Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
yorkie1999

Also in the news

Recommended Posts

So why don't we just stick a couple of desalination plants on the coast like everyone else and, being an island nation, we'd have as much water as we want.

  Just been reading the cost of water. £3.20 for a thousand litres ,  or 75p per half litre of naive, sorry, evian

Edited by yorkie1999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Zero hour contracts have stayed at about the same level for the last four years and the total is still a small part of the entire workforce. 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/april2018

But they still exist...and IMO effect the long term employment market,to its deterent..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Police force in this country are getting stranger and stranger.

 

You can say what you want about Tommy Robinson, you can despise him, hate him, whatever.

 

Remember he was in Cambridge two and a half years ago with his family (wife and kids) plus some friends and thrown out of the city. Just because of his mere presence. Intervention because of something that might happen. According to the original video, there were about a dozen policemen on location. For one guy.

Scary.

He has now lost his case against Cambridgeshire Police, is currently forced to pay £20'000, but is appealing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-47586480

Now, the police claim they intervened because they didn't know who he was/is and that they considered him a football hooligan. Excuses?

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Police force in this country are getting stranger and stranger.

 

In fairness to the police I think they're trying to do the right thing but are getting some very questionable advice on some of these issues from organisations with an agenda that can only be explained by themselves.

 

I agree it's pretty ridiculous but I think this will run its course soon enough especially when the cops realise that the courts aren't going to take it seriously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

In fairness to the police I think they're trying to do the right thing but are getting some very questionable advice on some of these issues from organisations with an agenda that can only be explained by themselves.

 

I agree it's pretty ridiculous but I think this will run its course soon enough especially when the cops realise that the courts aren't going to take it seriously

Seconded.

I think there should be a police reform in the sense that it needs to be re-defined what the police should be taking care of, what their core responsibilities are.

These are fringe issues, and the time and money spent on these sort of "crimes" should rather be re-directed towards what some would call "classic" police duties, e.g. solving crime.

It's ludicrous.

The police are not supposed to be there to protect one's feelings. That's something you clear on a bilateral basis, be it on your own, in your family, or with friends, or at work or whatnot.

 

The question is: When will the madness stop? There's a whole machine set in motion, a behemoth of an apparatus. It'll take years, if not decades to reverse this course.

 

Edited by MC Prussian
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Seconded.

I think there should be a police reform in the sense that it needs to be re-defined what the police should be taking care of, what their core responsibilities are.

These are fringe issues, and the time and money spent on these sort of "crimes" should rather be re-directed towards what some would call "classic" police duties, e.g. solving crime.

It's ludicrous.

The police are not supposed to be there to protect one's feelings. That's something you clear on a bilateral basis, be it on your own, in your family, or with friends, or at work or whatnot.

 

The question is: When will the madness stop? There's a whole machine set in motion, a behemoth of an apparatus. It'll take years, if not decades to reverse this course.

 

Maybe the police could actually give preventing crime a go one day.Perhaps they could even try walking the streets like they used to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, davieG said:

UK employment at highest since 1971

The number of employed people in the UK has risen again, to a new record number of 32.7 million people between November and January, figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

The 76.1% employment rate is the highest since records began in 1971.

Unemployment fell by 35,000 to 1.34 million in the period, putting the rate below 4% for the first time since 1975.

The figure is 112,000 lower than a year ago, giving a jobless rate of 3.9%, well below the EU average of 6.5%.

Average weekly earnings, excluding bonuses, were estimated to have increased by 3.4%, before adjusting for inflation, down by 0.1% on the previous month but still outpacing inflation..

 

_106084096_employment-nc.png

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47622415

 

Weird how employment levels are at record highs yet poverty levels are also at record highs. The amount of children in poverty is a national disgrace as is the amount of people in work but still needing food banks and benefits. 

 

These stats are a Tory wet dream though as it shows lots of people desperately working while not being paid a lot and corporate wages subsidised by the tax payer. What a great deal for employers. A shit deal for tax payers and workers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You can say what you want about Tommy Robinson, you can despise him, hate him, whatever.

 

Remember he was in Cambridge two and a half years ago with his family (wife and kids) plus some friends and thrown out of the city. Just because of his mere presence. Intervention because of something that might happen. According to the original video, there were about a dozen policemen on location. For one guy.

Scary.

He has now lost his case against Cambridgeshire Police, is currently forced to pay £20'000, but is appealing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-47586480

Now, the police claim they intervened because they didn't know who he was/is and that they considered him a football hooligan. Excuses?

Sounds line you like this Tommy Robinson. Fact is he is a racist hooligan who pushes his nasty agenda where he can. He is handsomely backed financially and likes to terrorise those who expose him. I'd like to think that if he was spotted in Leicester he'd get booted out of here too. 

 

This guy doesn't believe in law, order or anything good and you can guarantee he loved the massacre in New Zealand. 

 

But if you want to defend him @MC Prussian or back his freedom do some research into what he is what he stands for, what he does and most importantly who backs him.

 

Let us know if you still agree with him being kicked out of Cambridge or not.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

So why don't we just stick a couple of desalination plants on the coast like everyone else and, being an island nation, we'd have as much water as we want.

  Just been reading the cost of water. £3.20 for a thousand litres ,  or 75p per half litre of naive, sorry, evian

That's certainly one possible solution, along with working the infrastructure to try and reduce current losses.

I think the bloke in the original article simply wanted to draw peoples attention to the fact that the problem exists and to not take a fresh supply of potable water for granted in perpetuity.

 

 

4 hours ago, MattP said:

The Police force in this country are getting stranger and stranger.

 

There's actually a rather easy way around this sort of thing - if you're not sure, simply ask.

 

Most folks where it's difficult to tell won't mind you doing so (if they do, well that's their damn problem) and it's the decent thing to do.

 

These rules might seem stupid but they do have a place: and that's to stop folks using misgendered terms as a slur, which many people still do. Criminal offence where there's no malicious intent as in this case is a bit much, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From the man who is favourite to become next Tory leader:

 

Investigating historic child abuse is 'spaffing money up the wall' - Boris Johnson

 

Boris Johnson was given an angry lecture by a minister in the voting lobbies about his comments that money had been ‘spaffed up a wall’ for investigating child sex abuse, I understand.

The former Foreign Secretary upset survivors of the crime by using the term during radio interview last week. He told LBC that ‘you, know £60 million I saw was being spaffed up a wall on some investigation into historic child abuse’.

Boris Johnson says spending police budgets investigating historic child abuse is "spaffing money up the wall". pic.twitter.com/6Xh9FOy3w2

— LBC (@LBC) March 13, 2019

 
On Thursday night, as MPs were voting on the latest round of Brexit amendments, he was confronted in the lobby by Victims’ Minister Victoria Atkins who, according to several MPs present, ‘read him the riot act’. She did so in front of Johnson’s colleagues in a move clearly designed to make him as uncomfortable as possible. MPs watching the telling-off said Atkins told Johnson that there was no way his use of language was acceptable. One said ‘he looked caught out’, and another described his face as being ‘like that of a guilty husband – something he’s had some practice on, I suppose’.

Atkins could have contacted Johnson privately to explain why the use of the word ‘spaffed’ in connection with child sexual abuse was deeply insensitive and unkind, as well as giving the wrong message about the Conservative Party’s attitude to the crime, but her use of the busiest time of the parliamentary day will not only have shown up her colleague, but also shown that he is no longer as popular as he once was with other MPs (though his standing has always been lower in the Commons than it has been among the wider Tory membership). One MP said the talk of the tearoom ‘is that this has been the final nail in the coffin of any ambition he still has to be leader’.

 

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/boris-johnson-read-riot-act-in-front-of-mps-for-child-abuse-comments/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
10 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I agree it's pretty ridiculous but I think this will run its course soon enough especially when the cops realise that the courts aren't going to take it seriously

You would hope so, but the way peoples thoughts are already starting to be policed on social media and in society in general (since working in the public sector I've become amazed at some of the "training" you receive to do this) I don't have much confidence that it won't eventually find it's way to the courts.
 

9 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Maybe the police could actually give preventing crime a go one day.Perhaps they could even try walking the streets like they used to.

It would be a wonderful thing to go back to the days of preventative policing rather than having them sat behind deks waiting for CCTV to do the job.

You have to laugh, on one hand they make public appeals about being in crisis, begging for more numbers, then when you read a bit deeper you see them investigating nonsense like this and having hundreds of officers patrolling Twitter making appeals to call them if they have been upset.
 

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

There's actually a rather easy way around this sort of thing - if you're not sure, simply ask.

 

These rules might seem stupid but they do have a place: and that's to stop folks using misgendered terms as a slur, which many people still do. Criminal offence where there's no malicious intent as in this case is a bit much, though.

Well that's what most people wil do, but my point is more about how the state police is being used here. Just to be clear though, if someone refuses to engage in this nonsense and won't call someone who believes they are a woman/man what they want - you would be happy to see the law take action? Because the last  part sounds like you will.

The Police force isn't there to deal with people who have got upset because others don't believe you can identitiy as a another sex or gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
7 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Sounds line you like this Tommy Robinson. Fact is he is a racist hooligan who pushes his nasty agenda where he can. He is handsomely backed financially and likes to terrorise those who expose him. I'd like to think that if he was spotted in Leicester he'd get booted out of here too. 

 

This guy doesn't believe in law, order or anything good and you can guarantee he loved the massacre in New Zealand. 

 

But if you want to defend him @MC Prussian or back his freedom do some research into what he is what he stands for, what he does and most importantly who backs him.

 

Let us know if you still agree with him being kicked out of Cambridge or not.

To be fair to TR, when you've been jailed and then released because the judge didn't allow him a proper defence, you an hardly blame him for not believing in law and order, you've also unfairly presumed a lot of things there I've highlighted.

I can't be arsed to turn this into another debate on him, but out of interest at what point do you think British citizens should be kicked out of British cities? Marching for Brexit? Protesting agaisnt immigration? Voting Conservative maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Sounds line you like this Tommy Robinson. Fact is he is a racist hooligan who pushes his nasty agenda where he can. He is handsomely backed financially and likes to terrorise those who expose him. I'd like to think that if he was spotted in Leicester he'd get booted out of here too. 

 

This guy doesn't believe in law, order or anything good and you can guarantee he loved the massacre in New Zealand. 

 

But if you want to defend him @MC Prussian or back his freedom do some research into what he is what he stands for, what he does and most importantly who backs him.

 

Let us know if you still agree with him being kicked out of Cambridge or not.

I don't "like" Tommy Robinson, I find his story fascinating and the treatment of him by the authorities rather curious.

I'm well aware that the sheer mention of the name causes a ruckus among some people. But therein lies the problem: I'm not a fan of extremism on either the left or the right, yet I want to hear what both sides have to say. I'd like to keep an open mind, I'm for dialogue. I fear that the vitriol and vocabulary on both sides is getting more extreme and we should be cautious.

I don't like the painting of the left as saints and the people on the right as sinners. Way too simplistic, there's dirt in both directions.

But see - once you bring up Robinson, you're automatically thrown into the same mix and branded a (insert left-wing insult here), just like you did by claiming that I like the guy, without knowing anything about me.

 

I do know about Robinson's EDL past - but from what I can tell, he's renounced the ideology/the group and these days is mostly on about a mission against the media whom he thinks are misrepresenting him. The new "Panodrama" piece is a bit revealing in that regard.

He says he's not a white supremacist, he doesn't hate Muslims or other minorities and here I refer to his recent interview with Steven Crowder. He highly likely was racist in the past, but who says people can't change?

 

As for the financial backing, Robinson does a great job at crowdfunding, as there are thousands of individuals supporting his cause:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-wealth-supporters-far-right-prison-freed-crime-a8473536.html

The institution quoted as giving him a five-figure sum also state that they support freedom of speech and oppose extreme right-wing views, such as fascists and Neo-Nazis.

So, it's not just as one-sided as you'd like to make it appear.

 

Regardless of his past and his views, no one should be thrown out of a city simply because they are there with their family on a day out, watching some footie in a pub. I find this treatment unacceptable, or at least excessive (judging by the cell phone video he made that day). You can have a certain mindset and oppose his views completely, that's fine. All I'm saying is that this is how it starts, that it is a strange use of police resources and it could be well you next time around.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Well that's what most people wil do, but my point is more about how the state police is being used here. Just to be clear though, if someone refuses to engage in this nonsense and won't call someone who believes they are a woman/man what they want - you would be happy to see the law take action? Because the last  part sounds like you will.

The Police force isn't there to deal with people who have got upset because others don't believe you can identitiy as a another sex or gender.

Depends on the situation for me, as I touched on above.

 

Personally I don't get the attitude behind misgendering anyway as it makes absolutely zero difference to me whether someone feels more comfortable in their own skin identifying as either of the binary or nonbinary and I'm not sure what about it winds other people up, but questioning a crucial part of someone's identity in a manner clearly meant to be derisive and dismissive of them certainly *sounds* like using a racist or homophobic slur - either way you're implying the person is less than human because of who they are. Of course, the classic counterargument is that trans folks *choose* to be so, but then wasn't that argument used for gay folks a while back (and is sometimes still used now) too?

 

Legislating and punishing speech in this way is often damn messy and as such the utmost care needs to be taken on a case by case basis, but the UK does have existing hate speech laws in the books and I don't think some of what is said to trans folks (seeing as IMO most of them don't have as much choice over their identity as one might think) is all that far away from that.

 

Again though, just for the sake of absolute clarity: such things need to be handled very, very carefully as policing any kind of speech is a very, very difficult area.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't "like" Tommy Robinson, I find his story fascinating and the treatment of him by the authorities rather curious.

I'm well aware that the sheer mention of the name causes a ruckus among some people. But therein lies the problem: I'm not a fan of extremism on either the left or the right, yet I want to hear what both sides have to say. I'd like to keep an open mind, I'm for dialogue. I fear that the vitriol and vocabulary on both sides is getting more extreme and we should be cautious.

I don't like the painting of the left as saints and the people on the right as sinners. Way too simplistic, there's dirt in both directions.

But see - once you bring up Robinson, you're automatically thrown into the same mix and branded a (insert left-wing insult here), just like you did by claiming that I like the guy, without knowing anything about me.

 

I do know about Robinson's EDL past - but from what I can tell, he's renounced the ideology/the group and these days is mostly on about a mission against the media whom he thinks are misrepresenting him. The new "Panodrama" piece is a bit revealing in that regard.

He says he's not a white supremacist, he doesn't hate Muslims or other minorities and here I refer to his recent interview with Steven Crowder. He highly likely was racist in the past, but who says people can't change?

 

As for the financial backing, Robinson does a great job at crowdfunding, as there are thousands of individuals supporting his cause:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-wealth-supporters-far-right-prison-freed-crime-a8473536.html

The institution quoted as giving him a five-figure sum also state that they support freedom of speech and oppose extreme right-wing views, such as fascists and Neo-Nazis.

So, it's not just as one-sided as you'd like to make it appear.

 

Regardless of his past and his views, no one should be thrown out of a city simply because they are there with their family on a day out, watching some footie in a pub. I find this treatment unacceptable, or at least excessive (judging by the cell phone video he made that day). You can have a certain mindset and oppose his views completely, that's fine. All I'm saying is that this is how it starts, that it is a strange use of police resources and it could be well you next time around.

 

Tommy Robinson Yaxley Lennon is an absolute shittard and so are his braindead hate filled followers.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Depends on the situation for me, as I touched on above.

 

Personally I don't get the attitude behind misgendering anyway as it makes absolutely zero difference to me whether someone feels more comfortable in their own skin identifying as either of the binary or nonbinary and I'm not sure what about it winds other people up, but questioning a crucial part of someone's identity in a manner clearly meant to be derisive and dismissive of them certainly *sounds* like using a racist or homophobic slur - either way you're implying the person is less than human because of who they are. Of course, the classic counterargument is that trans folks *choose* to be so, but then wasn't that argument used for gay folks a while back (and is sometimes still used now) too?

 

Legislating and punishing speech in this way is often damn messy and as such the utmost care needs to be taken on a case by case basis, but the UK does have existing hate speech laws in the books and I don't think some of what is said to trans folks (seeing as IMO most of them don't have as much choice over their identity as one might think) is all that far away from that.

 

Again though, just for the sake of absolute clarity: such things need to be handled very, very carefully as policing any kind of speech is a very, very difficult area.

What about those who hold the core belief you can't change your gender and therefore refuse to acknowledge that? 

 

I mean this isn't remotely comparable to race, you don't get anyone denying people are black.

 

Hate speech law is becoming grotesque, this was never intended to send people to court for hurting the feelings of others, be extremely careful with it or you'll end up with leaders elected who will do away with it all.

 

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Nobody should be "kicked out of British cities" for holding or expressing opinions in a peaceful, legal way. Inciting violence or promoting illegal organisations is different - but not applicable here.

Nor do I think that his views should be silenced (so long as they remain legal) in society or on TV. They should just be challenged.

Absolutely - that's how I've always understood this to be, when extremists arrive they are defeated through logical argument from their opponents - and if they aren't capable of that step aside for someone who can.

 

I've seen Conservative and Labour politicians both say he shouldnt be on television or youtube, a decade ago people like Margaret Hodge didn't complain about that - they went on the ground and took them on as she did with the BNP in Barking.

 

Yet again the lack of substandard politicians continues to cause us problems.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

What about those who hold the core belief you can't change your gender and therefore refuse to acknowledge that? 

 

I mean this isn't remotely comparable to race, you don't get anyone denying people are black.

 

Hate speech law is becoming grotesque, this was never intended to send people to court for hurting the feelings of others, be extremely careful with it or you'll end up with leaders elected who will do away with it all.

 

Absolutely - that's how I've always understood this to be, when extremists arrive they are defeated through logical argument from their opponents - and if they aren't capable of that step aside for someone who can.

 

I've seen Conservative and Labour politicians both say he shouldnt be on television or youtube, a decade ago people like Margaret Hodge didn't complain about that - they went on the ground and took them on as she did with the BNP in Barking.

 

Yet again the lack of substandard politicians continues to cause us problems.

2

image.png.ead77a84390d1d14e3a9abe120d78b2c.png

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Thanks for reminding me of this ridiculous furore:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Hopefully we’ll get to see it now it’s been confirmed he was a nonce. 

I vaguely recall scandal over images of him playing MJ but that show in general (Urban Myths) has completely passed me by. Looks like a lot of fun.

Edited by Carl the Llama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...