I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
You have completely ignored it
You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist
If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam
To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
I'm talking about the much much larger issue: the impact on gays in daily British life. If we continue down the road of importing Islam, we import more homophobia. It's as simple as that
To be fair, it isn't just the two most populous Islamic Sects (Ahmadis in contrast are wonderful).
Various evangelical Christian sects that are growing very fast among african incomers are similarly rigourous in such matters.
And it is they who are having lots of children, not us (well except me, I've got enough for a small football team, but then my wife is an African immigrant)
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
lol.
"So OK just replace what I loudly claimed but with an entirely different event at a vastly different time, whatevs, who needs these minor factual details"
You mean, a bin lorry accident which is *even less likely* to be a terrorist attack than say K, L or M.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
No. Whether they would is a other matter.
Personally I am far too English about this (dont want to cause a fuss, so just stay quiet and don't go back) My wife is somewhat more robust about such things
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
The tips are usually shared between all the staff. So great food and bad service - reduce it?
Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?
It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?
(sorry I seem to be replying to you twice today. It's not me being a cow, it's genuinely coincidental. Apologies)
Who are these "Torys" of which you speak? Politics in the 2020s is paternalistic (maternalistic?), revolving around the desires of the boomers, authoritarian and leveraging tech and software advances to suppress people. We've accepted government oversight of our own private life and everyday movement, what we look at and do online,and we did so with glee because it gave us the ability to oppress others. Suella Braverman, despite the performative outrage against her, was merely saying out loud and rudely what had been said more politely previously.
And that's just the Brits. Whilst the Democrats lounge around enabling a senile who shits his pants whilst dithering over which inadequate to replace him with, the Republicans are fully set up to implement Project 2025 and other darling little hobbyhorses and will hit the ground running on January
There is no knot of politicians organised and desiring liberty, freedom and the small state. There is no bunch of resistance fighters to ride to the rescue. We just swapped one set of authoritarians with another.
(as you may tell, I am rather irritated today. Apols )
Conservatism in the old sense is no longer possible. With the passage of time and complexification of lives a centrist and immovable polity takes over in ways which could only, if at all, be removed by a revolutionary approach. Centrist incrementalism is the only game in town. This is as true for conservatives as it is for proper socialists.
To test this look at two things: the agreement among all politics in the UK on all the big ticket items: Welfare state; pensions; free education 5-18; NHS; NATO and defence; etc.
Then imagine a Tory going into an election saying: Small state; health is your personal responsibility so get insured; so is pension provision; welfare is for the charity and voluntary sector; abolish regulation and H and S and minimum wage, laisser faire and caveat emptor; planning? No business of the state just get on with it.
It would be gigantic fun politically, but it isn't going to happen, nor has it been possible since the 1945 election when the big shift happened.
I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
You have completely ignored it
You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist
If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam
To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
I'm talking about the much much larger issue: the impact on gays in daily British life. If we continue down the road of importing Islam, we import more homophobia. It's as simple as that
To be fair, it isn't just the two most populous Islamic Sects (Ahmadis in contrast are wonderful).
Various evangelical Christian sects that are growing very fast among african incomers are similarly rigourous in such matters.
And it is they who are having lots of children, not us (well except me, I've got enough for a small football team, but then my wife is an African immigrant)
So I am afraid tomorrow belongs to them (and me).
Yes indeed, which is why I explicitly mentioned "African Christians" alongside Islam
These are two sources of profound cultural homophobia and we are mporting these people in their hundreds of thousands, every year. If we see homophobia rising (and there are ominous signs), I suspect that will be the reason, not a small vanload of Tory nonaganerians from Newent radicalised by Suella Braverman
I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
You have completely ignored it
You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist
If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam
To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
Debating with sophists just ain't worth the effort. Especially when all they want to do is twist your original point about tolerance, into justifying their own bigotry.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
It is noticable in South London that in areas where demographic change brought in those in favour of Temperance , pubs have virtually been wiped out, but that is localised and not the primary cause.
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
Was it in relation to her comments about the Pride flag? Which she associated with the mutilation of children. I wouldn't say the Pride flag exclusively represents that......
Her overall NatCon speech was quite well delivered, but poorly conceived. She had a watertight case on immigration, and went on LGBT+.
For my sins I read the text of Braverman's speech to NatCon. It's one long moan that she got ignored by people who are more tolerant and generally nicer than she is.
I think she's entitled to a moan, and probably more entitled than most to say a big fat 'I told you so'. The issue here is that her moan case study was, relatively speaking, a bust. Tell us how Rishi Sunak (and, to be honest, Liz Truss) stopped you doing anything about the boats, and why. Don't tell us how he stopped you taking down a flag - it's just not nearly as important.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
You have completely ignored it
You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist
If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam
To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
Debating with sophists just ain't worth the effort. Especially when all they want to do is twist your original point about tolerance, into justifying their own bigotry.
You should tell us more about how Sleepy Joe Biden has always had a stammer, so no cause for concern
I recall you talking of it often: until very recently, indeed
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
That's unfortunate, and surprising. I've found on visits to various of their outposts out here in the provinces that the service has been uniformly fast and excellent. So many restaurants take absolutely for bloody ever to do anything, hence it's one of the main reasons why I like to go there.
Anyway, yes, if you can demonstrate that the service has been sub-standard then you ought to have no compunctions whatsoever about asking for the service charge to be written off. The tendency to be too timid or polite to complain about rubbish service is one of the reasons why it so stubbornly persists.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
I think I'd ask to speak to the manager, confirm your intention to pay the service charge but bring his attention to the deficiencies in the service levels to help him, and if he's any good, he'll waive the charge.
I don't ignore this. The major flaw multiculturism is that we have tried to tell people it was ok to live in our society with all our benefits whilst not accepting the ethics that underlie it, specifically in the treatment of women and gays. But it doesn't exactly help when people who aspire to leadership of the Conservative party seem to equivocate on those principles.
You have completely ignored it
You're ranting at a chimera, "homophobic old white Tories, aided by Suella". These people barely exist
If you want to find real homophobia in Britain look to the millions of people we have imported - many very recently - from homophobic Christian Africa and even-more-homophobic Islam
To do anything else is intellectually redundant and embarrassing. But then, this is PB. The sheep has got stuck in the wire-fence, again
The idea that these Muslims and African Christian fundamentalists form a significant part of the Tory membership and might have a decisive impact on the selection of the new leader has the advantage of novelty and curiosity but, no, its nonsense.
I'm talking about the much much larger issue: the impact on gays in daily British life. If we continue down the road of importing Islam, we import more homophobia. It's as simple as that
To be fair, it isn't just the two most populous Islamic Sects (Ahmadis in contrast are wonderful).
Various evangelical Christian sects that are growing very fast among african incomers are similarly rigourous in such matters.
And it is they who are having lots of children, not us (well except me, I've got enough for a small football team, but then my wife is an African immigrant)
So I am afraid tomorrow belongs to them (and me).
Yes indeed, which is why I explicitly mentioned "African Christians" alongside Islam
These are two sources of profound cultural homophobia and we are mporting these people in their hundreds of thousands, every year. If we see homophobia rising (and there are ominous signs), I suspect that will be the reason, not a small vanload of Tory nonaganerians from Newent radicalised by Suella Braverman
Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?
It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?
It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
So did I and I'm in my forties.
I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.
One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.
It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):
Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
[Edit}: quite so.
On the other hand, the C of E *is* an agency of the State - certainly of the Crown - yet its employees are entitled to discriminate.
No it is not, otherwise the taxpayer would fund C of E priests and churches and cathedrals.
Now eventually that may happen but for now the C of E while an established church with the King as its Supreme Governor is also separate from the state and not part of the public sector.
C of E priests are also able to refuse weddings to divorcees who committed adultery, hence the King and Queen only got a blessing of their marriage from Rowan Williams similar to what same sex couples can now get not a full marriage in church. They had their marriage in Windsor Guildhall
Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?
It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?
It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
So did I and I'm in my forties.
I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.
One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.
It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):
Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
[Edit}: quite so.
On the other hand, the C of E *is* an agency of the State - certainly of the Crown - yet its employees are entitled to discriminate.
The reason the Church of England was left out was, apart from the issue of the state imposing on religion, the point that if you impose a policy on one religion….
OTOH, that sect was the only one which *is* a state sect in the first place.
But curiously divorced from a rather neutral state.
It was put to Blair and Cameron, I believe, that if Gay marriage was imposed on the CoE, a number of whole chunks would declare independence from the established church - and what then?
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
It is noticable in South London that in areas where demographic change brought in those in favour of Temperance , pubs have virtually been wiped out, but that is localised and not the primary cause.
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
Islam is definitely a factor in the death of pubs in East and Soutb London. Denying this is futile
But it's also irrelevant. Cultures change, pubs rise and fall, drink comes and goes, London used to have about 200,000 whores in the late 19th century, is it a great cultural regret they have gone?
*shuffles nervously*
However, if the UK becomes way more homophobic, because we import homophobes from Christian Africa and the Islamic world, then that really is a damn shame. And should be resisted. But so few are willing to address the issue. See this PB debate. Far more comfortable to focus on a non-existent threat of gay bashing white Tory pensioners
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
That's unfortunate, and surprising. I've found on visits to various of their outposts out here in the provinces that the service has been uniformly fast and excellent. So many restaurants take absolutely for bloody ever to do anything, hence it's one of the main reasons why I like to go there.
Anyway, yes, if you can demonstrate that the service has been sub-standard then you ought to have no compunctions whatsoever about asking for the service charge to be written off. The tendency to be too timid or polite to complain about rubbish service is one of the reasons why it so stubbornly persists.
I've been to quite a few Ivy restaurants and this definitely was an exception.
My concern was not getting the staff into trouble.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
That's unfortunate, and surprising. I've found on visits to various of their outposts out here in the provinces that the service has been uniformly fast and excellent. So many restaurants take absolutely for bloody ever to do anything, hence it's one of the main reasons why I like to go there.
Anyway, yes, if you can demonstrate that the service has been sub-standard then you ought to have no compunctions whatsoever about asking for the service charge to be written off. The tendency to be too timid or polite to complain about rubbish service is one of the reasons why it so stubbornly persists.
What you describe isn't rubbish service, it's the kitchen being slow. It's not like the waiting staff is stopping for a chat on its way to your table. They will bring you the food when it's ready.
Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?
It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?
It is a shock that only people over the age of 84 vote Tory.
It would be if it were true but I voted Tory, for example. And I am not yet wholly decrepit.
So did I and I'm in my forties.
I was told a few months ago the problem for the Tories was that the public didn't like them was because not solely because of Brexit but because of the stridency of their views on other things.
One thing that sickened the focus groups was when Suella Braverman said being homeless was a lifestyle choice.
It speaks of an unwillingess to understand other people.
True Conservatism recognises the importance of opportunity and ambition but also recognises that compassion is an essential part of the warp and weft of a working society. Contempt for others, whether because of their sexual orientation, race or religion is divisive and frankly immoral. This isn't hard stuff.
For what is worth, note that when House of Commons voted in 1967 on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill – Third Reading, which (partially) legalized homosexuality (in England & Wales) more Conservative MPs voted "No" (12+2 tellers) than voted "Aye" (11 + 1 teller):
Yeah, but that was 57 years ago. I mean, come on. It was a Tory government that introduced gay marriage (although many voted against it). Too many leading Tories seem to want a country that is far more backward than the one we are fortunate enough to live in.
The gay marriage bill wasn't a particularly well put together law, and seemed to have been crafted to bring gay people into conflict with Christians. A law making marriage into a civil act, separating it from the Church service, and allowing Churches and religious organisations to solemnise such marriages as their interpretation of their faith dictated would have been far better.
People who want a civil wedding, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can of course have it. The question is whether those who are authorised by the State to solemnise a wedding are allowed to discriminate between the two. I think the Act was correct to say that the answer to that question was no.
[Edit}: quite so.
On the other hand, the C of E *is* an agency of the State - certainly of the Crown - yet its employees are entitled to discriminate.
No it is not, otherwise the taxpayer would fund C of E priests and churches.
Now eventually that may happen but for now the C of E while an established church with the King as its Supreme Governor is also separate from the state and not part of the public sector.
C of E priests are also able to refuse weddings to divorcees who committed adultery, hence the King and Queen only got a blessing of their marriage from Rowan Williams similar to what same sex couples can now get not a full marriage in church. They had their marriage in Windsor Guildhall
I said "agency of the Crown". Look at the management structure.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Virulent ABG?
She was anti T if anything.
She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.
Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.
I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.
The quote:
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
Is the problem not that some Tories find it difficult to understand or empathise with the country they want to lead. How can anyone, in 2024, get excited about someone being gay, let alone think that they should be treated differently from anyone else? Who cares if someone is trans, provided that woman are still safe? What is this weird obsession with what people other people do with their bits?
It's time to grow up, become more tolerant and accept that the State has no interest whatsoever in these matters. Surely a Tory should understand that?
A sadly superficial analysis for a lawyer and one which refuses to recognise the reality of life now.
If only the state had not interfered in such matters. That would indeed be a sensible conservative and indeed tolerant "live and let live" view. But what is being demanded and has been facilitated and indeed pushed by governments has been the imposition of views and their forced validation by others even at the expense of their own rights. That is a fundamentally authoritarian position. The government has taken an interest - often in a partial way - and continues to do so, particularly in your country (look at the current policy in the Scottish Prison Service, the risks it puts women prisoners - a deeply vulnerable and marginalised community if ever there was one - under and you can look at a forthcoming trial in Ireland to see where such a policy will lead) and dealing with the consequences of this is something which all politicians of all parties need to deal with intelligently. Ask Wes Streeting, for instance. Or see the consequences of the forthcoming SC decision on an appeal from a Scottish decision which has serious consequences for women in Scotland and will have for women
Braverman is the wrong politician for such matters. She is the wrong leader for the Tories because of her lack of integrity and competence. She seeks to create division rather than try to come up with solutions.
This forum has an absolute blind spot about matters affecting women and women's rights, a refusal to take such matters seriously. As you ought to know, the issue is not simply about safety but dignity and privacy and identity and the right of women to have boundaries for pretty obvious reasons and have these respected not made conditional on whether others will let them.
But I expect it will be dismissed out of hand because it dares challenge the comforting kumbaya let's-hold-hands-and-sing illusions far too many have about clashes of rights and how society and politicians need to deal with these.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
Ms Truss – who lost her seat at the election, becoming the first former prime minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1935 to do so – said she was among the Conservative candidates to have “paid the electoral price” for Mr Sunak’s errors.
Writing for The Telegraph in her first intervention since the “devastating” result, Ms Truss said she had kept her silence during the election campaign “to prevent further damage to the party” but felt that “I must speak out now”.
She wrote: “More than 250 of us paid the electoral price for this. Regrettably, over the course of the next five years it will be the British people who have to bear the cost of this failing.”
So how come a post asking if somebody is somebody else gets removed yet people can say I am somebody else all the time without their respective posts being removed?
For what it's worth, I don't give a toss if people think I am another lovely Horse, gone before his time but the actions of the moderator are as usual, inconsistent.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
It is noticable in South London that in areas where demographic change brought in those in favour of Temperance , pubs have virtually been wiped out, but that is localised and not the primary cause.
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
It is a number of things, but the old style where the pub was quite cheap has gone. The pubs that have survived have done so by providing something extra - often as simple as an interesting interior and a good atmosphere.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
It is noticable in South London that in areas where demographic change brought in those in favour of Temperance , pubs have virtually been wiped out, but that is localised and not the primary cause.
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
Islam is definitely a factor in the death of pubs in East and Soutb London. Denying this is futile
But it's also irrelevant. Cultures change, pubs rise and fall, drink comes and goes, London used to have about 200,000 whores in the late 19th century, is it a great cultural regret they have gone?
*shuffles nervously*
However, if the UK becomes way more homophobic, because we import homophobes from Christian Africa and the Islamic world, then that really is a damn shame. And should be resisted. But so few are willing to address the issue. See this PB debate. Far more comfortable to focus on a non-existent threat of gay bashing white Tory pensioners
It's really an internal psychodrama of the Tory party. Those of us who've never really given a s*** about them aren't very interested. I see David L's point that whoever becomes leader of the Tory party is quite important but it's hardly going to be a raging homophobe even if some of their geriatric members wishes it was.
If the homophobic views of many migrants is as bad as you say that is much more of a reason for gays to be worried about the future. Rather like our increasingly nervous and abandoned Jewish population clearly are.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Virulent ABG?
She was anti T if anything.
She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.
Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.
I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.
The quote:
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
The point she was making (not particularly well) was that it was the Prime Minister's final decision, and he sided with the department. So a politician did decide, it just wasn't her.
Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?
It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint
If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more
And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway
The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck
I do sometimes wonder Leon if you are truly as shallow as you pretend to be. Currently you appear to be about 20 miles wide and 2 inches deep.
It's all muscle.
Remember, I AM THE WOLF, above the tree-line. Like Nietszschtsche
Novels are just so fucking BORING. Reality is amazing, who needs some twat making shit up?
It's a truism in the publishing industry that men over 40 only read military history, and it's not entirely true for me, I read a lot of history, but also memoir, biography, science, philosophy, even a smidgen of poetry. But novels? Almost never, and they often disappoint
If I want amazing fiction I will watch TV drama or a great movie, because they give you so much more
And I've read all the true classics that must be read, the Brontes and Hardy, Tolstoy and Proust, Flaubert and Joyce, Austen and Hemingway
The only novel that has really pleased me and gratified me intellectually in the last few years - that has stayed with me - is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None. But that is more like a superb maths puzzle than a novel. Such genius plotting it becomes like a literary escape room, a true masterpiece. Very few novels are as good as that, most are dreck
I do sometimes wonder Leon if you are truly as shallow as you pretend to be. Currently you appear to be about 20 miles wide and 2 inches deep.
It's all muscle.
Remember, I AM THE WOLF, above the tree-line. Like Nietszschtsche
The country of Knightsbrghtsbridge laughs in the face of Hunnish fails at polyconsonantry as pitiable as that
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
Nope, not with anything. From Wikipedia:
"On 22 December 2014 a bin lorry collided with pedestrians in the city centre of Glasgow, Scotland, killing six and injuring fifteen others.[1][2][3][4][5] The driver of the council-owned vehicle, Harry Clarke, said he had passed out at the wheel. A similar blackout had happened to him in the driving seat of a bus. He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory. Clarke was officially told he would not face further prosecution, causing protests from victims' families at the way the case had been handled."
I'm not sure that if corruption is at the bottom of this that it would be limited to just the council.
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
Ms Truss – who lost her seat at the election, becoming the first former prime minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1935 to do so – said she was among the Conservative candidates to have “paid the electoral price” for Mr Sunak’s errors.
Writing for The Telegraph in her first intervention since the “devastating” result, Ms Truss said she had kept her silence during the election campaign “to prevent further damage to the party” but felt that “I must speak out now”.
She wrote: “More than 250 of us paid the electoral price for this. Regrettably, over the course of the next five years it will be the British people who have to bear the cost of this failing.”
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Virulent ABG?
She was anti T if anything.
She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.
Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.
I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.
The quote:
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
Isn’t Pride these days about mega corps rainbow washing to prove they are hip and down wiv der kidz?
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
Ms Truss – who lost her seat at the election, becoming the first former prime minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1935 to do so – said she was among the Conservative candidates to have “paid the electoral price” for Mr Sunak’s errors.
Writing for The Telegraph in her first intervention since the “devastating” result, Ms Truss said she had kept her silence during the election campaign “to prevent further damage to the party” but felt that “I must speak out now”.
She wrote: “More than 250 of us paid the electoral price for this. Regrettably, over the course of the next five years it will be the British people who have to bear the cost of this failing.”
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
That's unfortunate, and surprising. I've found on visits to various of their outposts out here in the provinces that the service has been uniformly fast and excellent. So many restaurants take absolutely for bloody ever to do anything, hence it's one of the main reasons why I like to go there.
Anyway, yes, if you can demonstrate that the service has been sub-standard then you ought to have no compunctions whatsoever about asking for the service charge to be written off. The tendency to be too timid or polite to complain about rubbish service is one of the reasons why it so stubbornly persists.
What you describe isn't rubbish service, it's the kitchen being slow. It's not like the waiting staff is stopping for a chat on its way to your table. They will bring you the food when it's ready.
It is all of a piece. I neither know nor care if it's taken two solid hours and two enquiries as to where the food has gone to get as far as being presented with my main course (as happened to us a few weeks back at a local establishment) because there are hardly any waiting staff, or hardly any kitchen staff, or because the kitchen staff are just very, very slow, or some combination of these things. My customer experience is that I have waited until I am bored witless for my dinner (and have only had it after being forced to ask when on Earth it is going to arrive, twice,) and this constitutes poor service.
And no, we weren't rude to them, but also no, they did not get a tip at the end of the ordeal. We politely declined the opportunity to wait another hour and a half for dessert, paid up and left. It's a great shame because the food at said restaurant is actually very good and they had been doing a lot better with the waiting times, but for whatever reason the wheels have completely fallen off again, and waiting an eternity for the meal to materialise entirely spoils the experience. We won't be going back.
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
Ms Truss – who lost her seat at the election, becoming the first former prime minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1935 to do so – said she was among the Conservative candidates to have “paid the electoral price” for Mr Sunak’s errors.
Writing for The Telegraph in her first intervention since the “devastating” result, Ms Truss said she had kept her silence during the election campaign “to prevent further damage to the party” but felt that “I must speak out now”.
She wrote: “More than 250 of us paid the electoral price for this. Regrettably, over the course of the next five years it will be the British people who have to bear the cost of this failing.”
And I am pleased (and relieved) to see her coming out swinging.
Yep more than 250 former Tory MPs lost their seat because of the disaster that was Liz Truss's premiership. It would have required a miracle worker to solve the political mess she left behind and Rishi simply wasn't a miracle worker...
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
I had a similar situation once in which the service was so bad I demanded they remove the service charge. They refused. I explained that I was not refusing to pay for the food, just the service. I informed them that this was one time offer and if they rejected it then I was under no legal obligation to offer payment again.
They rejected my offer and demanded full payment, so I walked.
I never got to the door. They came charging after me and threatened me with the police. I handed them my phone and said "Here you go. Call them. Tell them you refused payment"
They removed the service charge. It probably helped that everyone else eating in the restaurant stopped eating to hear the outcome. I suspect that a lot of service charges might not have been paid that night.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
It is noticable in South London that in areas where demographic change brought in those in favour of Temperance , pubs have virtually been wiped out, but that is localised and not the primary cause.
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
Islam is definitely a factor in the death of pubs in East and Soutb London. Denying this is futile
But it's also irrelevant. Cultures change, pubs rise and fall, drink comes and goes, London used to have about 200,000 whores in the late 19th century, is it a great cultural regret they have gone?
*shuffles nervously*
However, if the UK becomes way more homophobic, because we import homophobes from Christian Africa and the Islamic world, then that really is a damn shame. And should be resisted. But so few are willing to address the issue. See this PB debate. Far more comfortable to focus on a non-existent threat of gay bashing white Tory pensioners
It's really an internal psychodrama of the Tory party. Those of us who've never really given a s*** about them aren't very interested. I see David L's point that whoever becomes leader of the Tory party is quite important but it's hardly going to be a raging homophobe even if some of their geriatric members wishes it was.
If the homophobic views of many migrants is as bad as you say that is much more of a reason for gays to be worried about the future. Rather like our increasingly nervous and abandoned Jewish population clearly are.
Well, yes, exactly
And if you look at the recent history of violent homophobic attacks in the UK it ain't 73 year old Mrs Chutney-Ferret of Tory Newent doing the attacks. It is people from deeply homophobic cultures. Like the awful murders in Reading
"On 20 June 2020, shortly before 19:00 BST, a man with a knife attacked people who were socialising in Forbury Gardens, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom. Three men died from their wounds, and three other people were seriously injured. Khairi Saadallah, a 25-year-old Libyan male refugee, was arrested shortly afterwards. He was charged with three counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder; he pleaded guilty. In January 2021, Saadallah was sentenced to a whole-life term.
"The perpetrator was Khairi Saadallah, who was 25 years old at the time.[15] He was arrested near the park shortly after the attack.[16][17] He was born in Libya and is from an affluent middle-class family.[15] In 2018, he was given permission to stay in the United Kingdom after claiming asylum in 2012.[18] A family member said he had post-traumatic stress from the civil war and had come to the United Kingdom from Libya in 2012 to escape from violence there, living first in Manchester.[4][19] In the war, it was claimed that he was part of Ansar al-Sharia,[20] a group now proscribed in the UK, and stated falsely in his asylum application that he was not involved in combat.[21] In 2018, he was given five years' permission to stay in the UK.[21]
"The three men who were killed were friends and members of the local LGBT+ community.[40] Post-mortem examinations showed that they each died of a single stab wound; two were stabbed in the neck, and one in the back.[1"
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Virulent ABG?
She was anti T if anything.
She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.
Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.
I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.
The quote:
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
To be fair she was the Cabinet minister of state responsible for such things (home secretary).
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My recent experiences at the Ivy have been a bit Meh. It’s a chain. It does chain food reasonably well. I don’t like automatically added service charges. If they forgot to bring dishes / drinks then that would have adversely affected by night out so I would have reduced the service charge.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb desert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
That's unfortunate, and surprising. I've found on visits to various of their outposts out here in the provinces that the service has been uniformly fast and excellent. So many restaurants take absolutely for bloody ever to do anything, hence it's one of the main reasons why I like to go there.
Anyway, yes, if you can demonstrate that the service has been sub-standard then you ought to have no compunctions whatsoever about asking for the service charge to be written off. The tendency to be too timid or polite to complain about rubbish service is one of the reasons why it so stubbornly persists.
What you describe isn't rubbish service, it's the kitchen being slow. It's not like the waiting staff is stopping for a chat on its way to your table. They will bring you the food when it's ready.
It is all of a piece. I neither know nor care if it's taken two solid hours and two enquiries as to where the food has gone to get as far as being presented with my main course (as happened to us a few weeks back at a local establishment) because there are hardly any waiting staff, or hardly any kitchen staff, or because the kitchen staff are just very, very slow, or some combination of these things. My customer experience is that I have waited until I am bored witless for my dinner (and have only had it after being forced to ask when on Earth it is going to arrive, twice,) and this constitutes poor service.
And no, we weren't rude to them, but also no, they did not get a tip at the end of the ordeal. We politely declined the opportunity to wait another hour and a half for dessert, paid up and left. It's a great shame because the food at said restaurant is actually very good and they had been doing a lot better with the waiting times, but for whatever reason the wheels have completely fallen off again, and waiting an eternity for the meal to materialise entirely spoils the experience. We won't be going back.
That's as may be. But the fact is, the waiting staff can't do anything about your food taking a long time. Nor could they effectively delay your food even if they wanted to. If they're not clearing your table, taking your order, pouring your wine, giving you a menu in a timely fashion - that's their fault. If they have taken your order, then they have done all they can, and any delay is no longer their fault. They're probably as annoyed and stressed about it as you are.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
Nope, not with anything. From Wikipedia:
"On 22 December 2014 a bin lorry collided with pedestrians in the city centre of Glasgow, Scotland, killing six and injuring fifteen others.[1][2][3][4][5] The driver of the council-owned vehicle, Harry Clarke, said he had passed out at the wheel. A similar blackout had happened to him in the driving seat of a bus. He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory. Clarke was officially told he would not face further prosecution, causing protests from victims' families at the way the case had been handled."
I'm not sure that if corruption is at the bottom of this that it would be limited to just the council.
It's quite staggering
It's not like he slightly injured a young mum, he killed SIX PEOPLE
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
Blooming auto-correct.
My only advice (to TSE) is to stay well clear of chain eateries.
The thread header feels more like personal opinion than useful betting advice.
Clearly at least one Tory MP doesn't like her.
Read the article, Danny Krueger and Sir John Hayes have ditched her, they were the cornerstone of her last leadership bid.
Her last leadership bid got nowhere.
I don’t think Suella is the full package, but she is being blamed more for pointing out that Sunak was a pile of shit than he is being blamed for being a pile of shit. That's ridiculous and speaks to a party in deep denial. If they still think that they can get by without purging CCHQ of the spotty-little-Osbornite-herbert infestation, they're going to fade to nothing. Nobody wants a party offering Labour and Lib Dem policies but without the hokey charm.
Whatever happened to Nick Herbert? Seem to recall he was supposedly one of the Tories’ hot prospects when they were in the ascendancy in the mid-to-late 2000s. Did the David Davis connection do for him in the end?
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Virulent ABG?
She was anti T if anything.
She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.
Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.
I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.
The quote:
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
Isn’t Pride these days about mega corps rainbow washing to prove they are hip and down wiv der kidz?
They toned that down a lot this year after the Bud Light fiasco. They did it, but you got the feeling that they were just going through the motions to avoid getting monstered by noisy activists.
Few dare put their head above the parapet as Bravamann did.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
It wasn’t so much loss leader (though that hasn’t helped) as the end of one of the pieces of Rip Off Britain.
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
It is noticable in South London that in areas where demographic change brought in those in favour of Temperance , pubs have virtually been wiped out, but that is localised and not the primary cause.
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
Islam is definitely a factor in the death of pubs in East and Soutb London. Denying this is futile
But it's also irrelevant. Cultures change, pubs rise and fall, drink comes and goes, London used to have about 200,000 whores in the late 19th century, is it a great cultural regret they have gone?
*shuffles nervously*
However, if the UK becomes way more homophobic, because we import homophobes from Christian Africa and the Islamic world, then that really is a damn shame. And should be resisted. But so few are willing to address the issue. See this PB debate. Far more comfortable to focus on a non-existent threat of gay bashing white Tory pensioners
All right - it's Saturday evening, and I'll play.
I've lived in East London for over 20 years and yes, there are fewer pubs than before. The old corner boozers went a long time ago and have become corner shops usually run by Indians or Sri Lankans yet still keep the old name hence "Altmore Arms" for the one in Altmore Road and in truth they provide a convenient local service if you want something urgently. I have four within a 200 yard radius and if I need a pint of milk or a bottle of scotch at 10.30pm, it's not a problem.
The two pubs in the Barking Road are still there - the Denmark Arms was ruined by the pandemic and bad management while the Millers Arms was our local Spoons but Tim Martin gave up on it and it's now being run by a group of Indians. I'll be honest, the Hindus enjoy a drink or several as do the non-devout Muslims and most of the other migrants. Indeed, Newham's latest wheeze is to put sloping lids on the large commercial rubbish bins to stop them being used as bars.
As to why people choose to drink out on the street rather than in the pubs, I have no insight but presume it's economics - perhaps if the supermarkets and corner shops charged the same as the pubs for booze there'd be less of a problem. As to whether there's a wider alcohol problem, that's another question.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
Nope, not with anything. From Wikipedia:
"On 22 December 2014 a bin lorry collided with pedestrians in the city centre of Glasgow, Scotland, killing six and injuring fifteen others.[1][2][3][4][5] The driver of the council-owned vehicle, Harry Clarke, said he had passed out at the wheel. A similar blackout had happened to him in the driving seat of a bus. He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory. Clarke was officially told he would not face further prosecution, causing protests from victims' families at the way the case had been handled."
I'm not sure that if corruption is at the bottom of this that it would be limited to just the council.
It's quite staggering
It's not like he slightly injured a young mum, he killed SIX PEOPLE
WTF?
Why does the Monty Python Architects Sketch spring to mind, possibly wrongly but who knows.
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
The electorate knows three principal facts about Truss: that her economic policy caused a market panic that resulted in a great many of them being saddled with higher mortgage repayments; that she ended up being defenestrated by her own party in record time as a result; and that this happened before the lettuce went mouldy.
Trussonomics was unpicked by Jeremy Hunt, in front of her, in the Commons chamber, after she was forced to sack Kwarteng and employ him to avert a Sterling crisis. Her record was comprehensively trashed before Sunak, who had earlier warned that her plans were undeliverable, was even drafted in to replace her. What was the man meant to do, say she was right all along?
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Thankyou, sincerely, for the legal elucidation. PB is great for this, so many experts in so many fields
Nonetheless. one has to ask. Given all these circumstances, how would you feel, if you were a close relative - daughter, father, sister - of one of the SIX people killed and the dozen badly injured by this feckless c*nt of a man?
Would you be satisfied with "no charges"? I would NOT
eg, from that Gaurdian report, just the opening paragraphs
"An inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash that left six people dead and 15 injured has concluded that the driver Harry Clarke repeatedly lied to gain and retain jobs and licences.
Sheriff John Beckett, who conducted the fatal accident inquiry, said Clarke deliberately and systematically concealed nearly 40 years of ill health and lied to doctors about a blackout at the wheel of a bus in April 2010."
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
Ms Truss – who lost her seat at the election, becoming the first former prime minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1935 to do so – said she was among the Conservative candidates to have “paid the electoral price” for Mr Sunak’s errors.
Writing for The Telegraph in her first intervention since the “devastating” result, Ms Truss said she had kept her silence during the election campaign “to prevent further damage to the party” but felt that “I must speak out now”.
She wrote: “More than 250 of us paid the electoral price for this. Regrettably, over the course of the next five years it will be the British people who have to bear the cost of this failing.”
And I am pleased (and relieved) to see her coming out swinging.
Yep more than 250 former Tory MPs lost their seat because of the disaster that was Liz Truss's premiership. It would have required a miracle worker to solve the political mess she left behind and Rishi simply wasn't a miracle worker...
Liz Truss was not an option for PM. People were asked if they wanted Rishi Sunak to be PM for the next five years. Overwhelmingly, they declined.
If this story is all true that it was a done deal after Truss, what on earth was the point of swapping her for the dismal decline manager anyway?
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Virulent ABG?
She was anti T if anything.
She objected to being obliged to fly a pressure groups flag on government property for an entire month.
Which is over twice as many days per year as the Union Flag is flown.
I don't much care what people do with each other, but I don't see why one particular pressure group should be able to fly its flag over public buildings for an entire fucking month with anyone daring to mildly criticise this treated as one of a basket of deplorables.
The quote:
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
To be fair she was the Cabinet minister of state responsible for such things (home secretary).
I can't speak for central Government buildings but for all local authority buildings, responsibility sits with a different government department - the Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government.
For central Government buildings, might be the Cabinet Office.
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
The electorate knows three principal facts about Truss: that her economic policy caused a market panic that resulted in a great many of them being saddled with higher mortgage repayments; that she ended up being defenestrated by her own party in record time as a result; and that this happened before the lettuce went mouldy.
Trussonomics was unpicked by Jeremy Hunt, in front of her, in the Commons chamber, after she was forced to sack Kwarteng and employ him to avert a Sterling crisis. Her record was comprehensively trashed before Sunak, who had earlier warned that her plans were undeliverable, was even drafted in to replace her. What was the man meant to do, say she was right all along?
Does anybody believe what Truss says? I regard her as a vacant twit and I am amazed that anyone anywhere is impressed by her. She strikes me as an attention seeker of the worst type.
I hope she goes off to the US and sucks up to Trump. If he lets her have a go at anything, Trump's defeat is assured...
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
Having run 5 star establishments with a ‘delicate’ clientele (think golf and Scotland), you should always have the confidence to inform both the waiting staff, service staff and senior staff of any grievance.
I can assure you that any senior member of staff worth their salt eg. a floor manager, section lead, sommelier, maitre’ d, F&B director, etc. should have noticed any issues. They will not necessarily pull up a member of staff directly but will do so discretely. Any ‘complaint’ or quibble from a customer will merely confirm what they already know/have seen.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Regarding the previous incident "He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory."
Surely that in itself was enough? Someone was done for causing death by dangerous driving after running out of petrol on the M25 and Parking on the hard shoulder, then being struck by a lorry that strayed into the hard shoulder killing her passenger. She was done because neglecting to fill up before going on a motorway meant her driving fell far below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
So how come neglecting to inform of a previous blackout as you are required to do by law before driving your employers HGV isn't falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver?
I'm sure Lawyerly explanations will be forthcoming but the whole thing reeks of the authorities twisting interpretation of the law to suit their own purposes, possibly for nefarious reasons.
Although the public secturnculture of peeformance targets might be an explanation with the decision based on not wanting to risk their conviction rate, although seems unlikely to me,
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
No you wouldn't.
Civilised countries don’t have service charges anyway.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
Are you sure you didn't go into the next door Spoons by mistake?
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
No you wouldn't.
Yes you would. Anyone not lobotomized who wants to drink 4 glasses of champagne procures a bottle and a glass, leaving the waiter free for other duties. Self inflicted wound.
I am at Brest maritime festival. I find that my theory that undrinkable champagne is no longer a thing is incorrect, it just stays in France. It is admittedly free at the point of supply to me, but still.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Regarding the previous incident "He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory."
Surely that in itself was enough? Someone was done for causing death by dangerous driving after running out of petrol on the M25 and Parking on the hard shoulder, then being struck by a lorry that strayed into the hard shoulder killing her passenger. She was done because neglecting to fill up before going on a motorway meant her driving fell far below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
So how come neglecting to inform of a previous blackout as you are required to do by law before driving your employers HGV isn't falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver?
I'm sure Lawyerly explanations will be forthcoming but the whole thing reeks of the authorities twisting interpretation of the law to suit their own purposes, possibly for nefarious reasons.
Yeah, I don't buy any of it. This is clearly outrageous. He should be doing Time, and tons of it
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
Are homophones part of pride now? What colour is their stripe?
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
She really is insufferably stupid. It was her stupid mini-budget that trashed things, and she tried to blame Kwarteng for that by sacking him, when he could only present it with her say so. A completely self-inflected crisis where they slashed taxes and said "wait and see" for the spending impact. Even as it happened Tories on here were slating the idiocy of it all.
Liz appears to be too stupid to comprehend her own actions.
Oh and Liz was by far the worst in the leadership debates, so naturally she got the job.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My recent experiences at the Ivy have been a bit Meh. It’s a chain. It does chain food reasonably well. I don’t like automatically added service charges. If they forgot to bring dishes / drinks then that would have adversely affected by night out so I would have reduced the service charge.
It's essentially the Berni Inn of the 2020s. Steak, chicken, burger, shepherd's pie, sold as "a bit upmarket". They do it reasonably well, but at volume the quality is a bit hit and miss.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
The electorate knows three principal facts about Truss: that her economic policy caused a market panic that resulted in a great many of them being saddled with higher mortgage repayments; that she ended up being defenestrated by her own party in record time as a result; and that this happened before the lettuce went mouldy.
Trussonomics was unpicked by Jeremy Hunt, in front of her, in the Commons chamber, after she was forced to sack Kwarteng and employ him to avert a Sterling crisis. Her record was comprehensively trashed before Sunak, who had earlier warned that her plans were undeliverable, was even drafted in to replace her. What was the man meant to do, say she was right all along?
Liz Truss was not the cause of elevated interest rates. People on PB who have far better understanding of the economic circumstances surrounding the minibidget than me (and obviously than you) have confirmed this beyond doubt. That she was, was an economically-illiterate Labour attack line.
It suited Sunak's personal ambitions to endorse, and have his lackeys continue to repeat, this attack line. A more loyal line might have been that the turbulent events surrounding the minibudget needed investigating. That the role of the Bank and why the LDI crisis happened needed investigating. That the OBR leak (that proved catastrophically inaccurate) needed investigating. The above investigations would have been no more than due dilligence. None of it happened because to trash Truss was great for the centrists, and party loyalty only applies when they expect it for themselves.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Thankyou, sincerely, for the legal elucidation. PB is great for this, so many experts in so many fields
Nonetheless. one has to ask. Given all these circumstances, how would you feel, if you were a close relative - daughter, father, sister - of one of the SIX people killed and the dozen badly injured by this feckless c*nt of a man?
Would you be satisfied with "no charges"? I would NOT
eg, from that Gaurdian report, just the opening paragraphs
"An inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash that left six people dead and 15 injured has concluded that the driver Harry Clarke repeatedly lied to gain and retain jobs and licences.
Sheriff John Beckett, who conducted the fatal accident inquiry, said Clarke deliberately and systematically concealed nearly 40 years of ill health and lied to doctors about a blackout at the wheel of a bus in April 2010."
I do not think that I would have reached the same conclusion. To me, the concealment of his medical history was a form of recklessness. He simply was not safe to be in charge of such a vehicle, just as a drug addict or an alcoholic would not be. I do not think that this was fully known when the original decision not to prosecute was made and I suspect that the Lord Advocate at the time thought once such a decision had been made it should not be gone against.
I can sort of understand that argument. In my last trial there was some indications that there had been some collaboration between witnesses and what was being said was being fed back. I took the decision not to proceed with the charges affected and did not call the other witnesses. The trial had to start again for other reasons but having made that clear to the court I accepted that I was bound by the position I had stated. There is a public interest in the State being bound by what it has publicly said. But, like you, if it had been a family member of mine that had died I would have been seriously pissed.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Not in any restaurant I have ever had lunch in.
In most places, 3 glasses and you’ve bought the bottle.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
Are homophones part of pride now? What colour is their stripe?
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
She really is insufferably stupid. It was her stupid mini-budget that trashed things, and she tried to blame Kwarteng for that by sacking him, when he could only present it with her say so. A completely self-inflected crisis where they slashed taxes and said "wait and see" for the spending impact. Even as it happened Tories on here were slating the idiocy of it all.
Liz appears to be too stupid to comprehend her own actions.
It has been my overwhelming experience on PB and elsewhere that those dishing out the accusations of stupidity aren't the sharpest tools in the box themselves.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My recent experiences at the Ivy have been a bit Meh. It’s a chain. It does chain food reasonably well. I don’t like automatically added service charges. If they forgot to bring dishes / drinks then that would have adversely affected by night out so I would have reduced the service charge.
It's essentially the Berni Inn of the 2020s. Steak, chicken, burger, shepherd's pie, sold as "a bit upmarket". They do it reasonably well, but at volume the quality is a bit hit and miss.
And in that, it is identical to the big old French brasserie in the big French city. They do the classics, French onon soup, Beouf Bourgignon, steak tartare. You never know if it is frozen or fresh. In Paris, very likely frozen
But it is French and it is still kinda fun and it has red velvet banquettes and the prices are OK (outside Paris and the Riviera)
If the Ivy becomes that for Britain, I think it is a good thing, and the food is generally better in an Ivy than in one of them brasseries (except for seafood, esp oysters)
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
I know someone on here recently quoted a stat for pedestrian deaths on pavements and the majority were said to be by motor vehicles (rather than on pavement bikes). But at least two on pavement deaths about one mile and a couple of years apart on the same stretch of a road in Huddersfield were both put down to driver medical episodes and were not prosecuted, so it seems to be a significant problem / legal avenue.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
Having run 5 star establishments with a ‘delicate’ clientele (think golf and Scotland), you should always have the confidence to inform both the waiting staff, service staff and senior staff of any grievance.
I can assure you that any senior member of staff worth their salt eg. a floor manager, section lead, sommelier, maitre’ d, F&B director, etc. should have noticed any issues. They will not necessarily pull up a member of staff directly but will do so discretely. Any ‘complaint’ or quibble from a customer will merely confirm what they already know/have seen.
Postscript. I used to test my staff in the middle of service. I could invariably walk them through their section using only my ears and eyes. Shaming, I know, but it was jolly good fun.
Postscript to a postscript. One of the worst culprits will one day wear a crown. There’s no accounting for taste…
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Regarding the previous incident "He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory."
Surely that in itself was enough? Someone was done for causing death by dangerous driving after running out of petrol on the M25 and Parking on the hard shoulder, then being struck by a lorry that strayed into the hard shoulder killing her passenger. She was done because neglecting to fill up before going on a motorway meant her driving fell far below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
So how come neglecting to inform of a previous blackout as you are required to do by law before driving your employers HGV isn't falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver?
I'm sure Lawyerly explanations will be forthcoming but the whole thing reeks of the authorities twisting interpretation of the law to suit their own purposes, possibly for nefarious reasons.
Yeah, I don't buy any of it. This is clearly outrageous. He should be doing Time, and tons of it
Six people died!
After the incident he had his licence pulled but didn't appear to think this matter was material and subsequently, just a few months later, got done for driving a car while not in possession of a valid driving licence.
The sentence: "Clarke was given a community payback order with a 12-month supervision requirement and 150 hours’ unpaid work."
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Thankyou, sincerely, for the legal elucidation. PB is great for this, so many experts in so many fields
Nonetheless. one has to ask. Given all these circumstances, how would you feel, if you were a close relative - daughter, father, sister - of one of the SIX people killed and the dozen badly injured by this feckless c*nt of a man?
Would you be satisfied with "no charges"? I would NOT
eg, from that Gaurdian report, just the opening paragraphs
"An inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash that left six people dead and 15 injured has concluded that the driver Harry Clarke repeatedly lied to gain and retain jobs and licences.
Sheriff John Beckett, who conducted the fatal accident inquiry, said Clarke deliberately and systematically concealed nearly 40 years of ill health and lied to doctors about a blackout at the wheel of a bus in April 2010."
I do not think that I would have reached the same conclusion. To me, the concealment of his medical history was a form of recklessness. He simply was not safe to be in charge of such a vehicle, just as a drug addict or an alcoholic would not be. I do not think that this was fully known when the original decision not to prosecute was made and I suspect that the Lord Advocate at the time thought once such a decision had been made it should not be gone against.
I can sort of understand that argument. In my last trial there was some indications that there had been some collaboration between witnesses and what was being said was being fed back. I took the decision not to proceed with the charges affected and did not call the other witnesses. The trial had to start again for other reasons but having made that clear to the court I accepted that I was bound by the position I had stated. There is a public interest in the State being bound by what it has publicly said. But, like you, if it had been a family member of mine that had died I would have been seriously pissed.
Frankly, it stinks
I feel for those poor people: the close relatives. This C8nt should be in HMP Barlinnie
FFS he killed six and grievously injured a dozen and is, without question, partly to blame
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
Are homophones part of pride now? What colour is their stripe?
Does it mean we have to buy another flag?
Conspiracy theory - all the additions to pride are so that people have buy new merch.
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
Regarding the previous incident "He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory."
Surely that in itself was enough? Someone was done for causing death by dangerous driving after running out of petrol on the M25 and Parking on the hard shoulder, then being struck by a lorry that strayed into the hard shoulder killing her passenger. She was done because neglecting to fill up before going on a motorway meant her driving fell far below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
So how come neglecting to inform of a previous blackout as you are required to do by law before driving your employers HGV isn't falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver?
I'm sure Lawyerly explanations will be forthcoming but the whole thing reeks of the authorities twisting interpretation of the law to suit their own purposes, possibly for nefarious reasons.
Yeah, I don't buy any of it. This is clearly outrageous. He should be doing Time, and tons of it
Six people died!
After the incident he had his licence pulled but didn't appear to think this matter was material and subsequently, just a few months later, got done for driving a car while not in possession of a valid driving licence.
The sentence: "Clarke was given a community payback order with a 12-month supervision requirement and 150 hours’ unpaid work."
God give me strength, this paragraph on that hearing:
"Sheriff Martin Jones, sentencing, told Clarke he passed the “custody threshold” but that he was legally prevented from jailing him because he was a first offender."
Liz Truss has blamed the scale of the Tories’ general election defeat on Rishi Sunak “trashing my record”.
The electorate knows three principal facts about Truss: that her economic policy caused a market panic that resulted in a great many of them being saddled with higher mortgage repayments; that she ended up being defenestrated by her own party in record time as a result; and that this happened before the lettuce went mouldy.
Trussonomics was unpicked by Jeremy Hunt, in front of her, in the Commons chamber, after she was forced to sack Kwarteng and employ him to avert a Sterling crisis. Her record was comprehensively trashed before Sunak, who had earlier warned that her plans were undeliverable, was even drafted in to replace her. What was the man meant to do, say she was right all along?
Liz Truss was not the cause of elevated interest rates. People on PB who have far better understanding of the economic circumstances surrounding the minibidget than me (and obviously than you) have confirmed this beyond doubt. That she was, was an economically-illiterate Labour attack line.
It suited Sunak's personal ambitions to endorse, and have his lackeys continue to repeat, this attack line. A more loyal line might have been that the turbulent events surrounding the minibudget needed investigating. That the role of the Bank and why the LDI crisis happened needed investigating. That the OBR leak (that proved catastrophically inaccurate) needed investigating. The above investigations would have been no more than due dilligence. None of it happened because to trash Truss was great for the centrists, and party loyalty only applies when they expect it for themselves.
This is 100% correct but, cutting taxes like that while giving those sorts of fuel bill subsidies, and making no effort to prune public spending was like a goalkeeper smoking a fag at the back of a goal during a penalty shootout. Gave her enemies an open goal. Sadly, for the country.
Nothing will change now until the government can no longer sell sufficient gilts to finance the bread and circuses.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
That sounds like a euphemism for something other than alcohol.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
Pineapple Juice??
The hadith which springs to mind
"O you who believe! Intoxicants, and gambling, and Al-Ansâb, and Al-Azlâm (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaitan's (Satan) handiwork."
Seems a bit of a waste to spend a lifetime drinking coca cola if you are fucked anyway for editing PB
The venom directed at people from ethnic minorities who dissent from the liberal-progressive social agenda, from those who support it and otherwise see support of ethnic minorities as an great virtue , is a sight to behold.
Yes, it must be that.
Alternatively, there haven't been any other high profile Conservatives that have been so virulently anti-LBG in the recent past.
For what it's worth, my proviso is a simple one: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Remember, not everyone is going to believe the same as you - whether about God, trans, or anything else. And people who believe different things to you; well they are human too.
So, if someone wishes me to address them using they/them, then my personal views don't get a look in, I will address them as they wish to be addressed. Just as I wouldn't be disparaging about someone's belief in a god, even though I personally am an atheist.
Remember also, how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Imagine, before you try and get (say) The Perks of Being A Wallflower banned from a library, how you would feel if it was a book you cared about and believed in that was on the chopping block.
Remember too, that you will never eliminate the people that disagree with you. You need to remember that, and you need to ask yourself not how you can suppress those who think differently to you, but how you can live alongside them in harmony.
Pathetic, simpering drivel
Shit, well that's shown me.
You're dealing with low IQ Leon who previously tried to blame the closure of pubs on Muslims when the reality is the two main issues were
1) The introduction of loss leading pricing of alcohol by the supermarkets
and
2) The smoking ban.
I think Leon, like that roaster SeanT has an issue with Muslims.
Who can forget his dribblings on the Norway massacre in 2011 which he assured was down to the Muslims when a few Norway experts told him it was likely to be the far right.
Erm point of order.
I remember the day well (as I had just finished working in Norway for the previous 15 years) and I have to point out that SeanT was just about the only person apart from me who wasn't blaming the muslims. We were the only two for over an hour who were saying it was far more likely to be a right wing attack. I remember it vividly and it helped generate a great deal of respect from me for Mr T at the time.
Okay, replace Norway with the Glasgow bin lorry accident.
Ah, that I do remember well.
So do I. All @SeanT did was question whether it was really a simple accident, that's all. And this was at a time when Islamists were regularly mowing down people with lorries - in France and Germany. To speculate that it MIGHT not be a simple accident is about as bigoted as asking, after a massive bang in 1940 in London, "whoah, what was that loud explosion, was it the Germans?"
Regarding the Glasgow bin lorry, that the driver was not charged with any traffic offences still strikes me as very odd indeed.
Was he never charged???
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
No. The decision not to prosecute him was made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( my employer although this was well before my time there) not the Council. The view was taken that he was unconscious at the time of the accident and could therefore not have the mental element of recklessness that a charge of death by dangerous driving required. He had had a previous incident but it was more than 4 years in the past and it was not foreseeable that he would have a repeat on that day. An application for a private prosecution by the families of those that died was refused by the court, presumably on the same basis. He was dismissed by his employer for lying about his health and he was banned from driving an HGV vehicle for 10 years by the regulator but he never faced prosecution in the Sheriff or High Court.
I know someone quoted a stat for pedestrian deaths on pavements and the majority were said to be by motor vehicles (rather than on pavement bikes). But at least two on pavement deaths about one mile and a couple of years apart on the same stretch of a road in Huddersfield were both put down to driver medical episodes and were not prosecuted, so it seems to be a significant problem / legal avenue.
At the risk of upsetting @Dura_Ace and others there is a risk in allowing members of the public to drive several tonnes of metal at potentially fatal speeds in areas where pedestrians will be. We accept that risk for its convenience. But the inevitable consequence of us accepting that risk is that not every accident is a criminal event. We prosecute people who drive dangerously, recklessly or even carelessly but some accidents occur without anyone having been at fault. Medical emergencies are a good example. People getting stung by wasps or bees and losing control of the vehicle are another.
Prosecutions for death by dangerous or careless driving are difficult. Juries have a lot less problem seeing themselves in the dock for such a thing than most crimes. They are not easy to persuade that the degree of culpability is present when they feel, there, but for the grace of God, go I.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
That sounds like a euphemism for something other than alcohol.
Euphemisms and innuendos from me?
Unheard of as you can see from this.
Ian Paisley: From 'the scarlet woman of Rome' to 'the devil's buttermilk' - big Ian's notable quotes
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
My advice would be that you concentrate on homophones like "there" and "their".
Are homophones part of pride now? What colour is their stripe?
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
Pineapple Juice??
Pineapple juice was my first drink today in the restaurant.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
Pineapple Juice??
The hadith which springs to mind
"O you who believe! Intoxicants, and gambling, and Al-Ansâb, and Al-Azlâm (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaitan's (Satan) handiwork."
Seems a bit of a waste to spend a lifetime drinking coca cola if you are fucked anyway for editing PB
I don't see it as gambling, I see it as sound investment management.
Love the header @TSE . Now think what its like going to a gay bar with straight friends when you're in the closet and your friends can't see but the population of the gay bar's gaydar pings and you get lots of new friends... As for The Village. Yes. A paradise.
During @JoeBiden’s call with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the president said his staff passed him a note to “stay positive you are sounding defensive.” Biden read the note aloud to participants on the call.
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
What in the name of god is the point of ordering four glasses of champagne by the glass?
I'm guessing it was lunch for 2 and only 1 person was drinking - so by the glass makes more sense than a bottle...
Yup, lunch for two, and as a good Muslim I have never drunk the Devil's buttermilk.
Pineapple Juice??
Pineapple juice was my first drink today in the restaurant.
Comments
Various evangelical Christian sects that are growing very fast among african incomers are similarly rigourous in such matters.
And it is they who are having lots of children, not us (well except me, I've got enough for a small football team, but then my wife is an African immigrant)
So I am afraid tomorrow belongs to them (and me).
So I had lunch today in this working man's restaurant called The Ivy in Covent Garden, they added a 13.5% service charge but there service was really shite.
Our table wasn't cleared often enough, at one point our table was full of four champagne glasses, three bottles of coke.
We had to ask a few times for things that we had asked for that they had forgotten.
The food was great, particularly the chocolate bomb dessert.
Would I have been out of order to ask for the service charge to have been removed?
In the Goode Olde Days, shops charged about the same as pubs. A bit less, but not enough to make a big difference.
When the supermarket accountants really organised things, they had computerised data on profit per line. They quickly realised that cheap booze could still make a profit, but pile the punters in. So started the race to the cheapest lagers etc.
In the same period, wages and everything else rose. The days of paying your bar staff tuppence a fortnight went and many other costs rose as well.
So here we are with a pint in a London pub costing £7:50 and that also being the price of a pack of cans across the road in Tesco Local.
Personally I am far too English about this (dont want to cause a fuss, so just stay quiet and don't go back) My wife is somewhat more robust about such things
To test this look at two things: the agreement among all politics in the UK on all the big ticket items: Welfare state; pensions; free education 5-18; NHS; NATO and defence; etc.
Then imagine a Tory going into an election saying: Small state; health is your personal responsibility so get insured; so is pension provision; welfare is for the charity and voluntary sector; abolish regulation and H and S and minimum wage, laisser faire and caveat emptor; planning? No business of the state just get on with it.
It would be gigantic fun politically, but it isn't going to happen, nor has it been possible since the 1945 election when the big shift happened.
These are two sources of profound cultural homophobia and we are mporting these people in their hundreds of thousands, every year. If we see homophobia rising (and there are ominous signs), I suspect that will be the reason, not a small vanload of Tory nonaganerians from Newent radicalised by Suella Braverman
I would say that the primary cause is Central Heating and affordable heating, along with television and now t'internet.
Go back to a fifties winter and you sat at home cold and alone and had to go to pubs for chatz like we have on pb.
I recall you talking of it often: until very recently, indeed
Anyway, yes, if you can demonstrate that the service has been sub-standard then you ought to have no compunctions whatsoever about asking for the service charge to be written off. The tendency to be too timid or polite to complain about rubbish service is one of the reasons why it so stubbornly persists.
Now eventually that may happen but for now the C of E while an established church with the King as its Supreme Governor is also separate from the state and not part of the public sector.
C of E priests are also able to refuse weddings to divorcees who committed adultery, hence the King and Queen only got a blessing of their marriage from Rowan Williams similar to what same sex couples can now get not a full marriage in church. They had their marriage in Windsor Guildhall
It was put to Blair and Cameron, I believe, that if Gay marriage was imposed on the CoE, a number of whole chunks would declare independence from the established church - and what then?
Sleeping dogs etc.
But it's also irrelevant. Cultures change, pubs rise and fall, drink comes and goes, London used to have about 200,000 whores in the late 19th century, is it a great cultural regret they have gone?
*shuffles nervously*
However, if the UK becomes way more homophobic, because we import homophobes from Christian Africa and the Islamic world, then that really is a damn shame. And should be resisted. But so few are willing to address the issue. See this PB debate. Far more comfortable to focus on a non-existent threat of gay bashing white Tory pensioners
My concern was not getting the staff into trouble.
I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.
Suella, as it were, takes pride in being virulent.
I think it's arguable whether a Pride flag should fly over government buildings, but it's the arrogance of Braverman and her fellow culture warriors that strikes me. Why does she think she gets to decide?
If only the state had not interfered in such matters. That would indeed be a sensible conservative and indeed tolerant "live and let live" view. But what is being demanded and has been facilitated and indeed pushed by governments has been the imposition of views and their forced validation by others even at the expense of their own rights. That is a fundamentally authoritarian position. The government has taken an interest - often in a partial way - and continues to do so, particularly in your country (look at the current policy in the Scottish Prison Service, the risks it puts women prisoners - a deeply vulnerable and marginalised community if ever there was one - under and you can look at a forthcoming trial in Ireland to see where such a policy will lead) and dealing with the consequences of this is something which all politicians of all parties need to deal with intelligently. Ask Wes Streeting, for instance. Or see the consequences of the forthcoming SC decision on an appeal from a Scottish decision which has serious consequences for women in Scotland and will have for women
Braverman is the wrong politician for such matters. She is the wrong leader for the Tories because of her lack of integrity and competence. She seeks to create division rather than try to come up with solutions.
This forum has an absolute blind spot about matters affecting women and women's rights, a refusal to take such matters seriously. As you ought to know, the issue is not simply about safety but dignity and privacy and identity and the right of women to have boundaries for pretty obvious reasons and have these respected not made conditional on whether others will let them.
Jenni Russell explains it well in today's Times. It is worth reading - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/starmers-first-credibility-test-is-womens-rights-kjbvbrk9r.
But I expect it will be dismissed out of hand because it dares challenge the comforting kumbaya let's-hold-hands-and-sing illusions far too many have about clashes of rights and how society and politicians need to deal with these.
The evidence against him - an irresponsible lying old git - seems fairly overwhelming
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/glasgow-bin-lorry-crash-inquiry-harry-clarke-driver
And several died. Most peculiar if he never faced criminal charges, in that context. Corrupt council?
Ms Truss – who lost her seat at the election, becoming the first former prime minister since Ramsay MacDonald in 1935 to do so – said she was among the Conservative candidates to have “paid the electoral price” for Mr Sunak’s errors.
Writing for The Telegraph in her first intervention since the “devastating” result, Ms Truss said she had kept her silence during the election campaign “to prevent further damage to the party” but felt that “I must speak out now”.
She wrote: “More than 250 of us paid the electoral price for this. Regrettably, over the course of the next five years it will be the British people who have to bear the cost of this failing.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/13/truss-blames-sunak-trashing-record-tory-election-wipeout/
For what it's worth, I don't give a toss if people think I am another lovely Horse, gone before his time but the actions of the moderator are as usual, inconsistent.
If the homophobic views of many migrants is as bad as you say that is much more of a reason for gays to be worried about the future. Rather like our increasingly nervous and abandoned Jewish population clearly are.
"On 22 December 2014 a bin lorry collided with pedestrians in the city centre of Glasgow, Scotland, killing six and injuring fifteen others.[1][2][3][4][5] The driver of the council-owned vehicle, Harry Clarke, said he had passed out at the wheel. A similar blackout had happened to him in the driving seat of a bus. He had not disclosed that incident on his heavy goods vehicle licence renewal application, despite such self-reporting being mandatory. Clarke was officially told he would not face further prosecution, causing protests from victims' families at the way the case had been handled."
I'm not sure that if corruption is at the bottom of this that it would be limited to just the council.
And I am pleased (and relieved) to see her coming out swinging.
And no, we weren't rude to them, but also no, they did not get a tip at the end of the ordeal. We politely declined the opportunity to wait another hour and a half for dessert, paid up and left. It's a great shame because the food at said restaurant is actually very good and they had been doing a lot better with the waiting times, but for whatever reason the wheels have completely fallen off again, and waiting an eternity for the meal to materialise entirely spoils the experience. We won't be going back.
They rejected my offer and demanded full payment, so I walked.
I never got to the door. They came charging after me and threatened me with the police. I handed them my phone and said "Here you go. Call them. Tell them you refused payment"
They removed the service charge. It probably helped that everyone else eating in the restaurant stopped eating to hear the outcome. I suspect that a lot of service charges might not have been paid that night.
And if you look at the recent history of violent homophobic attacks in the UK it ain't 73 year old Mrs Chutney-Ferret of Tory Newent doing the attacks. It is people from deeply homophobic cultures. Like the awful murders in Reading
"On 20 June 2020, shortly before 19:00 BST, a man with a knife attacked people who were socialising in Forbury Gardens, Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom. Three men died from their wounds, and three other people were seriously injured. Khairi Saadallah, a 25-year-old Libyan male refugee, was arrested shortly afterwards. He was charged with three counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder; he pleaded guilty. In January 2021, Saadallah was sentenced to a whole-life term.
"The perpetrator was Khairi Saadallah, who was 25 years old at the time.[15] He was arrested near the park shortly after the attack.[16][17] He was born in Libya and is from an affluent middle-class family.[15] In 2018, he was given permission to stay in the United Kingdom after claiming asylum in 2012.[18] A family member said he had post-traumatic stress from the civil war and had come to the United Kingdom from Libya in 2012 to escape from violence there, living first in Manchester.[4][19] In the war, it was claimed that he was part of Ansar al-Sharia,[20] a group now proscribed in the UK, and stated falsely in his asylum application that he was not involved in combat.[21] In 2018, he was given five years' permission to stay in the UK.[21]
"The three men who were killed were friends and members of the local LGBT+ community.[40] Post-mortem examinations showed that they each died of a single stab wound; two were stabbed in the neck, and one in the back.[1"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Reading_stabbings
It's not like he slightly injured a young mum, he killed SIX PEOPLE
WTF?
Few dare put their head above the parapet as Bravamann did.
I've lived in East London for over 20 years and yes, there are fewer pubs than before. The old corner boozers went a long time ago and have become corner shops usually run by Indians or Sri Lankans yet still keep the old name hence "Altmore Arms" for the one in Altmore Road and in truth they provide a convenient local service if you want something urgently. I have four within a 200 yard radius and if I need a pint of milk or a bottle of scotch at 10.30pm, it's not a problem.
The two pubs in the Barking Road are still there - the Denmark Arms was ruined by the pandemic and bad management while the Millers Arms was our local Spoons but Tim Martin gave up on it and it's now being run by a group of Indians. I'll be honest, the Hindus enjoy a drink or several as do the non-devout Muslims and most of the other migrants. Indeed, Newham's latest wheeze is to put sloping lids on the large commercial rubbish bins to stop them being used as bars.
As to why people choose to drink out on the street rather than in the pubs, I have no insight but presume it's economics - perhaps if the supermarkets and corner shops charged the same as the pubs for booze there'd be less of a problem. As to whether there's a wider alcohol problem, that's another question.
Trussonomics was unpicked by Jeremy Hunt, in front of her, in the Commons chamber, after she was forced to sack Kwarteng and employ him to avert a Sterling crisis. Her record was comprehensively trashed before Sunak, who had earlier warned that her plans were undeliverable, was even drafted in to replace her. What was the man meant to do, say she was right all along?
Nonetheless. one has to ask. Given all these circumstances, how would you feel, if you were a close relative - daughter, father, sister - of one of the SIX people killed and the dozen badly injured by this feckless c*nt of a man?
Would you be satisfied with "no charges"? I would NOT
eg, from that Gaurdian report, just the opening paragraphs
"An inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash that left six people dead and 15 injured has concluded that the driver Harry Clarke repeatedly lied to gain and retain jobs and licences.
Sheriff John Beckett, who conducted the fatal accident inquiry, said Clarke deliberately and systematically concealed nearly 40 years of ill health and lied to doctors about a blackout at the wheel of a bus in April 2010."
If this story is all true that it was a done deal after Truss, what on earth was the point of swapping her for the dismal decline manager anyway?
For central Government buildings, might be the Cabinet Office.
I hope she goes off to the US and sucks up to Trump. If he lets her have a go at anything, Trump's defeat is assured...
Having run 5 star establishments with a ‘delicate’ clientele (think golf and Scotland), you should always have the confidence to inform both the waiting staff, service staff and senior staff of any grievance.
I can assure you that any senior member of staff worth their salt eg. a floor manager, section lead, sommelier, maitre’ d, F&B director, etc. should have noticed any issues. They will not necessarily pull up a member of staff directly but will do so discretely. Any ‘complaint’ or quibble from a customer will merely confirm what they already know/have seen.
Surely that in itself was enough? Someone was done for causing death by dangerous driving after running out of petrol on the M25 and Parking on the hard shoulder, then being struck by a lorry that strayed into the hard shoulder killing her passenger. She was done because neglecting to fill up before going on a motorway meant her driving fell far below the standards of a careful and competent driver.
So how come neglecting to inform of a previous blackout as you are required to do by law before driving your employers HGV isn't falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver?
I'm sure Lawyerly explanations will be forthcoming but the whole thing reeks of the authorities twisting interpretation of the law to suit their own purposes, possibly for nefarious reasons.
Although the public secturnculture of peeformance targets might be an explanation with the decision based on not wanting to risk their conviction rate, although seems unlikely to me,
It was described as an optional service charge in the menu but automatically added to the bill. The waiter was rude so I did not pay.
I am at Brest maritime festival. I find that my theory that undrinkable champagne is no longer a thing is incorrect, it just stays in France. It is admittedly free at the point of supply to me, but still.
Six people died!
Liz appears to be too stupid to comprehend her own actions.
Oh and Liz was by far the worst in the leadership debates, so naturally she got the job.
It suited Sunak's personal ambitions to endorse, and have his lackeys continue to repeat, this attack line. A more loyal line might have been that the turbulent events surrounding the minibudget needed investigating. That the role of the Bank and why the LDI crisis happened needed investigating. That the OBR leak (that proved catastrophically inaccurate) needed investigating. The above investigations would have been no more than due dilligence. None of it happened because to trash Truss was great for the centrists, and party loyalty only applies when they expect it for themselves.
I can sort of understand that argument. In my last trial there was some indications that there had been some collaboration between witnesses and what was being said was being fed back. I took the decision not to proceed with the charges affected and did not call the other witnesses. The trial had to start again for other reasons but having made that clear to the court I accepted that I was bound by the position I had stated. There is a public interest in the State being bound by what it has publicly said. But, like you, if it had been a family member of mine that had died I would have been seriously pissed.
But it is French and it is still kinda fun and it has red velvet banquettes and the prices are OK (outside Paris and the Riviera)
If the Ivy becomes that for Britain, I think it is a good thing, and the food is generally better in an Ivy than in one of them brasseries (except for seafood, esp oysters)
Postscript to a postscript. One of the worst culprits will one day wear a crown. There’s no accounting for taste…
This article suggests that service charges are optional.
The sentence: "Clarke was given a community payback order with a 12-month supervision requirement and 150 hours’ unpaid work."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/31/glasgow-bin-lorry-death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-for-new-incident
I feel for those poor people: the close relatives. This C8nt should be in HMP Barlinnie
FFS he killed six and grievously injured a dozen and is, without question, partly to blame
God give me strength, this paragraph on that hearing:
"Sheriff Martin Jones, sentencing, told Clarke he passed the “custody threshold” but that he was legally prevented from jailing him because he was a first offender."
He's just killed six people and injured fifteen
"First offender"
Nothing will change now until the government can no longer sell sufficient gilts to finance the bread and circuses.
"O you who believe! Intoxicants, and gambling, and Al-Ansâb, and Al-Azlâm (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaitan's (Satan) handiwork."
Seems a bit of a waste to spend a lifetime drinking coca cola if you are fucked anyway for editing PB
Prosecutions for death by dangerous or careless driving are difficult. Juries have a lot less problem seeing themselves in the dock for such a thing than most crimes. They are not easy to persuade that the degree of culpability is present when they feel, there, but for the grace of God, go I.
Unheard of as you can see from this.
Ian Paisley: From 'the scarlet woman of Rome' to 'the devil's buttermilk' - big Ian's notable quotes
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ian-paisley-from-the-scarlet-woman-of-rome-to-the-devils-buttermilk-big-ians-notable-quotes/30582283.html
I like pineapples except in one situation.
As for The Village. Yes. A paradise.
During @JoeBiden’s call with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the president said his staff passed him a note to “stay positive you are sounding defensive.” Biden read the note aloud to participants on the call.