Nonsense wrote:No, people elect governments largely because of the party's leaders.
You're disputing a simple self evident truth.
Erh! No, they vote in a government, according to the policies that appeal to them.
Maybe your version is not quite as 'truthful' as you portray it.
And because of the leader, the leader usually sets the tone and policies of the party?
(Ok maybe not in reality; but they have a large large input).I think that you ought to consider becoming more 'enlightened' yourself, your ignorance is now in full display.
Um. The guy is white british in the middle of a white british majority town.
That's what I was referring to. That guy.
Instead of being coy or cryptic, just say exactly what I'm missing here? Is it some silly incident from a few years ago( that I thankfully missed)?
It was brought up because it was directly analogous to the Link's content, indiginous people were left in no doubt that certain migrant areas were 'no go' areas for indiginous people...comprendo?
Not at all.
I have no idea just how you came to that conclusion, did you look at the wrong tab or something? A different story? (Btw it's spelt with an e).You post content that any reasonable person is entitled to accept as a statement of fact,of which it was not, they were allegations, that were denied by others present, yet you posted them,one assumes that you actually read & understood what you were reading before posting the Link- I leave others to consider as to the reason why.
Don't shoot the messenger.
In this case, I think you just shot yourself, that's what happens with 'trigger-happy' folks.
No not really, you seem to be in this full defence mode of everything Boris does, and will pick up on some random guys saying "he didnt do this" as proof that he didn't do it. Lol. These news items are well reported and I can find a thousand more.He was making a perfectly valid point on the vast amount of time & public money being spent on historical cases.
That was a ligitimate comment on the sheer cost, but, you are right to say that it's a destestable comment as it stands,on that point I couldn't disagree one jot.
The question he ought to have been asked if he wished to talk specifically about child-related cases is, why, when so much money is spent on policing, are there so many unanswered cases outstanding?
Good, you agree it's wrong.
Yes, there are far too many cases outstanding. I suspect establishment coverups.
I cannot believe that Harmful Harpie harriet could be the next speaker, she was responsible for helping defend pedophilic views in the 70s.Compared to his predecessor, I would put the score then, at 2-1 in his favour.
Really...?The way that things are currently going then, he doesn't have too long to wait for the end.
If NDBrexit fucks up, the end will be nigh for the Tories.LOL, I wasn't specifically referring to those particular words, rather the 'spaffying' type, to which BoJo was attributing the wasted money on the child investigations,for which, if nothing came out of them, I would agree with that specific point, but condemn the prior lack of results in any such investigations already carried out & he went wrong IMHO, by linking child abuse investigations, with the waste of public money.
I think you're confused, you've confused an earlier point with another one.
It's ok, so am I. This forum really isn't good for writing long replies on a phone, what were we talking about again?Give it time, I may catch you up there.
Good luck(!).Whatever will be, will be, we will just have to wait & see.
Can't remember what the original point was, thanks to this forum's fiddly reply system.Just part of the blame game, for which the voters will be the sole judge of.
It really is all the Nasty Party's fault 100%>I think you misunderstood the point then, it was an opinion, on a hypothetical question, to which I thought, considering the goings on in parliament by MP's,he Speaker, the Lords etc, could be justified, so, if it placates you, consider it a hypothetical premise.....you see what a little 'diplomacy' does now.
Diplomacy begets diplomacy. It did seem like you were debating based on that premise, but at least we're clear about the terms of the debate now.
You have yet to justify the 2022 premise though. The European Union economy advanced 0.2 percent quarter-on-quarter in the three months to June 2019, slowing from a 0.5 percent expansion in the previous period. It was the weakest growth rate since the first quarter of 2013. GDP Growth Rate in European Union averaged 0.44 percent from 1995 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 1.30 percent in the third quarter of 1999 and a record low of -2.70 percent in the first quarter of 2009.
The U.K GDP increased by 0.3% in the 3 months to July 2019, the latest available figures.
Oh gawd, now you're clutching at straws mate. That chart backs MY point lol, you're hanging on 1 quarter....and NDBrexit is likely to cause a recession or at least damage vs already weak growth.
That really has made your argument look as flimsy as rice paper. I couldn't have done better to discredit your argument tbh. No offence and none taken I hope.But then, were it sold off, those companies would be taking on all of the overheads,long term cost etc.
Then, unlike a state owned service such as the N.H.S, the element of competition would rapidly assert itself, takeovers would happen, like the privatised railways show, consumer satisfaction falls, prices rise & eventually, along comes the inevitable crisis point.
Then the state would have to re-engage, thus completing the circle & the consumers(patients) would end up paying more taxes along with less services by way of more rationing.
There you go then.
But it'll make the private co's a killing in the meantime won't it? You honestly don't think Boris wouldn't sell off the NHS?
So too are Labour,see what their conference stirs up, they too have been 'highjacked' by the BLAIRITE's, well those that haven't jumped ship, that is.
Looks like the Corbynites are fighting back too though. Who knows.