dick dasterdly

This is likely to be the case in this incident ☹️.

Many years ago I was staying in a/the 'top' resort in Phi Phi when all the friendly cats suddenly disappeared....

I was told (from a relative working in the resort) that they had been put on a boat, and dumped in the ocean as a way around the 'buddhist' beliefs.....

Apparently, a guest had complained that one of the cats had bitten her....

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

It makes me long for Leonard Sachs and the good old days.

I look back at the 'good old days' that allowed me to enjoy good company pensions.

edit - and salaries.

Gone now of course - and I mostly blame the brit. govt. for this. ☹️

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It matters because the President is threatening to wield Presidential power to commit what he believes is harm to communities that do not support him.

 

This occasion releasing interned immigrants is a win win but the precedent is an act of intended harm.

 

That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

I give up!

We both think it is a win/win situation, but you would prefer that it shouldn't be allowed to happen as it suits trump and his supporters....  The fact that it also suits 'sanctuary cities' isn't relevant.....

I would agree with you if the hierarchy were looking to impose something that wasn't wanted in those cities - but this is not the case!

33 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

All histrionics aside, how can we hope to achieve a consensus across the country when we are as polarised as this?

 

 

 

That graph shows England and Wales to be fairly solid - with Scotland and N.I voting differently?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I believe it’s a win win and have said so.

 

But you are missing the point.

 

Trump is playing to his base and proposing what he believes to be committing harm.

 

Read the numerous posts from Trump supporters here on TVF blaming immigrants for a wide range of crimes and criminality.

 

 

"I believe it’s a win win and have said so."

In which case, I'm not sure why we are arguing on this topic ????.

It's obvious that the different sides believe different things, but as long as both sides 'win' - who cares?

14 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

no matter the cause I anticipate the words 'climate change' being thrown about in the news soon..

I suppose you MAY be right in linking these to govt.s trying to change the 'conversation' in their countries....

But at the moment it's a bit far-fetched.

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Agreed, but it’s also a little more than that.

 

Trump frequently states that these immigrants are a threat to the safety of the communities into which they move. 

 

His proposal to transport undocumented immigrants ( that he regards a threat) to communities is a proposal to actively intend harm to those communities.

 

The proposal to single out communities that are predominantly Democrat is to actively do harm to communities that do not support him.

 

Putting aside whether or not these immigrants are an actual threat, the President actively acting to commit what he believes harm to communities that do not support him is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

Why would it harm them, as they welcome illegal migrants?

11 hours ago, bomber said:

my local council sold a country house valued at £1.5 million plus for £200k a few years back,nobody else got a sniff of it,it made the local TV but nothing ever happened,is that bad business of fraud,i have a mate high up in the same council and he says back handers are common,Uber was one of the latest he says they have bribed nearly every council in the UK.its wrong but its life,you brexit lovers need to make up

"my local council sold a country house valued at £1.5 million plus for £200k a few years back,nobody else got a sniff of it,it made the local TV but nothing ever happened,is that bad business of fraud,i have a mate high up in the same council and he says back handers are common,Uber was one of the latest he says they have bribed nearly every council in the UK.its wrong"

Agree entirely.

How on earth did this happen? ☹️

Meanwhile we have Assange and his supporters being proven right - it was all about extraditing him to the US.....

21 hours ago, evadgib said:

The Home Sec was asked about costs in the commons and replied along the lines of trying to recoup some/all from wikileaks/supporters of Assange. I cannot remember the exact wording but the die-hards will find it on YT or Hanzard.

Ha! yes ????

31 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The WP article specifically stated that Assange should be protected due to Free Speech.

Assange is indicted on a criminal act. If the right to free speech protects him from this criminal activity , where if any does this protection halt.

Quite, the right of free speech and, more importantly revealing the truth, is being closed down.....

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Don't worry, Geoff. Muttley will have them woollies well under control.

Entirely off topic, but sadly my dogs are entirely useless when it comes to 'protection' (I think).

To look on the bright side, one of them barks madly whenever anyone comes close to the house during the night ????.

25 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, and I give up as I've no doubt you are sure that change can happen from 'within'.

 

Anyone with any sense (IMO of course) knows that the eu has no intention of reform.  They are very happy with the current arrangement where they are paid way too much, as are their staff.  Moving locations (at taxpayers' expense) not a problem that should be addressed.....

I'm so tired of repeating the obvious.

The eu has no intention of reform as it pays so well, and increases their power......

22 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not that it matters, as this thread is about Wikilinks - good or bad.

 

Some of us think we should know the truth when our govts. behave badly - others think differently.

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m particular interested in foreign governments interfering in elections/referendums and those who assist and/or conspire with those foreign governments.

Everyone to their own....

Do you seriously think that the US has never interfered with other countries?? ????

5 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

maybe your expectations are to high... it's obvious the majority of the posts are posted for contradictory arguments regardless how important the matter is..... feel for you and understand your point

Disagree as I think many posters really are so brainwashed by MSM, that they believe the rubbish they are spouting.....

12 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The question would be , where does the First Amendment protection for publishers/journalist end. Does it provide complete immunity from criminal acts in pursuance of an objective.

 

For a hypothetical example , would it provide protection from Breaking and entering, physical assualt, or say even murder if the purpose is to protect source.

 

The above examples are the extreme, and commonsense would dictate in these circumstances , one would hope not.

 

 

Talk about deflection!

This thread is about Assange being arrested by brit. police for breaking bail - and then, suprise suprise there was a US extradition request ????!

20 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

"H.R. 1—or the “For the People Act“—moves to expand early voting, reform redistricting, automate voter registration, restore protections from the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and implement stricter disclosure rules for campaigns and other political activities.

It also includes a provision to require all presidential candidates to disclose a decade of tax returns—a move that directly goes against President Donald Trump’s decision to keep his tax returns private—and another that would make Election Day a federal holiday."    http://fortune.com/2019/03/08/house-for-the-people-act-passes/

 

Obviously a great many politicians will.  However Mitch McConnell will not allow the subject to come up in the Senate.

 

" Responding to action in the House, Senate Democrats unveiled their own version of a sweeping election and ethics reform bill Wednesday — one that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed never to bring to a vote."    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-democrats-push-to-match-houses-ethics-and-election-reforms/2019/03/27/a46a6880-50a4-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.22085c121e35

   

Surely it would be better for all politicians to declare their tax returns - not just presidential candidates?