Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
This is one of those stories that leads to death by ennui.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
You're embarrassing yourself. When only the praetorian guard is left to defend the leader you know he's lost.
You mean you Kippers are so bloody predictable.
I'm right, just like why you lot are so scared of Dave's referendum.
Cluck, Cluck.
Are you and Nabavi the same person?
As I wrote yesterday Someone: "I disagree with Cameron" Nabavi: "You're a kipper"
If this goes on then UKIP would seem to be the main opposition party and enemy of the Tories not Labour.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
With respect to your list, I don't accept that genuinely equal but separate provision is discriminatory (e.g. male and female toilets located side-by-side and costing the same), which rules several out. I don't support all-women shortlists and don't believe any political party should be allowed to use them, any more than all-white or all-heterosexual shortlists. Nor should hairdressers be allowed to charge £20 to cut ladies' hair but £5 for men (though they should be allowed to charge different amounts based on the amount of work being done, which may result in men paying on average less if they have, on average, less time-consuming and/or costly cuts).
You seem to have missed out the race element in hairdressing. Also, the men/women only aspect of hairdressing.
You have completely ignored the case of when there isn't an alternative provision, but those who cannot be bothered to found their own institutions try to force existing private institutions to do their bidding e.g. baker's.
Finally, do you realise how irritating you are telling people how to run their own business. If you feel so strongly, bake the cake yourself, found your own school, etc.
It's mildly amused the lexicon of politics has 'Praetorians' as the very loyal diehard bodyguard, when they probably killed more emperors than they saved. The Varangians were better (as Basil II found out).
(b) none of the opposition or the media mentioned the rebate ahead of the event
...
(b) the media and the opposition are idiots and/or liars
They're certainly liars, but there was nothing in it for the media to talk about the rebate since they need a big number to stoke their outrage fires, and Labour would have looked terrible saying, "Hey, it's not that big a bill", not to mention that they wouldn't want to blow the whistle on the "spin the rebate" scam in case Osborne and the EU just punted the whole decision past the election, and Labour ended up in government and needing to use the same scam themselves.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
Poor Kippers, have no experience of reality, living in your fantasy world.
You really are embarrassing yourself.
When it comes to a Praetorian Guard, I'm more Sejanus.
You mean making the bodyguards into a corrupt political instrument?
So we've proved your original comment about me was wrong.
Kippers always wrong, never learn.
I didn't have an original comment about you, expect that you're a member of the last defenders of the dear leader (aka the praetorian guard) on this or perhaps every subject. And: "Kippers always wrong, never learn."
Yes the praetorian Tories are always wrong. I'm a Red Liberal and Ed Miliband fan, ha ha ha ha.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
...
When it comes to a Praetorian Guard, I'm more Sejanus.
Wasn't Sejanus the bloke who wanted to wipe out the families of some politicians thought to have conspired against the emperor and, on being told that he couldn't kill the children because Roman law forbade the execution of virgins, ordered the children raped first?
Surprised you want to identify yourself with such a character, Mr. Eagles.
It's mildly amused the lexicon of politics has 'Praetorians' as the very loyal diehard bodyguard, when they probably killed more emperors than they saved. The Varangians were better (as Basil II found out).
That's why i'm sure if TSE ever turns on Cameron it's curtains for the dear leader.
I retract my previous crap defending Osborne on this, he is being a tit trying to make it seem like he's "won" anything by getting the amount reduced.
He would have been far wiser to focus on the interest free delay in payment, and how much this is saving us.
That's a very rare example of a PBer admitting he was wrong in the face of new evidence. Best of British to you
It's embarrassing enough to have so strongly defended Osborne & Cameron before I knew about this. I'd be stupid to even shy away from that, let alone continue my defence.
I did say earlier, "Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back."
Given that there is and it entirely contadicts their position, I can't believe they were idiotic enough to not realise it would come out and show up their dishonesty.
It's mildly amused the lexicon of politics has 'Praetorians' as the very loyal diehard bodyguard, when they probably killed more emperors than they saved. The Varangians were better (as Basil II found out).
That's why i'm sure if TSE ever turns on Cameron it's curtains for the dear leader.
Because you're not very bright, I've turned on Cameron in the past.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
...
When it comes to a Praetorian Guard, I'm more Sejanus.
Wasn't Sejanus the bloke who wanted to wipe out the families of some politicians thought to have conspired against the emperor and, on being told that he couldn't kill the children because Roman law forbade the execution of virgins, ordered the children raped first?
Surprised you want to identify yourself with such a character, Mr. Eagles.
I've been rewatching I, Claudius recently
I have Sejanus on the brain.
I've been identified with worse.
One Kipper idiot on here said I tolerated child abuse so the Tories could do well.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Oh, so pushing their homosexuality in the bakers face was not an attack on the firmly held beliefs of this family?
The Bakery is the one affronted, and there is no law that I know of, which precludes the right of a business to serve and deal with whoever it wishes to.
There will always be, what you sublimely call, antipathy to various groups. As a Jew, the rise in anti semitism in Britain since the large group of Polish and other eastern european immigrants arrived, is marked. Yet, except that I wan't less immigration, I don't make a song and dance about it.
I find it interesting that those who are most against "discrimination" are most in favour of importing foreigners who promptly set up their own institutions which those anti-discrimination enthusiasts promptly wish to discriminate against.
I think this shows the intellectual dishonesty of these people; welcome in mass numbers of foreigners, but expect my position/institutions not to change.
It's mildly amused the lexicon of politics has 'Praetorians' as the very loyal diehard bodyguard, when they probably killed more emperors than they saved. The Varangians were better (as Basil II found out).
That's why i'm sure if TSE ever turns on Cameron it's curtains for the dear leader.
Because you're not very bright, I've turned on Cameron in the past.
I also urged the sacking of George Osborne.
The Eastleigh article you've posted wasn't really turning on Cameron, stating the bloody obvious isn't an attack:
"If the Tories can’t win in Eastleigh in these circumstances, some will ask, how does this bode for the 2015 General election, especially after David Cameron’s speech on the European Union and the promise of a referendum, now that UKIP appear to be surging, something that Cameron’s speech was designed to reverse. Eastleigh is a seat the conservatives need to win in 2015, if they wish to have a majority."
And when was the last time you said that Osborne should be sacked?
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
With respect to your list, I don't accept that genuinely equal but separate provision is discriminatory (e.g. male and female toilets located side-by-side and costing the same), which rules several out. I don't support all-women shortlists and don't believe any political party should be allowed to use them, any more than all-white or all-heterosexual shortlists. Nor should hairdressers be allowed to charge £20 to cut ladies' hair but £5 for men (though they should be allowed to charge different amounts based on the amount of work being done, which may result in men paying on average less if they have, on average, less time-consuming and/or costly cuts).
You seem to have missed out the race element in hairdressing. Also, the men/women only aspect of hairdressing.
You have completely ignored the case of when there isn't an alternative provision, but those who cannot be bothered to found their own institutions try to force existing private institutions to do their bidding e.g. baker's.
Finally, do you realise how irritating you are telling people how to run their own business. If you feel so strongly, bake the cake yourself, found your own school, etc.
Or create your own website and write your own articles.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
I wonder if I could go into the Tottenham club shop and get a No 61 spurs shirt with "When THFC weren't crap" printed above it
Or order pork sausages from a Kosher or Halal butchers, then claim anti-Christian discrimination. Don't laugh; many Christians in Israel farm pigs to distinguish themselves from their Jewish and Muslim neighbours.
I recall many years ago Manchester City fans being refused the name 'Swalesout' on new shirts at the Maine Road club shop.
Actually its the Israeli Jews that run the pig farms. One of the biggest is Kibbutz Mizra near Afula in Lower Galilee. They've been going for years. Nothing an Israeli likes more, on occasion, is a couple of pork sausages and a slice of bacon for tea.
I, Claudius is fantastic. Livia is one of the inspirations behind probably the main character in my work-in-progress.
I, Claudius is for my money one of, if not the, best series ever done for television. It looks quite dated now in terms of sets and production values but the standard of acting and story-telling is still superb (Brian Blessed's portrayal of Augustus is probably the bets thing he has ever done).
That said the book, or to be more accurate books (lots of people seem to forget volume 2, Claudius The God), are even better.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Oh, so pushing their homosexuality in the bakers face was not an attack on the firmly held beliefs of this family?
The Bakery is the one affronted, and there is no law that I know of, which precludes the right of a business to serve and deal with whoever it wishes to.
There will always be, what you sublimely call, antipathy to various groups. As a Jew, the rise in anti semitism in Britain since the large group of Polish and other eastern european immigrants arrived, is marked. Yet, except that I wan't less immigration, I don't make a song and dance about it.
Two things have got blurred here: the right not to be discriminated against and the right for businesses to turn down business. There is an overlap but it is not absolute. PtP's post downthread is excellent in explaining how things should work in practice.
I agree that a bakers should not be bound to undertake whatever whim a customer may demand providing that the business would also turn down equivalent requests from any other customer. Put another way, if a business, open to the public, chooses to turn down business then it should have to be able to show just cause for doing so. It may well be that in the bakery case cited there was just cause - that would depend on the precise nature of the design requested - but I don't accept that a business has the right to refuse service to customers just because they happen to be gay, or where they would provide an equivalent service to a straight couple.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
With respect to your list, I don't accept that genuinely equal but separate provision is discriminatory (e.g. male and female toilets located side-by-side and costing the same), which rules several out. I don't support all-women shortlists and don't believe any political party should be allowed to use them, any more than all-white or all-heterosexual shortlists. Nor should hairdressers be allowed to charge £20 to cut ladies' hair but £5 for men (though they should be allowed to charge different amounts based on the amount of work being done, which may result in men paying on average less if they have, on average, less time-consuming and/or costly cuts).
You seem to have missed out the race element in hairdressing. Also, the men/women only aspect of hairdressing.
You have completely ignored the case of when there isn't an alternative provision, but those who cannot be bothered to found their own institutions try to force existing private institutions to do their bidding e.g. baker's.
Finally, do you realise how irritating you are telling people how to run their own business. If you feel so strongly, bake the cake yourself, found your own school, etc.
Or create your own website and write your own articles.
That's a very good point.
As I have been banned from commenting on homosexuals and homosexuality, does this constitute anti-religious discrimination on behalf of this site.
Answer: probably, but the attitude I take is "Mike's gaffe, Mike's rules."
Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
This is one of those stories that leads to death by ennui.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
You're embarrassing yourself. When only the praetorian guard is left to defend the leader you know he's lost.
You mean you Kippers are so bloody predictable.
I'm right, just like why you lot are so scared of Dave's referendum.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
Two things have got blurred here: the right not to be discriminated against and the right for businesses to turn down business. There is an overlap but it is not absolute. PtP's post downthread is excellent in explaining how things should work in practice.
I agree that a bakers should not be bound to undertake whatever whim a customer may demand providing that the business would also turn down equivalent requests from any other customer. Put another way, if a business, open to the public, chooses to turn down business then it should have to be able to show just cause for doing so. It may well be that in the bakery case cited there was just cause - that would depend on the precise nature of the design requested - but I don't accept that a business has the right to refuse service to customers just because they happen to be gay, or where they would provide an equivalent service to a straight couple.
Why the use of the word "couple" in your reply?
Perhaps the use of it indicates the inherent weakness of your argument?
Perhaps you should look up the words complicity or accomplice before answering.
I'm worried our friendly neighbourhood PB Tories will be too busy drinking their sorrows on more local turf after UKIP's win at Rochester to make it to Dirty Dick's.
I'm worried our friendly neighbourhood PB Tories will be too busy drinking their sorrows on more local turf after UKIP's win at Rochester to make it to Dirty Dick's.
We'll be there.
Handing out white feathers to referendumphobic Kippers.
I'm worried our friendly neighbourhood PB Tories will be too busy drinking their sorrows on more local turf after UKIP's win at Rochester to make it to Dirty Dick's.
We'll be there.
Handing out white feathers to referendumphobic Kippers.
Two things have got blurred here: the right not to be discriminated against and the right for businesses to turn down business. There is an overlap but it is not absolute. PtP's post downthread is excellent in explaining how things should work in practice.
I agree that a bakers should not be bound to undertake whatever whim a customer may demand providing that the business would also turn down equivalent requests from any other customer. Put another way, if a business, open to the public, chooses to turn down business then it should have to be able to show just cause for doing so. It may well be that in the bakery case cited there was just cause - that would depend on the precise nature of the design requested - but I don't accept that a business has the right to refuse service to customers just because they happen to be gay, or where they would provide an equivalent service to a straight couple.
I don't understand why there should be any obligation for a business to take on any particular customer or project. If a business (like a cake shop, maybe) makes a habit of turning away clients then they won't be in business for long. But I shouldn't be *forced* to deal with everyone who walks through my door on pain of legal oppression. The market makes the decision for you. That's the beauty of capitalism and why it is the ultimate force for good.
The only way to defend your freedom of choice, it seems, is the same as hiring staff nowadays. Bin the CVs of women of childbearing age etc etc without giving any reason at all. The moment you hint at a personal opinion then the PC Gestapo are on your case and someone is whistling for the next rent-a-laywer off the rank.
Just had my hair cut for £6.50 at a lovely Cannock Chase salon.
£6.50! It was eleven quid for me the other week and that was at the local barbers not in a nice salon.
I am definitely going to up my campaign to get Herself's agreement that we should move North.
£12 for me for recent haircuts in Coventry city centre and at the Warwick Uni campus!
Were they ladies doing the cutting? I only ask because in the next village over a "gents hairdressing salon" has opened staffed by young ladies and I am told they charge £15 a hair cut (£20 for a pensioner, allegedly).
There used to be a barbers in Worthing run by an old Polish chap who washed up there after the war. He used to do very cheap haircuts, with free "vodka", but you had to be careful otherwise you could walk out of there not only pissed but looking like a Wehrmacht Tank commander en route for Op Barbarossa.
I agree that a bakers should not be bound to undertake whatever whim a customer may demand providing that the business would also turn down equivalent requests from any other customer. Put another way, if a business, open to the public, chooses to turn down business then it should have to be able to show just cause for doing so. It may well be that in the bakery case cited there was just cause - that would depend on the precise nature of the design requested - but I don't accept that a business has the right to refuse service to customers just because they happen to be gay, or where they would provide an equivalent service to a straight couple.
I am note sure where all that fits with the pledge from DCMS Secretary Maria Miller :
‘The Government is clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
'In no way will the measure undermine those who believe, for whatever reason, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right.’
Comments
Kippers always wrong, never learn.
You have completely ignored the case of when there isn't an alternative provision, but those who cannot be bothered to found their own institutions try to force existing private institutions to do their bidding e.g. baker's.
Finally, do you realise how irritating you are telling people how to run their own business. If you feel so strongly, bake the cake yourself, found your own school, etc.
And:
"Kippers always wrong, never learn."
Yes the praetorian Tories are always wrong.
I'm a Red Liberal and Ed Miliband fan, ha ha ha ha.
Surprised you want to identify yourself with such a character, Mr. Eagles.
I did say earlier, "Also, can the EU just demand extra money by announcing it through the press? Or does there have to be some official paperwork? If, as I suspect, the latter, surely there ought to be a piece of paper somewhere, from before yesterday, requesting the extra payment that confirms whether or not the UK was going to get half the money back."
Given that there is and it entirely contadicts their position, I can't believe they were idiotic enough to not realise it would come out and show up their dishonesty.
I also urged the sacking of George Osborne.
I have Sejanus on the brain.
I've been identified with worse.
One Kipper idiot on here said I tolerated child abuse so the Tories could do well.
The Bakery is the one affronted, and there is no law that I know of, which precludes the right of a business to serve and deal with whoever it wishes to.
There will always be, what you sublimely call, antipathy to various groups. As a Jew, the rise in anti semitism in Britain since the large group of Polish and other eastern european immigrants arrived, is marked. Yet, except that I wan't less immigration, I don't make a song and dance about it.
I think this shows the intellectual dishonesty of these people; welcome in mass numbers of foreigners, but expect my position/institutions not to change.
"If the Tories can’t win in Eastleigh in these circumstances, some will ask, how does this bode for the 2015 General election, especially after David Cameron’s speech on the European Union and the promise of a referendum, now that UKIP appear to be surging, something that Cameron’s speech was designed to reverse. Eastleigh is a seat the conservatives need to win in 2015, if they wish to have a majority."
And when was the last time you said that Osborne should be sacked?
Seems a bit harsh for a spot of moderating, stay away from Dirty Dicks.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/brazil-pre-qualifying.html
Just had my hair cut for £6.50 at a lovely Cannock Chase salon.
That said the book, or to be more accurate books (lots of people seem to forget volume 2, Claudius The God), are even better.
I'll fetch my coat...
I agree that a bakers should not be bound to undertake whatever whim a customer may demand providing that the business would also turn down equivalent requests from any other customer. Put another way, if a business, open to the public, chooses to turn down business then it should have to be able to show just cause for doing so. It may well be that in the bakery case cited there was just cause - that would depend on the precise nature of the design requested - but I don't accept that a business has the right to refuse service to customers just because they happen to be gay, or where they would provide an equivalent service to a straight couple.
As I have been banned from commenting on homosexuals and homosexuality, does this constitute anti-religious discrimination on behalf of this site.
Answer: probably, but the attitude I take is "Mike's gaffe, Mike's rules."
JohnO and Neil have invited me to pre Dirty Dicks cocktails.
Given John's sense of direction, and Bog Trotter Neil's encouragement of drinking, this will not end well.
If you hear of a bloke on the 21st of November, being arrested in London for being drunk and doing his white eared elephant impression.
That'll be me.
I am definitely going to up my campaign to get Herself's agreement that we should move North.
www.tonybaldry.co.uk/2014/11/08/sir-tony-congratulates-victoria-prentis-on-selection-as-conservative-candidate-for-north-oxfordshire/
She's the daughter of former Daventry MP Tim Boswell
I can see the love - and so must you UKIP or they wouldn't be trying any old garbage like that to pretend it isn't there.
Perhaps the use of it indicates the inherent weakness of your argument?
Perhaps you should look up the words complicity or accomplice before answering.
No yellow card for three All Blacks players for major transgressions, but a yellow card to the England player for something minor
Handing out white feathers to referendumphobic Kippers.
When did "pig-dog" replace the German "schweinhund" as an insult?
The only way to defend your freedom of choice, it seems, is the same as hiring staff nowadays. Bin the CVs of women of childbearing age etc etc without giving any reason at all. The moment you hint at a personal opinion then the PC Gestapo are on your case and someone is whistling for the next rent-a-laywer off the rank.
There used to be a barbers in Worthing run by an old Polish chap who washed up there after the war. He used to do very cheap haircuts, with free "vodka", but you had to be careful otherwise you could walk out of there not only pissed but looking like a Wehrmacht Tank commander en route for Op Barbarossa.
‘The Government is clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
'In no way will the measure undermine those who believe, for whatever reason, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right.’
Sounds like another government vow.