Turkish Posted February 21 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, sadoldgit said: There will be plenty who agree with her sadly. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-donald-trump-maga-cpac-b2701664.html one thing she said which we can all agree on is Britain is failing and big changes are needed. Im sure even you can agree with that.
Gloucester Saint Posted February 21 Posted February 21 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Turkish said: one thing she said which we can all agree on is Britain is failing and big changes are needed. Im sure even you can agree with that. Whilst there are many decisions this current government has made that I don’t agree with, a lot of the morass is down to short-term economic experiments like hers which cost tens of billions in a few weeks pushing interest rates further, as well as taking a hard Brexit in 2019 which has cut 6% off the whole economy. So yes, I agree, going back into the Single Market is absolutely essential. We simply don’t have enough money to fund the services the overwhelming majority of voters of all parties expect. Truss knew it as well, which is why she wouldn’t balance the books to make the level of tax cuts (even then they weren’t remotely affordable). Edited February 21 by Gloucester Saint 1
Turkish Posted February 24 Posted February 24 A woman in her 50s investigated for criticising a labour MP on Facebook? Let’s not worry about knife crime this needs to be stamped out 🤦♂️ https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2018310/police-accused-infringing-free-speech
Gloucester Saint Posted February 24 Posted February 24 Interesting to see https://www.cbi.org.uk/our-campaigns/driving-green-growth-and-the-transition-to-net-zero/
West end Saints Posted February 24 Posted February 24 2 hours ago, Turkish said: A woman in her 50s investigated for criticising a labour MP on Facebook? Let’s not worry about knife crime this needs to be stamped out 🤦♂️ https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2018310/police-accused-infringing-free-speech I heard on the radio (not read articles or watched video as not that interested!) that she wasn't investigated, a complaint was made and registered (as it would have to be) and she was informed and told police did not seem it needed investigation/ action. No idea if this is right and fits with other info
Turkish Posted February 24 Posted February 24 13 minutes ago, West end Saints said: I heard on the radio (not read articles or watched video as not that interested!) that she wasn't investigated, a complaint was made and registered (as it would have to be) and she was informed and told police did not seem it needed investigation/ action. No idea if this is right and fits with other info Either ways it's absolutely ridiculous. Sending two coppers round to an old ladies house to talk to her about comments on facebook, when you've got kids getting stabbed every week with police moaning about budget cuts and lack of resource. 4
ecuk268 Posted February 24 Posted February 24 3 hours ago, Turkish said: Either ways it's absolutely ridiculous. Sending two coppers round to an old ladies house to talk to her about comments on facebook, when you've got kids getting stabbed every week with police moaning about budget cuts and lack of resource. If a formal complaint was made it's standard procedure for the police to inform her. Why it wasn't a solitary PC is another question. She wasn't questioned, just informed about the complaint. i'd be more concerned about the Councilor abusing the complaints process to try and silence criticism. 1
hypochondriac Posted February 24 Posted February 24 Just now, ecuk268 said: If a formal complaint was made it's standard procedure for the police to inform her. Why it wasn't a solitary PC is another question. She wasn't questioned, just informed about the complaint. i'd be more concerned about the Councilor abusing the complaints process to try and silence criticism. It will (rightly in my opinion) be viewed as intimidation. There is no legal requirement for the police to inform her of the complaint and certainly not for them to do it in pairs in person. This follows numerous other occasions where the police have turned up to intimidate individuals for something posted on social media even when no crime has been committed. 2 1
Lord Duckhunter Posted March 1 Posted March 1 Who is looking forward to the new production of Jesus Christ superstar? I think Robert Powell is going to face a run for his money when it comes to the iconic portrayal of The Lords Son…. 1
badgerx16 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Who is looking forward to the new production of Jesus Christ superstar? I think Robert Powell is going to face a run for his money when it comes to the iconic portrayal of The Lords Son…. Nobody gets close to matching Ian Gillan's Jesus on the original concept album.
egg Posted March 1 Posted March 1 24 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Who is looking forward to the new production of Jesus Christ superstar? I think Robert Powell is going to face a run for his money when it comes to the iconic portrayal of The Lords Son…. That paves the way for Tom Hardy playing Winnie Mandela in a future biopic. Anything is possible these days LD. Embrace the opportunism for us all. 2
revolution saint Posted March 1 Posted March 1 48 minutes ago, egg said: That paves the way for Tom Hardy playing Winnie Mandela in a future biopic. Anything is possible these days LD. Embrace the opportunism for us all. Bet he'd mumble his way through that role as well. 1
Lord Duckhunter Posted March 1 Posted March 1 5 hours ago, egg said: That paves the way for Tom Hardy playing Winnie Mandela in a future biopic. Anything is possible these days LD. Embrace the opportunism for us all. I’m hoping Eddie Izzard is considered for the role of Mo in the upcoming adaptation of The Satanic Verses. What could go wrong? 2
SotonianWill Posted Thursday at 12:21 Posted Thursday at 12:21 O’Brien’s haircut looks at tad fascistic
sadoldgit Posted Thursday at 14:21 Author Posted Thursday at 14:21 It’s not the haircut that you need to worry about, it is what the person underneath it thinks, says and does. If you are worried about haircuts, then those sported by Trump and Boris Johnson should have you scurrying over the the tranquilliser cabinet. 1
Gloucester Saint Posted Thursday at 18:33 Posted Thursday at 18:33 6 hours ago, SotonianWill said: O’Brien’s haircut looks at tad fascistic Could be heading this way in a few years 3
Lord Duckhunter Posted Friday at 05:44 Posted Friday at 05:44 17 hours ago, SotonianWill said: O’Brien’s haircut looks at tad fascistic 1
Lighthouse Posted yesterday at 11:14 Posted yesterday at 11:14 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17q9lrl57ro So basically nobody will ever report this kind of thing again. They'll just tell the bloke to run off, so that they don't get fined. 2
Gloucester Saint Posted yesterday at 13:35 Posted yesterday at 13:35 2 hours ago, Lighthouse said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17q9lrl57ro So basically nobody will ever report this kind of thing again. They'll just tell the bloke to run off, so that they don't get fined. That’s absolutely absurd, got to be over-turned/very reduced and there’s a precedent they can draw on legally below so it should be. If they’d known about it before departure they wouldn’t be informing the authorities. I have to deal with the Home Office for work sometimes and they are dreadful. Not a one-off either, at least Rayner was their MP and had it massively reduced. There should be an inspection by cross-border forces and the ferry companies before sailings commence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1j0dxek3kro
east-stand-nic Posted yesterday at 13:37 Posted yesterday at 13:37 The Home Office said penalties were "designed to target negligence rather than criminality". I assume they expect people to do the polices and border services job then? I mean WTF. This is just crazy. Seems the UK does not want to prosecute any kind of criminality these days. 1 1
badgerx16 Posted yesterday at 13:54 Posted yesterday at 13:54 15 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said: The Home Office said penalties were "designed to target negligence rather than criminality". I assume they expect people to do the polices and border services job then? I mean WTF. This is just crazy. Hold the frontpage - I agree with Nic. 1
Gloucester Saint Posted yesterday at 13:58 Posted yesterday at 13:58 18 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said: The Home Office said penalties were "designed to target negligence rather than criminality". I assume they expect people to do the polices and border services job then? I mean WTF. This is just crazy. Seems the UK does not want to prosecute any kind of criminality these days. Negligence shouldn’t be pensioners having to search every single square cm of their trailers and vehicles for stowaways. The ferry companies I’m happy to be fined and prosecuted for running reasonable quick checks before sailing but it ought to be the border forces really. 1
badgerx16 Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago (edited) Absolute Radio are holding a competition to win £450 thousand, and to register interest in taking part listeners are told to text "Win" to a given number. "For clarification, that is spelt 'w' 'i' 'n'". Apparently many entries are mis-spelt. Edited 7 hours ago by badgerx16 2
sadoldgit Posted 6 hours ago Author Posted 6 hours ago (edited) As much as I agree that Border Force need to run checks, if they checked everything it would take even longer to get through the borders. How much time does it take to check that there are no stowaways hidden in your bike rack? It isn’t as if we haven’t had many years of migrants hiding in the back of trucks coming across the border. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that people crossing the border have taken basic care to ensure that they aren’t carrying stowaways? Think about it. A truck driver could bring 100 migrants over and if they were found by the Border Force and he claimed not to know anything about them, he could walk away scott free. By putting the onus on those with the transport to check in the first instance it makes it more difficult for the people traffickers. Edited 6 hours ago by sadoldgit 1
badgerx16 Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago (edited) 44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: As much as I agree that Border Force need to run checks, if they checked everything it would take even longer to get through the borders. How much time does it take to check that there are no stowaways hidden in your bike rack? It isn’t as if we haven’t had many years of migrants hiding in the back of trucks coming across the border. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that people crossing the border have taken basic care to ensure that they aren’t carrying stowaways? Think about it. A truck driver could bring 100 migrants over and if they were found by the Border Force and he claimed not to know anything about them, he could walk away scott free. By putting the onus on those with the transport to check in the first instance it makes it more difficult for the people traffickers. How much time would it take BF to look inside a bike rack cover on the outside of a camper van ? 10 seconds ? If they can't be bothered to check it, why should you be fined for not doing so ? Edited 5 hours ago by badgerx16
sadoldgit Posted 4 hours ago Author Posted 4 hours ago 1 hour ago, badgerx16 said: How much time would it take BF to look inside a bike rack cover on the outside of a camper van ? 10 seconds ? If they can't be bothered to check it, why should you be fined for not doing so ? How many vehicles cross the channel every day? How many Border Force staff are there? Can you imagine the queues if they checked every single vehicle? You can make the same argument about the people whose camper van it was. How long would it taken them to check the bike rack? If you go through customs and they find drugs in your bag that is down to you, even if you didn’t put them there. If you are responsible for your luggage surely you are also responsible for your camper van? I expect the appeal will be successful given the publicity, but at least this will raise awareness and make people realise that they are responsible for their vehicles.
sadoldgit Posted 4 hours ago Author Posted 4 hours ago 1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said: What a load of old pony. Says the man who froths at the mouth over people arriving in small boats. The law is very clear. You are responsible for your vehicles when you cross the channel. 1
badgerx16 Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago (edited) 5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: How many vehicles cross the channel every day? How many Border Force staff are there? Can you imagine the queues if they checked every single vehicle? Isn't that their job ? As for the people driving the van, if that was you would you have thought to check the cover on the bikes ? Don't lie. Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 1 hour ago, badgerx16 said: How much time would it take BF to look inside a bike rack cover on the outside of a camper van ? 10 seconds ? If they can't be bothered to check it, why should you be fined for not doing so ? They’ve always checked our caravan both on leaving France and entering Britain. Vans too.
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said: What a load of old pony. 1
sadoldgit Posted 4 hours ago Author Posted 4 hours ago This from the Pony Party a few years back. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/robert-jenrick-fines-covid-home-office-mps-b2263047.html
whelk Posted 25 minutes ago Posted 25 minutes ago Very powerful words from both father and sister. Don’t think I’d be so composed in the circumstances. Evil piece of shit. Not really for this thread https://news.sky.com/story/read-john-hunts-full-message-to-man-who-killed-his-family-you-are-a-psychopath-13326310
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now