just start up some cheap jibe about intelligence based on my political persuasion or something else quite obvious.
I don't think I mentioned the smiling emoji, not sure there is a laughing emoji on this site it was more a general reference, perhaps I should have made that clear, or maybe just spent several posts pointing out how obvious it was whilst refusing to explain....
I did leave open the possibility you are one of those people who genuinely laughs whilst losing arguments a bit rarer but a possibility. I'm sure if you get angry you'll just start up some cheap jibe about intelligence based on my political persuasion or something else quite obvious.
You really need to go back and read your own posts...
I'm really not angry. we've just been out to the cinema, been for a Gardenias, and had lots of fun in the sun.
I recommend it. But first, please go back and read your own posts, and I'd also suggest less of the passive-aggressive show you're putting on ...
I'm sure your not angry just as I'm sure you have an incredible beautiful argument, why you are so afraid to share it we will just leave as a mystery for the ages....
I'm sure your not angry just as I'm sure you have an incredible beautiful argument, why you are so afraid to share it we will just leave as a mystery for the ages....
I have shared it, and it's perfectly obvious what I meant. You are just warping it for your own odd pleasure.
I suppose you haven't done as I suggested and re-read this thread with an open mind? (I doubt anyone else can without losing the will to live ...)
BTW, I like the way you can diagnose things like 'anger' through Internet postings. Especially as you get it wrong.
Too be honest I pretty much gave up on the prospect of debate several posts ago when you refused to give your argument. I think we should both stop wasting our time.
Too be honest I pretty much gave up on the prospect of debate several posts ago when you refused to give your argument. I think we should both stop wasting our time.
Comments
I regularly forget that we have a chancellor; so quiet is the Treasury now...
' Vital evidence was withheld from defence lawyers in 47 cases of rape and sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has revealed.
But what is far more worrying is that the review only covers a tiny fraction of the total number of cases prosecuted by the CPS each year. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44366997
* Stay in Britain no matter what (so if GB votes Leave you get a hard border with RoI, and if GB votes Remain you get a lovely open border)
* Stay in Britain only if GB votes Remain, otherwise leave Britain and go independent, with NI's relationships with the EU and the rest of Ireland to be determined
* Leave Britain no matter what
Of course the SNP would absolutely love this!
But we all know that wont happen.
Buy a Lambeg drum and watch your cousins get dholki envy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeg_drum
I don't think it is whatever party they are in. You may disagree but I think you are utterly wrong headed if so.
I think your complaint is more a general one about anti semitism in Labour but I am not sure what exactly you are accusing me of backing... Perhaps you believe I think Labour should adopt the Tories position towards racists where you suspend them for a short time and then just reinstate them to help secure a council.
That would be utterly wrong headed, but I do not believe Labour should adopt that policy.
Edit: Unless the entire post was basically you saying the anti-semitism charge stands up enough that people can basically shout and intimidate Labour activists/supporters, it is morally justified?
You have no idea how difficult it is to be a single Pakistani heritage chap who owns his own houses, drives a merc, and works in a respected profession*
*Well banking.
They said the checks were less rigorous at Dublin Airport , than flying direct to UK.
Brexit has made us all stale and boring
I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon and the Nats will say it is casus belli for another referendum.
Hmm ..... what was that you said? Rewards for failures......
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/timetabling/
And they knew they had problems as early as February:
https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2018/469773793-2018-02-23.html
The following is particularly noteworthy:
"The decision to make the temporary change to the availability of final timetables follows discussions with train operators. It has been taken to give the greatest possible certainty to passengers across the country about the services they can expect to run."
That worked well, didn't it!
we had a party which has never had a female leader complaining about the patriarchy to a place where both parties are led by women
the DUP took the brunt of the heat on the NI assembly despite Dodds explaining they will go back in to government tomorrow no preconditions and that it's SF that have collapsed the executive
Stella Creasy ducked the invitation to stand in NI constituencies given her concern
NI secretary announced upfront that it was a devolved issue, Bercow then remembered one and a bit hours in to the debate that HMG had said its piece and that there would be no closing statement as Karen Bradley had already left.
All in all Parliament was at its colonial best
In order to take prejudice more seriously I should be in favour of people shouting at and intimidating Labour supporters/activists but not supporters/activists of say the Conservative party.
As it is quite clear what you meant and it was quite clear what I meant in the post you quoted I guess this is right.
It is an interesting point of view, I'm sure many people who go around shouting at and intimidating Conservative activists and supporters similarly feel they have morality on their side. I have to strongly disagree, people should be able to go about their lives without being shouted at and intimidated by people because of their political views. If I see a little old lady getting into her car with a Conservative sticker on it I'm certainly not going to angrily rush over bang her window and call her a racist.
Call it basic decency if you like.
If not the SNP and Greens will lose their majority at Holyrood in 2021 on current polls anyway
Sounds like ROI are a soft touch on passport checks. Maybe they should be concerned about that, instead of being difficult about the NI border...
Its clear that the current review only happened because of a few high profile cases last year.
Norway has a state-owned system.
So does Ireland which has ignored the EU and not split tracks from trains.
Am I missing some subtle nuance?
This feeds into the rumour/accusation that some of the timetables were still not complete a week or two before the timetable change, which left f'all time for the TOCs to get ready.
Your post was about nationalised railway networks. Fair enough. However Network Rail - which appears to have been one of the roots of the current problems - is nationalised. from what we know at the moment, I fail to see how this problem would not have occurred if the TOCs were nationalised.
Do you have an idea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_companies_in_Switzerland
This had a knock on effect and was causing disruption.
Do not know , the validity of the claim.
Personally I'm waiting until they are all out before I watch it.
If your argument isn't strong enough to be explained let alone reasoned or justified then there does seem little point continuing.
Although I am curious why you are responding to a post about shouting at and intimidating activists/supporters and then made a reply that (presumably as you've told me I'm wrong) is nothing to do with shouting at or intimidating activists/supporters?
You really must try harder.
"A project to electrify the route between Manchester and Preston has been delayed for a third time - taking it back a total of two years.
...
Network Rail has blamed poor ground conditions caused by old unmapped mines for the delayed completion of the route upgrade, which runs via Bolton.
Begun in 2015 and originally due for completion in December 2016, work to boost speed and capacity has been delayed three times.
The deadline was moved to December 2017 when Network Rail scrapped partners Balfour Beatty for Carillion."
So the project was already in trouble, and they moved the work from Balfours to Carillion. Whilst Carillion's collapse may or may not have hurt the project, it's clear the project was pretty f'ed beforehand.
Network Rail should just 'fess up that their management of some important project has been woeful.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/project-electrify-manchester-preston-rail-14141547
I could respond in kind, but you've produced too much hilarity this evening!
NEW THREAD
Anyway, I've got a long day tomorrow so I'm off to bed. Have fun!
Goodnight.
Perhaps if you started being less of a Jezza disciple you might be able to broaden your mind to encompass the obvious. I don't hold out much hope for that ...
Is it a nonsensical question?
I'm not sure it is. It did seem to trigger you into a long rant though, I questioned what you problem was with my original post as your problem wasn't clear and offered some possibilities but from that moment you shut down and claimed your position was clear.
You could always try explaining your position if you are so obviously right, that is perhaps where the doubt creeps in for me. I think the problem is you aren't actually able to though, feel free to shock me and prove me wrong.
Or if perhaps if you feel like you don't have an argument we could instead trade cheap insults about intelligence based on political viewpoints.
And as for long rants and insults: just look at your own posts!
I am not the one resorting to cheap insults because I can't explain my position. As it doesn't seem like you ever will be able to I guess we should probably end this conversation.
Sadly, your partisanship is your undoing. Step away from your persona a little and think about your position.
As for you not wanting to get into insults: read your posts!
And congratulations in not avoiding insults in your last post, as usual.
PB is a place for discussion, often about topics that matter to people. Yes, discussion gets heated at times, but I'm rarely, if ever, angry. That's not really my nature. In fact, I often use smilies to show I'm not necessarily being 100% serious, or that I am joking.
If I get angry with you, I'll just tell you to f*** off.
I did leave open the possibility you are one of those people who genuinely laughs whilst losing arguments a bit rarer but a possibility. I'm sure if you get angry you'll just start up some cheap jibe about intelligence based on my political persuasion or something else quite obvious.
I'm really not angry. we've just been out to the cinema, been for a Gardenias, and had lots of fun in the sun.
I recommend it. But first, please go back and read your own posts, and I'd also suggest less of the passive-aggressive show you're putting on ...
And just to please you: LOL
I suppose you haven't done as I suggested and re-read this thread with an open mind? (I doubt anyone else can without losing the will to live ...)
BTW, I like the way you can diagnose things like 'anger' through Internet postings. Especially as you get it wrong.