Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My special plea to those in the media responsible for commi

SystemSystem Posts: 11,705
edited December 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My special plea to those in the media responsible for commissioning opinion polls

Just about every day at the moment I find myself having to Tweet or write on PB that general elections are not decided by national party vote shares but by first past the post elections in 650 separate constituencies.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    First ..... again!
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited December 2014
    IF (big if) the UK wide polls start moving in favour of the Tories, might this persuade more Scots to vote Labour in order to shore up their national vote, thereby reducing the number of SNP MPs and aiding my bet highlighted in the last thread that Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity will result in the Nats winning fewer than 26.5 seats, on offer from Paddy Power at odds of 5/6 (N.B. the opposite bet is also on offer from PP at the same odds)?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,900
    Only 2 of us up?

    Shall we talk horse racing?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    So the GOP swept the three run-off races in Louisiana, meaning that there are no Democratic statewide elected officials between Texas and the Carolinas, and in the old Confederacy, they only have 3 Senators - the two from VA and one from FL. I do not see this as a victory for the GOP so much as the result of Democrats' focus/reliance on identity politics inevitably leading white working class voters to feel the party has abandoned them. Landrieu got just 18% of the total white vote in November! For those who believe demographics are the key to US elections, what happens to the white working class in the MidWest will be interesting to watch.
  • Options

    Only 2 of us up?

    Shall we talk horse racing?

    Three's a crowd ...... next time footy.
  • Options
    Sunday Times:

    "Fresh doubts have been raised over the future of Honda’s British plant after it scraped a profit of just £1m on sales of £2bn.

    The Swindon factory, which opened in 1992, sold 133,600 vehicles in the year to the end of March, down 20% on a year earlier. Honda of the UK Manufacturing saw revenues sink from £2.5bn last time.

    Despite the sound overall health of Britain’s automotive industry, Honda has been whittling away at Swindon’s workforce and production in recent years. In March it announced the shutdown of one of the two production lines, with the loss of 500 jobs."

    Good quality cars, shame about the outdated designs.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Yougov

    re 2010 LD VI
    Of the five results published this moNth, the LD retention has been greater than or equal to its loss to Labour. for three of these polls. in November thIs happened on only 5 of the 21 polls. However LD retention continues to decline.

    This YG poll is atypical in that in the London sample has 19% voting for UKIP and the Scotland sample has SNP on 38 with Labour on 29.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014

    Sunday Times:

    "Fresh doubts have been raised over the future of Honda’s British plant after it scraped a profit of just £1m on sales of £2bn.

    The Swindon factory, which opened in 1992, sold 133,600 vehicles in the year to the end of March, down 20% on a year earlier. Honda of the UK Manufacturing saw revenues sink from £2.5bn last time.

    Despite the sound overall health of Britain’s automotive industry, Honda has been whittling away at Swindon’s workforce and production in recent years. In March it announced the shutdown of one of the two production lines, with the loss of 500 jobs."

    Good quality cars, shame about the outdated designs.

    Strange, Five years ago I lived in Swindon, a friend of mine is a foreman at the plant, Honda had just started a massive extension to their facility, over quarter of a billion pounds spent. Last year they moved the Civic Tourer to Swindon as well. Personally I can't see them moving on the basis of a year or two's figures, not with a couple of billion invested in the facility.

  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html
    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited December 2014
    That's a nicely reasoned plea OGH.
    With my court jester's hat on might I query just who all these (quite legal and legitimate) polls are for? Are they for punters? Will the polls influence the actual vote? If so then that's an interesting new(ish) aspect to our democracy.
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.

    pretty simplistic. almost as simplistic as imagining that printing lots of money will make japan competitive
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    Luckily immigrants aren't actually dying out, so British people can continue to have as few or as many babies as they want to.

    Japan can solve its demographic problem by letting in the people young who would like to move there and fix it. Whether or not you think they're right to resist this, which they do for social and cultural reasons not economic ones, there comes a point where the choice is whether they want to pay people's pensions or not, and at that point, they'll open up in a hurry. You don't need Black Ships when you have arithmetic.

    It's possible that ultimately the rest of the world will end up following the same trends the developed world did at which point the problem will no longer just solve itself with migration, but that's a long way away, and may reverse itself in the mean time, if robotics doesn't make it moot.
  • Options
    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?

    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,900
    SUN On Sunday Columnist Louise Mensch says Lib Dem Danny Alexander should defect to the Conservative Party, where he has a great and serious future.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,900

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    Is that all.

    I recommend 54
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    75's a perfectly good age to be working.
  • Options
    rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    The pollsters could also usefully provide an England only summary in their tabulations.
  • Options
    Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    Luckily immigrants aren't actually dying out, so British people can continue to have as few or as many babies as they want to.

    Japan can solve its demographic problem by letting in the people young who would like to move there and fix it. Whether or not you think they're right to resist this, which they do for social and cultural reasons not economic ones, there comes a point where the choice is whether they want to pay people's pensions or not, and at that point, they'll open up in a hurry. You don't need Black Ships when you have arithmetic.

    It's possible that ultimately the rest of the world will end up following the same trends the developed world did at which point the problem will no longer just solve itself with migration, but that's a long way away, and may reverse itself in the mean time, if robotics doesn't make it moot.

    Speaking as someone who married an African immigrant (who, like me is planning to vote UKIP) with enough children for a small football team. I can't help but agree. If half our children also vote UKIP and they themselves have three or four children, half of whom vote UKIP then my one UKIP vote is turned into about six UKIP votes in thirty years.

    Meanwhile liberals who have one child (half of which (statistically) votes Liberal) which themsevles have one child, half of which votes Liberal) reduce the liberal vote by 87.5% in thirty years.

    Not difficult to see where this is going. Labour have historically benefitted from this phenomenon too, but less so now since their obsession with gay rights has seen several high profile cases of people from ethnic minorities sacked from jobs like marriage regristrars.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    Luckily immigrants aren't actually dying out, so British people can continue to have as few or as many babies as they want to.

    Japan can solve its demographic problem by letting in the people young who would like to move there and fix it. Whether or not you think they're right to resist this, which they do for social and cultural reasons not economic ones, there comes a point where the choice is whether they want to pay people's pensions or not, and at that point, they'll open up in a hurry. You don't need Black Ships when you have arithmetic.

    It's possible that ultimately the rest of the world will end up following the same trends the developed world did at which point the problem will no longer just solve itself with migration, but that's a long way away, and may reverse itself in the mean time, if robotics doesn't make it moot.
    Speaking as someone who married an African immigrant (who, like me is planning to vote UKIP) with enough children for a small football team. I can't help but agree. If half our children also vote UKIP and they themselves have three or four children, half of whom vote UKIP then my one UKIP vote is turned into about six UKIP votes in thirty years.

    Meanwhile liberals who have one child (half of which (statistically) votes Liberal) which themsevles have one child, half of which votes Liberal) reduce the liberal vote by 87.5% in thirty years.

    Not difficult to see where this is going. Labour have historically benefitted from this phenomenon too, but less so now since their obsession with gay rights has seen several high profile cases of people from ethnic minorities sacked from jobs like marriage regristrars.

    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

  • Options

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)

    Remember the Hippocratic advice to health workers ; "First, do no harm".

    Be grateful that the Fat Owl is retired and doing no more harm.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    Remember the Hippocratic advice to health workers ; "First, do no harm".

    Be grateful that the Fat Owl is retired and doing no more harm.

    Is Ed still promising owls for all after the general election?

    Will t'wit a t'woo spending be ring fenced or is this just another bird brained scheme from Labour ?

  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    oot.
    Speaking as someone who married an African immigrant (who, like me is planning to vote UKIP) with enough children for a small football team. I can't help but agree. If half our children also vote UKIP and they themselves have three or four children, half of whom vote UKIP then my one UKIP vote is turned into about six UKIP votes in thirty years.

    Meanwhile liberals who have one child (half of which (statistically) votes Liberal) which themsevles have one child, half of which votes Liberal) reduce the liberal vote by 87.5% in thirty years.

    Not difficult to see where this is going. Labour have historically benefitted from this phenomenon too, but less so now since their obsession with gay rights has seen several high profile cases of people from ethnic minorities sacked from jobs like marriage regristrars.
    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.


    A rubbish argument. From your ARSE, perhaps?

    By your criterion, Catholic nurses should be required to participate in abortions as they are employed to provide "healthcare".

    The law had been changed after she got the job, but made no provision for people's right of conscience.

    The problem is that no notice has been taken of the right of people not to be complicit in immoral acts.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,983
    MTimT said:

    So the GOP swept the three run-off races in Louisiana, meaning that there are no Democratic statewide elected officials between Texas and the Carolinas, and in the old Confederacy, they only have 3 Senators - the two from VA and one from FL. I do not see this as a victory for the GOP so much as the result of Democrats' focus/reliance on identity politics inevitably leading white working class voters to feel the party has abandoned them. Landrieu got just 18% of the total white vote in November! For those who believe demographics are the key to US elections, what happens to the white working class in the MidWest will be interesting to watch.

    A pity that Edwin Edwards wasn't elected.

    The speed at which the Democrats have fallen away in Louisiana has been startling.
  • Options
    Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


  • Options
    Ninoinoz said:

    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    oot.
    Speaking as someone who married an African immigrant (who, like me is planning to vote UKIP) with enough children for a small football team. I can't help but agree. If half our children also vote UKIP and they themselves have three or four children, half of whom vote UKIP then my one UKIP vote is turned into about six UKIP votes in thirty years.

    Meanwhile liberals who have one child (half of which (statistically) votes Liberal) which themsevles have one child, half of which votes Liberal) reduce the liberal vote by 87.5% in thirty years.

    Not difficult to see where this is going. Labour have historically benefitted from this phenomenon too, but less so now since their obsession with gay rights has seen several high profile cases of people from ethnic minorities sacked from jobs like marriage regristrars.
    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    A rubbish argument. From your ARSE, perhaps?

    By your criterion, Catholic nurses should be required to participate in abortions as they are employed to provide "healthcare".

    The law had been changed after she got the job, but made no provision for people's right of conscience.

    The problem is that no notice has been taken of the right of people not to be complicit in immoral acts.

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.
  • Options
    antifrank said:

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    So you would end the exemption for Sikhs wearing motorcycle crash helmets and force Sikh motorcycle couriers to remove their turban snd cut their hair to enable them to put on a crash helmet or resign and leave their job?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Toms said:

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    75's a perfectly good age to be working.


    As long as he is paying enough tax to support those that go early , make sure they can sit on a nice beach and drink his good health
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,402
    In the last election Scotland reached new levels of boredom with not a single seat changing hands in the entire country. I think I can predict with some confidence that the next time is not going to be like that.

    Ruth Davidson was enthusiastically talking up the tories yesterday (that is her job after all) pointing out that they came out of the referendum much stronger than they went into it with more members, more activists, more funders and more candidates as a new generation were introduced to active politics and rather liked it. The Conservative party was also by far the most united in its views on independence, even more than the SNP. (It all rather chimed with an observation during the campaign that BT was a training scheme explaining to Scottish tories how you actually fight elections).

    But, to be honest, even although she is determined to bury the panda joke once and for all, that is not where the main action is. The collapse of Lib Dem support seems to be even more catastrophic in Scotland than it is in England and at least 8 Lib Dem seats are seriously in play. Labour has somewhere between 5 and 25 seats in play and the breadth of that range shows how right OGH is with his plea for proper Scottish polling.

    My guess would be that the SNP surge will abate somewhat by May and that they will be squeezed, as they have been before, by a media focussed on who is going to be PM in which they are bit players. But I would still be pretty surprised if the SNP did not pick up about a dozen more seats than the 6 they have at the moment. I expect the Lib Dems to lose 7 or 8 seats and the tories to pick up 2 additional seats coming frustratingly close in a number of others. If I am right then the Labour cohort will not be diminished much with some Lib Dem pick ups offsetting losses to the SNP.

    But it certainly won't be boring.

  • Options

    antifrank said:

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    So you would end the exemption for Sikhs wearing motorcycle crash helmets and force Sikh motorcycle couriers to remove their turban snd cut their hair to enable them to put on a crash helmet or resign and leave their job?
    Have a think about why that's a complete non sequitur.
  • Options
    Ninoinoz said:



    By your criterion, Catholic nurses should be required to participate in abortions as they are employed to provide "healthcare".

    Comparing a requirement to carry out an abortion in the course of your employment when you genuinely believe it amounts to something akin to murder, with a requirement to do the paperwork on a gay marriage is utterly facile.

    Registrars are required to marry people who are legally entitled to marry. The process is the same for whoever comes before them, and it simply leads to extra costs if they pick and choose. Are they to be allowed to refuse to marry two 18 year olds because it's too young to be getting married (possibly true) or a young glamour model to a octogenarian billionaire because she's a gold-digger and he's a perv (possibly also true)?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


    Public servants and others should subscribe to the law of the land as passed by our sovereign parliament

    This is a concept that presumably Kippers support.

  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited December 2014
    antifrank said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    oot.
    Speaking as someone who married an African immigrant (who, like me is planning to vote UKIP) with enough children for a small football team. I can't help but agree. If half our children also vote UKIP and they themselves have three or four children, half of whom vote UKIP then my one UKIP vote is turned into about six UKIP votes in thirty years.

    Not difficult to see where this is going. Labour have historically benefitted from this phenomenon too, but less so now since their obsession with gay rights has seen several high profile cases of people from ethnic minorities sacked from jobs like marriage regristrars.
    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    A rubbish argument. From your ARSE, perhaps?

    By your criterion, Catholic nurses should be required to participate in abortions as they are employed to provide "healthcare".

    The law had been changed after she got the job, but made no provision for people's right of conscience.

    The problem is that no notice has been taken of the right of people not to be complicit in immoral acts.
    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.
    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited December 2014

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Anitifrank
    its not all black and white I am afraid. My late wife refused to do abortions, but of course those who would have pilloried her for that haven't seen a developed foetus being aborted.. or for that matter had to do it themselves.
  • Options
    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
  • Options
    Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    JackW said:

    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


    Public servants and others should subscribe to the law of the land as passed by our sovereign parliament

    This is a concept that presumably Kippers support.

    So if the law of the land as passed by our sovereign (not since 1973 it ain't) parliament was that non white people should be forcibly expelled from the country you would expect all public servants and others to fully subscribe to this and implement it?
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,900

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    Remember the Hippocratic advice to health workers ; "First, do no harm".

    Be grateful that the Fat Owl is retired and doing no more harm.

    Is Trolling an offence yet?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    What on earth are you talking about: why do you continue to write such rubbish?
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    Remember the Hippocratic advice to health workers ; "First, do no harm".

    Be grateful that the Fat Owl is retired and doing no more harm.
    Is Trolling an offence yet?

    it can't be, you haven't been put on the naughty step
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


    Public servants and others should subscribe to the law of the land as passed by our sovereign parliament

    This is a concept that presumably Kippers support.

    So if the law of the land as passed by our sovereign (not since 1973 it ain't) parliament was that non white people should be forcibly expelled from the country you would expect all civil servants to fully subscribe to this and implement it?
    Our laws are not a pick'n'mix sweetie jar for religions and others to select from.

    We do not live in a theocracy but in a modern liberal democracy, a fact that some find difficult to cope with.

  • Options

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    malcolmg said:

    Toms said:

    antifrank said:

    Indigo said:

    Excellent article about the demographic timebomb in today's Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11276052/To-innovate-and-grow-Britain-needs-to-make-more-babies.html

    In the world in 1980, there were 10.2 old people for every 100 working ones. Today, there are 12.1. In 2050, the UN projects, there will be 24.7. The situation is more extreme in most of Europe and in some far-eastern countries, like Japan, today. Germany has a fertility rate of only 1.43 children; more than 21 per cent of Japanese are over 65. In Britain, this newspaper reported yesterday, there has been a 42-per-cent jump in the number of one-child families in a generation. The old are living longer – a good thing in itself but also, in a society with fewer workers, a problem.
    1) What are the next generation supposed to do when their young get old? We can't keep operating a Ponzi scheme indefinitely.
    2)Why can't the old keep working longer?
    3) In a world with a rising population, why can't we instead import young workers? We might give it a nice Latinate name. Maybe, "immigration"?
    Because some public-sector parasites want to retire at the age of 54; whilst others return from low tax regimes and buy extra years of Westminster pension rights. Me: I expect to work until I am 75...! :-)
    75's a perfectly good age to be working.
    As long as he is paying enough tax to support those that go early , make sure they can sit on a nice beach and drink his good health
    I'm not sure about "enough" there Malcolm, but I do support reasonable freedom of choice.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Antifrank, do you think kosher and halal slaughter should be banned, and likewise circumcision? Or that Sikhs should be made to wear helmets when they're currently exempted?

    Mr. W, are you sure? The media very obligingly covered up Mohammed when reporting the Jesus and Mo nonsense.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,904
    Food banks are a big opportunity for Labour. I met a nurse last week who told me she and several of her colleagues helped with food banks after work. She said she couldn't stand to see people hungry at this time of year. Naturally I was full of admiration. Today I notice a senior churchman making the same point and saying how depressing that hunger can exist in our country......

    This is where Labour could take a leaf out of the Alec Salmond playbook. They should start campaigning to collect money for these food banks under their banner. Turn it into a major national campaign. It doesn't need any political comment or any overt criticism of the Tories. It's a cause that everyone would get behind and it would remind potential Labour voters what their party stand for.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
    The courts are likely to disagree http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29993924
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    antifrank said:


    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Do something or get fired.

    Are you aware of the concept of "threat"?

    In any case, it was a public employer and therefore should not discriminate against its religious citizens; it should accommodate them.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
    I don't agree, some people have been in jobs for a very long time and suddenly they are asked to do something (or not to so something) that goes against everything they believe in.. you dismiss that personal difficulty because the law demands it, so one set of people are kicked in the proverbial to provide rights for another.. Sorry mate, its not as back and white as you like to say it is, and as a lawyer one would have thought you of all people would realise this.
  • Options
    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.
    I wouldn't bet on that.

    "Andrew White, an Anglican priest known as the “Vicar of Baghdad,” has seen violence and persecution against Christians unprecedented in recent decades.
    In the video embedded below, he recounts the story of Iraqi Christian children who were told by ISIS militants to convert to Islam or be killed. Their response? “No, We Love Yeshua (Jesus).”
    [and were killed by decapitation as Canon white explains in the video]

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/isis-to-children-convert-say-the-words-children-to-isis-no-we-love-jesus/
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369
    Agree with Mike and DavidL - the Scottish results will be extremely important, and well worth some separate polling. When is the Labour leadership result?

    There's a YouGov finding today which should give all of us food for thought. Asking about the deficit, just 20% favour prioritising reduction mainly by cuts, just 19% favour prioritising it mainly by tax rises, a substantial 36% (including 18% of Conservatives, the only group to give it priority - another 17% of Tories want tax rises) don't favour prioritising it at all, 10% disagree with all three views, and 15% don't know.

    What's interesting about this is that it doesn't fit any of the main party narratives. None are especially explicit, but broadly the Tory position is "accelerate by cuts", Labour's position is "exclude investment but otherwise crack on with reduction", and the LibDem position is not clear to me, but certainly not "don't worry about the deficit". The Greens are explicitly against cuts and I wonder whether their increasing poll rating and UKIP's rise as "general consensus-breakers" is partly to do with that. Certainly the objective of persuading people that there's an urgent problem has not been achieved - or it was temporarily achieved and then forgotten. People see there's a bigger debt level than ever and the roof isn't falling in, so they go "Oh, well". (I am not expressing an opinion here, just observing trends.)

    Other interesting findings: a majority OPPOSE road improvements (47-40) as "the wrong priority" - a surprise IMO. Most people like the mansion tax (63%) and the stamp duty changes (77%). Most people aren't impressed by Osborne giving more money to the NHS. Free schools are opposed by 2-1. People would like to cut student fees even if it meant universities were poorer, unless unis could somehow guarantee a good job.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,983

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Anitifrank
    its not all black and white I am afraid. My late wife refused to do abortions, but of course those who would have pilloried her for that haven't seen a developed foetus being aborted.. or for that matter had to do it themselves.

    I suppose the difficulty arises when the law is changed, after someone has been employed. Merely telling people to resign if they don't like the change in the law doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. W, are you sure? The media very obligingly covered up Mohammed when reporting the Jesus and Mo nonsense.

    Ukip would support Mohammed "covered up" but obviously placed in a corner .... and on a seasonal and topical note what is Farage's view of Mary breast feeeding Jesus in the stable?

    Three wise men required to solve that one ?!?

  • Options
    Ninoinoz said:

    antifrank said:


    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Do something or get fired.

    Are you aware of the concept of "threat"?

    In any case, it was a public employer and therefore should not discriminate against its religious citizens; it should accommodate them.
    Maybe one day they'll identify the gay gene and any nurse who refuses to abort gay foetuses will feel morally obliged to resign.
  • Options
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


    Public servants and others should subscribe to the law of the land as passed by our sovereign parliament

    This is a concept that presumably Kippers support.

    So if the law of the land as passed by our sovereign (not since 1973 it ain't) parliament was that non white people should be forcibly expelled from the country you would expect all civil servants to fully subscribe to this and implement it?
    Our laws are not a pick'n'mix sweetie jar for religions and others to select from.

    We do not live in a theocracy but in a modern liberal democracy, a fact that some find difficult to cope with.

    You didn't answer my question. If parliament passed a law that non white people should be expelled from the UK, would you agree that civil servants who refused to implement it for religious or ethical/conscience reasons should be sacked?
  • Options
    OT, the UK's "porn filter" internet censorship system is now blocking net activists who speak out against internet censorship systems.

    http://ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk

    First they came for the pornographers, and I was silent because I wasn't into double penetration action...
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    JackW said:

    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


    Public servants and others should subscribe to the law of the land as passed by our sovereign parliament

    This is a concept that presumably Kippers support.

    Ah yes, but immigration has changed the religious and ethnic composition of the country, something presumably non-Kippers support.

    The law should be changed to reflect this, as it was for Sikhs.

    This is what I despise; people being all I favour of immigration changing the country, but somehow thinking it won't affect them.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    OT, the UK's "porn filter" internet censorship system is now blocking net activists who speak out against internet censorship systems.

    http://ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk

    First they came for the pornographers, and I was silent because I wasn't into double penetration action...

    It seems at the moment they only come for them if you dont know how to look up an IP address, if you do you can sidestep it completely. I must confess if were were doing to do totalitarianism you might have hoped it was slightly more competent totalitarianism.
  • Options
    Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    Indigo said:

    OT, the UK's "porn filter" internet censorship system is now blocking net activists who speak out against internet censorship systems.

    http://ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk

    First they came for the pornographers, and I was silent because I wasn't into double penetration action...

    It seems at the moment they only come for them if you dont know how to look up an IP address, if you do you can sidestep it completely. I must confess if were were doing to do totalitarianism you might have hoped it was slightly more competent totalitarianism.
    of if you don't know how to instruct your filter to exempt a particular site.
  • Options
    Mr. Tokyo, ages ago I heard a story that an update or patch for a totally non-pornographic game was blocked by a UK porn filter because it had the letter string S-E-X a few times (I think it was something like updates.ex or or similar).
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,281
    edited December 2014

    Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity

    You're basing this on the opinions of a Unionist troll and a SLAB idiot. I'd wait till the next Ipsos ratings poll before building a betting strategy on it.
  • Options
    Ironic that, in this debate, the right-wingers on this board are arguing for an extension of the concept of reasonable accommodation in human rights/EU law!

    We almost all have to do things in our job we disagree with. If we disagree strongly enough, we can leave. I appreciate it isn't costless, but there are jobs out there.

    If an employer is forcing an employee to carry out duties they strongly object to on moral grounds when the employee's beliefs could easily and cheaply be accommodated, that's one thing. It's plainly unnecessary and ludicrous to reallocate a nurse who strongly objects to abortion from, say, a geriatric ward to a role involving assisting in abortions.

    But it just piles costs on the business (or taxpayer as the case may be) if there is a general right to refuse to do things on moral grounds. For marriage registration, you essentially need to duplicate the employee if that employee refuses to register a proportion of marriages.

    I would be interested if those arguing for the employee in that situation would take the same view of a feminist WH Smith employee who routinely refused to serve customers buying Nuts magazine (you may assume the magazine was not sold when they took the job)? Or a Muslim corner-shop employee who refuses to sell booze and fags when they start being stocked?

    In the case of a racist law passed requiring deportation... if I were a civil servant in a job where I was required to implement it, I'd resign and campaign strongly for the removal of that law. I wouldn't seek to sue my employer for requiring me to do my duties of employment.
  • Options
    Some years ago not long after 2001, I heard of a filter that blocked any website with "weather" in its name. Turned out it was a USA based bit of software and decades ago there was a minor radical leftist group deemed to be a domestic terrorist group in the USA called the Weather Underground and known as the Weathermen.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
    Oh goody! Can I play this game as well?

    I don't dismiss gay rights, I dismiss the idea that gays should be able to have their cake and have someone else bake it, refusing to abstain from sex in order to retain their jobs. If they are unable to restrain themselves, they should find alternative employment, although they have been trained in an occupation where the State is the only employer.
  • Options
    Indigo said:

    OT, the UK's "porn filter" internet censorship system is now blocking net activists who speak out against internet censorship systems.

    http://ccc.de/en/updates/2014/ccc-censored-in-uk

    First they came for the pornographers, and I was silent because I wasn't into double penetration action...

    It seems at the moment they only come for them if you dont know how to look up an IP address, if you do you can sidestep it completely. I must confess if were were doing to do totalitarianism you might have hoped it was slightly more competent totalitarianism.
    Well the upside (*) to this stuff is that it pushes people onto more censorship-resistant systems.

    (*) Obviously I mean the upside for people interested in online freedom, not for the people who are doing the censoring. If they used surveillance and censorship sparingly governments might actually be able to accomplish some of their law enforcement goals, but once organizations have a technology they're incapable of reining themselves in, so they end up creating the equivalent to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Gawd another Kipper gays and immigrants thread.


    Meanwhile...

    @RobbieGibb: Research by #bbcsp shows drop in numbers registering to vote following introduction of new system of individual voter registration (1/3)
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited December 2014
    Sean_F said:

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.
    Sean Fear wrote :


    I suppose the difficulty arises when the law is changed, after someone has been employed. Merely telling people to resign if they don't like the change in the law doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me.


    ...............................................................

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.

  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Morning from Easter Ross where we have driving sleet and snow!

    So Eck is to stand in Gordon. It will be interesting to see whether the good voters of East Aberdeenshire decide that the LibDem or the Tory is the candidate to stop Eck. An Ashcroft constituency poll might be interesting.

    The real 'hand to hand combat' between Labour and the SNP is taking place in the Labour rotten burghs, those city and urban seats where Labour has put up total numpties for decades, often as a reward for decades of service as councillors or trade union officials. These are the seats where basically 50 years of unbroken representation by the Labour party has seen £billions squandered on half-baked schemes and the constituents remaining poor, deprived and ignored.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited December 2014

    Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity

    You're basing that on the opinions of a Unionist troll and a SLAB idiot. I'd wait till the next Ipsos ratings poll before building a betting strategy on that.
    You're missing Salmond's class already, Sturgeon is a remarkably poor and unattractive replacement for the great man. Balotelli for Suarez.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    TGOHF said:

    Gawd another Kipper gays and immigrants thread.

    Anything is an improvement on the breastfeeding thread.

  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    JackW said:

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.

    It's pretty thin to argue that the physician that carries out the procedure is explicitly exempted under the Act from carrying out a procedure to which he objects morally, but the nurse that assists shouldn't be.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:



    Ethnic minority registrars are there to uphold the law of the land not their religious beliefs.

    So presumably you think Sikhs working as a motorcycle courier should be forced to remove their turbans and wear a crash helmet or resign their job?

    https://www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88

    "On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."


    Public servants and others should subscribe to the law of the land as passed by our sovereign parliament

    This is a concept that presumably Kippers support.

    So if the law of the land as passed by our sovereign (not since 1973 it ain't) parliament was that non white people should be forcibly expelled from the country you would expect all civil servants to fully subscribe to this and implement it?
    Our laws are not a pick'n'mix sweetie jar for religions and others to select from.

    We do not live in a theocracy but in a modern liberal democracy, a fact that some find difficult to cope with.

    You didn't answer my question. If parliament passed a law that non white people should be expelled from the UK, would you agree that civil servants who refused to implement it for religious or ethical/conscience reasons should be sacked?
    I did answer your question.

    Read the first line of my response more closely.

  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369
    Another interesting poll from the often-overlooked Red Box series (no paywall) - people now mostly blame the Coalition rather than the last government for failing to resolve economic difficulties:

    http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/39461a19e9eddfb385ea76b26521ea48.html

    A lot of that is simply a pragmatic observation, I think - the Government's been in for nearly 5 years and they say we're still in difficulties. Ergo, they haven't solved the difficulties. A lot of people don't bother to dig deeper than that.
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Roger said:

    Naturally I was full of admiration.

    Full enough to stop avoiding tax payments?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited December 2014
    Indigo said:

    TGOHF said:

    Gawd another Kipper gays and immigrants thread.

    Anything is an improvement on the breastfeeding thread.

    Perhaps a Scottish breast feeding thread decided by AV with a side portion of kippers ?

  • Options

    Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity

    You're basing that on the opinions of a Unionist troll and a SLAB idiot. I'd wait till the next Ipsos ratings poll before building a betting strategy on that.
    You're missing Salmond's class already, Sturgeon is a remarkably poor and unattractive replacement for the great man. Balotelli for Suarez.
    Missing it? Eck's on all the media this morning, voted pol of the year and he'll be the face of the GE.

    Yesterday's man.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014

    A lot of that is simply a pragmatic observation, I think - the Government's been in for nearly 5 years and they say we're still in difficulties. Ergo, they haven't solved the difficulties. A lot of people don't bother to dig deeper than that.

    And yet how often is Thatcher mentioned by Labour supporters as the cause of the world's ills, even at the end of GB's term when you had been in power for 13 years ? She is still being blamed now and she hasnt been in government for 24 years and dead for a year and a half!

  • Options
    JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 378
    Peter the Punter asks:

    "IF (big if) the UK wide polls start moving in favour of the Tories, might this persuade more Scots to vote Labour in order to shore up their national vote"

    Quite the reverse. If it becomes clear that the Tories are going to win the GE, then Labour voters will switch in crushing numbers to the SNP as the best means of defending Scottish interests.

    Already we see (per Margaret Curran, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland) yesterday that the Labour line will be the usual "vote Labour to keep the Tories out".

    That will not be as effective this time for a number of reasons including:

    * the increasing resonance of the term Red Tories which indicates the view that there is little to choose between Labour & Tory.

    *The greater credibility of the SNP following the 2011 Holyrood triumph.

    * the realisation that a hung parliament is the likeliest outcome and that an SNP bloc could hold the balance of power.

    And, no, I still cannot predict how many seats the SNP will win under FPTP so I have settled for betting on Murphy to be "Scottish" Labour Leader (best bet was around evens), and Salmond to win a Westminster seat (best was 2/1). :-)
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited December 2014

    Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity

    You're basing that on the opinions of a Unionist troll and a SLAB idiot. I'd wait till the next Ipsos ratings poll before building a betting strategy on that.
    You're missing Salmond's class already, Sturgeon is a remarkably poor and unattractive replacement for the great man. Balotelli for Suarez.
    Missing it? Eck's on all the media this morning, voted pol of the year and he'll be the face of the GE.

    Yesterday's man.
    He's going home to Westminster.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    TGOHF said:

    Gawd another Kipper gays and immigrants thread.

    Anything is an improvement on the breastfeeding thread.

    Perhaps a Scottish breast feeding thread decided by AV with a side portion of kippers ?
    Now you're talking!
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    Mr. Tokyo, ages ago I heard a story that an update or patch for a totally non-pornographic game was blocked by a UK porn filter because it had the letter string S-E-X a few times (I think it was something like updates.ex or or similar).

    Apparently many company networks have so tightly filtered their networks that Scunthorpe, is blocked.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Indigo said:

    JackW said:

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.

    It's pretty thin to argue that the physician that carries out the procedure is explicitly exempted under the Act from carrying out a procedure to which he objects morally, but the nurse that assists shouldn't be.
    I argue nothing more than public servants obey the law.

    If amendments are thought necessary then let them be campaigned for and voted upon by parliament.

  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    JackW said:

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.

    It's pretty thin to argue that the physician that carries out the procedure is explicitly exempted under the Act from carrying out a procedure to which he objects morally, but the nurse that assists shouldn't be.
    I argue nothing more than public servants obey the law.

    If amendments are thought necessary then let them be campaigned for and voted upon by parliament.

    Or indeed argued in the courts... which is what they are doing http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29993924
  • Options
    Mr. Saddened, yeah, I've heard that too.

    Try and make the interweb safe for 8 year olds and you'll both fail at that and succeed in making it a pain in the arse for everyone else.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,983
    JackW said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.
    Sean Fear wrote :

    I suppose the difficulty arises when the law is changed, after someone has been employed. Merely telling people to resign if they don't like the change in the law doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me.


    ...............................................................

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.



    Quite a number of places that have introduced gay marriage (eg South Africa, Holland, some US States) permit conscientious objection for Registrars.

  • Options
    Mr. Indigo, indeed, the left are much better at demonisation than the right. Probably a combination of self-righteousness and actually being able to understand the English language and use it effectively (in both positive and negative senses).

    Mind you, the right aren't helped when the state broadcaster describes a reduction in benefits as a 'tax'.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Research by #bbcsp shows drop in numbers registering to vote following introduction of new system of individual voter registration (1/3)

    Bad news for labour??
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Mr. Saddened, yeah, I've heard that too.

    Try and make the interweb safe for 8 year olds and you'll both fail at that and succeed in making it a pain in the arse for everyone else.

    I thought the latest pornograph regulations were explicit about reducing pains in peoples arses ;-) A £5/month VPN service with an egress point in a suitable jurisdiction side steps most idiocies, and frequently gives better performance.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    Indigo said:

    JackW said:

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.

    It's pretty thin to argue that the physician that carries out the procedure is explicitly exempted under the Act from carrying out a procedure to which he objects morally, but the nurse that assists shouldn't be.
    I argue nothing more than public servants obey the law.

    If amendments are thought necessary then let them be campaigned for and voted upon by parliament.

    You are starting to sound like a robot @JackW, it doesn't become you.

    The vast majority of the public servants in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia did "nothing more than obey the law"; see where that got them and their societies.

    I would hate to see our public servants obey laws they despise through gritted teeth.
  • Options
    FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    The hallmark of a totalitarian state is forcing individuals to act against their conscience. No surprise to find the authoritarian left supporting such a position, very much the default position in Communist states.
  • Options

    Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity

    You're basing that on the opinions of a Unionist troll and a SLAB idiot. I'd wait till the next Ipsos ratings poll before building a betting strategy on that.
    You're missing Salmond's class already, Sturgeon is a remarkably poor and unattractive replacement for the great man. Balotelli for Suarez.
    Missing it? Eck's on all the media this morning, voted pol of the year and he'll be the face of the GE.

    Yesterday's man.
    He's going home to Westminster.
    Eck's generosity in livening up the palace of mediocrity knows no bounds. As implied in your description, Westminster sorely needs his class.
  • Options
    Ninoinoz said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
    Oh goody! Can I play this game as well?

    I don't dismiss gay rights, I dismiss the idea that gays should be able to have their cake and have someone else bake it, refusing to abstain from sex in order to retain their jobs. If they are unable to restrain themselves, they should find alternative employment, although they have been trained in an occupation where the State is the only employer.
    In the liberal society we live in, gay men can have sex and marry. And poor confused Neanderthal kippers just have to suck it up.

    The religious are entitled to their views up to the point they affect other people who don't share their beliefs. When they presume to tell other people who they can and can't marry, they can crawl back under their rock again.
  • Options
    FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    JackW said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.
    Sean Fear wrote :

    I suppose the difficulty arises when the law is changed, after someone has been employed. Merely telling people to resign if they don't like the change in the law doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me.


    ...............................................................

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.



    Is there no end to some people's narcissism.
  • Options
    Gordon odds.

    Ladbrokes Politics ‏@LadPolitics 29 mins29 minutes ago
    Latest odds for Gordon on news that Salmond is standing for Westminster: 1/7 @AlexSalmond (SNP) 5/1 @Cajardine (LD) 33/1 @BradenDavy (Lab)

    LD candidate bullish. Or bullshittish, depending on your view.

    christine jardine @Cajardine · 13 hrs 13 hours ago
    Surprise @theSNP didn't check public opinion before putting @AlexSalmond in firing line. Said NO once we'll say it again #bringiton
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited December 2014

    Nicola Sturgeon's diminishing popularity

    You're basing that on the opinions of a Unionist troll and a SLAB idiot. I'd wait till the next Ipsos ratings poll before building a betting strategy on that.
    You're missing Salmond's class already, Sturgeon is a remarkably poor and unattractive replacement for the great man. Balotelli for Suarez.
    Missing it? Eck's on all the media this morning, voted pol of the year and he'll be the face of the GE.

    Yesterday's man.
    He's going home to Westminster.
    Eck's generosity in livening up the palace of mediocrity knows no bounds. As implied in your description, Westminster sorely needs his class.
    Agreed. Eck was too big for Holyrood's lecture theatre, he belongs on the Commons' stage.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    JackW said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.
    Sean Fear wrote :

    I suppose the difficulty arises when the law is changed, after someone has been employed. Merely telling people to resign if they don't like the change in the law doesn't seem entirely reasonable to me.
    ...............................................................

    There can't be many nurses employed today who first started prior to the 1967 Abortion Act ?

    Recent liberalization on gay matters is a different matter but these substantial reforms cannot be allowed to fail because some public servants hold differing religious beliefs. They are after all not paid as salaried advocates of their faith.



    Quite a number of places that have introduced gay marriage (eg South Africa, Holland, some US States) permit conscientious objection for Registrars.



    Indeed so Sean.

    However our parliament has seen fit not to do so. I tend to the absolutist position here - the voters decide on parliament and parliament decides for the voters.

  • Options
    antifrank said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
    Oh goody! Can I play this game as well?

    I don't dismiss gay rights, I dismiss the idea that gays should be able to have their cake and have someone else bake it, refusing to abstain from sex in order to retain their jobs. If they are unable to restrain themselves, they should find alternative employment, although they have been trained in an occupation where the State is the only employer.
    In the liberal society we live in, gay men can have sex and marry. And poor confused Neanderthal kippers just have to suck it up.

    The religious are entitled to their views up to the point they affect other people who don't share their beliefs. When they presume to tell other people who they can and can't marry, they can crawl back under their rock again.
    You neatly and succinctly sum up the authoritarian oxymoron that Liberalism has become.

  • Options
    Mr. Divvie, it's a good attitude for the LD candidate. Better to go down fighting, and it may improve her chances of a surprise victory.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    antifrank said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.

    But once again we see the authoritarian kippers telling me who I may or may not marry.
    Antifrank.. you dismiss religion if it means progress for your purpose. I am not terribly religious myself nor am I a kipper but I have always believed marriage is between a man and a woman, and just because the law says it isn't any more doesn't mean its right, Sometimes the law is an ass.
    I don't dismiss religion. I dismiss the idea that the religious should be able to have their cake and eat it, refusing to perform duties they are required to perform and retaining their jobs. If they disapprove that strongly, they should find alternative employment.
    Oh goody! Can I play this game as well?

    I don't dismiss gay rights, I dismiss the idea that gays should be able to have their cake and have someone else bake it, refusing to abstain from sex in order to retain their jobs. If they are unable to restrain themselves, they should find alternative employment, although they have been trained in an occupation where the State is the only employer.
    In the liberal society we live in, gay men can have sex and marry. And poor confused Neanderthal kippers just have to suck it up.

    The religious are entitled to their views up to the point they affect other people who don't share their beliefs. When they presume to tell other people who they can and can't marry, they can crawl back under their rock again.
    So you would ban the Burka?
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited December 2014

    antifrank said:

    MikeK said:

    antifrank said:



    Leaving aside your baleful view of what makes for an immoral act, you're spouting rubbish. No one is making anyone do anything. If your conscience tells you that gay marriages or civil partnerships are wrong, you have the option of resigning from the job.

    If you can't perform a job - for whatever reason - you should leave it.

    Thats a stupid answer @antifrank. Most people cannot afford to lose a job on conscience and are forced to submit to immoral laws. Shakespeare was so right when he wrote. "conscience doth make cowards of us all". The only answer is to vote UKIP in for a massive change in the game.
    Christians' willingness to endure martyrdom seems to have declined greatly since the days when they were fed to lions or flayed alive.
    I wouldn't bet on that.

    "Andrew White, an Anglican priest known as the “Vicar of Baghdad,” has seen violence and persecution against Christians unprecedented in recent decades.
    In the video embedded below, he recounts the story of Iraqi Christian children who were told by ISIS militants to convert to Islam or be killed. Their response? “No, We Love Yeshua (Jesus).”
    [and were killed by decapitation as Canon white explains in the video]

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/isis-to-children-convert-say-the-words-children-to-isis-no-we-love-jesus/
    There's a nice contrast of religions in the current issue of Standpoint:

    "...Strangely, the postmodern decoupling of religion and culture has made it possible to witness the expression of major religions in a textually ‘pure' form.

    Fundamentalist Judaism, as practiced in the streets of Mea Shearim, Jerusalem, is marked by fastidious adherence to family purity, dietary laws, and ritual practice.

    Fundamentalist Buddhism is centred on a sort of righteous self-abnegation, a cloistered monk's life.

    Fundamentalist Christianity emphasises living in constant communion with God, evangelising, and missionary work.

    As for fundamentalist Islam, it has been likened to Marxist-Leninism for its strict insistence on a revolutionary purification of the entire world, in the former's case according to a strict interpretation of sharia law."

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/5838/full
  • Options

    Mr. Divvie, it's a good attitude for the LD candidate. Better to go down fighting, and it may improve her chances of a surprise victory.

    'Bring it on' has an unfortunate resonance in Scottish politics.
This discussion has been closed.