Carl the Llama Posted 7 November 2018 Posted 7 November 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MattP said: Jordan Peterson and Diane Abbott on Question Time tomorrow, should be well worth a watch. please tell me you're being serious, dream team. Edited 7 November 2018 by Carl the Llama 1
Dr The Singh Posted 7 November 2018 Posted 7 November 2018 2 hours ago, MattP said: Jordan Peterson and Diane Abbott on Question Time tomorrow, should be well worth a watch. Pure filth, I will be ready with the tissues 1
bovril Posted 7 November 2018 Posted 7 November 2018 2 hours ago, MattP said: Jordan Peterson and Diane Abbott on Question Time tomorrow, should be well worth a watch. From behind the sofa?
Guest MattP Posted 7 November 2018 Posted 7 November 2018 24 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: please tell me you're being serious, dream team. Yep I bet he's never debated something like that before.
fuchsntf Posted 7 November 2018 Posted 7 November 2018 4 hours ago, MattP said: Jordan Peterson and Diane Abbott on Question Time tomorrow, should be well worth a watch. Cringe awards night....
fuchsntf Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 On 03/11/2018 at 14:53, MattP said: It's a tough one isn't it??? At the height of my gambling addiction I once woke up at 4am and lost the months wage I'd been paid overnight before 7am. I went to work and everyone was happy as they had been paid and I was having to borrow a fiver for a pint as I'd lost it all. It's a silent addiction as well, people will usually know if your are a drug addict or an alcoholic as it will show itself. I honestly don't know how to regulate the industry, it's out of control. Every football match now it's a bombardment of betting adverts. Just thinking out loud,throwing a mixed deck on the table!!! Every 3-4th advert on tv,is either betting or lending sharks.... I don't believe for one minute,you can change or even regulate, 2 of the oldest 3 ...hobbies/vices/business since cavemen bet on T-rex races, and borrowed a cache of bones to pay off their debts.Or a cavey lent out bones,to others who wanted more and better than their neigbours cave. Addiction prevention,has to come from within. Often when the person has already been entrapped or caught up into the addiction comes the first recognised help and support!! I have experienced or better said witnessed, with near,and distant friends addictions in drugs,drink,and betting,even tried various tacts in prevention. since From when I was a young teenager.One feels frustrated,hurting and sometimes very angry,after the sympathy and support falls on not deaf ears, but on minds that just close totally out.!!! Sometimes just being 'there' bringing the problem deliberately to the fore, then talking about it and first being a shoulder to lean on. It won't deter the addicted,but might be the first steps,for them to open up! The major obstacle is convincing your friend ,whoever,that they need to accept that issue has become an addiction,and you can then try to support them,by simp!y being there!! we have thankfully in Europe more open and broad societies,that now offer anonymous or open platforms and organisations,that offer help and Support,even taking the talking to the close,family and friends,in name of the addicted. Loyalty and respect of privacy,goes along way in our somewhat reserved ways,but true loyalty is getting your friend/relation to involve his Nearest closest,and dearest into his/her life's challenges. IMO, even if one loses that bond or even trust,it's worth even a must in getting the professionals in, on ones "friends" behalf. Obviously patience,decorum,diplomacy and timing needs to be taken into account,I am sure every case is individual and special to ones own, but showing they are not alone is a big step. We like to find excuses and blame someone or something,for ones own sorrows... These betting adverts or simple loan adverts,even gambling late night on tv, I loath!!! I don't understand how they seem to have taken over, the butter,mashed potatoes,and those that make your hands so soft after washing the dishes,or not forgetting. Arrrh. uhmmm Its Bistro and Family intrigues with the perfect dizzy OXO wife and mother!!! We are inundated with pushy advertising campaigns,personally I have not bought more Persil coz it looks whiter,and my love for Tony the tiger, Didn't force me to fill my larder with frosties... I suppose because the govt deemed it necessary,to stop/ban drink and smoking adverts,we could even should put a ban on the betting/gambling Adverts... The idea of going to a money-loaner with ridiculously high Apr percentages,forcing yourself to live beyond ones needs ,is worrying!! I would like to see the govt become involved,in Banks or businesses having areas or groups of people where those people are considered Non-creditable. Then having adverts where the same banks/businesses actually advertise/brag,they treat all their customers as individuals... contradiction of business ethics...?? A govt,is responsible in keeping businesses,banks,organisations on an even keel,for fair trade and consumers,in their care in this capitalist society, We have become a society,where being given credit then taking on debits to even run the simplest of households is an expected norm.. so we have a % of the electorate,who will always gamble,or take on loans,to give themselves a chance to get out of what they themselves consider a rut,or improve something of their lives,without thinking of obvious consequences... That may lead some people into situations,where without realising it,take on for different reasons various relaxing pastimes that slowly becomes a worry,then leads to addiction... However ,I don't see where out and out regulation,can even start to help to turn the tide to lower any sort of addiction issues... Addictions can't be boxed or grouped into specific areas,educational patterns,individual or family financial or social situations. Then there is the other argument,banning smoking and drink adverts,hasn't stopped people going on smoking and drinking binges. I suppose addictions start ,because the innocent thought I "just" want to...but then that want out of choice,becomes a must that the individualI turns into a need,where all blame and excuses become friendly companions... Sorry for the late night ramble...
urban.spaceman Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 8 hours ago, MattP said: Jordan Peterson and Diane Abbott on Question Time tomorrow, should be well worth a watch. With the latter involved there should be about 15bn viewers watching.
lifted*fox Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 Raab was not quite aware of the importance of the Dover Calais crossing despite being told over and over and over and over and over and over and over again by haulage companies / car manufacturers, etc. for the last 2 years. ****ing idiot.
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 (edited) David Lammy thought Henry XII succeeded Henry XIII and Marie Antoinette discovered polonium so he shouldn't be questioning the cognitive abilities of others. But yeah Raab is a pretty shit minister, not that it even matters - Ollie Robbins is doing our negotiating. Edited 8 November 2018 by MattP
Alf Bentley Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 5 minutes ago, MattP said: David Lammy thought Henry XII succeeded Henry XIII and Marie Antoinette discovered polonium so he shouldn't be questioning the cognitive abilities of others. But yeah Raab is a pretty shit minister, not that it even matters - Ollie Robbins is doing our negotiating. We haven't had a Henry XII or Henry XIII yet, have we?
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said: We haven't had a Henry XII or Henry XIII yet, have we? Amateur mistake!
lifted*fox Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 4 minutes ago, MattP said: David Lammy thought Henry XII succeeded Henry XIII and Marie Antoinette discovered polonium so he shouldn't be questioning the cognitive abilities of others. But yeah Raab is a pretty shit minister, not that it even matters - Ollie Robbins is doing our negotiating. it's not about Lammy Matt, I only posted his tweet as it was the one of hundreds I happened to stop scrolling on - all saying the same thing. it's gross that the man officially in charge of our brexit negotiations doesn't understand the importance of that crossing and only further serves to illustrate the incompetence of the people behind the biggest scandal in UK history. laughable really. David Davies claiming it'll be the easiest negotiations ever and mere weeks before the deadline we've got Raab admitting he doesn't understand the full implications of Brexit on trade. whilst people who voted for brexit are doubling-down in their efforts to support it in the open (pride, not wanting to admit being duped, etc.); behind closed doors everyone must be painfully starting to acknowledge they've backed a lame horse.
Buce Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 17 minutes ago, MattP said: David Lammy thought Henry XII succeeded Henry XIII and Marie Antoinette discovered polonium so he shouldn't be questioning the cognitive abilities of others. But yeah Raab is a pretty shit minister, not that it even matters - Ollie Robbins is doing our negotiating. Ridiculous. Everyone knows she discovered cake.
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 2 minutes ago, lifted*fox said: it's gross that the man officially in charge of our brexit negotiations doesn't understand the importance of that crossing and only further serves to illustrate the incompetence of the people behind the biggest scandal in UK history. laughable really. David Davies claiming it'll be the easiest negotiations ever and mere weeks before the deadline we've got Raab admitting he doesn't understand the full implications of Brexit on trade. whilst people who voted for brexit are doubling-down in their efforts to support it in the open (pride, not wanting to admit being duped, etc.); behind closed doors everyone must be painfully starting to acknowledge they've backed a lame horse. He's not really in charge though so it doesn't really matter, in the same way Barnier is giving a checklist by Merkel and the commission his remit comes from May and Robbins. I doubt many Leave voters have changed their mind just because the negotiation has been cocked up, if you fundamentally wanted out of ever closer union you wouldn't change because of this, my only regret is that I trusted Theresa May when she made her Lancaster House speech, in hindsight I shouldn't as the EU knew we were never serious about no deal. People could have been duped by arguments from both sides, for every bus there was an emergency budget, for every claim of Turkey joining there was a denial of European army plans.
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 What do the Labour voters on here make of this? Particularly the Corbyn/left supporters that Brussels want to keep us tied into EU rules on state aid?
lifted*fox Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 corbyn can suck my dick tbh out the ****er, get in a remain labour leader, force a GE and/or people's vote and **** this mess off. job done. as much as corbyn stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of seeming relatively human and not a ****ing snake lizard cvnt from mars - IF HE GENUINELY wanted to do something for the many he'd be opposing this government hardcore style, ****ing off Brexit and spending the time / money currently being wasted on brexit doing the things he has said he'd do. it seemed like he was playing the waiting game but he's waited too long, sat on the fence for too long and now he's a looking like a weak ass spineless little bitch and has passed up the biggest opportunity possible to do good things for this country. 2
Jon the Hat Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 Corbyn is a complete utter cockwomble. He wants Brexit, why would he oppose it now?
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 Why would Corbyn oppose Brexit? If he wants to implement what he's promised he'll need to be out of state aid laws and budget restrain rules. There is a reason why he voted against the Common market, Lisbon treaty and Maastrict treaty.
lifted*fox Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 i'm not being baited into this discussion in the way you want it - it's a set-up and I can see it coming a mile off. i'm not saying that he's going to oppose brexit - I'm fully aware that Corbyn is anti-EU. i've always said that there is no other party that is comprehensive / powerful enough to step in as a third party and currently I feel that a labour led brexit would be more positive, more honourable and less damaging that letting the power hungry conservatives continue to drag this country into oblivion with their selfish, rude, arrogant and dismissive brand of politics. take a tory brexit no deal / shit hidden deal + austerity and nationwide poverty whilst they continue to line their own pockets - nah. I'd rather roll the dice and see how it pans out with someone who at least says the right things about evening things out in this country at the top leading us out of the EU instead. as above - I've much rather we chucked the entire tory government and corbyn into a big burning skip and have a remain labour leader turn this entire ship back in the right ****ing direction, tbh.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 21 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: please tell me you're being serious, dream team. Dianne Abbott! Aahhh. What a vile "Meadow Lady"
Jon the Hat Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 Indeed we have a ****ing awful government and even worse opposition. If we aren’t careful we will be handing the keys over to some right wing nutters over the next decade.
Jon the Hat Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 And the far left can get in the ****ing sea as well. 1
Guest MattP Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 31 minutes ago, lifted*fox said: i'm not being baited into this discussion in the way you want it - it's a set-up and I can see it coming a mile off. i'm not saying that he's going to oppose brexit - I'm fully aware that Corbyn is anti-EU. i've always said that there is no other party that is comprehensive / powerful enough to step in as a third party and currently I feel that a labour led brexit would be more positive, more honourable and less damaging. Not baiting, just asking a question. For me the way the sides are split over Brexit is fascinating and how it has turned over recent times. A project of Thatcherite Conservatives and now loved by Remain voting Labour supporters, opponents of it used to be hard left Labour voters and now they have been replaced by right wing Tories. I know there is much more multivariate analysis than this but it's interesting. It changed my own politics as well, in 2016 I realised I had far more in common with Labour MP's like Kate Hoey and Frank Field than I did with Tory ones like George Osborne and Anna Soubry. No one sees their own faults either or really care about them, the Brexiteers seem to turn a blind eye to the economic success of the project and the Remainers turn a blind eye to the poverty and austerity it has caused. Problem with the last point is we still have no idea what a Labour led Brexit would look like, "a customs union" means nothing and the six tests have been described as bollocks by their own cabinet members, given they committed to a deal they would have to sign whatever the EU decided anyway so it wouldn't even be a negotiation.
lifted*fox Posted 8 November 2018 Posted 8 November 2018 ah I dunno I just mash these hand sausages into the keys and words come out
Alf Bentley Posted 9 November 2018 Posted 9 November 2018 Here's a little time-bomb potentially thrown into the Brexit mix: http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-fails-block-case-allow-uk-to-stop-brexit-50-article-2018-11 "Theresa May could be handed the power to unilaterally reverse Brexit after a court refused an appeal by her government to block a landmark case on the issue being referred to European courts.In September, Edinburgh's Court of Session referred the question of whether the UK can revoke its Article 50 request to leave the EU to the European Court of Justice after a case was brought by a group of Scottish politicians. They argued that Article 50 — which triggered the UK's EU withdrawal process — can be revoked without the agreement of the other 27 European member states. However, the UK government sought permission to appeal the decision at the UK Supreme Court. Lord Carloway, Scotland's most senior judge, refused the application on Thursday, meaning the case will now proceed to the ECJ as planned, with a provisional date of November 27". So, by December, there could be an ECJ ruling confirming that the UK can unilaterally reverse Article 50 and stay in the EU - potentially keeping all its current benefits, including the UK rebate. Now, I'm sure neither May nor any other PM, nor even Parliament, would simply reverse the notice to leave. That would create public outrage about abuses of democracy - and rightly so, in my opinion. But if such a ruling coincides with May presenting parliament with a dog's breakfast of a negotiated deal, parliament rejecting that deal and the UK heading ill-prepared for No Deal, which looks increasingly possible, then it's going to strengthen the chances of us ending up with a second referendum, I reckon. Btw, I don't assume that Remain would win a second referendum. The lack of a decent deal on the table and the looming reality of No Deal might make it more likely, but most people are still firmly sticking by their original view - and some who voted Remain might go Leave (even with No Deal) at a second referendum, on the basis of "we decided, let's just get on with it".
Recommended Posts