FlyTheNest

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:We have from time to time asked in anyone else would like to join the doughty band of administrators.

Remember the three you have all have full time jobs and other responsibilities

Sure, I'll do it.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:We have from time to time asked in anyone else would like to join the doughty band of administrators.

Remember the three you have all have full time jobs and other responsibilities

I understand that but I do not expect from being criticised for responding to someone who is allowed freely to post on here

I was told to report things but now it seems that I shouldn't because the mods are too busy

I will therefore keep responding to him, sometimes none too politely

If you don't want me to do that then ban me....

I POLLS!

Don't worry, am getting my coat

FFS he's one bloke being an obnoxious wazzock.Like anywhere you'll get them.They don't disappear if you ban them,the last thing to do is ban yourself.Don't give a toss what others think of you let them worry what you think of them.Life's far too short.IMHO.

To be fair,possibly because of incoherency I seem never to be ticked off with fulsome insults or 'say what I see"

Anybody with a blocking history surely disbars themselves.

I immoderate myself.

HindleA wrote:FFS he's one bloke being an obnoxious wazzock.Like anywhere you'll get them.They don't disappear if you ban them,the last thing to do is ban yourself.Don't give a toss what others think of you let them worry what you think of them.Life's far too short.IMHO.

I am quite happy to tell him what I think but refuse to ignore his rubbish

It is being criticised for not ignoring him that grates with me to be honest

HindleA wrote:Anybody with a blocking history surely disbars themselves.

Ironically, if you are a mod you would have to not block anyone, as you need to be able to see all posts to actually do the job.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I know we don't do polls, but

New YouGov/Times poll has LAB lead at 2%
CON 40% =
LAB 42%+1

Doesn't look like check the Czech cheque at Chequers has gone that well for Mrs May

Apparently only 8% of respondents believe the allegations, nearly all of them Tory voters.

Anyway changing subject, I found a video of me curling yesterday (from 8 years ago)

Gosh I was shit

Tarquin now has thermals suitably adapted from one of my thermal tops that saw service in the Falklands (have I mentioned my dad assumed the identity of a South African boxer(with a Scottish accent)

howsillyofme1 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:We have from time to time asked in anyone else would like to join the doughty band of administrators.

Remember the three you have all have full time jobs and other responsibilities

I understand that but I do not expect from being criticised for responding to someone who is allowed freely to post on here

I was told to report things but now it seems that I shouldn't because the mods are too busy

I will therefore keep responding to him, sometimes none too politely

If you don't want me to do that then ban me....

I asked Hugo to desist.

I presume the sport,not your hair?

I know you did PfY and I do not criticise you at all

It is not your fault he ignores you

HindleA wrote:I presume the sport,not your hair?

HindleA wrote:To be fair,possibly because of incoherency I seem never to be ticked off with fulsome insults or 'say what I see"

[youtube]GJQdEY82zs0[/youtube]

howsillyofme1 wrote:Anyway changing subject, I found a video of me curling yesterday (from 8 years ago)

Gosh I was shit

Biceps or lumps of granite?

PF back in the groove.

refitman wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:Anyway changing subject, I found a video of me curling yesterday (from 8 years ago)

Gosh I was shit

Biceps or lumps of granite?

Lumps of granite although curling hair or biceps would have been as effective at making any difference to the game. In fact probably would have been more beneficial to my team

[youtube]vweuxLEC5dg[/youtube]

You did let go?

Is tc2 making the coat?

HindleA wrote:You did let go?

Sort of....but it didn't really go where intended. All you can hear is instructor going 'zut ! Merde' as he chased after it

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I know we don't do polls, but

New YouGov/Times poll has LAB lead at 2%
CON 40% =
LAB 42%+1

Doesn't look like check the Czech cheque at Chequers has gone that well for Mrs May

Apparently only 8% of respondents believe the allegations, nearly all of them Tory voters.

I'd be astonished of 8% have heard of them.

Given what is known of his history, it is completely trivial.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I know we don't do polls, but

New YouGov/Times poll has LAB lead at 2%
CON 40% =
LAB 42%+1

Doesn't look like check the Czech cheque at Chequers has gone that well for Mrs May

Apparently only 8% of respondents believe the allegations, nearly all of them Tory voters.

I'd be astonished of 8% have heard of them.

Given what is known of his history, it is completely trivial.

It has been plastered over the front pages of the papers all week

You do post rubbish, at least you are consistent

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/msn/brex ... ar-BBJt1oC

Brexit: Theresa May accused of 'running scared' of Commons vote on UK staying in EU customs union

So much media coverage of empty, waffly speeches from ministers, we're missing what's happening - and what's not happening - in Parliament.

This is the type of reporting that annoys me

She is not worried about this vote.

She is worried about the one on 'a customs union'

There are two amendments

See the Grieve interview and it will say why

Labour will not vote for 'the EU Customs Union' at the moment, if ever

This is one of the reasons the debate is so poor on Brexit - the political commentators do not seem to want to understand the nuances. The lawyers in the HoC do which is why we get these seemingly pedantic discussions

Personally I do not see what is so difficult to understand

If you read the article, rather than the general heading, you will see that it does seem that May is delaying the passage of the Trade and Taxation bills because she faces defeat over a/the Customs Union. I thought this was a significant development. Both bills have been delayed, both have tabled amendments regarding a/the Customs Union. I thought people might be interested in the Independent article because the threatened rebellion by Soubry etc appears to be genuine if its forcing May to delay the votes:

Ms Soubry and Mr Clarke have tabled similar amendments to both the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill and to the separate Trade Bill.

The amendment to the Trade Bill is easier for Labour to support because it would keep the UK in “a customs union in the EU” – rather than “the customs union”.

I actually thought this was pretty clear, myself.

https://labour.org.uk/press/senior-tory ... my-corbyn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

senior-tory-apologises-libellous-tweet-jeremy-corbyn

It is still a significant difference and my original comment stands

The conflation between the two is very common and poor reporting. A lot of people just read the headline

There is no way the Tories fear losing the 'the EU CU' amendment but could the other one.....

howsillyofme1 wrote:It is still a significant difference and my original comment stands

The conflation between the two is very common and poor reporting. A lot of people just read the headline

There is no way the Tories fear losing the 'the EU CU' amendment but could the other one.....

Have to say, I didn't get the significance of 'a' vs. 'the' initially. You have done a good job to explain it.

"tipping point""resignations"

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bollocks. They're all too cowardly.

howsillyofme1 wrote:It is still a significant difference and my original comment stands

The conflation between the two is very common and poor reporting. A lot of people just read the headline

There is no way the Tories fear losing the 'the EU CU' amendment but could the other one.....

Then why have both bills been delayed?

Incidentally, given the main effect of any customs union with the EU will be the same - not being able to make our own trade deals and accepting jurisdiction of the ECJ - I'm not sure the conflation of "a" and "the" makes much difference compared to the difference between no or some kind of CU.

Anyway, I thought what you call 'the EU CU' amendment (to the taxation bill?) was of a nature to keep the option open, not force the government to pursue it (as in the amendment to the Trade bill), so why would Corbyn pass up an opportunity to defeat the government and vote against it?

You will have to ask the Tories why they have delayed both. I have no claim on understanding their approach

I am not going to explain the a and the difference again.

If you don't agree then fine but I am fed up of the media conflating the two as if there is no difference and we should just accept that without pointing it out

Willow904 wrote:
Incidentally, given the main effect of any customs union with the EU will be the same - not being able to make our own trade deals and accepting jurisdiction of the ECJ - I'm not sure the conflation of "a" and "the" makes much difference compared to the difference between no or some kind of CU.

Anyway, I thought what you call 'the EU CU' amendment (to the taxation bill?) was of a nature to keep the option open, not force the government to pursue it (as in the amendment to the Trade bill), so why would Corbyn pass up an opportunity to defeat the government and vote against it?

There is, of course, no substantive difference whatsoever.

It is just rhetoric to create the impression of discontinuity so as to be consistent with Brexit. The only real difference is the agreements under which precisely the same thing will operate.

howsillyofme1 wrote:You will have to ask the Tories why they have delayed both. I have no claim on understanding their approach

I am not going to explain the a and the difference again.

If you don't agree then fine but I am fed up of the media conflating the two as if there is no difference and we should just accept that without pointing it out

I don't think the Independent article did conflate the two, though. It specifically pointed out that the Trade bill amendment that provided for the government to pursue "a" customs union was more likely to win Corbyn's support.

As for the other amendment, my impression is it simply tries to keep options open. Do you disagree with my interpretation or are you saying Corbyn should vote against keeping the option of being in the customs union open (if this was to prove possible, unlikely as that may be)?

Fuck it

Not going to bother trying to explain again....

Willow904 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:You will have to ask the Tories why they have delayed both. I have no claim on understanding their approach

I am not going to explain the a and the difference again.

If you don't agree then fine but I am fed up of the media conflating the two as if there is no difference and we should just accept that without pointing it out

I don't think the Independent article did conflate the two, though. It specifically pointed out that the Trade bill amendment that provided for the government to pursue "a" customs union was more likely to win Corbyn's support.

As for the other amendment, my impression is it simply tries to keep options open. Do you disagree with my interpretation or are you saying Corbyn should vote against keeping the option of being in the customs union open (if this was to prove possible, unlikely as that may be)?

Not just Corbyn support but those Tory rebels needed to win the vote

The other question is moot as a contains the so is superfluous but politically more problematic

Why cause yourself unnecessary trouble?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... y-planning" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


New money to build homes stalled by planning
Housing Minister announces new funding to help speed up planning decisions and help deliver, quality new homes.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:You will have to ask the Tories why they have delayed both. I have no claim on understanding their approach

I am not going to explain the a and the difference again.

If you don't agree then fine but I am fed up of the media conflating the two as if there is no difference and we should just accept that without pointing it out

I don't think the Independent article did conflate the two, though. It specifically pointed out that the Trade bill amendment that provided for the government to pursue "a" customs union was more likely to win Corbyn's support.

As for the other amendment, my impression is it simply tries to keep options open. Do you disagree with my interpretation or are you saying Corbyn should vote against keeping the option of being in the customs union open (if this was to prove possible, unlikely as that may be)?

Not just Corbyn support but those Tory rebels needed to win the vote

The other question is moot as a contains the so is superfluous but politically more problematic

Why cause yourself unnecessary trouble?

The argument that not enough Tory rebels would back it is a good reason why the taxation amendment would fail but for me it's not really a good argument for voting alongside the government against it. It's an opportunity to oppose Tory hard Brexit as Corbyn pledged. It's been delayed so we'll see closer to the time what Labour will do, but unless an amendment would actively hurt UK interests, I'd really like to see Labour voting against the Tories rather than with them, on pretty much everything, Brexit or otherwise.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/943212/?__twitte ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Brexit and the Border: The Great Reckoning?

SpinningHugo wrote:"tipping point""resignations"

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bollocks. They're all too cowardly.

Reliable reports have suggested the reason KL was never expelled originally is that he threatened legal action if he was - and party officials were apparently advised he would have had a good chance of success. Make of that what you will.

The argument that not enough Tory rebels would back it is a good reason why the taxation amendment would fail but for me it's not really a good argument for voting alongside the government against it. It's an opportunity to oppose Tory hard Brexit as Corbyn pledged. It's been delayed so we'll see closer to the time what Labour will do, but unless an amendment would actively hurt UK interests, I'd really like to see Labour voting against the Tories rather than with them, on pretty much everything, Brexit or otherwise

That is a tactical question - and it is finely balanced what is the right way to jump. I personally think this amendment is ill-judged but that again is personal opinion

For Labour to support a this vote then it will be spun as them having a desire to stay in the EU Custom's Union - this is a major change of position and would be better laid out by Starmer rather than in a backbench amendment. I don't think they want to do it and will not be bumped into it. A customs union is much easier to support

You have to remember that all sides are playing political games with this....not just the Brexit side

This part is all opinion though so I cannot tell you that your position is wrong....

What I disagree with is when people say there is no difference between the two when there is....and that should be more apparent to legal people than for others

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:"tipping point""resignations"

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bollocks. They're all too cowardly.

Reliable reports have suggested the reason KL was never expelled originally is that he threatened legal action if he was - and party officials were apparently advised he would have had a good chance of success. Make of that what you will.

Bollocks is what I make of it. He would have no case. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expel him,let alone so badly unreasonable as to be outside the discretion.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:"tipping point""resignations"

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bollocks. They're all too cowardly.

Reliable reports have suggested the reason KL was never expelled originally is that he threatened legal action if he was - and party officials were apparently advised he would have had a good chance of success. Make of that what you will.

Bollocks is what I make of it. He would have no case. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expel him,let alone so badly unreasonable as to be outside the discretion.

Is that your legal opinion then?

You have access to all the evidence and information necessary to make such a judgement?

I find it increasingly worrying that you seem never to caveat any of your comments....always so very definite, and in many cases also so very wrong!

I'm just reporting what was said at the time by some "in the know". You don't have to believe it.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I'm just reporting what was said at the time by some "in the know". You don't have to believe it.

The claim that Livingstone hasn't brought the party into disrepute seems unsustainable to me. The only ones defending him seem to me to be the loons still arguing "but Hitler...."

There may well be those among the decision makers looking for an excuse not to make it.

The timing of the KL article was exquisite I thought.

There's not really any new news on this, but we couldn't allow Corbyn more than a minute or two of being right could we?

Well I've already broken the rules by reporting a poll, so can I now announce that Leeds have actually won football match

Off to watch a bit of the rugby.....

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I'm just reporting what was said at the time by some "in the know". You don't have to believe it.

The claim that Livingstone hasn't brought the party into disrepute seems unsustainable to me. The only ones defending him seem to me to be the loons still arguing "but Hitler...."

There may well be those among the decision makers looking for an excuse not to make it.

'Loons'? Give me a break.......

There are a few points here:

i. The whole anti-semitism thing is too often conflated with anti-Israeli and both sides have behaved appallingly about this - the anti-Israel side being far too loose with their language and the other side using it for political reasons. The are some anti-semites in labour, just like in society, unfortunately but I very much doubt it is to the extent that those such as Akehurst would have us believe

ii. Livingstone has got more and more a liability and I would prefer he wasn't linked to the party now. He is a loose cannon. Do I think he is anti-semitic - probably not. Do I think he is a liability and should go away - Yes

iii. There is also the Labour Party having to show due process and I am not sure what this would mean in reality. If he was expelled I am not sure what legal challenge to it could be made and that is the point i took from AK......this could get a bit messy

As always, you do not seem to be able to deal with the fact that there may be a different view and things could be a bit more complex never seems to compute with you