Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 12,481 comments
  • 500,827 views

How will you vote in the 2019 UK General Election?

  • The Brexit Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Change UK/The Independent Group

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 11 27.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Like I said, Khan only gave the go ahead after the petition was successfully launched. Khan didn’t engineer anything, he just ok’d it because the people of London wanted it and it didn’t cause any security issues.
Thus making the baby Khan balloon kind of miss the point. I hope this means he's not as unpopular with the British people as the press is suggesting if they're doing so.

Funny that anti-balloon commenters were taking it upon themselves to suggest shooting the balloon down as if it were their right to endanger the general public in the name of shutting down a public protest they didn't agree with.

To return to an earlier post:

I'm willing to bet that he isn't as unpopular in the UK as has been made out in the last few days; the Brexit votes would probably more closely align with his real popularity.
According to the latest YouGov figures Britons don't have to like the President to acknowledge the necessity of their country working with him.

Trump%20characteristics-01.png


Not sure how this lines up with the Brexit approval figures (which themselves appear to have declined in recent months).
 
Last edited:
Which is what I said earlia. I questioned why Jonny thought such a balloon would be funny or indeed, mean anything

I was confused because when you posted:

The mayor only gave permission after a petition was launched.
I imagine he’s as unpopular with the British people as the press is suggesting.
I misread it as the mayor being unpopular instead of Trump. Hopefully you can see how the wording was a bit confusing.
 
I wonder if Trump"s mother ever spoke about home? There is zero chance that a Presbyterian Lewisan thought of her home being England.
 
I was thinking more about movies from the past (made in the 50s, 60s,70s and 80s) which always had the inevitable gun fight or punch up that obviously appealed to a huge percentage of the US male audience and a smaller UK one; I think these films appeal to men that just enjoy watching or fighting, all indicators of excess T perhaps and hark back to America's historical past.

Maybe in the movies that you watch, but there are movies where the male lead has more than just big muscles.

I never thought Cabbagepatch was the epitome of English or British masculinity. Sean Connery, Richard Burton or Richard Harris much more so.

He's not, but nor is Bruce Willis the epitome of US masculinity. They were examples to demonstrate the type of personality I was talking about. You're free to choose your own exemplar of each case. But traditionally the UK type has been more intellectual than the more practical US type.

As for Trump's visit, I'm actually embarrassed to be living in a country that has had vast numbers of people up and down the land exhibiting so much hate towards a man who is here to help us.

Help you? The man who has proudly trumpeted from every platform "America First"? He will help himself, and if it happens to be good for the UK at the same time then that's a lucky coincidence.

Most of the protestors I bet were well educated, intelligent and have arms and legs; why don't they just take stock of the fact that they are living in the West and just focus on making the most of their capabilities and earn decent money with their intelligence, and find things that make them happier, because at the end of the day, we've never had it so good.

Maybe so. But societies don't improve by everyone sitting on their laurels. Saying "sit down, shut up and enjoy your life" is exactly what an oppressive regime tells it's citizens. Free countries don't fear protests or change because they trust their citizens have the best interests of the country at heart, and politicians of such countries aren't afraid because they also want the best for the country. It's only when one party doesn't have the national interest as a top priority that conflict arises.
 
I'm all in for a good meme or joke but the only similarity in those pictures is that one guy is behind the other guy. Not exactly funny.

If anything, Piers looks quite humble.

Do you have any figures to support that assumption? Even if there are more working class men in relationships in the UK, it doesn't mean that a greater percentage of them are happily married.

Men from poor backgrounds are twice as likely to be single in their early 40s than those from rich families, research suggests

Makes sense, because girls in their formative years don't think about what prospects a guy has and working class men are much more likely to use the jerk-boy charm to woo them. Into middle age and it becomes much more difficult for working class men because by that time they'll need a much better balance of personality, appearance and financial security. I think middle-aged women are more prepared to remain single than men though, because women tend to be hypegamous.

To return to an earlier post:

According to the latest YouGov figures Britons don't have to like the President to acknowledge the necessity of their country working with him.

Not sure how this lines up with the Brexit approval figures (which themselves appear to have declined in recent months).

Surprising seeing that recent poll. I would like to see a breakdown of the age, gender, race, location and education level of the results; I'm sure there is a pattern.

Nothing wrong with some healthy sexism, but I think his has been too strong on many occasions and you have to draw the line case by case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...hard-wired-meaning-sexist-men-attractive.html
 
Makes sense, because girls in their formative years don't think about what prospects a guy has and working class men are much more likely to use the jerk-boy charm to woo them. Into middle age and it becomes much more difficult for working class men because by that time they'll need a much better balance of personality, appearance and financial security. I think middle-aged women are more prepared to remain single than men though, because women tend to be hypegamous.

Keep stringin' those generalisations together and you're bound to come up with a cast-iron opinion!
 
Well, clearly the Daily Mail doesn't think too highly of it's readers ability to, um, read.

The word sexist could imply any attempt to make fun of, even if affectionately, any differences between men and women. I've witnessed some who are hyper sensitive to this, but in reality, women who know they are attractive to men, secretly love it because it reinforces their attractiveness and the men's perceived greater value over them. This is what they probably mean by benevolent.

The majority of women WANT to settle with a man of higher value than themselves, but maybe a lot of women who maybe aren't pretty, resent sexist behaviour of men who repulse them.

Keep stringin' those generalisations together and you're bound to come up with a cast-iron opinion!

Maybe some ugly truths in those generalisations.
 
I've witnessed some who are hyper sensitive to this, but in reality, women who know they are attractive to men, secretly love it because it reinforces their attractiveness and the men's perceived greater value over them.

...wait, are you the real person the movie ‘What Women Want’ was based on?!?!
How did Mel Gibson’s performance compare to your real life?
 
The word sexist could imply any attempt to make fun of, even if affectionately, any differences between men and women. I've witnessed some who are hyper sensitive to this, but in reality, women who know they are attractive to men, secretly love it because it reinforces their attractiveness and the men's perceived greater value over them. This is what they probably mean by benevolent.

The majority of women WANT to settle with a man of higher value than themselves, but maybe a lot of women who maybe aren't pretty, resent sexist behaviour of men who repulse them.

Er, I was talking about the fact that the article felt the need to define the term "benevolent" for it's readers. A fairly basic word that most people over the age of twelve probably have a good enough idea of the meaning, and is pretty self-explanatory from context anyway. Therefore implying that their readers are so illiterate that they have a tough time comprehending basic English.

The rest of it is just you reading into something that isn't in my post.
 
Maybe some ugly truths in those generalisations.

Maybe, in fact I'm positive of it. Still a terrible reason to think it's an opinion that applies across the board though, especially these days. I'd venture that the people who have transitioned through such a conventional and stereotypical idea of male/female interaction form the minority amongst my family, friends and colleagues. I'd cite far wider acceptable age differences between people and increased number of single parents as two of the bigger factors which work against your conventional thinking these days.
 
...wait, are you the real person the movie ‘What Women Want’ was based on?!?!
How did Mel Gibson’s performance compare to your real life?

Need to watch the movie, but I know my limitations.

Er, I was talking about the fact that the article felt the need to define the term "benevolent" for it's readers. A fairly basic word that most people over the age of twelve probably have a good enough idea of the meaning, and is pretty self-explanatory from context anyway. Therefore implying that their readers are so illiterate that they have a tough time comprehending basic English.

The rest of it is just you reading into something that isn't in my post.

Re-read it and surprising they even had to explain that, which is why I picked your last reply/edits up wrong.
 
No wonder the BBC is having problems with its balance around Brexit. The BBC’s editor of live political programs thinks that the Electoral Commission’s guilty verdict is ‘disputed’



Should the BBC now also call all guilty murders who pled ‘not guilty’ as disputed murderers?
 
Should the BBC now also call all guilty murders who pled ‘not guilty’ as disputed murderers?
Tbh I don't like the media reporting things before they have a verdict. Someone may just be questioned and nothing more but the fact the media reported it means their life is now ruined and they will always be remembered as a murderer or pedo or rapist.
 
Tbh I don't like the media reporting things before they have a verdict. Someone may just be questioned and nothing more but the fact the media reported it means their life is now ruined and they will always be remembered as a murderer or pedo or rapist.
I don’t disagree. But, in this case, there was a verdict.
 
But, in this case, there was a verdict.
Actually, there were three of them. The first two were that there was no case to answer, and the third was that Vote Leave had overspent by its association and a common action plan with BeLeave.

Yes, for some reason it was investigated three times. The original investigation concluded that Vote Leave hadn't overspent, accepting the explanation that it donated some of the money it had raised - £9.2m - to BeLeave in order not to overspend its £7m cap, which BeLeave then spent with AggregateIQ. BeLeave, as a registered campaigner, could spend up to £700k, and it spent £675k. Vote Leave said that the Electoral Commission had actually cleared the payment at the time.

However, the latest verdict suggests that the money from Vote Leave never entered BeLeave's accounts and instead went straight to AggregateIQ. Also BeLeave (a youth action group) was based in Vote Leave's HQ and Grimes wasn't a registered campaigner because he filled the forms out incorrectly, so was limited to a £10k spend.


Factually, that all seems pretty disputed - and the EC's verdict isn't exactly something you can draw a parallel with a court's verdict.

I doubt that this will be concluded like this, or any time soon.
 
Actually, there were three of them. The first two were that there was no case to answer, and the third was that Vote Leave had overspent by its association and a common action plan with BeLeave.

The two previous investigations are mentioned in the report. One of the hallmarks of the inquiries have been the obfuscation of senior Vote Leave members, the third (and this time completed) investigation was in receipt of facts that were not available (or accidentally/deliberately mis-presented) during the previous inquiries. It's also worth noting that the first report was somewhat narrower in scope than the final one.
 
The two previous investigations are mentioned in the report. One of the hallmarks of the inquiries have been the obfuscation of senior Vote Leave members, the third (and this time completed) investigation was in receipt of facts that were not available (or accidentally/deliberately mis-presented) during the previous inquiries. It's also worth noting that the first report was somewhat narrower in scope than the final one.
Indeed - but as noted above, I doubt it's the last we've heard of it.

It's entirely accurate to say it's "disputed", whatever the verdict. And I'm not fan of the BBC or its "news".
 
It's entirely accurate to say it's "disputed"...

Really?
Vote Leave has accused the EC of not interviewing anyone and has called their competence into question... first one isn’t accurate, they did interview people and the second one is irrelevant.



Unless I’ve missed something?
All I’ve seen is Leave scoff at the report. Even if they appeal it, it wouldn’t make the verdict disputed...
 
Even if they appeal it, it wouldn’t make the verdict disputed...
It would, by the fact that they dispute it.

Whether there's any merit to the dispute is an entirely different question, but the various people named, including Mr. Grimes, dispute the verdict:



Edit: Incidentally, his Twitter header includes a picture of Diane Abbott, so it's little wonder he thinks £10,000 is £675,000.
 
Last edited:
It would, by the fact that they dispute it.

Whether there's any merit to the dispute is an entirely different question, but the various people named, including Mr. Grimes, dispute the verdict:

To refer once more to the earlier example the vast majority of Guilty verdicts are disputed.

The publicity from Grimes (unsurprisingly, it's what he does) suggests that all this comes down to the wrong box being ticked on a form. The Commission say that his unusual entry was checked* at the time he made it (disputed, of course) but the report doesn't actually use that box-ticking** as a main thrust, it refers to the spending as if it belonged to either Grimes/BeLeave because the outcome is the same either way.

It's a shame that he sees Due Parliamentary Process as being such a waste of money, scandals of the last few years have surely taught him as well as anybody else that even our political structure needs oversight. I don't see it as 'thwarting' Brexit when the referendum was non-binding and any resultant mandate is devoid of any detail other than to leave the EU. Brexit will still happen just as politi-toadies all across the benches will continue to get away with as much as they feasibly can.


* Checked as in revisited for confirmation
** Ticked as in checked, for US readers
 
To refer once more to the earlier example the vast majority of Guilty verdicts are disputed.
Indeed, and it would be accurate to refer to them as such so long as there is an active denial or an ongoing appeal. It would also be accurate to refer to the guilty as guilty in the face of the guilty verdict - Ched Evans was, after all, "the rapist" until it turned out that he wasn't. He disputed the verdict, but because he was found guilty of rape he was a rapist; then he was found not guilty and he wasn't.

But the Electoral Commission isn't a judiciary body, and doesn't pass guilty verdicts, so we should be careful about drawing comparisons between a trial and an investigation. Indeed in this case, the EC has passed its findings on to the police with respect to determining if a crime has taken place and, should that go to a trial there may be a verdict that may also be disputable.


As things stand, the people found to be at fault dispute the fact that they have done anything wrong, and it's not inaccurate to refer to the conclusion as disputed.
 
Back