[quote]Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
In Britain one has to be careful of running afoul of the incitement to hatred laws. If this forum was on a British server there are quite a few people on this board who would have been rounded up by the authorities and put in jail.
I wouldn’t go that far. You would have to get someone to mount legal action against the board first. But yes it is possible that people could be arrested over their comments on this board if it was located in the UK.
I know a couple of posters have questioned the 6 million Jews figure. Quick way to land yourself in prison in Germany. The lack of freedom is astounding.
I don’t agree with holocaust denial, but it is not good that a government can dictate history and arrest people who disagree with it.
Tony Bliar by the way wanted to make holocaust denial a crime in Britain when he was prime minister. When I watched him say that on prime ministers questions people didn’t voice disapproval of the idea.[/quote]
I am against any laws that infringe the right to freedom of speach so I agree with you on this one.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
A girlfriend is not family. So what was offered up as his familial relationship is he and his girlfriend had a cat together. Which is damn ridiculous.
He was granted the right to stay due to the fact that he had set up home with his long term unmarried partner. This is standard practice for cohabiting relationships of greater than two years. The couple had been together for four years. For you to decide that this doesn’t constitute a family just because it doesn’t fit in with your religious world view is kind of short sighted. The cat was just something that was mentioned in their application process.
This has nothing to do with religion. A girlfriend is not family. If they were married and she was his wife then they would be family. But they are not married so she is not family.
[/quote]
So if I choose to live with someone for the rest of my life without getting married, raise children, get pets, grow old together. At no time are we in a family?
Which has what exactly to do with this Bolivian guy, his girlfriend and their cat?
[quote]
Incidentally it is a European Ruling that leads to this. The situation is the same in all European member states but when did you ever let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical story?
The Human Rights Act is UK law that was NuLabour’s fuck up.
The EU is more stupidity that the British government has signed onto, without ever asking the people for permission. In other European countries they are not as stupid as the British and they don’t apply the EU laws in such a bad way as the British do.
The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are nothing to do with the EU. The European Convention was more than 40 years before the EU came into being. I really should start billing you for the history lessons.
The human rights act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law in 1998 by nulabour. [/quote]
The Human Rights act was designed to save time and money by stopping cases having to be taken all the way to the European Court of Human rights. It didn’t change anyone’s rights, it just sped the process up. It was also designed to protect British Sovereignty.
And the other European Countries are required to abide by the same convention. So wrong again.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu I just decided to respond in kind. Every time you post a wall of text cut and pasted claiming that isolated incidents that make the news exactly because they are rare and shocking somehow back up your argument, I will do exactly the same.
That is not the first incident of a young woman who has filed a police complaint and not been protected from being murdered. The police do not protect everyone who needs protecting because that is an impossible task and sometimes they are just lazy and don’t feel like it. In Britain a woman or man who finds themself in that position is fucked because with no right to own a gun for self defense the police is all there is.
You repeatedly have insisted that total reliance upon the police is the only way to go. Yet when I have come up with multiple cases of the police not protecting people you come up with excuses. You are a weak.
A weak what? Come on, don’t leave people in suspense. There are people following this thread.
BTW, please point to any post where I have stated that total reliance on the police is the only way to go. Lies and obfuscation yet again.
So now you are checking my spelling errors. What are you going to do about it? Pin a note to my Mum on my jacket and send me home perhaps?
[/quote]
If I was checking your spelling errors I would have a full time job on my hands. Just pointing out the factual errors takes long enough.
I am still confused though. I don’t understand how a spelling error led to the sentence ‘You are a weak’ Unless you were trying to call me a week. But that still makes no sense.
[quote]
While you may not have stated that you want people to be completely dependent upon the police for their protection, it is implied by your support for gun control. Because without guns how can people defend themselves?[/quote]
You wrote ‘You repeatedly have insisted that total reliance upon the police is the only way to go.’
now your write ‘While you may not have stated that you want people to be completely dependent upon the police for their protection’
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
In Britain if you do study islam and it’s history then come to a conclusion that differs from the government’s official view and speak out you can be arrested.
On what grounds, Sifu? I am just curious.
What they use are incitement to hatred and public order laws which they interpret rather broadly. That is how the couple in the B&B got arrested for saying that mohammad was a warlord and the burqa is a form of bondage. Right before the 7/7 bombings the Labour government was going to update the blasphemy laws so that criticising islam would be a crime.
The way the law was rewritten merely quoting passages from the koran that contradicted the government dictat that islam is a religion of peace and saying this is what the koran says form your own opinion would have been illegal.
Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. In a free country ideas should be open to debate and criticism. The fact that Labour was going to reinstate ancient blasphemy laws in order to placate the muslim population shows how mass immigration of muslims into the UK is dragging the society backwards. People should be able to openly discuss that without having to be a nut on a box in speakers corner.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your arguments yet again but there are no such thing as Blasphemy laws in the UK.
The most recent succesful prosecution under blasphemy law was 1977 and the most recent inprisonment was 1921.
The law was abolished in May 2008.[/quote]
It was only repaeled to update it with a much broader law against incitement of religious hatred.
Blasphemy laws set to be repealed
Britain’s ancient blasphemy laws could be repealed when plans for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred are brought forward.
The home secretary is considering the move to see off fears the new law would curtail the freedom to criticise and satirise religions.
There is a good case for removing laws on blasphemy, David Blunkett has said.
The changes were being considered in the “wider context” of the incitement law, a home office spokesman added.
"We are interested in whether the blasphemy laws should be retained, extended or amended in any form.
[quote]
Several states in the US have Blasphemy laws though. [/quote]
A prosecution under those laws would not go anywhere because they violate the first amendment.
There is also a supreme court case that would go against a blasphemy law violaton: Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson
[quote]
The reason why you are transfixed by this thread is because in America we have the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. That is why you are fascinated because you are seeing real freedom, something which does not exist in Britain.
I can’t go back the four pages, maybe later. This page really delivered.
Freedom is one of my favorite themes, along with free will and self possession.
I think the British have forgotten all three, what is entails to achieve them and sustain them.
States of independence, power ( knowing how to exercise one’s free will is the ultimate exercise in power, in my opinion ) and autonomy are to me, the only real ‘state’ of a people. To be in a state of liberation implies awareness and exercise of these qualities.
Any nation that has resigned these qualities that bring vitality to one’s existence is a Zombie nation ( same goes for individuals - hence, one by one, “we” become neutralized ).
I don’t think that you are saying that Britain is worse than other places but I hear what you are saying. When the core is weak, the house stands on hollow ground.
Britain has been hollowed out. The mass emigration out of Britain is depriving it of many of it’s most motivated indiginous people. They are being replaced with economic migrants from countries that have not had a long tradition of democracy or even any democracy. Much of the EU which Britain is surrendering it’s sovereignty to is countries that have not had much democracy and are riddled with corruption.
It remains to be seen what would bring some vitality into the core of this nation.
The future looks very bleak.
Emigration is healthy and natural. People are leaving the country because they are spotting opportunities in emerging markets (or because they are fed up with the weather.) Bear in mind that a lot of the emigrants are retirees moving to southern spain to enjoy the sunshine. [/quote]
How is emigration healthy when it is stripping the country of many it’s best educated, most motivated people? Those people are not all leaving to take advantage of emerging markets. Those emerging markets have their own people who will work for a fraction of what the British will work for. They are leaving because they are being taxed to death in a country in which they are increasingly being made to feel like they don’t belong.
That is not a healthy situation at all. It is a clear sign of the deterioration of Britain. It is also resulting in a dumbing down and degradation of the indiginous people. There are a lot of people going to America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who are moving to those places because they don’t feel like outsiders there.
So if I choose to live with someone for the rest of my life without getting married, raise children, get pets, grow old together. At no time are we in a family?[/quote]
To you and to her you may well be but only as each sun rises and sets. The primary reason why people chose cohabitation instead of marriage is because they want to leave the door opened. The freedom to walk away from the relationship in an instant. Most of these people are of a mind set of “I don’t do relationships” and have a loser grip on the word commitment.
So, technically no. That is not a family. That is a very convenient arrangement.
And whether I agree or not, to society it is also a no; they are not a family because the exit door is always left opened. When you get married you close the door and every one else knows it.
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your arguments yet again but there are no such thing as Blasphemy laws in the UK.
The most recent succesful prosecution under blasphemy law was 1977 and the most recent inprisonment was 1921.
The law was abolished in May 2008.
It was only repaeled to update it with a much broader law against incitement of religious hatred.
Blasphemy laws set to be repealed
Britain’s ancient blasphemy laws could be repealed when plans for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred are brought forward.
The home secretary is considering the move to see off fears the new law would curtail the freedom to criticise and satirise religions.
There is a good case for removing laws on blasphemy, David Blunkett has said.
The changes were being considered in the “wider context” of the incitement law, a home office spokesman added.
"We are interested in whether the blasphemy laws should be retained, extended or amended in any form.
[/quote]
Yet again you are showing your lack of knowledge. The law was not repealed. You cannot repeal a common law you have to abolish it. The new law on incitement to religious hatred has a much narrower scope than the old blasphemy laws. Personally I do not see the need for the new law as I support freedom of speach though they have mainly been used to lock up Imams that are preaching support for terrorist acts.
I know however the laws are still on the books.
So people retiring to Southern Spain is ‘stripping the country of many of its best educated, most motivated people’?
So if I choose to live with someone for the rest of my life without getting married, raise children, get pets, grow old together. At no time are we in a family?
To you and to her you may well be but only as each sun rises and sets. The primary reason why people chose cohabitation instead of marriage is because they want to leave the door opened. The freedom to walk away from the relationship in an instant. Most of these people are of a mind set of “I don’t do relationships” and have a loser grip on the word commitment.
So, technically no. That is not a family. That is a very convenient arrangement.
And whether I agree or not, to society it is also a no; they are not a family because the exit door is always left opened. When you get married you close the door and every one else knows it.
[/quote]
Not at all. I know plenty of people who are in lifelong committed relationships who choose not to get married. I would not have got married if it were not for the legal benefits to my wife of us getting married. I am atheist and do not need a piece of paper to say whether or not my relationship with my partner and my daughter is real or not.
My father has been married six times. On one occasion the full relationship lasted less than a year. Why was his relationship a family but this Bolivian guy with his partner of 4 years not?
Sorry to let facts get in the way of your arguments yet again but there are no such thing as Blasphemy laws in the UK.
The most recent succesful prosecution under blasphemy law was 1977 and the most recent inprisonment was 1921.
The law was abolished in May 2008.
It was only repaeled to update it with a much broader law against incitement of religious hatred.
Blasphemy laws set to be repealed
Britain’s ancient blasphemy laws could be repealed when plans for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred are brought forward.
The home secretary is considering the move to see off fears the new law would curtail the freedom to criticise and satirise religions.
There is a good case for removing laws on blasphemy, David Blunkett has said.
The changes were being considered in the “wider context” of the incitement law, a home office spokesman added.
"We are interested in whether the blasphemy laws should be retained, extended or amended in any form.
Yet again you are showing your lack of knowledge. The law was not repealed. You cannot repeal a common law you have to abolish it. The new law on incitement to religious hatred has a much narrower scope than the old blasphemy laws. Personally I do not see the need for the new law as I support freedom of speach though they have mainly been used to lock up Imams that are preaching support for terrorist acts. [/quote]
To repeal a law is to anull it. To abolish a law is to anull it. Under common law the effect of repealing a law is to obliterate it from the records of Parlaiment as though it had never been passed.
[quote]
Several states in the US have Blasphemy laws though.
A prosecution under those laws would not go anywhere because they violate the first amendment.
There is also a supreme court case that would go against a blasphemy law violaton: Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson
I know however the laws are still on the books. [/quote]
When a law is superceded by another law it is repealed but it remains on the books. In some states if the second law is repealed by a third law, the first law comes back into effect. There are a lot of old laws that are still on the books, it doesn’t mean you could successfully prosecute someone for violating them. So they sit there unsused and ignored.
[quote]
Emigration is healthy and natural. People are leaving the country because they are spotting opportunities in emerging markets (or because they are fed up with the weather.) Bear in mind that a lot of the emigrants are retirees moving to southern spain to enjoy the sunshine.
How is emigration healthy when it is stripping the country of many it’s best educated, most motivated people? Those people are not all leaving to take advantage of emerging markets. Those emerging markets have their own people who will work for a fraction of what the British will work for. They are leaving because they are being taxed to death in a country in which they are increasingly being made to feel like they don’t belong.
That is not a healthy situation at all. It is a clear sign of the deterioration of Britain. It is also resulting in a dumbing down and degradation of the indiginous people. There are a lot of people going to America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who are moving to those places because they don’t feel like outsiders there.
So people retiring to Southern Spain is ‘stripping the country of many of its best educated, most motivated people’? [/quote]
The number retiring to Spain does not account for the exodus. Especially since the Pound-Euro exchange rate has crashed. Retirees are even moving back from Spain and France because the poor exchange rate has made it too costly to live there.
There are a lot of young people who have college educations or job skills who are getting out. Their departute however is not being noticed because as they leave they are being replaced by immigrants. Immigrants who do not identify with the uneducated, ignorant, alcoholic, drug addled, lazy, welfare scrounging, whore and whore monger identity of the remaining indigenous British who are left behind.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yet again you are showing your lack of knowledge. The law was not repealed. You cannot repeal a common law you have to abolish it. The new law on incitement to religious hatred has a much narrower scope than the old blasphemy laws. Personally I do not see the need for the new law as I support freedom of speach though they have mainly been used to lock up Imams that are preaching support for terrorist acts.
To repeal a law is to anull it. To abolish a law is to anull it. Under common law the effect of repealing a law is to obliterate it from the records of Parlaiment as though it had never been passed.
[/quote]
No, quite specifically a common law has to be abolished, it cannot be repealed.
I know that. I was just making a flipant comment.
[quote]
Emigration is healthy and natural. People are leaving the country because they are spotting opportunities in emerging markets (or because they are fed up with the weather.) Bear in mind that a lot of the emigrants are retirees moving to southern spain to enjoy the sunshine.
How is emigration healthy when it is stripping the country of many it’s best educated, most motivated people? Those people are not all leaving to take advantage of emerging markets. Those emerging markets have their own people who will work for a fraction of what the British will work for. They are leaving because they are being taxed to death in a country in which they are increasingly being made to feel like they don’t belong.
That is not a healthy situation at all. It is a clear sign of the deterioration of Britain. It is also resulting in a dumbing down and degradation of the indiginous people. There are a lot of people going to America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who are moving to those places because they don’t feel like outsiders there.
So people retiring to Southern Spain is ‘stripping the country of many of its best educated, most motivated people’?
The number retiring to Spain does not account for the exodus. Especially since the Pound-Euro exchange rate has crashed. Retirees are even moving back from Spain and France because the poor exchange rate has made it too costly to live there.
There are a lot of young people who have college educations or job skills who are getting out. Their departute however is not being noticed because as they leave they are being replaced by immigrants. Immigrants who do not identify with the uneducated, ignorant, alcoholic, drug addled, lazy, welfare scrounging, whore and whore monger identity of the remaining indigenous British who are left behind. [/quote]
Other than retiring, the main reason people are leaving is high taxes and high cost of living relative to pay. That is the reason that I left. On a global scale this is a good thing and is exactly what more people in the US should be prepared to do. Instead of sitting back and complaining that there are no jobs, move somewhere that requires your skills.
Not at all. I know plenty of people who are in lifelong committed relationships who choose not to get married. I would not have got married if it were not for the legal benefits to my wife of us getting married. I am atheist and do not need a piece of paper to say whether or not my relationship with my partner and my daughter is real or not.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with God.
What is real to us and what is real to the world are two different things. As you mentioned already there are benefits to the woman, and ultimately the man if the piece of paper is real. You wouldn’t own a Ferrari without the paper work to prove it, would you?
You love her? You own her properly.[quote]
My father has been married six times. On one occasion the full relationship lasted less than a year. Why was his relationship a family but this Bolivian guy with his partner of 4 years not?[/quote] The Bolivian guy with his partner may well be a family but to society they are not. Just as an illegal immigrant may contribute a lot to this country and you do not, you are a citizen and enjoy the legal rights that that brings. The illegal immigrant, no matter how much of an exemplary citizen than you does not.
It is a simple as that.
God doesn’t actually require a piece of paper. In biblical times when a man took a woman home she became his wife and the whole community knew and honored that arrangement.
Times have moved on, my friend. And so must we.
the main reason people are leaving is high taxes and high cost of living relative to pay. That is the reason that I left. On a global scale this is a good thing and is exactly what more people in the US should be prepared to do. Instead of sitting back and complaining that there are no jobs, move somewhere that requires your skills.[/quote]
I agree with you on this.
The smart English person who is smart enough to know that there is no quality of life here.
So they look to go to sunny places where they can earn more ( their skills are more valued since in their own country it is not because the money for that is being stolen by the .gov ) and have a real life.
Not at all. I know plenty of people who are in lifelong committed relationships who choose not to get married. I would not have got married if it were not for the legal benefits to my wife of us getting married. I am atheist and do not need a piece of paper to say whether or not my relationship with my partner and my daughter is real or not.
It has nothing to do with God.
What is real to us and what is real to the world are two different things. As you mentioned already there are benefits to the woman, and ultimately the man if the piece of paper is real. You wouldn’t own a Ferrari without the paper work to prove it, would you?
You love her? You own her properly.
[quote]
The only legal benefit in the UK that affected me was my wife getting dual nationality quicker. Here in Mexico things are a bit different as unmarried couples tend to cause the rest of the family disgrace
I would say that to most people the Bolivian guy and his partner were family. What am I saying, we are going from a couple of lines in a news report, his whole relationship could be a total sham for all we know but the point is that the court looked at all of the evidence and made a decision. To claim that the decision was based on him having a cat is disingenuous and faintly ridiculous. It also kills any chance of a real debate on immigration rules because the general public are being fed total bullshit by the papers (it was not just the BNP site, most of the newspapers led on the cat.)
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Yet again you are showing your lack of knowledge. The law was not repealed. You cannot repeal a common law you have to abolish it. The new law on incitement to religious hatred has a much narrower scope than the old blasphemy laws. Personally I do not see the need for the new law as I support freedom of speach though they have mainly been used to lock up Imams that are preaching support for terrorist acts.
To repeal a law is to anull it. To abolish a law is to anull it. Under common law the effect of repealing a law is to obliterate it from the records of Parlaiment as though it had never been passed.
No, quite specifically a common law has to be abolished, it cannot be repealed. [/quote]
Repeal of a law is it’s abrogation or anullment. There have been common laws that have been repealed.
A repeal is the removal or reversal of a law. This is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned.
If a campaign for the repeal of a particular law gains particular moment, an advocate of the repeal might become known as a “repealer”. This happened in 19th century Britain to a group in favour of the re-separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom
The repeal of the Act of Union 1800, providing for the union between Great Britain and Ireland as the United Kingdom. The union was partially repealed in 1922, when under the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, twenty-six of the thirty-two Irish Counties became the Irish Free State and ceased to be part of the United Kingdom.
[quote]
Several states in the US have Blasphemy laws though.
A prosecution under those laws would not go anywhere because they violate the first amendment.
There is also a supreme court case that would go against a blasphemy law violaton: Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson
I know however the laws are still on the books.
When a law is superceded by another law it is repealed but it remains on the books. In some states if the second law is repealed by a third law, the first law comes back into effect. There are a lot of old laws that are still on the books, it doesn’t mean you could successfully prosecute someone for violating them. So they sit there unsused and ignored.
I know that. I was just making a flipant comment. [/quote]
Oh, my bad. I didn’t realize you were being bitter and angry because the laws affected your dating.
[quote]
Emigration is healthy and natural. People are leaving the country because they are spotting opportunities in emerging markets (or because they are fed up with the weather.) Bear in mind that a lot of the emigrants are retirees moving to southern spain to enjoy the sunshine.
How is emigration healthy when it is stripping the country of many it’s best educated, most motivated people? Those people are not all leaving to take advantage of emerging markets. Those emerging markets have their own people who will work for a fraction of what the British will work for. They are leaving because they are being taxed to death in a country in which they are increasingly being made to feel like they don’t belong.
That is not a healthy situation at all. It is a clear sign of the deterioration of Britain. It is also resulting in a dumbing down and degradation of the indiginous people. There are a lot of people going to America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who are moving to those places because they don’t feel like outsiders there.
So people retiring to Southern Spain is ‘stripping the country of many of its best educated, most motivated people’?
The number retiring to Spain does not account for the exodus. Especially since the Pound-Euro exchange rate has crashed. Retirees are even moving back from Spain and France because the poor exchange rate has made it too costly to live there.
There are a lot of young people who have college educations or job skills who are getting out. Their departute however is not being noticed because as they leave they are being replaced by immigrants. Immigrants who do not identify with the uneducated, ignorant, alcoholic, drug addled, lazy, welfare scrounging, whore and whore monger identity of the remaining indigenous British who are left behind.
Other than retiring, the main reason people are leaving is high taxes and high cost of living relative to pay. That is the reason that I left. On a global scale this is a good thing and is exactly what more people in the US should be prepared to do. Instead of sitting back and complaining that there are no jobs, move somewhere that requires your skills. [/quote]
The reason why they have high taxes is all the layabouts on the dole and politicians playing big shot in other countries giving away the peoples money. If they weren’t flooding the country with low wage immigrants there would be jobs available so they could put people to work and get them off of the dole. Instead of taxing people to death to pay for mass immigration they could allow the British people to prosper in their own homeland. On a national scale the present situation cannot be sustained.
the main reason people are leaving is high taxes and high cost of living relative to pay. That is the reason that I left. On a global scale this is a good thing and is exactly what more people in the US should be prepared to do. Instead of sitting back and complaining that there are no jobs, move somewhere that requires your skills.
I agree with you on this.
The smart English person who is smart enough to know that there is no quality of life here.
So they look to go to sunny places where they can earn more ( their skills are more valued since in their own country it is not because the money for that is being stolen by the .gov ) and have a real life.
You may be difficult, Cockney, but you are smart.
: )
[/quote]
I earn a hell of a lot less here it is just that the cost of living (with a family) is so much lower that my quality of life is higher.
Thank you for the compliment. I think one of the issues that Sifu has is that he wants to pigeon hole me into some group so that he can argue against that group. This is why he keeps coming up with names, Blairite, Guardianista etc.
To my mind, the ideologies of all of the main groups are flawed. If you take any of them to their extremes you end up with chaos. The kind of world that PRCal, Pushharder etc dream of would be just as fucked as the socialist nightmare that the Labour party is dragging in.
The problem is, trying to tread the line and get a balance in any country is difficult. Also, whenever there is change in the party in power the first work is to reverse some obvious policies of the previous guys. Next comes the apologising that promises cannot be fulfilled due to the mess left by the previous guys by which point the next round of elections coming up and you get a dive for the centre to ensure re-election.
I really hate party politics because it means that the brightest guys are set working against each other instead of collaborating. Unfortunately in a democratic system parties manifest out of necessity and the alternative to democracies is hardly ideal.
I earn a hell of a lot less here it is just that the cost of living (with a family) is so much lower that my quality of life is higher.[/quote] Yes, that was what I meant: Your spending power is stronger. Besides, sunshine and warmth are free. You have no idea how much I am paying to keep my bones warm in London and we are told gas prices are going to sky rocket again.[quote]
To my mind, the ideologies of all of the main groups are flawed.[/quote] That is the problem with politics right there; You can’t work with ideals because reality is far from it. So why not a more realistic, down to earth approach? There hasn’t been anything different really. That is why I lost interest many years ago. We are going around in circles, nothing elemental has changed.[quote]
The problem is, trying to tread the line and get a balance in any country is difficult. Also, whenever there is change in the party in power the first work is to reverse some obvious policies of the previous guys. Next comes the apologising that promises cannot be fulfilled due to the mess left by the previous guys by which point the next round of elections coming up and you get a dive for the centre to ensure re-election.[/quote] And around we go, so much so it becomes predictable as you have just shown.[quote]
I really hate party politics because it means that the brightest guys are set working against each other instead of collaborating. [/quote]
I agree with this. Cooperation not competition.[quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, I’m starting to understand there’s disagreement between Sifu and Cockney.[/quote]
Actually we are the same person trolling for everyone’s entertainment
I’m sure if we met in real life we would actually have more views in common than differences, the internet tends to increase polarisation of thought and we are both highly contrary.
