Anything Political

[LizzieM 9,510]

One day, well into that tenancy there was a Severn Trent van parked over there.  I was just arriving home from taking the dog a walk and went across to ask the ST man if there was a problem, thinking it might be something affecting our supply.  No, it was only relating to THAT house.  He said there was a water leak right by the electricity meter ....... you’d have thought that incident would have rung alarm bells with the utility companies.  Apparently every room in the house except the kitchen was full of cannabis plants, but not the loft because the police helicopter would have spotted the heat there.  The ‘gardener’ ate and slept in the kitchen.  He seemed a nice young lad, he came out occasionally to go to the corner shop and get some fresh air! 

[Brew 5,418]

The ST van may well have been borrowed by the police for a stake out, they occasionally asked for an EMEB van for the same purpose

[loppylugs 8,429]

I thought the engineers always used black minis back in the 60s.  

[DJ360 6,730]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

Surely it's really only a personal opinion and conjecture.  Politicians can't wear two hats, they can't be members of a party and act as an independent.

 

Jim, I may not have worded it too well but let me put it this way.  In my opinion, and in all that passes for a 'constitution'  (Yes.. I know we don't have a written one.. but we have tradition, custom and practice.. convention..etc stretching back many hundreds of years.)..the most important part of our Democracy is Parliament.

It is Parliament which endures.  Parties come and go.. they shift and merge, they split etc.

 

It is Parliament whch represents our Democratic Process.

 

That is why I say that any Politician worth their salt should above all.. hold allegiance to the institution of Parliament.  If anyone...of any party, including their own..seeks to undermine, or by-pass Parliament, or to bring our democratic institutions into disrepute.. then it is the duty of ALL MPs and Lords to do all they can to prevent it.  I don't think I mentioned resignation.. but that is one possible tactic.  Stand and fight is another.. as is invoking the Law.

 

Since Johnson and his crooks gained power.. we have seen them illegally prorogue Parliament.. dismiss criminal behaviour by their own ministers and advisers with a 'wave of the hand' and a declaration that 'the matter is closed'. ( The Jenrick/Desmond planing scam..and other dodgy stuff involving Jenrick) many other issues especially around the blatant dishing out of OUR money to friends of Johnson et.al. for non existent PPE, failed Test and Trace, etc., etc.

Now..we have Johnson dragging the UK's reputation throught the dirt, and risking the Good Friday Agreement with his latest Brexit idiocy.

 

No MP or Lord should countenance this criminality.. whatever their political leanings.  The strength and integrity of our Democratic System takes precedent over mere party political squabbling.  These are dangerous times.

[DJ360 6,730]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

You rubbished Malthus and his catastrophe theory before but now you’re trying to turn into a rich v poor argument - it’s not.

Simply put he claimed that population growth is exponential and food production arithmetically linear, ipso facto we will run out of food at some point, he didn’t say when.

His reasoning of why and when is what was mostly challenged but common sense says there has to be a finite limit.
It was all hypothetical and mocked at the time by Dickens in his role as a social commentator, but no real evidence was offered in repudiation. The whole idea was merely pooh-poohed and ridiculed.

 

 

Malthus was simplistic.  But more to the point his thinking was driven by religious morality and fixed ideas on class. That is not scientific.

 

Either way.. my main riposte to Phil wasn't really meant to be about Malthus per se, but about the oft repeated..but simply untrue notion that the problems of the World are caused by 'breeding like rabbits'.

 

I ask again.  Who was Phil referring to?  Who is breeding like rabbits?

 

The evidence is that many countries are seeing a population decline, or at least a slowing of increase.

 

It isn't population pressure that is destroying the planet.. it is Capitalism. 

 

Capitalism depends on growth... production..sales..more sales.. consumption..more consumption..

 

Infinite growth of industry and production.. or indeed of population.. is not possible on a finite planet. I was reading books like 'The Limits to Growth' 30+ years ago.

 

To blame 'people breeding like rabbits' is entirely wrong.  World capitalism wants population growth because it wants markets.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Projections

 

We need to move on from a Capitalist model. (And no.. that doesn't mean I think we should go all Commie). We need a new and sustainable economic model.

I have no idea what that is.. but it cannot be Capitalism in its present form, or any sort of totalitarianism....of left.. or right. (not that there's much difference)

 

 

[Brew 5,418]

3 hours ago, loppylugs said:

I thought the engineers always used black minis back in the 60s.  

 

In the 60's LL I was at uni and doing a myriad of part time jobs. I didn't start work as an engineer until 1984 and in my 40's...

[Brew 5,418]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It is Parliament whch represents our Democratic Process.

 

 

 

You didn’t mention resignation as such, I thought you were alluding to the recent civil servants who are spitting their dummy out. Sorry, I shouldn’t make assumptions.

 

Resigning, in my view, from some obscure government post on a point of principle can be seen as nothing if not Machiavellian and self-serving. 

 

Your career is going nowhere and need to raise your profile. You resign for whatever reason knowing full well you still remain an MP.  You also know there is a likely leadership change in the offing.  Now you are in a position to offer ‘a man of principle’ who objected to the last leader and ready to be appointed to the top table once more. Hopefully into a better job providing they don’t expect you to fight when the going gets tough. The point of principle? largely irrelevant 

 

Parliament is the legislative body that governs the UK. It is conceptual rather than physical and as you say, nothing is written, nothing cast in concrete. It is therefore whatever the incumbent executive and the majority makes of it. Parliament is the democratic process,  but  who defines it?  Custom and practice are fine but only go so far, it's not the whole system. It adapts, adopts and evolves over time. So who decides when an action is undermining  the institution? How can we say that our representatives are not doing exactly as you describe? It is as I say merely our opinion, our MP’s may differ in theirs.

 

You really ought to let go the PPE thing, it’s been shown to be not true.

 

 There have been several different parliaments each to its own and bore no allegiance to any other.  They were  not unified until 1800. Scotland and Ireland lost theirs  altogether…  then not so long back  new ones were created. Parliament is dynamic it must not and cannot be static. Whether we agree with the machinations is another matter.

 

You call Johnsons proposal ‘criminal’ and I tend to agree but can’t fail to point out it won't be if the law is changed. And that raises another question. Will it benefit the UK to do so? Which is more important, adhering strictly to an outdated and no longer legal statute, or moving the goalposts to our  benefit?

Is it simply the case he is exercising our sovereign right to make  own laws now we are out of Europe, or leading us into a train wreck?

 

We live in interesting times…

[Brew 5,418]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

We need to move on from a Capitalist model. (

 

Malthus did not need to be scientific. His premise is, as you say, simple, simple  but irrefutable.

 

The expression breeding like rabbits is a generalisation  and not to be taken literally. In the industrialised nations the birth rate is slowing but facts can easily be found that show the birth rate is rising in places where life is short and sustainability poor. Within a few short years China’s population is set to explode, the land to accommodate them isn’t.

 

It isn’t capitalism that lies at the root of the problem, it’s people and we shouldn't abrogate our responsibility to an inanimate concept.  Non -capitalist countries are in the same situation. Capitalism is simply fulfilling a demand, satisfying the needs and wants of society. Capitalism per se doesn’t exist. You can’t see it, touch it, sell it or give it away it’s simply a concept to describe an economic model.  It will only exist while people play into it. In itself it can do nothing.

 

Towards the end of the Wiki link Hoerners  work in given an airing. Simply put the more technology advances the faster the population will grow, a bit like an ouroboros, a self destructing symbiosis.

[DJ360 6,730]

8 hours ago, Brew said:

 There have been several different parliaments each to its own and bore no allegiance to any other.  They were  not unified until 1800. Scotland and Ireland lost theirs  altogether…  then not so long back  new ones were created. Parliament is dynamic it must not and cannot be static. Whether we agree with the machinations is another matter.

 

And this is key.  Just a quick response at the moment.. more later. You see the current situation as 'evolutionary', I see it very differently. 

 

In my view. ...Parliament is under attack, by those who do not wish to be hamstrung or restricted by it. This attack started with Johnson/Cummings. They spun it very cleverly to look as though they were fighting to enact Brexit against an 'undemocratic' Parliament which wanted to 'block' Brexit.

 

You and I both know that was far from the reality. Parliament (including members of ALL parties.). was not 'blocking' Brexit, but was not prepared to allow Brexit under bad terms for the UK... especially given that the terms of our departure were NEVER defined before the Brexit Referendum.  Johnson , the Right Wing press and media (aka 'The Press and Media') convinced the population at large that Parliament and politicians were the problem.. when in reality Johnson et.al were.. and remain..the problem.

 

Johnson and Cummings have since used their ill-gotten majority to stifle all dissent in Parliament.  They are now engaged in a quiet but very dangerous process of destroying everything decent about our Civuil Service. they are replacing long standing and experienced Civil Servants with political 'yes men'.

 

They have more plans...and none of them are intended to benefit Democracy or the bulk of the UK population.

[Brew 5,418]

Parliament is evolving you have just described how - albeit through very red spectacles.

 

It is under attack by that scurrilous pair Johnson and Cummings  you say, yet it’s not just them and they are not the first.

You protest loud and long Col about the dynamic duo and I would have some sympathy for your point if it were not the fact the fault lays full square on the shoulders of the last Labour government.

 

It is that other comedic duo Blair and Brown that are responsible for the legislation Johnson is now using to get his way. They virtually opened the door for him.

The Legislative and Regularity Reform Bill of 2006 gives ministers the power to enact new laws and primary legislation on their own account and without the inconvenience of having to get them approved by either house.  It also gives the executive the power to amend or even repeal existing legislation, indeed the first part of the bill is titled “Power to reform legislation”.

 

 True there are hoops to jump through but whatever you say about them they are not stupid enough to fall foul of a procedure that Labour described as a “super-affirmative resolution”

The minister Jim Murphy (one of those who’s fingers were caught in the expenses till), gave a solemn undertaking that the new law “would not be used to implement controversial reforms”. There is no such restriction in the act and the LibDems called it “the abolition of parliament act”.

The trick is within the statute; there is no restriction on the Bill being used to amend itself.

 

The Bill was called "potentially one of the most constitutionally significant Bills that has come before the House for some time" by the House of Commons Select Committee on Regulatory Reform.

 

Johnson has quite some way to go to match the number of laws Labour passed that reduced the power of democracy.

 

[catfan 14,793]

Bliar being the worst culprit of the lot.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 9/14/2020 at 7:48 PM, Brew said:

The Legislative and Regularity Reform Bill of 2006 gives ministers the power to enact new laws and primary legislation on their own account and without the inconvenience of having to get them approved by either house.  It also gives the executive the power to amend or even repeal existing legislation, indeed the first part of the bill is titled “Power to reform legislation”.

 

Yep.. I've read the Wiki entry too.. now that you've reminded me.

I certainly cannot disagree that it is a very bad Bill.. but as ever with such things.. 'intent' is critical to understanding. Do you really believe that Brown and Blair intended to weaken democracy?  Really?

 

Furthermore.. it does not follow that it has to be used, or that Johnson can be excused from his incompetence and total lack of integrity, by the fact that the Bill was originally enacted by someone else.  If Johnson really believed in sovereignty, democracy etc. He would use his majority to repeal the Bill. That might actually demonstrate some humanity and gain him some genuinely deserved Brownie Points.  I'm not holding my breath.

 

On 9/14/2020 at 7:48 PM, Brew said:

Johnson has quite some way to go to match the number of laws Labour passed that reduced the power of democracy.

 

I'm not sufficiently expert to challenge that statement.  But.. I repeat, nobody..including Johnson himself can excuse Johnson from the consequences of HIS choices....whoever enacted the Legislation.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 9/14/2020 at 4:32 AM, Brew said:

Malthus did not need to be scientific. His premise is, as you say, simple, simple  but irrefutable.

 

Of course it isn't irrefutable. It has been refuted many times and was proven wrong before the end of the 19th C when his prediction didn't come true.

 

On 9/14/2020 at 4:32 AM, Brew said:

Towards the end of the Wiki link Hoerners  work in given an airing. Simply put the more technology advances the faster the population will grow, a bit like an ouroboros, a self destructing symbiosis.

 

It's a prediction. Personally, I think it's drivel.  In my 70 years I have seen far too many predictions of all kinds based on projecting 'now' to the future on the assumption that the factors and variables will stay the same. They don't.   I see absolutely no logical connection between increased technology and increased population. In fact, everything that I see works in the opposite direction.  Better technology leads to better living conditions and better health. That in turn reduces the natural urge to have larger families as 'insurance'. The only reverse of that is where religious/cultural considerations prevent technology being a positive.

 

On 9/14/2020 at 4:32 AM, Brew said:

It isn’t capitalism that lies at the root of the problem, it’s people and we shouldn't abrogate our responsibility to an inanimate concept.  Non -capitalist countries are in the same situation. Capitalism is simply fulfilling a demand, satisfying the needs and wants of society. Capitalism per se doesn’t exist. You can’t see it, touch it, sell it or give it away it’s simply a concept to describe an economic model.  It will only exist while people play into it. In itself it can do nothing.

 

I accept the need for personal responsibility. We definitely need to continue and extend education Worldwide to encourage environmentally responsible behaviour.  I like to think that I'm a fairly low carbon footprint sort of a bloke. I drive few miles.. rarely fly, recycle everything and mostly rely on consumer products which last. 

 

On the 'innocence' of Capitalism..I  profoundly disagree.  In particular it is a mistake to argue that Capitalism is simply fulfilling a demand.  I've already said.. and you know.. that Capitalism depends upon growth. It follows that Capitalism NEEDS markets and if they don't exist.. or if they fail.. then Capitalism will seek to CREATE new ones.  I'm sure there are many other markets I could look at.. but the huge increase in the production of Palm Oil in recent decades perfectly illustrates my point. Whilst some have benefitted.. it is clear the Palm Oil industry is wrecking  virgin rain forest, disrupting local food production in some areas etc.. and all for something which really isn't necessary... but is profitable.

 

Your point that 'capitalism doesn't really exist.. is a bit specious.  Of course it exists.  Even if it's only a 'concept to describe an economic model'....that model.. and that system.. exist.. and they dominate global economics. And yes.. 'non Capitalist' countries also play the game.

 

The point is that any model based on continuous growth.. on a finite planet.. with finite resources.. is obviously doomed.

 

It follows that a new model will emerge.. whether we like it or not.

 

We can find it through logic and common sense.. or we can wait until nature imposes it upon us.

 

I rather suspect the latter will be more painful.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 9/13/2020 at 7:41 PM, LizzieM said:

 He seemed a nice young lad, he came out occasionally to go to the corner shop and get some fresh air! 

 

Indeed.. It seems like your neighbours were productive, hardworking, quiet and kept themselves to themselves.  What more could you want? 

 

I wish I could say the same about 'Bob The Builder' over the back fence.. , the 'Noisiest Dog Grooming Parlour in the World..Ever' operated by the anti-social clowns a few doors down, and assorted other 'neighbours' in what is supposed to be a 'sought after' residential area.

[Brew 5,418]

45 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Brown and Blair intended to weaken democracy?  Really?

 

You think it impossible the Blair/Borwn pact could be so devious -  yet had the Tories introduced it ...

 

You doubt their intention but I'm finding difficulty establishing quite why Blair thought such an act necessary. The name is self-explanatory, it is the reformation of statute, to circumvent democratic convention and give him (as the incumbent executive), extraordinary power. It is one of the most flagrant attacks on parliament I've ever heard of.

 

Clearly there was a desire not to be hamstrung as you put it, or be restricted by parliament and you are correct, but not by Johnson.

 

On 9/13/2020 at 11:29 PM, DJ360 said:

That is why I say that any Politician worth their salt should above all.. hold allegiance to the institution of Parliament.  If anyone...of any party, including their own..seeks to undermine, or by-pass Parliament, or to bring our democratic institutions into disrepute.. then it is the duty of ALL MPs and Lords to do all they can to prevent it.

 

And yet he bill was Labours second, there was a smilar bill in 2001 and with a massive majority Blair was virtually unstoppable. He easily overcame his back benchers revolt in 2003 for example.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Furthermore.. it does not follow that it has to be used

 

A bit of a weak argument there Col, there was little point enacting the bill unless there is a purpose, of course they intended to use it. Fortunatley they lost the election shortly after it, had they not done so I shudder to thing what changes they would have come up with.

With Blairs admiration of the American presidency  perhaps he thought he should have the power to make an executive order.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

If Johnson really believed in sovereignty, democracy etc. He would use his majority to repeal the Bill

 

Do you seriously consider powers once given will be willingly let go, by politicians of any colour?

 

Johnson is not attacking parliament or the democratic process. He trying to amend an agreement with the EU and is, so far, following proper parliamentary custom and practice to do so.

 

It does not though, as you say, follow that he has to use it.

[PeverilPeril 3,283]

Brew and DJ - I want to give you both 'likes' for an ongoing, informative and enjoyable debate. Your cut and thrust is better than reading 'opinions' in the newspaper. I read the 'I' which seems quite well balanced but it lacks the 'debate' element. Do you write to newspapers?

[DJ360 6,730]

I'm not here to defend Blair or Brown.. particularly over this Bill.  But I can only repeat that just because it exists does not mean that Johnson is compelled to use it.

 

9 hours ago, Brew said:

Johnson is not attacking parliament or the democratic process.

 

Maybe you can argue that in this case, but Johnson and Cummings are both scheming against Parliament and have been doing so ever since they failed in their bid to override Parliament from a position of minority. Johnson is a vindictive bully who likes his own way on everything and was stung by being told his prorogueing and other antics were illegal.  He's been plotting his revenge ever since.  Cummings is barmy.. but dangerous.

 

9 hours ago, Brew said:

He trying to amend an agreement with the EU and is, so far, following proper parliamentary custom and practice to do so.

 

That is a very moot point indeed.  Johnson is trying to unilaterally amend an agreement. If he succeeds, then by definition, it is no longer an agreement. He is also acting in contravention of International Law. As such he is bringing this country, and Parliament, into disrepute, as well as risking the Good Friday Agreement and the future The Union. He is just using the Law to bully his way out of the results of his own incompetence.

 

Johnson and Ciummings spite is further demonstrated, but very well buried.. in their Manifesto.. pp 47-48.

 

 

Quote

 

Protect our democracyAs Conservatives, we stand for democracy and the rule of law. Our independent courts and legal system are respected throughout the world.One of the strengths of the UK’s constitution is its ability to evolve – as times have changed, so have Parliament, government and the judiciary.Today, that need is greater than ever. The failure of Parliament to deliver Brexit – the way so many MPs have devoted themselves to thwarting the democratic decision of the British people in the 2016 referendum – has opened up a destabilising and potentially extremely damaging rift between politicians and people. If the Brexit chaos continues, with a second referendum and a second Scottish referendum too, they will lose faith even further. It is only by getting Brexit done that we can start the necessary task of restoring public trust in government and politics: We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action. We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy. We will continue to support the First Past the Post system of voting, as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally. We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.

We will make it easier for British expats to vote in Parliamentary elections, and get rid of the arbitrary 15-year limit on their voting rights. We will maintain the voting age at 18 – the age at which one gains full citizenship rights. We will ensure that no one is put off from engaging in politics or standing in an election by threats, harassment or abuse, whether in person or online. We will champion freedom of expression and tolerance, both in the UK and overseas.  To support free speech, we will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which seeks to coerce the press. We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry. We will ensure redundancy payments can be clawed back when high-paid public servants move between jobs. We will improve the use of data, data science and evidence in the process of government.

48 Once we get Brexit done, Britain will take back control of its laws. As we end the supremacy of European law, we will be free to craft legislation and regulations that maintain high standards but which work best for the UK. We want a balance of rights, rules and entitlements that benefits all the people and all the parts of our United Kingdom.After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates

 

Quote

Apologies for the blank space.  They don't make it easy to copy their nefarious plans but it's easy to understand that they plan big changes which they have tried to wrap up in Brexit Bullshit language. The whole thing is full of distortion. much of which I have made bold.

[Brew 5,418]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Of course it isn't irrefutable. It has been refuted many times and was proven wrong before the end of the 19th C when his prediction didn't come tru

 

Yes it is! even you yourself admitted that at some point we will out grow the planet. Malthus hypothesesised that it would happen, he did not say when nor was he 'proven' wrong, it's still an ongoing debate today.  It seems odd you deny that the population may continue to grow but support the theory that it will plateau and we will live happy ever after, an equally theoretical idea.

Will we one day be standing shoulder to shoulder? of course not. It's chicken and egg. Which will come first, a conscious lowering of population and demand for resouces or natural selection of too many people and too little food.

There have been many predictions about future events, some were accurate, some not. They no doubt laughed when Da Vinci came up with plans for manned flight.

Whether the Hoerner model is right or wrong I don't know. It seems to me however that the most obvious factor in population growth has been advances in technology and the associated  effects on society.  Technology in todays world usually means high end engineering or something digital but it's not only that.

From the invention of tools through develpoments in agriculture and on to the indistrial revolution technology has expanded the resources available and populations have grown accordingly. True it has latterly produced the means to limit population growth but to deny the link and call it drivel is simply wrong.

 

Capitalism is nothing but a concept. It's has existed from the bartering systems of old to internet banking, a system of supply and demand, nothing more.

No society in the world can survive without it. The word capitalism is simply a word, an anathema for left wingers to rail against and decry despite the fact they are trying to bite the hand that feeds them. Why? because of outdated dogma that decrees workers should  share the profits but not the associated risks and  a return to management by mob rule.

 

Capitalism is not sentient, it is not a many headed Hydra looking to devour the weak. It is corporations, organisations, governements, customers and consumers all combined to satisfy their needs. It's not capitalisn that 'needs' markets, society needs them and cannot function otherwise.

 

Things need to change and will as knowledge advances. Your 'whataboutery' of palm oil is one example. I seroiusly doubt they realised the results of the industry when it began. Your reposte will no doubt be they didn't and still don't care. There may some truth in it but pressure to change will grow. There are though  consequences. The technology of using palm oil means the local and indigenous population has grown and is suppoterted by the industry, stopping it will be devastating to them.

 

 

[Brew 5,418]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Maybe you can argue that in this case, but Johnson and Cummings are both scheming against Parliament and have been doing so ever since they failed in their bid to override Parliament from a position of minority. Johnson is a vindictive bully who likes his own way on everything and was stung by being told his prorogueing and other antics were illegal.  He's been plotting his revenge ever since.  Cummings is barmy.. but dangerous.

 

As fine an example of conjecture and hyperbole as we are likely to see in a long days march Col. For a man who often makes demands for evidence I see little in this diatribe  though I suspect there is a grudging agreement in there somewhere.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

That is a very moot point indeed.  Johnson is trying to unilaterally amend an agreement.

 

There is nothing so far to indicate he is doing anything unilaterally, he is seeking parliamentary approval as far as I can see. The new law, which he may or may not use, is among other things a bargaining chip in the negotiations with the EU. I don't agree with him on this but it's not the end of the world, the EU broke the rules over Airbus when they considered it inappropriate, there were not too many comebacks.

 

The first highlighted section is simply a preamble there are no proposals and indeed the bulk of what it says is true, many MP’s did conspire in an attempt to thwart the will of the people and were from both sides of the house.

 

I disagree with ending the fixed term parliaments. It could mean a PM for life and that is a very bad idea.

 

Section 40 and Levenson’s second stage are open to argument Labour want it to proceed some left wing  media does not and claims it is a direct threat to press freedom.

I remain unconvinced either way.

 

The 'greater use of data' has far darker implications than appear at first glance.

 

Britain taking back control (whether real or imagined), will have wide support, freedom to craft legislation (which he is doing now) many will agree with.

The second part regarding aspects of our constitution is a very real concern.

 

The Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission, a bit you didn't highlight is also nonsense. If anyone thinks it will reach anything but the 'preferred option' they're dreaming so yes, while a lot of it is good, all in all I agree that some of it is bad.

 

Is it as bad as the Blair/Brown act or Blair acting on a knife edge of committing war crimes?

 

No doubt we will continue to disagree

 

[Brew 5,418]

A question to readers of the topic:

 

I've just noticed Radford Reds profile and he has written:

 

"Interests:On a self imposed Nottstalgia break, the way new member Al Duff was ganged up upon in the political tread was shocking, I hate bullies & you should be ashamed of yourselves"

 

The discussion with Al Duff starts on page  80.

Was Al ganged up on?

Did I bully him?

I'd genuinely appreciate an opinion. Perhaps RR you can say why you think so?

Perhaps Al can say how he feels?

[loppylugs 8,429]

I have a hard time seeing any bullying there.  Just the cut and thrust of debate.  If I start expressing opinions in the politics thread I expect they will be challenged.  That's the main reson I don't say much on this thread. I don't know much about British politics anymore.

[Beekay 5,149]

After reading your post Brew, I nipped back to page 80 for a read. Much as I hate to admit it but I know absolutely bugger all about politics, but read the page right through. It made for interesting reading, although I didn't understand a lot of it, I would say that I didn't find any evidence of bullying. It was more of an informative debate, which I would never dream of interrupting. Like I said, I don't know enough to comment. B.

[MargieH 7,600]

I’ve just read the pages where there was alleged bullying and can’t really see any evidence myself.
However, I think Al D Is possibly overly sensitive and might have felt he was being bullied.
Brew and DJ are used to each other and don’t (appear to?) take offence at each other’s posts, whereas Al D was a  newcomer to the political thread.

As LL said, it just seemed to me to be the cut and thrust of debate, but I am sorry he felt the need to depart.

[Stuart.C 491]

I'd didn't see bullying or ganging up.

There was 1 Al Duff on one side of the arguement and more than one person on the other side, that alone isn't bullying and ganging up.

 

If it is then all threads / topics would have to limited to only 2 people.

 

[Beekay 5,149]

Stuart.C, absolutely nowt to do wi politics, but can you tell me wot your Avatar is? It's doin me ' ead in.