10 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

Ouch! Your shouty words hurt me Susan.

You were probably off school the day they taught Comprehension. We were taught to read the whole article before commenting.

You just see bullet words e.g. boats, hotels, crises, shortages etc and then jump in with both feet with your vile nationalist comments.

Please don’t change cos you give us pesky, tree hugging, pinko lefties such a laugh.

Must rush cos I’m late for my “Introduction into the works of Marx and Engels class”.

So again, with no facts, just insults. It's always the same with you.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So again, with no facts, just insults. It's always the same with you.

Wow, I’m flattered that you’re following me.

To be brief: you accuse me of having no facts (where are yours), just insults in my response to a poster who calls me a racist and a bigot!

In your opinion I’m the insulting party!?

Jeez.

35 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Oh look, another #bekind fake socialist that puts fake GDP figures ahead of nationalizing key industries, empowering the working class, and breaking free from capitalist EU regulations just to protect corporate trade markets.

A real life Citizen Smith. POWER TO THE PEOPLE EU!!!! 😀

Oh look ... yet more completely irrelevant, nonsensical drivel from our resident bigot when confronted with FACTS.

I'm all ears: Where are the false assumptions/ flaws in the methodologies employed by Bloomberg, the OBR, Britain in a Changing Europe, etc in their various reports?

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Just exposing your hypocrisy, yet again.

No Jonny, you were demonstrating your inability not fabricate arguments that have not been made.

14 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

Wow, I’m flattered that you’re following me.

To be brief: you accuse me of having no facts (where are yours), just insults in my response to a poster who calls me a racist and a bigot!

In your opinion I’m the insulting party!?

Jeez.

I did not accuse you of having no facts, I only pointed out that that fact that you presented no facts.

There is a simple solution for all this...

We know now (Thank you so much @JonnyF ), that immigrants are to blame for the rising cost of bread and food.

A quote from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1765): the last resort of a great princess who, when told that the peasants had no bread, replied: "Then let them eat brioches."

(Note: It wasn't Marie Antoinette who said that.)

So the problem of food shortage was already solved over 250 years ago by a great princess.

I admit, nowdays drought seems to be an additional problem coming together with immigrants. It's all their fault. History seems to repeat itself again and again.

Note: The lines above might possibly contain sarcasm and irony.

15 hours ago, Red Forever said:

Ouch! Your shouty words hurt me Susan.

You were probably off school the day they taught Comprehension. We were taught to read the whole article before commenting.

You just see bullet words e.g. boats, hotels, crises, shortages etc and then jump in with both feet with your vile nationalist comments.

Please don’t change cos you give us pesky, tree hugging, pinko lefties such a laugh.

Must rush cos I’m late for my “Introduction into the works of Marx and Engels class”.

Was there a point relevant to the discussion in there somewhere?

Or just more trolling from the resident pleb forever?

15 hours ago, RayC said:

Oh look ... yet more completely irrelevant, nonsensical drivel from our resident bigot when confronted with FACTS.

I'm all ears: Where are the false assumptions/ flaws in the methodologies employed by Bloomberg, the OBR, Britain in a Changing Europe, etc in their various reports?

Britain is not for sale. You think it's worth selling out our sovereignty for a few short term % points of GDP. I do not.

I don't believe we will ever agree on the issue so maybe better you accept you lost and get back to destroying Britain with your racist DEI discrimination and support of illegal immigration, not to mention your bigotry towards anyone with a different opinion...

23 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Where do you obtain your food handouts from?

Nature. Wild food.

My MiL feeds me twigs and weeds.

Nutritional powerhouse.

The MSM doesn't want you to know that. 😀

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Britain is not for sale...

Except to rich foreigners!

CHEERIO 😄

NARRATORS VOICE: Britain’s stable laws, global finance hub, and historically lax property transparency have attracted wealthy foreign buyers, including some using property to store or obscure illicit wealth.

13 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

There is a simple solution for all this...

We know now (Thank you so much @JonnyF ), that immigrants are to blame for the rising cost of bread and food.

They're to blame for a lot more than that. Lack of housing, strain on social/health services, tax increases, crime, lack of school places to name a few.

13 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

A quote from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1765): the last resort of a great princess who, when told that the peasants had no bread, replied: "Then let them eat brioches."

(Note: It wasn't Marie Antoinette who said that.)

So the problem of food shortage was already solved over 250 years ago by a great princess.

A fascinating diversion.

However, illegal immigrants are not peasants. Well, not in the classic sense of the word anyway.

13 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

I admit, nowdays drought seems to be an additional problem coming together with immigrants. It's all their fault. History seems to repeat itself again and again.

Nobody is blaming them for the lovely summer Britain is having. We are blaming them for breaking into our country illegally. They need to be deported.

13 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

Note: The lines above might possibly contain sarcasm and irony.

Yet a distinct absence of anything remotely amusing. 😄

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

not to mention your bigotry towards anyone with a different opinion...

Some more history for you, as you seem to like it. It appeared in German-French dictionaries starting in 1765: „C’est le ton qui fait la musique“ .

„It’s not what you say, but how you say it“.

18 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Except to rich foreigners!

CHEERIO 😄

NARRATORS VOICE: Britain’s stable laws, global finance hub, and historically lax property transparency have attracted wealthy foreign buyers, including some using property to store or obscure illicit wealth.

Global Britain is open for business and investment post Brexit.

Totally different to signing power over to a corrupt EU in exchange for being cut in on their protectionist racket.

16 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Some more history for you, as you seem to like it. It appeared in German-French dictionaries starting in 1765: „C’est le ton qui fait la musique“ .

„It’s not what you say, but how you say it“.

Well, literally it means "It is the tone that makes the music".

But that aside, I feel it is worth pointing out that this is a written forum, no words are actually being spoken. If you are hearing them, may I suggest seeking professional help?

It is not possible for mass migration to put downward pressure on wages, and upward pressure on food and housing,

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Britain is not for sale. You think it's worth selling out our sovereignty for a few short term % points of GDP. I do not.

I don't believe we will ever agree on the issue so maybe better you accept you lost and get back to destroying Britain with your racist DEI discrimination and support of illegal immigration, not to mention your bigotry towards anyone with a different opinion...

In what ways did the loss of sovereignty during the UK's membership of the EU damage the country? Has this damage been reversed since we left? If not, why not?

"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a framework used by groups and workplaces to support fair treatment and full participation for all people, especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination." (Source: Google AI): Jaywick is, by many criteria, the most deprived neighbourhood in England. Any initiative aimed specifically at improving the life chances of Jaywick residents would fall under the DEI definition and is something that I could support. Jaywick is 95% white. Am I guilty of racism?

Yet another lie: I do not support illegal immigration. I have consistently and constantly stated that illegal immigration is a problem which needs addressing.

Your lies about me are nothing new, however when challenged to produce evidence to support your claims you cannot. I can only assume that your lies are a feeble attempt to divert attention away from your own bigotry and racism which is well-documented.

I am not usually bigoted towards those who have a different opinion to me. The overwhelming majority of my exchanges with posters who hold right-of-centre views are robust but polite. I do not accuse those individuals of being bigoted and/or racist. I reserve those accusations for those who deserve it.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

In what ways did the loss of sovereignty during the UK's membership of the EU damage the country? Has this damage been reversed since we left? If not, why not?

"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a framework used by groups and workplaces to support fair treatment and full participation for all people, especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination." (Source: Google AI): Jaywick is, by many criteria, the most deprived neighbourhood in England. Any initiative aimed specifically at improving the life chances of Jaywick residents would fall under the DEI definition and is something that I could support. Jaywick is 95% white. Am I guilty of racism?

Yet another lie: I do not support illegal immigration. I have consistently and constantly stated that illegal immigration is a problem which needs addressing.

Your lies about me are nothing new, however when challenged to produce evidence to support your claims you cannot. I can only assume that your lies are a feeble attempt to divert attention away from your own bigotry and racism which is well-documented.

I am not usually bigoted towards those who have a different opinion to me. The overwhelming majority of my exchanges with posters who hold right-of-centre views are robust but polite. I do not accuse those individuals of being bigoted and/or racist. I reserve those accusations for those who deserve it.

Especially fair treatment groups that have faced past discrimination.

Which means less fair treatment from those that have not.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Especially fair treatment groups that have faced past discrimination.

Which means less fair treatment from those that have not.

Indeed it does. Is correcting past errors wrong, especially if it results in equality of opportunity?

In any event, @JonnyF claimed that DEI was racist. I provided a counterexample showing that wasn't necessarily the case.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Indeed it does. Is correcting past errors wrong, especially if it results in equality of opportunity?

Except thar it pretends to to be equality.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

In any event, @JonnyF claimed that DEI was racist. I provided a counterexample showing that wasn't necessarily the case.

It is not necessarily racist, only because the bias could be based on things other than race.

Meritocracy has to be eliminated, the nuclear family destroyed, and dissent crushed, right?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Except thar it pretends to to be equality.

That is your interpretation. I interpret the definition to mean 'equality of opportunity'.

"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a framework used by groups and workplaces to support fair treatment and full participation for all people, especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination."

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

It is not necessarily racist, only because the bias could be based on things other than race.

Good then we agree that DEI is not racist by definition.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Meritocracy has to be eliminated, the nuclear family destroyed, and dissent crushed, right?

No and I have no idea - or desire to know - how you reached that conclusion, nor do I want to become involved in any tangential discussion about either of those completely unrelated issues.

11 hours ago, RayC said:

That is your interpretation. I interpret the definition to mean 'equality of opportunity'.

You can define poverty as wealth, but it changes nothing.

11 hours ago, RayC said:

"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a framework used by groups and workplaces to support fair treatment and full participation for all people, especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination."

But more equal for some than others.

11 hours ago, RayC said:

Good then we agree that DEI is not racist by definition.

You are the one redefining everything, not me.

But I think we all know discrimination is not limited to race.

11 hours ago, RayC said:

No and I have no idea - or desire to know - how you reached that conclusion, nor do I want to become involved in any tangential discussion about either of those completely unrelated issues.

That you do not see the connection surprising, albeit telling.

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You can define poverty as wealth, but it changes nothing.

But more equal for some than others.

You are the one redefining everything, not me.

"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a framework used by groups and workplaces to support fair treatment and full participation for all people, especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination."

You interpret that 'equality of outcome' but then say that DEI results in some being "... more equal for some than others" which is contradictory

And you accuse me of redefining terms😂

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

But I think we all know discrimination is not limited to race.

Agreed. Where have I said otherwise?

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That you do not see the connection surprising, albeit telling.

'Equality of opportunity' does not mean that "meritocracy has to be eliminated" as you suggest, it simply means what it says i.e. that everyone has an equal chance to succeed. Is that a pipedream'? Quite possibly but imo it is a goal worth striving for.

The reason that I don't see the connection between pursuing DEI guidelines, the destruction of the nuclear family and the crushing of dissent is anything but surprisingly, the reason being that there isn't one: Policies promoting equal opportunity, the nuclear family and dissent can - and more importantly do - exist side-by-side in modern day societies.

One thing that is telling is that you have provided no evidence to support your contentions.

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

"DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It is a framework used by groups and workplaces to support fair treatment and full participation for all people, especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination."

You interpret that 'equality of outcome' but then say that DEI results in some being "... more equal for some than others" which is contradictory

And you accuse me of redefining terms😂

By including: "...especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination." it becomes by definition, discriminatory. Surly you see that.

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

Agreed. Where have I said otherwise?

Where have I said you did?

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

'Equality of opportunity' does not mean that "meritocracy has to be eliminated" as you suggest, it simply means what it says i.e. that everyone has an equal chance to succeed. Is that a pipedream'? Quite possibly but imo it is a goal worth striving for.

I have never suggested equality of opportunity negates meritocracy. It does not, it is the American way.

Equity is the negates meritocracy.

By your own definition, DEI seeks to favor one group over another, yes?

47 minutes ago, RayC said:

The reason that I don't see the connection between pursuing DEI guidelines, the destruction of the nuclear family and the crushing of dissent is anything but surprisingly, the reason being that there isn't one: Policies promoting equal opportunity, the nuclear family and dissent can - and more importantly do - exist side-by-side in modern day societies.

One thing that is telling is that you have provided no evidence to support your contentions.

I've seen no evidence from you.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

By including: "...especially those from groups that have faced past discrimination." it becomes by definition, discriminatory. Surly you see that.

If inequality of opportunity exists then, yes by definition, measures to level the playing field are discriminatory towards certain other groups.

Are you saying that you are opposed to giving everyone an equal chance in life?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Where have I said you did?

You stated, "I think we all know discrimination is not limited to race". If you are not implying that I disagree with the statement why introduce it into this discussion? It is completely irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I have never suggested equality of opportunity negates meritocracy. It does not, it is the American way.

Similar to my last paragraph. You stated, "Meritocracy has to be eliminated, the nuclear family destroyed, and dissent crushed, right?" in response to my suggestion that DEI might help in creating 'equality of opportunity'. If you don't believe that to be the case, why make your original statement?

So to summarise, we both agree that 1) equality of opportunity is desirable and 2) that DEI policies might help to promote equality of opportunity. Yes?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Equity is the negates meritocracy.

If by 'equity' you mean 'equality of outcome' then, yes that is possible.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

By your own definition, DEI seeks to favor one group over another, yes?

I've seen no evidence from you.

You really want me to provide evidence that DEI favours some groups when we both agree that it must do if it is a means to achieve equality of opportunity?

What would be more interesting is if you could explain the relevance of your statement that, "Meritocracy has to be eliminated, the nuclear family destroyed, and dissent crushed, right?, within the context of this discussion and to then supply evidence to support your contention.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

If inequality of opportunity exists then, yes by definition, measures to level the playing field are discriminatory towards certain other groups.

Are you saying that you are opposed to giving everyone an equal chance in life?

Not at all, that's what you want to do by discriminating for or against certain groups.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

You stated, "I think we all know discrimination is not limited to race". If you are not implying that I disagree with the statement why introduce it into this discussion? It is completely irrelevant.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? We agree that DEI discriminates based on any number of things, including race, yes?

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

Similar to my last paragraph. You stated, "Meritocracy has to be eliminated, the nuclear family destroyed, and dissent crushed, right?" in response to my suggestion that DEI might help in creating 'equality of opportunity'. If you don't believe that to be the case, why make your original statement?

Because equity, by definition, negates meritocracy.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

So to summarise, we both agree that 1) equality of opportunity is desirable and 2) that DEI policies might help to promote equality of opportunity. Yes?

Equality of opportunity is desirable, but equity negates it.

You only pretend to be for equity anyway, you do not really support it.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

If by 'equity' you mean 'equality of outcome' then, yes that is possible.

What I said was that equity negates meritocracy.

Equality of outcome is not possible.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

You really want me to provide evidence that DEI favours some groups when we both agree that it must do if it is a means to achieve equality of opportunity?

I know DEI discriminates for and against different group. I need no evidence to support that.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that equality of outcome is possible?

What claims have I made that need supporting?

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

What would be more interesting is if you could explain the relevance of your statement that, "Meritocracy has to be eliminated, the nuclear family destroyed, and dissent crushed, right?, within the context of this discussion and to then supply evidence to support your contention.

More interesting than what?

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not at all, that's what you want to do by discriminating for or against certain groups.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? We agree that DEI discriminates based on any number of things, including race, yes?

Because equity, by definition, negates meritocracy.

Equality of opportunity is desirable, but equity negates it.

You only pretend to be for equity anyway, you do not really support it.

What I said was that equity negates meritocracy.

Equality of outcome is not possible.

I know DEI discriminates for and against different group. I need no evidence to support that.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that equality of outcome is possible?

What claims have I made that need supporting?

More interesting than what?

Stop trolling.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

Stop trolling.

Stop deflecting.

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Stop deflecting.

You introduce subjects into the discussion and when I ask you to explain their relevance, you make no attempt to do so but instead accuse me of bringing them up! You then also accuse me of deflection! If that wasn't enough, you continually attribute statements to me which I have not made e.g. that I claimed that equality of outcome is possible.

So, I repeat: STOP TROLLING!

Just now, RayC said:

You introduce subjects into the discussion and when I ask you to explain their relevance, you make no attempt to do so but instead accuse me of bringing them up! You then also accuse me of deflection! If that wasn't enough, you continually attribute statements to me which I have not made e.g. that I claimed that equality of outcome is possible.

So, I repeat: STOP TROLLING!

Where did I say that the subjects I introduced were relevant?

Get a grip brother, it's a chat board.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Where did I say that the subjects I introduced were relevant?

Get a grip brother, it's a chat board.

1966 World Cup Final (Wembley Stadium)

England 4 West Germany 2 (aet)

44 minutes ago, RayC said:

1966 World Cup Final (Wembley Stadium)

England 4 West Germany 2 (aet)

Before my time comrade