Is this the right room for an arugment [sic]? :p
Printable View
Is this the right room for an arugment [sic]? :p
No it bloomin' well isn't! :mad:
Here is where it went astrayQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo
Seems nobody actually watched Accused, shame as it was cracking teleQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
But why, all are fine drivers - unlike the likes of Webber and Jacques Villeneuve who are both pretty crapQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Good that you look at so many, I find the Guardian and Independent wind me up too much with their champagne socialist agendas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Wanting to believe scumbag parents would be more of an issue than which paper you read, but believing the Guardian would show that you're not very good at detecting lies, which if you were a social worker would be a bad asset.
I will ask you again. Do you genuinely believe that I, as a Guardian reader, should not be allowed around children because I pose a danger to them? It is quite rude not to answer when a specific question is put, especially given the nature of your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I don't believe you read The Guardian beyond perhaps scanning the headlines. If you'd like to browse their Comment Is Free section you'll find plenty of comment from what could be termed as the right-wing plus - especially since The Times put up a paywall - a lot of BTL comment from Conservative supporters. Hardly the preserve of the champagne swillers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Edit: as I type, 2 of the 5 top-viewed CiF contributions are a largely critical piece on Obama, and a harsh look at the views of liberal hero Liu Xiaobo. Socialist agenda? Don't think so!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/pa...hock-and-anger
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/pa...s-will-be-lost
Just two articles at random from their front page
where does it say these cuts are necessary
where does it say that the private sector has already faced far bigger cuts
where does it say that Labour increased the size of the public sector far too much just in order to buy votes and massage the unemployment figures
where does it say that 25% of the public sector is made up of worthless non jobs that nobody would miss
it doesn't
QED the Guardian has an agenda and is full of ****
Such depth of analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Sometimes no analysis is required. The Guardian is left of center. Heck, they take pride in that. Nothing wrong with it either. I know when I read the Guardian, that is the slant they put on the news, just like I know when I read the Wall Street Journal they will have their slant, the Toronto Star will lean to its leftist slant, or the Times of London will be Center right.
Newspapers have always had idealogical slants and news they tend to highlight. It is the way of the world. Somehow though, people always get bent out of shape when people point out the paper THEY like may have a bias.
I am perfectly happy to hear such analysis when presented in a sensible fashion by someone whose opinions I consider to be worthwhile. As it is, the person making those comments is someone who thinks that those of us on the left present a danger to children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
By the same columnist - so hardly a wide-ranging sample.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Anyway, if you'd rather widen the scope of our source material, try:
Tuition fees aren't the only thing Nick Clegg has to be ashamed about
George Osborne’s silence over inflation is worrying
These health reforms won't cure the NHS
All taken from the front page of a newspaper website's comment section, with no searching.
The source may surprise you.
But then I'm sure you'll argue that the Telegraph has an agenda and is full of **** :p
I agree, hence why I disregard the Guardian as it is written by tossers for tossers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
A genuine question for you: do you fail to understand why it sometimes seems impossible to engage you in sensible and meaningful debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I seldom agree with the likes of fousto or ioan, but at least they tend to provoke stimulating debate without resorting to playground insults.
And especially in this very forum over recent days — both have made high-quality, thought-provoking contributions. Unlike some we won't mention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
You still haven't explained why Guardian readers present a danger to children.
Who, me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Reading that paper per se isn't the problem, it is being a social worker and reading that paper as it shows you are the wrong type of person to carry out that job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Which is not what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I have not insulted people anywhere as near as you and your pal BDunnell have, but lets not facts get in the way eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Not my problem if folk are unable to read what is written is it?
My thoughts are those of the majority so perhaps those that disagree need to re think their ideology and wake up and realise they are out of step with the normal thinking UK citizens.
Some people.......is all I am gonna say...some people...
Yes, if this is due to the poor quality of your written English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Yay! Great news for Bolton Midnight! Celebrate good times, come on....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...s-to-lose-jobsQuote:
At least 100,000 public servants will receive grim news over the Christmas holidays or soon after as councils, police forces and other public services race to meet a deadline of 1 January to formally announce job cuts.
An analysis of local authority documents reveals that the number of council redundancies directly resulting from the coalition's austerity measures is expected to break the 100,000 mark by early in the new year, fuelled by the swingeing cuts announced this week to councils' budgets and the pressure to start cutting before the new financial year in April.
Fantastic! :D
100,000 families facing a bleak future and their Christmasses screwed as an added bonus :s anta: Praise the lord!
FFS :rolleyes:
Would you like a direct quote from a cabinet minister?
A "Maoist revolution"? :eek:Quote:
There are a lot of things happening. There is a kind of Maoist revolution happening in a lot of areas like the health service, local government, reform, all this kind of stuff, which is in danger of getting out of control. We are trying to do too many things, actually. Some of them are Lib Dem inspired, but a lot of it is Tory inspired. The problem is not that they are Tory-inspired, but that they haven’t thought them through. We should be putting a brake on it
Not thought through? :crazy:
The minister in question is Vince Cable, the business secretary. Even he appears to have little or no confidence in some of the government's policies.
(And you can't blame The Guardian for this one. Here's the source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ing-a-war.html )
And Cable has said that being in government is 'like fighting a war'. Have to say, without the LibDems fighting against the tory onslaught, we'd all be overrun... They will be remembered..
100,000 is nowhere near enough, pre 97 the state employed about 2m less than it did when Labour lost the election, it needs to go back to those 97 figures at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
If they want to protect their colleagues jobs then why not take a pay cut like the private sector has? Why because they are selfish parasites who don't understand the real world.
Cable now admitted he was talking crap, he couldn't bring anything down, was just acting Billy Big Bollocks to some under cover reporters - shows a lack of judgement if nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
If he doesn't like it then he can go back to the obscurity he enjoyed before being handed a bit of power.
Good final episode last nightQuote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Showed how even though he was originally the injured party the woman will always win in court, so all the blokes got sent down and all the women were free.
Plumber - harsh vedict
Soldier - harsh verdict
Woman arsonist - should have at least been fined for damage she caused
Taxi driver - stalker freak deserved to be sent down
Paedo killer - not real true to life as they'd at least check before kicking him to death
To clarify, because as so often I'm having difficulty with understanding your posts, is this a critique of the programme or are you suggesting that the justice system will routinely side with a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
That's the chapQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
The programme reflected that nicely
How can passing forged notes be viewed as a worse offence than torching a wharehouse with somebody in it.