Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,470 comments
  • 772,035 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
prisonermonkeys
So why do the Tories seem to think that they can interfere with the freedom of the press and get away with it, least of all after advocating freedom of speech following the Charlie Hebdo attacks? Or is freedom of the press a relative term, and better described as "freedom of the press (but only when it's politically convenient for us)"?
Click to expand...

In this case my own impression is that it's the latter. The BBC stands in a very unstable boat right now and doesn't want to rock it any more. I'd hesitate to suggest that the Tories would be the only party who advocated altruist policies with one hand while creating opposing legislation with the other.
 
RacerPaul
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Not much of a contribution to the topic, I know. But matey, I salute you :cheers:

Epic
Click to expand...
One of the comments on the Independent's website was "Really? I can't even find my way in with a tub of vaseline and a miner's torch.".
 
Closing sequence of Spitting Image series one. As pertinent now as it ever was but how many of these can you still recognise? No cheating!

 
prisonermonkeys
Are you sure that's not something of a toothless tiger? Our ABC was in the opposite position, accused of being a "lefty lynch mob" by the government because it was critical of the government (who seemed to think that because it was taxpayer-funded, it should be a propaganda channel even though they have the Murdoch media for that), which culminated with a terrorism suspect who was acquitted on appeal being allowed to question a senior government figure about controversial national security policies live on air (where the suspect came out looking like the more reasonable one - it takes a special kind of madness to achieve this) and they survived.

I mean, what's the worst thing the Tories can do? They have a stable majority government and are not faced with crippling (and by crippling, I mean single-digit approval ratings in opiniom polls) unpopularity, so why the pressure to push a conservative agenda?
Click to expand...
The ABC is clearly left wing though, basically every show relating to politics aims at the left wing audience as well.
 
mustafur
The ABC is clearly left wing though, basically every show relating to politics aims at the left wing audience as well.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm cynical of that, given that every conservative I know seems to think that the ABC should be broadcasting pro-government propaganda. The ABC was just as critical of Rudd and Gillard as it has bern Abbott and Turnbull.
 
prisonermonkeys
Eh, I'm cynical of that, given that every conservative I know seems to think that the ABC should be broadcasting pro-government propaganda. The ABC was just as critical of Rudd and Gillard as it has bern Abbott and Turnbull.
Click to expand...
It has little to do with the party but the policies they agree with, from my experience it's heavily weighted towards the left.

Given public money is used to fund it, it wouldn't be far-fetched to offer some neutrality.
 
mustafur
Given public money is used to fund it, it wouldn't be far-fetched to offer some neutrality.
Click to expand...
I think it's reasonably neutral. If it comes across as having a "liberal bias", is that because the editors are pushing an agenda, or is it an apt reflection of the government's performance? After all, Abbott's government was inept at the best of times and destructive at the worst - and there has been considerably less criticism of the government after Turnbull took over.

Anyway, back to Britain, and nine years after it happened, an inquiry into the death of Aleksander Litvinenko has found that Vladimir Putin "most likely" signed off on the assassination.
 
prisonermonkeys
...an inquiry into the death of Aleksander Litvinenko has found that Vladimir Putin "most likely" signed off on the assassination.
Click to expand...
Ho hum. No doubt Barack Obama signed off on the extrajudicial drone assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (and his son?). Traitors, spies and terrorists will die.
 
Dotini
Ho hum. No doubt Barack Obama signed off on the extrajudicial drone assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (and his son?). Traitors, spies and terrorists will die.
Click to expand...

The Poison Teapot killing was of a man who could have been recovered by judicial means had the Russian government chosen to do so. Al-Awlaki was a different matter - clearly dangerous and clearly working to organise acts of terrorism. I'm not sure where the Litvinenko case falls in comparison to his.
 
Dotini
Ho hum. No doubt Barack Obama signed off on the extrajudicial drone assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki (and his son?). Traitors, spies and terrorists will die.
Click to expand...
TenEightyOne
The Poison Teapot killing was of a man who could have been recovered by judicial means had the Russian government chosen to do so. Al-Awlaki was a different matter - clearly dangerous and clearly working to organise acts of terrorism. I'm not sure where the Litvinenko case falls in comparison to his.
Click to expand...
All governments have their dirty little secrets. But there's a big difference between a targeted drone strike and poisoning with polonium-210. A drone strike is quick and to the point; a poisoning with a radioactive isotope like polonium-210 prolongs the victim's suffering.
 
Dotini
You lie exaggerate.
Click to expand...
Is that your final answer?

Dotini
A drone strike takes more innocent bystanders than you allow.
Click to expand...
Your statement assumes that all drone strikes always result in civilian casualties, which at the very least needs evidence: firstly in support of the generalisation, and secondly in the individual case of al-Awlaki.
 
prisonermonkeys
Is that your final answer?


Your statement assumes that all drone strikes always result in civilian casualties, which at the very least needs evidence: firstly in support of the generalisation, and secondly in the individual case of al-Awlaki.
Click to expand...

Yes and your post indicates that no casualty would have a terrible lingering death with really horrible injuries as well.
 
Tired Tyres
Yes and your post indicates that no casualty would have a terrible lingering death with really horrible injuries as well.
Click to expand...
And/or a terrible lingering life, filled with missing limbs, scars, watching loved ones killed right before your eyes and more. I'll take the poison any day if I have a choice. No innocent bystanders die in the process at least.
 
Asylum seekers in Cardiff have to wear red wristbands to get food at their temporary accomodation.

A necessary measure to know who is an actual migrant in need of the temporary facilities and who might be a sponger taking advantage? I'm unsure. It is... beyond absurd when the first thing you think of is the identifications used in Nazi camps for various ethnic/cultural groups.
 
TenEightyOne
Working with nuclear items for FSB wouldn't explain the trail of radiation from London to Hamburg though, not all those years later, certainly not in the case of Radium F/Polonium 210.
Click to expand...

Yes, a more rational explanation would be that the highly-professional killers would leave a trail like that!!
 
x3ra
Yes, a more rational explanation would be that the highly-professional killers would leave a trail like that!!
Click to expand...

Correct. That's because you're claiming that the half-life of Polonium 210 was dramatically extended to the extent that Litvinenko left the trail himself some 8 years earlier while still working for Putin.
 
Welsh Police breathalysed 22,811 people over the Xmas period. 498 tested positive, failed or refused.

2.2% of all those stopped were driving illegally. What a 🤬 way of policing.
 
ExigeEvan
Welsh Police breathalysed 22,811 people over the Xmas period. 498 tested positive, failed or refused.

2.2% of all those stopped were driving illegally. What a 🤬 way of policing.
Click to expand...

That's 498 idiots who won't be wiping someone out though, right? And isn't testing positive the same as a fail, even in Walesland? :D
 
The woman who claimed she had the £33 million winning lottery ticket but had the ticket damaged in the wash will not be getting any prize money. Camelot have confirmed that they do not need CCTV footage from the store where she claims to have bought the ticket, which means that they know she is not the winner. It also transpires that she is awaiting trial for theft, and has also attempted a lottery win scam before. Nice try missus.

--

I laughed when I saw this in today's Guardian...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/28/chicken-shop-mile-britain-fat-cheap-food-obesity

I knew before I even clicked on it that it was about Mile End Road, my old stomping ground in London. According to the article, there is an astonishing 42 chicken shops per secondary school in the borough of Tower Hamlets, of which Mile End Rd/Whitechapel Rd is the major thoroughfare. If true, that equates to a staggering 672 chicken shops in Tower Hamlets alone :sick:
 
Last edited:
Liquid
I hope they're not all halal foods being used to indoctrinate the pupils. :rolleyes:

Still, that's an astonishing figure. People talk about how it's your choice to go to these places or not but with such saturation (lit. and fig.) where else can you go?
Click to expand...

Well obviously they would go to their homes where their mothers would cook them a wholesome meal..... :lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back