Use this link to help us earn... CLICK HERE
It's cool if you don't wanna... just click the X to dismiss this notice... and NO this isn't an April Fool ya bam!!! 🤣
Here's a quicky from the Indescribably boring as Private Eye used to call it.....
www.independent.co.uk
The point was more about their policing to death of the country, but one example of the flavour; they forced the closure of catholic adoption agencies who worked with the most difficult to place and troubled kids, because those agencies wanted to refer prospective gay adopters to other agencies as they couldn’t deal with them. A poster boy example of trampling some of the most vulnerable people in society under the heels of ideological fervour, and using the law as a battering ram to enforce that ideology.
I think you are referring to legislation that outlawed discrimination against gay people?
Firstly, I would scrap the HoL. Secondly no charges were brought (read into that what you will). Thirdly, Bruce Anderson is a noted right wing Tory. It doesn't make him wrong, but it's important context.Here's a quicky from the Indescribably boring as Private Eye used to call it.....
Bruce Anderson:
Blair must face the full force of the law.
The 'cash for peerages' affair involves a perversion of the law and threatens our institutions.
Bruce Anderson: Blair must face the full force of the law
The 'cash for peerages' affair involves a perversion of the law and threatens our institutions
Being a politician is an aspirational career these days. Young folk are leaving school and going to universities to study politics as a career choice. To be trained up to become the civic leaders of the future. Like Sandhurst for aspiring military officers. Long gone are the ‘reluctant’ politicians who came into politics by accident or default having previously made their way in the real world who were a counter to the elitist Eton wankers who were handed everything on a silver plate and born to govern.
I kind of see where you are coming from, but a couple of thoughts. If you had a ten year work rule, it could knock out otherwise legitimate candidates. What if someone hadn't worked for 10 years but had brought up kids or fought their way out of unemployment? I do think there's some merit in having redundancy payments as sometimes you lose because of other factors such as the party collapsing. But why would you give up a career if you risked losing your job with no compo?
It's good money if you haven’t worked enough to have a decent career. I think it's partly due to to parties having sweeping success from a low base. The SNP overwhelmed Labour and all of a sudden you have over 100 MPs and MSPs. Some of these were old lags, but a lot were new, young and inexperienced. In the old days you had well off Tories and Labour MPs supported by unions. That wasn't right either.
Again I see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid democracy means I can't agreeArchie that's the real world mate. The firm you work for goes bust you lose your job.
Eventually you will get money but in the mean time you need to find another job.
I'd love to see folk going from unemployed then being elected. Because they have experienced the lives of millions.
Tell you what can we agree that no lawyers or estate agents can stand for election?
No I’m not. I described what I’m talking about and it’s not that whatsoever. Your response is telling of the overall point I’m making though ; it smacks of the way that doctrinaire thinking and ideological zealotry has been mainstreamed in the UK. A lot of that goes back to the new labour reign.
Are you talking about MPs?
I agree but disagree....
But youngsters who leave school at 16. Get an apprenticeship for 4 years. Then 6 years on the tools.
A complete blunt instrument but would prohibiting becoming an MP if you're already a millionaire be worthwhile? Logic being they'd be so out of touch with the man on the street and the issues they face. Obviously there'd be exceptions but I'm talking about old money and avoiding scenarios like a few years back where the entire Tory cabinet were millionaires (maybe they still are?)
I think too young MPs are ridiculous. Through no fault of their own they can’t possibly do the job. The representation point I think - sorry - is dogmatism over sense. We wouldn’t have toddlers in their representing the toddler community, it doesn’t work like that.
I don’t know what you mean? They were forced to close because they wouldn’t comply with the sharia type legislating of new lab.
There’s some paradoxes in that too. Perhaps millionaires are more independent in respect of money grubbing temptations?
www.independent.co.uk
www.theguardian.com
I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about how to manage clashes of rights, particularly around social policy and legislation. How much does the state constrain individual beliefs in pursuit of what they see as a wider civic good. I think there are lessons from then and I think it is particularly aposite now.
Tell me where the fog is and I’ll try to dispel it.
Yep totally, I did kind of allude to that in my post. Maybe some kind of “cap” would be better or a test that would permit the former but exclude the latter. Just pie in the sky thinking from me but would be a way of avoiding the silver spooned “millionaires row” of numpties scenario.
Ukraine will not accept a settlement that doesn’t involve them regaining control of their territories. And if the west starts to withdraw support then Russia will just start pushing back and taking more territory. War is good for the current Russian regime, if it stops they then have to deal with what is happening in Russia.
But sometimes you can't just keep doing your thing. If a golf club continues to ban membership of women and Jews is it pluralistic to let that continue?
Well that’s entirely different. Although actually I believe men only clubs should be allowed and ditto womens.
So what do you think should happen Stevie? I realise you wouldn’t claim to be a military or political authority, but on this board you are by far and away closest to the situation on the ground. What’s your view on the way out of this ?Ukraine will not accept a settlement that doesn’t involve them regaining control of their territories. And if the west starts to withdraw support then Russia will just start pushing back and taking more territory. War is good for the current Russian regime, if it stops they then have to deal with what is happening in Russia.
I agree though, Trump would be really bad for Ukraine and without a doubt he would sacrifice Ukraine for his own ego and the claim he ended the war in Ukraine.
Why is it entirely different?
Is it not obvious ? There are many reasons but let’s start with there being a difference between excluding someone arbitrarily from something like golf because of their race, and placing vulnerable children into a social experiment.
The west needs to keep providing funding and military support. The funding is already being used to increase the effective use of drones, but they need additional support around air defences and long range missiles.
Do you think it’s winnable though ? Between ukraine and Israel - and the fact the fannies have offshored manufacturing - America is apparently literally running out of ammo (though they can’t be open about it for obvious reasons). While I’m with you in sentiment I’m not at all sure it’s actually doable.The west needs to keep providing funding and military support. The funding is already being used to increase the effective use of drones, but they need additional support around air defences and long range missiles.
They need to split the Russian held territories and link up with the Azov Sea. Only then will Russia accept defeat and start to consider withdrawing troops.
I can’t believe there are people talking about letting them keep what they’ve currently taken! Have they learnt nothing from 2014
The west needs to keep providing funding and military support. The funding is already being used to increase the effective use of drones, but they need additional support around air defences and long range missiles.
Why not? They stopped Russia taking Kyiv when there was little/no military aid.
The reality though is Russia claims 'referendums' have taken place in these territories and they're now legitimate parts of Russia. Now obviously the referendums are an absolute nonsense....However, nobody *seriously* believes Russia will either be rejected militarily or through negotiations.
