James105

Yes, it's tricky to debate something when your argument is basically untrue. This one? Perhaps you should find better judges of character to agree with... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10081819/Archbishop-Canterbury-face-disciplinary-action-sexual-abuse-scandal-say-lawyers.html https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/justin-welby-admits-he-was-wrong-to-say-there-was-a-cloud-over-george-bell https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/we-are-truly-sorry-for-the-shameful-way-the-church-has-acted-235009/

If you are going to throw those kind of accusations around then I presume you have a link to back it up... right?

Since she is so obviously a British person, born and bred in Britain, and does not want to answer any questions that could cast any doubt on her undiluted Britishness, then she is not wearing 'fancy dress', she is engaging in what the left term as 'cultural appropriation' and should be called out on it.

Who really cares if she read the sodding email? The things people get worked up about on here is ridiculous. Let's face it, she won't be winning any employee of the month awards anytime soon, she has publicly insulted the head of the company, she publicly took them to court, and she is well and truly on Musk's firing radar. If she was a US based employee she would be gone already. Do you seriously think she has a bright future at Twitter or will be out the door at the first available (legal) opportunity? There is no law in the EU that says someone cannot be fired (so long as the correct process is followed) is there?

The majority of England rejects the winning party every single election and anyway I was asking a question. Ramping up to what exactly? There is no legal route to hold another referendum. Scotland has nothing to offer to entice the UK government to grant another referendum. So what is the next step then? Complain even more than now (if that is even possible)?

So vote for a party that can get into power then. You keep voting for parties that cannot win power in Westminster, and then blame someone else for this failing. You sound just like a BNP voter who has rejected every mainstream party their entire lives wondering why they are not getting their representation in government. I don't have the power to "let you go", but what is in it for this UK government (or the UK politicians who want to be re-elected), or the next one, or the one after that to have another time wasting, divisive, expensive referendum. It didn't stop the moaning last time so even if granted it won't stop the moaning next time when your fellow Scots once again reject independence for economic reasons. Ramping up to what by the way? War? Terrorism? Don't be so ridiculous.

You pay less tax than England and you get more per head spending than the English: "Scotland receives £1671 or 17% more per person by the UK average and its tax revenues are £308 lower per person." https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/can-scotland-afford-to-be-independent-how-much-independence-from-uk-would-cost-and-budget-deficit-explained-3231268 This is what I mean by the incessant whinging.

Sturgeon has the power to raise taxes in Scotland. You want nicer things then pay for them. What is the benefit to the UK or UK politicians to grant Scotland another divisive, expensive time wasting referendum? If there is no benefit to the UK or UK politicians then why on earth would the UK grant it?

So you are suggesting she read the email but chose not to answer it even though it explicitly stated that if she did not answer it she would lose her job? Right.

Incessant whinging is an accurate description of my perception of the Scottish lately on this question. If you want another referendum then you are going about it the wrong way. It's all me, me, me and what can I get, without taking into account what the other side wants. Since you need the other side to grant this referendum it needs to be sold to the other side. If there is no benefit to the other side then why would they waste the time and money on it? Once you look at it from that perspective you will edge a bit closer to understanding why a referendum is not and will not be granted for the foreseeable future. You should also reset your expectations of politicians as their primary goal is re-election. How does a UK politician offering support for another Scottish referendum help them achieve that goal? Hint: It doesn't.

Nigel Farage had no power. He wasn't the PM and UKIP had 1 MP in Westminster out of 650. He was basically a media personality. His voice counted no more than Bob Geldof's and had the result gone the other way he would have been (rightly) ignored. Alex Salmond would have been president of Scotland if Scotland had voted for independence so yes, what he said does count and should not be compared to Farage who is irrelevant in comparison.

A Sherlockian smorgasbord of logic, deduction and reasoning. 1. She didn't read the email so I deduced she didn't check her email. 2. If she had gone to the office everyone would be talking about that email - it would be impossible to be unaware of it. Since she was unaware of the email I deduced she didn't go to the office. It's elementary.

Here is another fact. If you read your previous post you literally said: "No one mentioned 'once in a lifetime/generation' at the last vote ". Alex Salmond was the leader of the SNP at the time so what he says counts. The simple fact is the only reason to offer another referendum to Scotland would be a foolish attempt to stop the incessant whinging that comes from the north of the border, but since the last referendum did not achieve that goal there is no guarantee the moaning would stop after the next one. Since the Scots have stopped voting for parties that have the potential to be in power in Westminster neither of the 2 main UK parties seek or need the Scottish vote any more, so there is literally zero incentive for the winning party to offer Scotland another referendum. Unless you genuinely think that politicians are in it for altruistic reasons and to "serve the people", what benefit is it to the current UK government (or the next one, or the one after that etc) to grant another Scottish referendum?

If he was really concerned about drink driving accidents he would be campaigning for proper punishments for drink driving, not what time the bars close. Loss of licence for 18 months for first offence along with a minimum 50,000 fine and jail sentence for Thais. Jail time, massive fine and deportation following jail for foreigners. These are the things that reduce drink driving incidents, not what time the bars are open to. But let's not pretend he actually cares about this, he is just another puritan that sucks the joy out of life.

I know facts are highly inconvenient to the narrative you have told yourself but here you go... "Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity'" SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity". Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661 It's difficult to lend out the crystal ball (I actually refer to it as common sense) as it's one of those things you have or you don't. It cannot be shared.

Yes, the £180bn feels a bit low to me. The barnet formula should of course be applied to this so it should be 30% higher, so something along the lines of £220bn would be more appropriate. But don't worry, it won't come to that for the following reasons: 1. Scotland cannot legally hold a referendum without Westminster approval. 2. Scotland had a once in a lifetime/generation vote 8 years ago. 3. In 20-30 years when Scotland get permission to legally hold another referendum, the Scots will once again vote against it.

She was clearly trying to establish what her family heritage was, albeit didn't use the correct words, but then she is 83. Joe Biden is younger and really struggles forming coherent sentences but is typically forgiven. The "offended" person knew what she was trying to ask (unless she is just plain stupid) and could have just said "I was born in Britain but my family heritage is...", but being a professional race baiter saw opportunity to shout racism. In modern Britain, the demand for racism far outstrips the supply so professional race baiters need to create these scenarios to claim offence. The charity the "offended" person works for supports "African and Caribbean heritage" women, so one would assume that should any women require need of her services, one of the first questions that would need to be asked is "where are you from" or "what is your family heritage" since that is what the charity supports, kind of what she was being asked herself.

Sure, but it does highlight a couple of things about her "work" at Twitter though doesn't it. 1. She isn't checking her emails when she is allegedly "working" at home. 2. We know she wasn't in the office as if she was then she would have heard about this email. So yes, this firing would not be legal, but I am sure her next firing will be in the not too distant future. If I was her I'd start looking for a new job as soon as possible but based on the way that she has publicly insulted the head of the company and taken them to court (all in the public eye), I don't fancy her chances of gaining meaningful employment anytime soon, and I doubt there are too many companies out there looking for a "global vice president of public policy", whatever that actually is.

This is the email below. I do not see what is vague about this and if I was a Twitter employee that wanted to keep my job I would have simply clicked on the link and said yes. Sounds like she was caught out by not bothering to read her emails and was no doubt "working from home" on that day. I'm sure if she had bothered to go to the office then the people that she worked with would have mentioned this email to her as I am sure it would have been a hot topic on that day. Either way I suspect that she has only temporarily extended her stay at Twitter and will soon be seeking new employment as I am pretty sure that Twitter will survive without a 'global vice president for public policy' (whatever that means) for an indefinite period of time. Going forward, to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade. Twitter will also be much more engineering-driven. Design and product management will still be very important and report to me, but those writing great code will constitute the majority of our team and have the greatest sway. At its heart, Twitter is a software and servers company, so I think this makes sense. If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below: [Google form link] Anyone who has not done so by 5pm ET tomorrow (Thursday) will receive three months of severance. Whatever decision you make, thank you for your efforts to make Twitter successful.

What I understand is that you seem to have blindly agreed with someone on the left without actually doing your own research or even clicking the link that debunks their own post.

Haha.. you didn't actually read your own link did you? Of course this has been used in other memes as it's funny, but the image I posted was from a genuine CNN news report. Thanks for confirming that the left do not understand memes. Origin The original clip that the meme is pulled from is seen during CNN’s coverage of the Jacob Blake Protests, aired on August 25th, 2020, specifically the clip where reporter Omar Jimenez is reporting in the field in Kenosha, Wisconsin. During the scene (reupload featured below), Jimenez discusses the events of the protests and riots in Kenosha with a scene of burning cars in the background while the headline reads “Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting.”

CNN is a parody of itself, but they don't make it clear that they are a parody news network. Whether that means they should be banned from Twitter under Musks rules I do not know, but I do hope not otherwise I'd miss the CNN classics like this one:

Tech companies have a more highly educated indoctrinated workforce than average.

Once again the left demonstrates that it neither understands humour or 'memes'.

Tech companies have a very liberal bias so that may be the reason they do not want a level playing field on social media companies, which Musk has set out to achieve. Maybe they just don't want the thumb removed from the scales come election time. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/most-liberal-tech-companies-ranked-by-employee-donations.html