dick dasterdly

39 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Not pointless at all. Yes the Withdrawal Agreement is closed and will not be open again to negotiations, but it's not the only important document! The most important is probably the one who will describe the future relations between UK and EU, and nearly all has to be done for it.

 

EU already said that she was open to discussion for this part, and we could imagine one of first articles being: "The backstop defined in the WA will be in application only during the transition period, with a maximum duration of 18 months(?) 2 years (?)…"

That could solve the problem of "UK dependent of EU rules forever". 

Please expand, as the backstop is part of the WAG.

But yes, it looks as if the EU has already started back-tracking on this point - otherwise why on earth would they agree to twice weekly talks with the UK?

Presumably the EU is about to tell the media that there will be no twice weekly talks - as they have made it very clear that they have no intention of changing anything in the WAG?

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

There was speculation I read (trying to find it) that Junker convinced Theresa May to hold a GE after the referendum, knowing that her majority would be cut. She didn't need to at all and we are in this mess because of that.

 

History does suggests that if a PM is replaced from the Government then the popularity is often reduced. Major, Brown are examples.

 

Whilst she (TM) had more seats than the opposition her majority was reduced. True or not it would make sense from the remainer and a Europhile, doing the EU's bidding

But that doesn't explain the other policies that were clearly going to lose a lot of votes.

As the EU have been insisting that there will be NO change to the EU/May agreement - presumably they will state that the UK is lying, and there will not be any further brexit talks (let alone twice weekly!), as it would be pointless?

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Bill, please read my post. A GE is not a referendum. It's to select a government party. It's up to the incoming government to decide what happens next. I understand the latest from Corbyn is that another referendum is not on their party's agenda. 

"It's up to the incoming government to decide what happens next."

Actually, the incoming govt. is supposed to carry out their manifesto - not decide afterwards "what happens next"!

There was a GE in '17 (IIRC) - and the remain supporting parties lost badly.  Both the conservatives and labour manifestos were to respect the referendum result.

Yes, the tories lost a lot of seats in the GE, and I hope to one day find out why they came out with other policies that would clearly lose them a lot of votes.....

28 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

You do seem to have a thing about Tilbrook, founder of the English Democrats, a large percentage of who's members are defectors from the BNP. Their main aim is to have an English parliament. They may yet get their wish by default. Being the nonentety he is (his party has around 1000 members), the case you constantly refer to was laughed out of court.

 

I can see why you're a fan.

And I can see why you prefer insults to answering interesting questions....

The court cases supporting the remain cause receive full media coverage, whereas Tilbrook's case was barely mentioned.

Evadgib raised an interesting point:-

45 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The only thing I cannot understand is why Boris didn't simply sign a consent order supporting Robin Tilbrooks Miller-esque case if he's serious about no deal. 

Personally, I think it is because Boris is looking for May's agreement - with only a few tweaks on the backstop.

17 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

In America, land of the 1st Amendment, what would have happened had mentally weak Trump--handicapped by the overabundance of white matter in his brain which forces him to make associations that don't exist in reality--lied while testifying under oath had he the courage to speak with Mueller? Is it free speech that he'd not be able to lie without consequence? Is that he has told to the American public, to the world, 12,000 lies in 950 days an example of this free speech?

 

So in America we put constraints & guidances on free speech. Free speech is not a free-for-all speech: yelling fire in theater, etc.

 

And then there is right speech....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter...Samaññaphala Sutta states that a part of a monk's virtue is that "he abstains from false speech. He speaks the truth, holds to the truth, is firm, reliable, no deceiver of the world..."
 

Does this mean that all truth said in free speech is right speech?

 

"A truth that’s told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent."~~William Blake

"Free speech is not a free-for-all speech: yelling fire in theater, etc."

You're seriously putting this up as an example as to why free speech needs to be restricted even more ??

The rest of your post is just a reiteration of 'ban anything I don't like' - and has nothing to do with the interesting question on where the line should be drawn when it comes to free speech.

4 minutes ago, Chazar said:

I  guess  the problem worldwide is  if  you cant understand any problem you  cant decide how to solve  it and not everyone is  smart, everyone has a  set  ability to understand only so  much. Take  global warming I  cannot  understand  a lot of  it.

So every govt. should only consist of a panel of 'experts' - certainly not politicians?

Sadly this wouldn't work, as genuine experts have no interest in political power.

But this is WAY off-topic on where the line should be drawn when it comes to freedom of speech.

16 minutes ago, Yinn said:

My country invented how to make it rain.

This will be more important with climate warming. (I know can not make it rain anywhere/anytime)

 

But yes, if you not invention the plane, we can not invention that one.

 

Everyone work together. Sabai sabai.

Wow!  Do you honestly believe this, or am I missing a joke?

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I like the idea of free speech for the truth.

And I don't like the idea of free speech when bad guys deliberately tell lies.

But obviously there is a huge grew area between those extremes.

 

Should it be free for politicians to lie to get elected and lie further to get what they want when educated smart people know that those politicians are lying?

Should it be free that rich people who own media companies can publish lots of BS to influence people?

I think there should be limitations. But obviously it's difficult to make clear rules and enforce those clear rules.

"when educated smart people know that those politicians are lying?"

And this is how to make it very clear that you are more than very biased and believe that only your version of "educated smart" should have a say in anything ☹️.

5 hours ago, yogi100 said:

Before we were in the EU the fruit and vegetables got picked. We picked our own fruit and veg. I picked fruit as a boy in Kent during the school holidays as did thousands of other city dwelling youngsters from other British cities all over the country.

 

The long school summer holidays coincided with the harvesting season, probably intentionally. We spent the whole holidays working in the orchards and fields. We stayed on the farms in caravans, huts and tents. Sometimes whole families worked on the same farm each year. We had camp fires in which cooked the potatoes that we'd picked along with sausages in the evenings. It was a great life and we got paid for it with money that we would later be denied.  Londoners also traditionally worked the hop fields of Kent.

 

But mechanisation, technology and the do gooders and jobsworths with their interfering child exploitation laws eventually helped to put paid to that. Now they sit in front of TVs or play computer games or smoke dope and get into trouble. Nowadays a kid has to be 14 and maybe even get a work permit if he wants to just do paper round. But that's what 'progress' is all about.

 

Years later I worked in Jersey in the Channel Islands on building sites. This was in the 1970s. It was seasonal British workers who came over and worked on the sites. And with a few locals and Portuguese it was English, Scottish and Irish who mainly picked the Jersey potatoes and tomatoes. I remember them having tomato fights in the pubs when the tomatoes were picked.

 

I may not be as familiar with agricultural life as you seem to be but I have a little experience of it. Perhaps you yourself with your greater knowledge could tell us how we coped before the EU and mass immigration but try not to be so rude about it.

 

Then tell us how we managed the largest empire the world has ever seen and how at one time the words 'Made in Britain' was regarded as a hallmark of quality. And while you're at it tell us how we did this with or without the help and guidance of European and other immigrants.

"Before we were in the EU the fruit and vegetables got picked."

I know nothing about building sites, but this part is undeniably true.

The annoying part is that we've argued this previously - and it's being resurrected yet again as an 'argument' that the Brits. are too lazy ☹️.

If only remainers could 'get their heads around the idea' that Brits. aren't too lazy - they are just unable to survive on the ever decreasing 'real' wages/salaries (hence the necessary govt. top ups)!

Edit - And FOM from FAR poorer EU countries isn't helping!

Most people are polite and refrain from airing offensive views unless they are in the company of someone similarly minded.

Most (being polite) will either ignore or walk away.  The 'ordinary' person has to feel strongly to argue against them, but this doesn't mean that they agree with what has been said.

But this has nothing to do with where the line should be drawn when it comes to free speech.

20 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

But how about politicians who complexly ignore scientific evidence?

When i.e. some people want that kids learn in school that some old guy with a white beard created earth and everything on earth about 6,000 years ago.

It's crazy, and all evidence is against it, but so called authorities are still allowed to publish such BS ideas.

And lots of people still believe that if the authorities say something then it must be true...

"And lots of people still believe that if the authorities say something then it must be true..."

Agree entirely ???? - but not sure what any of this has to do with free speech?

And I'm beginning to think about using 'hate speech' against TV - which has, yet again, slowed to a crawl ????!

It's a very interesting question - precisely where does one draw the line?

It's obvious that anyone advocating violence against other people is 'hate speech' (ignoring govts., who do this from time to time and start wars....), but beyond that free speech is important.

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

The PEOPLE are in the driving seat as will become clear if BJ deviates from their mandate.

 

At the moment this is true, to a certain extent - as MPs are very worried about losing their seats at the next GE.

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I doubt there will be an improvement unless OP goes for real treatment.  Those topical treatments are useless.

In my case, sadly going for "real" treatment was also useless, whilst costing me many thousand bht!

Having said this, I do agree that expert treatment should be sought for a few months - as I'm sure it is likely to result in a cure for most cases.

57 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Interesting comment.

I think the main difference between May and Boris is that May tried to reach an agreement between all involved (at least mostly). She was not able to reach an agreement but she knew people still have to live together after Brexit and the EU is still there after Brexit. The UK and EU have to work together somehow.

It seems Boris wants to win. "I did it, we left the EU with no deal." and "We won't pay." And then? How does that work for the future? Should the UK citizen just pretend there is no Europe? Or how about accepting reality that you need some agreements with your neighbors. And ripping up all existing agreements in the hope that sometime in the future things will somehow get better is just plain stupid.

"I think the main difference between May and Boris is that May tried to reach an agreement between all involved (at least mostly)."

Disagree entirely.  May came up with an agreement that ONLY suited the EU.

Even the mostly remainer MPs realised that it was an appalling agreement!

I started losing all my finger and toenails a few years ago...

Tests by the dermatology clinic at Phuket International hospital revealed only a mild fungal infection, so the doctor was nonplussed at why the problem was so acute and had affected ALL nails.

I went back many times and was prescribed different medications each time, but nothing worked and so after several months I eventually gave up and hoped it would eventually sort itself out.  It didn't, and so I resigned myself to embarrassing nails.

A few months ago I started applying Ellgy cracked heel cream (can't remember why), and was very suprised when the nails and beds started to recover - and after a while I had virtually a full set of nails again!  Unfortunately, I then stopped using the cream/lotion - and they've all disintegrated again.....  It could of course just be coincedence that they recovered whilst I was using this product and the problem reasserted itself when I stopped, but time will tell as I've started applying it again.