Jump to content

James105

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    2,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by James105

  1. So Labour have lost the pensioners, the farmers, the middle class parents who sent kids to private school, the small/large businesses, the white working class, the disabled, the trans and now they have lost the muslims and the Anti-Semitic jew haters on the left who will now go to the Jamas party (I presume it will be named after one terrorist group or another).  And they are going to raise taxes in the autumn, probably penalizing the people who work hard and pay tax, which is when they lose the rest of the middle class, even the ones who go to Glastonbury.   

     

    This will drop Labour to around about 16-18% which is basically the public sector workers giving them about 40-50 seats.  Enjoy the demise of the UK whilst you can UK haters, as this nightmare is going to end in 2029.  

  2. 2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

    1. If common sense and practicality are used, that would be a first! I do like your suggestion that testing only be done if a competitor (or coach?) challenges an athlete. Testing for a Y chromosome would be the likely test. That would mean a lack of one would be a "woman," and the presence of one would be a "man" - except for people with XXY chromosomes. That would either disqualify them from women's sports or necessitate the creation of a special rule for them.
    2. Lack of a Y chromosome would certainly qualify someone as a woman, but the presence of a Y chromosome might not (XXY). And would men's sports require a Y chromosome if tested, or would anyone be allowed to compete? 

    Thanks...

     

    If you think some kind of test needs to take place to know if Mr Thomas should or should not be competing against women may I suggest you visit Specsavers.   Also, the doctor records it on the birth certificate when they observe the sex at birth and since that cannot change then this will be sufficient when they register for the competitive sport they wish to participate in.   "But what if someone fakes their birth certificate".  That is cheating and fraud and should be punished accordingly.  

    • Like 1
  3. 10 minutes ago, rickudon said:

    Yes, look at big oil. Just like the tobacco companies before them. 

     

    I am not panicking. There is very little risk of humanity being wiped out by climate change. There is a big risk that a lot of people will live in a degraded environment and migration will become such a problem that today's migration issues will seem trivial. There is a chance we will see resource wars - water, maybe food, maybe just better territory.

     

    When the Indian sub-continent runs out of all those things, do you think people will just sit down and die? The second half of this century will be a bad time; the 22nd century, no idea, could get better or worse. I just want my kids to be on the winning side.

     

    So you think that by paying extra tax to subsidize the green billionaires and being forced to restrict your own lifestyle in some way would change any of that?   

     

    Climate panickers have no imagination.  They seem to think that the technology we have today is all we will ever have to solve problems.   100 years ago they would think the giant telephone in peoples houses had peaked and could not imagine ever making a phone call untethered from a house or a phone box, let alone having a computer in their pockets that has more processing power than NASA used for the moon landings.  Everyone wants cleaner skies and when the technology evolves to make that happen people will choose to buy it.  It will happen naturally.   I object to subsidizing inefficient provision of energy so politicians, China and rich people can get richer.   

    • Like 1
  4. 12 hours ago, rickudon said:

    Thats the thing, climate change is a mesh of competing factors, some positive, some negative. 60 years ago we just didn't have enough data

     

    Climate changes over millions of years.  To rely on (probably) manipulated data over the last few decades and then use that to model what is going to happen in 100 years (despite admitting the data wasn't good enough 60 years ago), to draw conclusions on such a small data set is quite the leap of faith in the climate alarmist community.  There was a record breaking heat wave in the 70s.  There will probably be less warm summers in the next decade.   It's called weather.  Something humans have notoriously never been able to accurately predict even in the next day or 2 let alone 100 years which is why all these climate predictions have been wildly wrong and will continue to be so.

     

    You would have been panicking (if you were around) about the upcoming ice age in the 70s.   Now you are panicking about global warming.   Some people are just very weak to propaganda.  Which is great for the rich and the powerful as they rely on you (and people like you) to keep spreading this propaganda to keep them rich.  

     

    12 hours ago, rickudon said:

    You have to get at the underlying facts.

     

    Yes, follow the money.  

    • Like 1
  5. 4 hours ago, rickudon said:

    Yes, natural climate change does happen very, very slowly. What we see now is a speeded up version where things happen in 100 years instead of thousands.

     

    100 years you say?  We only just escaped an ice age a mere 50 years ago so yes it does seem that climate scam changes super fast.  It's warming now you say?   It's a scam.   Follow the money.   

     

    image.png.504aed8738df1534d2b88b74181ccec0.png

    • Like 1
  6. 12 minutes ago, rickudon said:

    Sad to see that 90% of posters either do not believe in man made climate change or just do not care.

     

    The reason most don't believe it is the climate has changed many times on this planet before man existed and will continue to do so.  Climate change is real and happening (very, very, very slowly just as it always has done) and pretending that we are responsible for it is a King Canute level of hubris.  The only thing "man made" is the desire to profit and have the gullible pay the powerful who make money from the fear mongering.   The rich and the powerful are grateful for your contribution to their cause of making more and more money.   

    • Thanks 1
  7. 2 hours ago, Red Forever said:

    Starmer was indeed head of CPS but the Savile file never crossed his desk

     

    That's exactly what I said.  The Saville file "never crossed his desk" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).   Fascinating how the highest of high profile nonces did not make it onto the desk of the head of the CPS, some would suggest it's simply unbelievable.  Boris was a liar but Starmer is objectively more of a liar.   Ask the WASPI women, the pensioners, the working people, the farmers, the disabled, the businesses (small and large), his own party and the lies he told to get the leadership of the party, the parents of kids who expected him to abolish the 2 child cap, the IFS and the "black hole".   I can't actually think of a single thing that he has said that is even close to the truth - can you?   

     

    As he has such a penchant for lying, I simply don't believe the Saville file didn't cross his desk, not for a nanosecond.  If you are gullible enough to believe him about this then perhaps you might be interested in purchasing some land on the moon I have for sale...

    • Thumbs Up 1
  8. 3 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

     

    Criminal damage being charged under Terrorism offences = Auto D Notice.

     

    Lord Alli is obviously just a very nice and very benevolent chap 😀😀

     

     

     

    The chances of this being terrorism is about as likely as some far right thuggery occurring because of incitement by a Lucy Connolly tweet.   If Saville got a free pass for noncery under his "leadership" in the CPS, then I tend to wonder if he has an Epstein style black book containing the activities of other deviants in positions of power that also coincidentally "didn't come across his desk".   Just speculation of course as I find it difficult to comprehend how someone so devoid of personality and competence has managed to leverage himself into such a position of power.  It would be incredibly difficult (outside of Glastonbury of course) to find anyone, literally anyone, less competent than this moron.      

    • Like 2
  9. 54 minutes ago, GarryP said:

    I hope so. We do need change but Farage is about as trustworthy as a wet fart or a punctured condom. Perhaps, if it was under the leadership of someone that can be trusted, then it would be a good choice. But otherwise, it is all bluster. 

     

    So the Tories have proven that they cannot be trusted, and Labour are presiding over the worst and most detested government since records began, raising taxes, borrowing even more, lowering growth, increasing illegal immigration and now have a puppet as the PM who cannot implement changes despite the large majority.  I suspect actual headless chickens would not have fared any worse.  You think voting for either of these imbecilic parties again is a better option?  Crikey.  

    • Agree 2
  10. 4 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

    If anything i admired the Cameron / Osbourne government for actually trying to make an attempt at cutting spending, but ultimately it was all very minor again. Eventually someone is going to have to speak seriously to the population, explain you cannot get everything, and major cuts will have to be made. 

     

    Yes I remember this and the incessant wailing from the left.   People don't want to vote for a party that promise to make cuts to wasteful spending (that Tory government being the obvious exception), they vote for those who promise to spend yet more money that far outweighs the tax income.  Reform also seem to be falling into this trap as it is the only way to gain power.  It's quite frankly a fundamental problem with a democratic system where people vote for what they can get for themselves rather than what is beneficial for the wider country as a whole and/or the future generations.   

     

    Maybe it's time to embrace a cold and calculating AI to run the country that cannot be swayed by the whingeing and that does not pander to those who contribute the least, and cannot be bribed by lobbyists or self interested parties.   That's not a serious point, but the way the UK has been run for the last few decades is clearly unsustainable and I have no doubt an IMF bailout is on the cards before too long along that comes with crippling and forced cuts to every single welfare system.   

    • Like 1
  11. 2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

    Ridiculous post.

    "One can only imagine how much worse their lives would have been had their ancestors not been slaves"

     

    Not being exploited, not being robbed, not being slaves they would have had all opportunities to develop in their own culture.

     

    So when they were freed, why didn't they go back to their "own cultures" to the land of the people that actually sold them as slaves in the first place?   Nobody was forcing them to stay in the rich and prosperous western countries at that point, but they probably didn't want to as they would have just been sold as slaves to countries not controlled by the British empire had they returned.   Slavery existed for thousands of years before the west indulged in this practice and was the first (in the case of the UK) to abolish it.  

     

    Anyway, you clearly feel guilty about this so I'll set up a Gofundme for those who feel guilty about it and wish to donate.  It will be called "Reparations from people who never owned slaves to people who never have been slaves".   Can I count on you donating some of your own money to this?   

    • Like 1
  12. 20 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

    They have all rights to demand reparations.

    And it's easy to find out who got the most profit out of slavery. 

    And those are entitled to pay some billions.

     

    Those who did well out of slavery were the ancestors of freed slaves themselves.  Instead of having to live in poor countries (whose leaders actually sold their ancestors into slavery in the first place) get to live and prosper in richer western countries.   One can only imagine how much worse their lives would have been had their ancestors not been slaves.  How much do you think the ancestors of the slaves should have to pay for this gift?   Considering it cost the British taxpayer (in todays money) over £16bn to end slavery, perhaps there should be an "ancestor of slave tax" which could be used to pay reparations to the British people who shouldered the burden of paying to end slavery as a starting point.   

    • Like 1
  13. 2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

     

    You cannot force the boats back.

     

    What you can do is declare it an issue of National security under the National Security Act.

     

    Give the Military £10 million to build secure tented camps on Military training areas.

     

    Armed Military pick them on the beach, transport to secure tented camp, given slops 3 times a day, and here they stay until they beg to go home.

     

    No hotels, no cash cards, nothing. Only security , safety, fed and watered, provided by armed guards

     

    It's (kind of) been tried with Bibby Stockholm.   

     

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ng711yy2yo

     

    "She said a large number of the migrants had boycotted their breakfast and lunch, and had taken part in a two-hour sit-in at the site's outside compound."

     

    The eventual rewards are too great for them to go home.    They have to be turned back before they get to the UK.   It's the only way.   Australia did it and solved the problem within a few weeks.   

  14. 18 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

      Unfortunately you are wrong on one point, nearly 50% of asylum claims are accepted, those who fail the initial application then go on to appeal ( at a high cost to the tax payer) of these approximately 50% are successful so the full figure is a 75% acceptance rate.

     

    Yes, well I think I can guess why so many that should not be granted are successful

     

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg8emkley3o

     

    image.png.d1b64684382040e2d1729b2468f6648a.png

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...