Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
It's definitely in the running for publication in Pseud's Corner.
Mr. Pulpstar, at university a fellow student asked "Who's compensating me for this?" in regard to walking to university past many cars/buses and their fumes.
I expressed the view that his opinion was ridiculous, after which we did not speak much.
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med."
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
Nope. I have political views. I would not force those on anyone. I exercise a vote like anyone else. If people do not agree with me, I lose. But I will still hold the views I do.
A good illustration of r***t wing thinking vs l**t wing thinking (I know you don't like labels).
The r***t believes that the individual should decide for themselves what to spend money on (aside from evident (and even that can be troubling) common "goods"); the l**t believes that not enough individuals have the correct thinking and therefore want to spend money on their behalf.
But you have answered the question yourself. If people don't agree with you you would "lose". But on each individual example, with people either donating or not donating they are essentially voting. As you suggest and recommend. So you are agreeing with the r***t wing view?
Unless your scenario involves some coercion.
No, I believe that collective action is more powerful than individual action. And I believe that the state is the best means through which to exercise collective action. Because it controls the levers of power, it can do much more than any charity ever could - which is why it was the state taking control of things such as education, welfare and health that led to the greatest improvements in living standards in this country's history. Fundamentally, I believe that redistribution from the wealthy to the less well off is in my best interests and those of my family.
It's not even worth debating the merits or otherwise of a ban on smoking in open public places when the majority of our air pollution is from a combination of diesel engines and coal burning.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
To some extent, smokers have their own selfishness to blame for the things that have come to pass. I remember (in the very month before the smoking ban came in) having a meal in my small local Indian restaurant. Tiny space, so no delineated smoking/non smoking area. A bloke lit up with one of his mates, two tables down. Smoke started to fill the room. Me (and my girlfriend at the time) who had already been served our meals started coughing.
I asked him if he wouldn't mind doing that outside. He responded with abuse.
The owner noticed and apologised, and said the ban was only weeks away. I said I couldn't wait, but have still never returned to eat there again. He should never have allowed it in the 1st place.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
I think "Roger" may actually be an entry for the Turner Prize 2015. It's been a spectacular installation.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There are now five groups of switchers we need to be conscious of:
1. Red Liberals 2. Purple Tories 3. Blue Liberals 4. Purple Labourites 5. Rainbow Liberals.
We've only really paid much attention to the first two, mainly because they've been around longest but the others are of increasing importance.
The Rainbow Liberals (LD losses to UKIP, Green and Others), seem to be increasing particularly quickly and perhaps represent both a new phase of LD defections and also a secondary defection from a subgroup who've ended up there via Labour.
6. Purple rain 7. Little red corvette 8. Pink cashmere
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med."
?
Geographically this is a problem for those countries bordering the Mediterranean. With the exception of Germany and Sweden no one else seems particularly interested.
Hands up who can see the Italians and French flocking to our aid if hypothetically, 100,000 Icelandic refugees started washing up on the UK's shores every year?
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
Well maybe if that nice Pole or the Spanish waitresses weren't here, the two white British beggars would have one or more of their jobs and not need to beg.
There are good British, bad British, good immigrants, bad immigrants - but remember that statistically there are going to be far more 'bad British' as a number.
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med."
?
Geographically this is a problem for those countries bordering the Mediterranean. Why should we be involved.
Hands up who can see the Italians and French flocking to our aid if hypothetically, 100,000 Icelandic refugees a year started washing up on the UK's shores?
They wouldn't, but as the mess at Calais shows, once the asylum seekers are in Europe, the best place to be is in the UK, so it is in our interests to help out here, morality issues aside
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
I think "Roger" may actually be an entry for the Turner Prize 2015. It's been a spectacular installation.
Frequently Asked Questions Some kids aren't sure that getting a pocket money advance loan is the best thing for them, here we try to answer any questions you might have.
Q. What does APR mean? It stands for Annual Percentage Rate and it's really confusing and boring.
Q. Shouldn't I wait until I've saved up enough money to buy the things I want? But waiting for things takes ages!
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There are now five groups of switchers we need to be conscious of:
1. Red Liberals 2. Purple Tories 3. Blue Liberals 4. Purple Labourites 5. Rainbow Liberals.
We've only really paid much attention to the first two, mainly because they've been around longest but the others are of increasing importance.
The Rainbow Liberals (LD losses to UKIP, Green and Others), seem to be increasing particularly quickly and perhaps represent both a new phase of LD defections and also a secondary defection from a subgroup who've ended up there via Labour.
6. Purple rain 7. Little red corvette 8. Pink cashmere
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
And there we have a perfect example of the intolerance that far too many hold for those of differing views, preferences and opinions: "I do not like it therefore you should be banned from doing it".
It is such a contempt for liberty that is pushing voters to develop a contempt for the politicians who promote such nonsense, and to look for alternatives.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
To some extent, smokers have their own selfishness to blame for the things that have come to pass. I remember (in the very month before the smoking ban came in) having a meal in my small local Indian restaurant. Tiny space, so no delineated smoking/non smoking area. A bloke lit up with one of his mates, two tables down. Smoke started to fill the room. Me (and my girlfriend at the time) who had already been served our meals started coughing.
I asked him if he wouldn't mind doing that outside. He responded with abuse.
The owner noticed and apologised, and said the ban was only weeks away. I said I couldn't wait, but have still never returned to eat there again. He should never have allowed it in the 1st place.
Smoking at the table is the height of bad manners I reckon, whatever the law says !
As for pubs well there is no real health argument for customers (Well me at least) as drinking isn't particularly good for you anyway but the staff can't "2nd hand drink" whilst they can 2nd hand smoke...
E-Cigarettes should absolutely be allowed though, those fit in with that age old British tradition of "compromise"
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
And there we have a perfect example of the intolerance that far too many hold for those of differing views, preferences and opinions: "I do not like it therefore you should be banned from doing it".
It is such a contempt for liberty that is pushing voters to develop a contempt for the politicians who promote such nonsense, and to look for alternatives.
I don't believe in a ban. If people want to smoke in public places, they can do it in designated areas which those who do not want to share their smoke can avoid. I would not have introduced a blanket ban on smoking in bars and pubs for the same reason.
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med."
?
Geographically this is a problem for those countries bordering the Mediterranean. With the exception of Germany and Sweden no one else seems particularly interested.
Hands up who can see the Italians and French flocking to our aid if hypothetically, 100,000 Icelandic refugees started washing up on the UK's shores every year?
We do border the Med; Gibraltar and twice in Cyprus
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med."
?
Geographically this is a problem for those countries bordering the Mediterranean. With the exception of Germany and Sweden no one else seems particularly interested.
Hands up who can see the Italians and French flocking to our aid if hypothetically, 100,000 Icelandic refugees started washing up on the UK's shores every year?
We do border the Med; Gibraltar and twice in Cyprus
Less than 80 km of coastline, compared to ? for France, Spain, Italy etc
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
And there we have a perfect example of the intolerance that far too many hold for those of differing views, preferences and opinions: "I do not like it therefore you should be banned from doing it".
It is such a contempt for liberty that is pushing voters to develop a contempt for the politicians who promote such nonsense, and to look for alternatives.
Your rights end where mine begin. It's fine to smoke. But there's no automatic right to smoke in circumstances where you smoking may affect me in ways I dislike.
The naked rambler isn't allowed to walk naked wherever he liked for similar reasons. His passionately held views on the desirability of striding around the country in the state that he entered this world have cut no ice with courts up to and including the European Court of Human Rights. Arguably, his activities cause less harm than smokers do to others.
"Today Ed faces Dave once again at PMQs. He’s got a great issue – the reports that Britain will not support future efforts to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Med."
?
Geographically this is a problem for those countries bordering the Mediterranean. With the exception of Germany and Sweden no one else seems particularly interested.
Hands up who can see the Italians and French flocking to our aid if hypothetically, 100,000 Icelandic refugees started washing up on the UK's shores every year?
Well after a couple of years there'd be no one left in Iceland
Many things can cause cancer but some are much more potent.
Cigarette smoke, anything that cause inflammation, anything that increases cell division, UV radiation ... the list goes on. But the dose makes the poison. Second-hand cigarette smoke is much less dangerous than first hand smoking even though the chemicals involved are relatively potent.
Personally, I'm untroubled by people smoking outdoors. The risk to me is far less than many other things I indulge in.
Mr. Observer, and murdering too, I suspect, but what's that got to do with the price of fish?
Mr. Antifrank, in a public place getting close enough to inhale someone else's smoke requires you to be rather close. Seeing a naked chap can be done from a much longer distance. The two are not comparable.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
To some extent, smokers have their own selfishness to blame for the things that have come to pass. I remember (in the very month before the smoking ban came in) having a meal in my small local Indian restaurant. Tiny space, so no delineated smoking/non smoking area. A bloke lit up with one of his mates, two tables down. Smoke started to fill the room. Me (and my girlfriend at the time) who had already been served our meals started coughing.
I asked him if he wouldn't mind doing that outside. He responded with abuse.
The owner noticed and apologised, and said the ban was only weeks away. I said I couldn't wait, but have still never returned to eat there again. He should never have allowed it in the 1st place.
Smoking at the table is the height of bad manners I reckon, whatever the law says !
As for pubs well there is no real health argument for customers (Well me at least) as drinking isn't particularly good for you anyway but the staff can't "2nd hand drink" whilst they can 2nd hand smoke...
E-Cigarettes should absolutely be allowed though, those fit in with that age old British tradition of "compromise"
Yes, most of those that do tend to have bad manners, period.
I had, and still do have, no objection to smoking in pubs and private clubs.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
And there we have a perfect example of the intolerance that far too many hold for those of differing views, preferences and opinions: "I do not like it therefore you should be banned from doing it".
It is such a contempt for liberty that is pushing voters to develop a contempt for the politicians who promote such nonsense, and to look for alternatives.
I don't believe in a ban. If people want to smoke in public places, they can do it in designated areas which those who do not want to share their smoke can avoid. I would not have introduced a blanket ban on smoking in bars and pubs for the same reason.
On balance you have to go for a blanket ban because A) Staff Friends of addicts will always, because they are not cunts, agree to go to bars that allow smoking so that the addicts can feed their addiction in comfort because the addicts will always complain if a non-smoking bar is suggested. C) I fucking hate coming back from a pub stinking of smoke to such an extent that every item of clothing I've worn has to go in the wash.
Many things can cause cancer but some are much more potent.
Cigarette smoke, anything that cause inflammation, anything that increases cell division, UV radiation ... the list goes on. But the dose makes the poison. Second-hand cigarette smoke is much less dangerous than first hand smoking even though the chemicals involved are relatively potent.
Personally, I'm untroubled by people smoking outdoors. The risk to me is far less than many other things I indulge in.
Personally, it does not bother me either. But it does bother a lot of other people.
Mr. Observer, and murdering too, I suspect, but what's that got to do with the price of fish?
Mr. Antifrank, in a public place getting close enough to inhale someone else's smoke requires you to be rather close. Seeing a naked chap can be done from a much longer distance. The two are not comparable.
Given the opportunity of seeing a naked chap, I try to ensure that I never do it from a long distance.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
To some extent, smokers have their own selfishness to blame for the things that have come to pass. I remember (in the very month before the smoking ban came in) having a meal in my small local Indian restaurant. Tiny space, so no delineated smoking/non smoking area. A bloke lit up with one of his mates, two tables down. Smoke started to fill the room. Me (and my girlfriend at the time) who had already been served our meals started coughing.
I asked him if he wouldn't mind doing that outside. He responded with abuse.
The owner noticed and apologised, and said the ban was only weeks away. I said I couldn't wait, but have still never returned to eat there again. He should never have allowed it in the 1st place.
Smoking at the table is the height of bad manners I reckon, whatever the law says !
As for pubs well there is no real health argument for customers (Well me at least) as drinking isn't particularly good for you anyway but the staff can't "2nd hand drink" whilst they can 2nd hand smoke...
E-Cigarettes should absolutely be allowed though, those fit in with that age old British tradition of "compromise"
Increasing numbers of places are treating e cigs the same as the real thing. My local 'because it gives the appearance of smoking' and my work place 'because it makes it difficult to enforce the smoking ban'
Mr. Observer, and murdering too, I suspect, but what's that got to do with the price of fish?
Mr. Antifrank, in a public place getting close enough to inhale someone else's smoke requires you to be rather close. Seeing a naked chap can be done from a much longer distance. The two are not comparable.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
I think "Roger" may actually be an entry for the Turner Prize 2015. It's been a spectacular installation.
Frequently Asked Questions Some kids aren't sure that getting a pocket money advance loan is the best thing for them, here we try to answer any questions you might have.
Q. What does APR mean? It stands for Annual Percentage Rate and it's really confusing and boring.
Q. Shouldn't I wait until I've saved up enough money to buy the things I want? But waiting for things takes ages! As is often the case, it is important to read the small print...
Third missed repayment of £415.01 rolled over with interest and so on and so on until we take you for everything you have and you lay awake at night with the stress boiling in your veins, going over and over what you owe and who you owe it to and what you can sell or pawn just to keep your neck above the water for another week.
Not quite so funny when you realise it's exactly what happens with the payday loans companies.
I've had while walking down the street people turn their head and blow smoke in my face. I presume because it was slightly windy and they didn't want the smoke blowing back in their own face.
Caron Lindsay reports the following on Lib Dem Voice:
"There’s been an almighty row in the Coalition over which Private Members Bills should be given government support.
The Liberal Democrats had offered the Tories a deal which would have given both Bob Neill’s Bill on an EU referendum and Andrew George’s on the Bedroom Tax a fair chance of becoming law. In return, the Tories offered the Liberal Democrats a deal under which only the EU Bill would have stood a chance"
Some people just have a fundamental contempt for British culture and would like to replace it with that of continental Europe (or, if necessary, the less pleasant bits of South Asia and Africa). Most sensible people realise that London is not the best place to live these days, which is why most Londoners want to move elsewhere. You just need to go through Victoria or London Bridge station at rush hour to realise how ridiculously overcrowded the place is: people are packed shoulder to shoulder down staircases and at entranceways. I can't really comprehend what the place will be like in a decade with immigration at these levels, but it'll be highly likely the UKIP vote here climbs.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
But YOU want to impose YOUR ideas about increased taxation on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
Banging on about immigration helps neither Lab or Con.
It's like @SouthamObserver and myself arguing about whether Arsenal or Tottenham are the better side while Chelsea supporter @Nigel4England looks on with a pitying smile
Banging on about immigration helps neither Lab or Con.
It's like @SouthamObserver and myself arguing about whether Arsenal or Tottenham are the better side while Chelsea supporter @Nigel4England looks on with a pitying smile
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
If someone says they believe they should be taxed more, that says to me they believe they should be taxed more. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
No, thats wrong.
It says that you believe everybody and not just you should be taxed more. IOW, you think that other people should also be forced to pay more even if they dont want to.
Banging on about immigration helps neither Lab or Con.
Banging on about it might not, but having a credible plan surely would. The "this doesn't help our PR, thus let's ignore the public's concerns about it" is the sort of mentality that has turned people against the political class. UKIP is the solution.
As is normal on PB you concentrate on a tiny proportion of Central London and call it London
Don't worry, soon the parts of outer London that people actually like living in, are to be used as overspill for the social housing tenants that zones 1&2 don't want pushing down prices in the gentrified areas
Isam - thanks, offer appreciated but even at that generous price Labour are too short to be worth betting on. Which was kinda my point to the laughable blow hard Watcher.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
Isam - thanks, offer appreciated but even at that generous price Labour are too short to be worth betting on. Which was kinda my point to the laughable blow hard Watcher.
Ladbrokes founded 1929. 'bobajob' latest login, September 2014.
I've never wagered with anyone here, and won't start now just to boost your masculinity. Sorry.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
85% of Londoners think that England is overcrowded. 76% are concerned that the population will increase to 70 million in 16 years and 69% support a net migration level of 40,000 per year to keep the population below 70 million.
I'm talking about your example of using a very busy commuter rail terminus as an example of London's overcrowding. Did it not occur to you that the very people who make this busy very often arent from London? Even much of central London is quiet and serene, away from tube stations and rail hubs. The idea that London is overcrowded is simply wrong. Get out of your car and walk around
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
I'm talking about your example of using a very busy commuter rail terminus as an example of London's overcrowding. Did it not occur to you that the very people who make this busy very often arent from London? Even much of central London is quiet and serene, away from tube stations and rail hubs. The idea that London is overcrowded is simply wrong. Get out of your car and walk around
Totally agree, some areas around Holborn can seem eerily quiet to say you're in the middle of London.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
I have long noted the irony that you have taken the name of someone who was almost certainly a paedophile.
I'm talking about your example of using a very busy commuter rail terminus as an example of London's overcrowding. Did it not occur to you that the very people who make this busy very often arent from London? Even much of central London is quiet and serene, away from tube stations and rail hubs. The idea that London is overcrowded is simply wrong. Get out of your car and walk around
85% of Londoners - and that's covering all of Greater London - think that the country is too crowded. Where do you think they get this impression from? The occasional trip out to Surrey?
Even if you manage to find a quieter part of London, you still need to commute to work in the morning. And I suspect you hear a lot of road noise if you sit in most London gardens. (That's if you're lucky enough to have a garden, and it hasn't been sold off to a developer.)
What comes across from PMQs is that Cameron's approach is too Australian.Now I'm not racist but I hate Australians and Australia about as much as I hate London.Even the snakes want to attack you out there.Australia is ruled,too,by Rupert Murdoch in the guise of Tony chuck em in the sea Abbott.Lynton Crosby is an arch-Australian and using the Abbott playbook used for the last Australian election.In other words he thinks we aren't English and that he is talking to an Australian audience.I am English and proud to be from the land of Wapping,Tolpuddle and Peterloo.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
I have long noted the irony that you have taken the name of someone who was almost certainly a paedophile.
No, read the Symposium. Alcibiades (stunningly attractive) tried it on with him and got nowhere.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
I have long noted the irony that you have taken the name of someone who was almost certainly a paedophile.
Given that Socrates was happily married with three children, and, against the views of most of his society, took issue with slavery, how on Earth do you come to that conclusion?
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
I have long noted the irony that you have taken the name of someone who was almost certainly a paedophile.
No, read the Symposium. Alcibiades (stunningly attractive) tried it on with him and got nowhere.
It is open to question whether he resisted his urges. One thing that all sources seem to agree on is that he was powerfully attracted to teenage boys.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
And there we have a perfect example of the intolerance that far too many hold for those of differing views, preferences and opinions: "I do not like it therefore you should be banned from doing it".
It is such a contempt for liberty that is pushing voters to develop a contempt for the politicians who promote such nonsense, and to look for alternatives.
Your rights end where mine begin. It's fine to smoke. But there's no automatic right to smoke in circumstances where you smoking may affect me in ways I dislike.
The naked rambler isn't allowed to walk naked wherever he liked for similar reasons. His passionately held views on the desirability of striding around the country in the state that he entered this world have cut no ice with courts up to and including the European Court of Human Rights. Arguably, his activities cause less harm than smokers do to others.
That may be so, but it doesn't mean that you rights begin wherever you assert them to begin.
George Eaton @georgeeaton Left-leaning Neil Findlay announces he will stand for the Scottish Labour leadership.
Findlay seems to be the best option for Labour. Fulfills the need for a MSP to be leader, can attack the SNP from the left (dismissing the red Tory attacks) and he has no previous baggage.
George Eaton @georgeeaton Left-leaning Neil Findlay announces he will stand for the Scottish Labour leadership.
Findlay seems to be the best option for Labour. Fulfills the need for a MSP to be leader, can attack the SNP from the left (dismissing the red Tory attacks) and he has no previous baggage.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
I have long noted the irony that you have taken the name of someone who was almost certainly a paedophile.
No, read the Symposium. Alcibiades (stunningly attractive) tried it on with him and got nowhere.
It is open to question whether he resisted his urges. One thing that all sources seem to agree on is that he was powerfully attracted to teenage boys.
A. was much younger than Socrates, but post-pubescent (on military service). Paedophilia (directed at the pre-pubescent) is afaik invisible in classical Greek sources (not to say it didn't happen of course). I am certainly not aware of any grounds whatever for accusing Socrates of it, unless you in some way equate it with homosexuality.
What sources? (Other than self-deprecating jokes by S. himself)?
For those that are interested in political betting rather than political yakking, I'm preparing updated schedules of the odds in all constituencies presented from the perspective of each party, which I hope to be unveiling by the weekend.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
We're getting proof today that UKIP really are a party of the left. Their touching belief that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness would be familiar to any Marxist of the 1970s.
Who has said that Londoners who are comfortable with immigration are suffering from false consciousness?
I'd call you a Greek chorus, but you'd probably both take umbrage that I was suggesting that you were immigrants.
You think I, of all posters, would object to being included in a reference to classical Greece? I thought you were more educated than that...
I have long noted the irony that you have taken the name of someone who was almost certainly a paedophile.
Given that Socrates was happily married with three children, and, against the views of most of his society, took issue with slavery, how on Earth do you come to that conclusion?
"A woman for babies, a boy for love, and a goat for pleasure."
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
But YOU want to impose YOUR ideas about increased taxation on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
Why does this stanch not make you a hypocrite?
Nope. I express an opinion. I don't want to impose anything. I believe in democracy.
I think you can relax in your one man "the 'rich' should all pay more tax" campaign. There can be no doubt that very soon we will all, not just the 'rich' be paying more in tax and charges. The down side for you might be that very little of that money will go in overseas aid, it will all be needed here to pay for the basics.
I'm talking about your example of using a very busy commuter rail terminus as an example of London's overcrowding. Did it not occur to you that the very people who make this busy very often arent from London? Even much of central London is quiet and serene, away from tube stations and rail hubs. The idea that London is overcrowded is simply wrong. Get out of your car and walk around
85% of Londoners - and that's covering all of Greater London - think that the country is too crowded. Where do you think they get this impression from? The occasional trip out to Surrey?
Even if you manage to find a quieter part of London, you still need to commute to work in the morning. And I suspect you hear a lot of road noise if you sit in most London gardens. (That's if you're lucky enough to have a garden, and it hasn't been sold off to a developer.)
Revealed preference.
They desire the opportunities of London more than they hate its crowdedness.
It's a free market. If it genuinely is too crowded, then people would leave until it ceased to be too crowded.
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
If someone says they believe they should be taxed more, that says to me they believe they should be taxed more. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
No, thats wrong.
It says that you believe everybody and not just you should be taxed more. IOW, you think that other people should also be forced to pay more even if they dont want to.
Yes, I do believe that paying tax is a legal obligation, not something you can choose not to do.
Comments
Why not take Isam up on his kind and some might say, generous, offer?
I expressed the view that his opinion was ridiculous, after which we did not speak much.
?
I asked him if he wouldn't mind doing that outside. He responded with abuse.
The owner noticed and apologised, and said the ban was only weeks away. I said I couldn't wait, but have still never returned to eat there again. He should never have allowed it in the 1st place.
Speaking of art installations: http://pocketmoneyloans.com/store.htm
7. Little red corvette
8. Pink cashmere
Hands up who can see the Italians and French flocking to our aid if hypothetically, 100,000 Icelandic refugees started washing up on the UK's shores every year?
There are good British, bad British, good immigrants, bad immigrants - but remember that statistically there are going to be far more 'bad British' as a number.
Suggest you check out the rest of the site...
Frequently Asked Questions
Some kids aren't sure that getting a pocket money advance loan is the best thing for them, here we try to answer any questions you might have.
Q. What does APR mean?
It stands for Annual Percentage Rate and it's really confusing and boring.
Q. Shouldn't I wait until I've saved up enough money to buy the things I want?
But waiting for things takes ages!
doves/polar bears/foxes dieIt is such a contempt for liberty that is pushing voters to develop a contempt for the politicians who promote such nonsense, and to look for alternatives.
As for pubs well there is no real health argument for customers (Well me at least) as drinking isn't particularly good for you anyway but the staff can't "2nd hand drink" whilst they can 2nd hand smoke...
E-Cigarettes should absolutely be allowed though, those fit in with that age old British tradition of "compromise"
The naked rambler isn't allowed to walk naked wherever he liked for similar reasons. His passionately held views on the desirability of striding around the country in the state that he entered this world have cut no ice with courts up to and including the European Court of Human Rights. Arguably, his activities cause less harm than smokers do to others.
Many things can cause cancer but some are much more potent.
Cigarette smoke, anything that cause inflammation, anything that increases cell division, UV radiation ... the list goes on. But the dose makes the poison. Second-hand cigarette smoke is much less dangerous than first hand smoking even though the chemicals involved are relatively potent.
Personally, I'm untroubled by people smoking outdoors. The risk to me is far less than many other things I indulge in.
Mr. Antifrank, in a public place getting close enough to inhale someone else's smoke requires you to be rather close. Seeing a naked chap can be done from a much longer distance. The two are not comparable.
I had, and still do have, no objection to smoking in pubs and private clubs.
A) Staff
C) I fucking hate coming back from a pub stinking of smoke to such an extent that every item of clothing I've worn has to go in the wash.
Of those reasons C is the most important.
My local 'because it gives the appearance of smoking' and my work place 'because it makes it difficult to enforce the smoking ban'
Frequently Asked Questions
Some kids aren't sure that getting a pocket money advance loan is the best thing for them, here we try to answer any questions you might have.
Q. What does APR mean?
It stands for Annual Percentage Rate and it's really confusing and boring.
Q. Shouldn't I wait until I've saved up enough money to buy the things I want?
But waiting for things takes ages! As is often the case, it is important to read the small print...Not quite so funny when you realise it's exactly what happens with the payday loans companies.
Hang the lot of them I say.
"There’s been an almighty row in the Coalition over which Private Members Bills should be given government support.
The Liberal Democrats had offered the Tories a deal which would have given both Bob Neill’s Bill on an EU referendum and Andrew George’s on the Bedroom Tax a fair chance of becoming law. In return, the Tories offered the Liberal Democrats a deal under which only the EU Bill would have stood a chance"
Some people just have a fundamental contempt for British culture and would like to replace it with that of continental Europe (or, if necessary, the less pleasant bits of South Asia and Africa). Most sensible people realise that London is not the best place to live these days, which is why most Londoners want to move elsewhere. You just need to go through Victoria or London Bridge station at rush hour to realise how ridiculously overcrowded the place is: people are packed shoulder to shoulder down staircases and at entranceways. I can't really comprehend what the place will be like in a decade with immigration at these levels, but it'll be highly likely the UKIP vote here climbs.
Why does this stanch not make you a hypocrite?
As is normal on PB you concentrate on a tiny proportion of Central London and call it London
It says that you believe everybody and not just you should be taxed more. IOW, you think that other people should also be forced to pay more even if they dont want to.
http://gawker.com/wife-claims-investment-banker-drunkenly-pissed-shit-al-1651481278
I've taken Paddy Power's 6-1 on UKIP there at any rate. Ladbrokes 5-1 looks the correct price to me.
UKIP 1.09
Con 12.5
Lab 75
Oth 1000
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446
25/1 then I believe
Also present were Boston & Skegness (opening price 8/1, now 4/7), S Basildon & E Thurrock (20/1 now 5/2), and Thurrock (16/1 now 4/5)
Has a party ever been longer in a by-election in a seat it holds?
What an effing shambles
I've never wagered with anyone here, and won't start now just to boost your masculinity. Sorry.
85% of Londoners think that England is overcrowded. 76% are concerned that the population will increase to 70 million in 16 years and 69% support a net migration level of 40,000 per year to keep the population below 70 million.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249
Why is Ed Miliband 10-11 next PM, whilst Ed Balls is 11-8 next chancellor.
I'd have thought Ed Balls next chancellor bet is by far the most value proxy for Lab most seats.
Beyond parody
Left-leaning Neil Findlay announces he will stand for the Scottish Labour leadership.
Even if you manage to find a quieter part of London, you still need to commute to work in the morning. And I suspect you hear a lot of road noise if you sit in most London gardens. (That's if you're lucky enough to have a garden, and it hasn't been sold off to a developer.)
Did I miss Miliband's questions on the Mediterranean immigrant issue?
What sources? (Other than self-deprecating jokes by S. himself)?
I agree!
Just flicking through what the OBR has to say about the UK's debt mountain (the Speciie has a useful summary here:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/how-to-defuse-britains-1-45-trillion-public-debt-time-bomb-or-not/
)
I think you can relax in your one man "the 'rich' should all pay more tax" campaign. There can be no doubt that very soon we will all, not just the 'rich' be paying more in tax and charges. The down side for you might be that very little of that money will go in overseas aid, it will all be needed here to pay for the basics.
They desire the opportunities of London more than they hate its crowdedness.
It's a free market. If it genuinely is too crowded, then people would leave until it ceased to be too crowded.