|
Post by salopstick on Oct 18, 2014 10:02:38 GMT
Yes I know. :-( Sad that people are overjoyed to jump on a slip up without even bothering to make sensible suggestions on what can be done to help these people. So lets get this right.... A Tory minister states disabled people are not "worth" the minimum wage I highlight the fact on here and state that his comments are appalling and unacceptable and that I feel Cameron should have done more to distance himself and his party from these comments ie sack him and suddenly you feel I should be tasked with finding a solution to this whole issue !! I am not a politician I have told you I feel we need to tackle the whole issue of stigma and agreed with you that State support is needed but we elect politicians ( or not in "Lord" Freud's case ) to find solutions and we are right to expect that they do not make the situation worse by making such crass insensitive comments !! If only you were as outspoken against some of the heinous shit labour has done, like FYD Alluded to earlier. Rotherham etc. A poor choice of words highlighting a problem with employment v mass rape of kids. Labour hardly have any credibility to go on offensive
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 12:15:16 GMT
Not classy just an understanding of what went on, expect more if the Tories are re elected. Boris has ordered water canons you know. 5 people died, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage mainly for kids to thieve trainers, wide screen TV's but you think it was some sort of political protest ha ha. Doing a good job of making yourself look silly. “A wide ranging LSE study called Reading the Riots concluded that the major contributory factors were opportunism, perceived social injustice, deprivation, and frustration at the way communities were policed.” You really do prove the old adage "only fools rely on the reports of others" ???
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 18, 2014 12:39:35 GMT
Beyond my wildest dreams in the respect that it was the first rebellion against this dreadful government. AS highlighted in you quote from the ONS. But like Al, please carry on and take my words out of context. Take your words out of context, you mean like 6 hours ago when you said it wasn't a political protest but now you say it was beyond your wildest dreams because it was the first sign of rebellion against this “dreadful government” - presumably you think the yoof didn't like their hairstyles or their suits if it wasn't political? Make your mind up “sunshine” You're moving beyond parody here, my quote is from a LSE report not the ONS. The riots started in London as a result of the Mark Duggan shooting and spread once the yoof realised if they turned up mob handed the police could do fuck all and they could get free trainers and widescreen TV - to try and assign some other motive is quite frankly bollocks. I'll be quite honest i've only ever bought up the beyond my wildest dreams stuff to take the piss, I never really believed you took pleasure in people dying and property being destroyed, after your last few posts maybe I was wrong after all, the context to be clear is people died. Well your'e correct in that respect I never said people dying was beyond my wildest dreams And apologies it was the LSE not the ONS, my mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 18, 2014 12:42:53 GMT
And I never said people dying was "beyond my wildest dreams" Careful what you say please. You said the riots were beyond your wildest dreams The same riots that involved mindless violence, murder, looting and much pain to a lot of innocent people So by reasoning you are against violent uprising against democratic government No as usual you put two and two together and make 5. Ask yourself why the riots happened, or even better read the quote from FYD. Incidentally without violent uprising against Governments in the past, you and I wouldn't have the freedom to discuss it on a messageboard today.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 18, 2014 13:08:52 GMT
You said the riots were beyond your wildest dreams The same riots that involved mindless violence, murder, looting and much pain to a lot of innocent people So by reasoning you are against violent uprising against democratic government No as usual you put two and two together and make 5. Ask yourself why the riots happened, or even better read the quote from FYD. Incidentally without violent uprising against Governments in the past, you and I wouldn't have the freedom to discuss it on a messageboard today. total bollocks as usual. We can disagree on the cause all we want doesnt matter. Get on the streets with your soapbox, persuade people to change if that's your message, not sitting smiling and revelling in arnarchy and violence I can accept violent riots against oppressive violent governments. The end justify the means I will not accept riots that were largely copy cat opportunists criminal events In this country we have a right to protest a right to vent opinion . A right to march Through the capital without fear. A right to peacefully protest. No right to anarchy, no right to violence, no right to steal. The London riots of 2011 and the spread have no link to overthrowing dictators and the like elsewhere. and by linking the two actually demeans creating democracy elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 18, 2014 13:26:52 GMT
Take your words out of context, you mean like 6 hours ago when you said it wasn't a political protest but now you say it was beyond your wildest dreams because it was the first sign of rebellion against this “dreadful government” - presumably you think the yoof didn't like their hairstyles or their suits if it wasn't political? Make your mind up “sunshine” You're moving beyond parody here, my quote is from a LSE report not the ONS. The riots started in London as a result of the Mark Duggan shooting and spread once the yoof realised if they turned up mob handed the police could do fuck all and they could get free trainers and widescreen TV - to try and assign some other motive is quite frankly bollocks. I'll be quite honest i've only ever bought up the beyond my wildest dreams stuff to take the piss, I never really believed you took pleasure in people dying and property being destroyed, after your last few posts maybe I was wrong after all, the context to be clear is people died. Well your'e correct in that respect I never said people dying was beyond my wildest dreams And apologies it was the LSE not the ONS, my mistake. You just don't seem to get it, the context of your beyond your wildest dreams comment is that people died in those riots. And you seem to think it's somehow ok because you don't like the government even though you don't seem sure as to whether it was a political protest or not.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 18, 2014 17:43:14 GMT
Well your'e correct in that respect I never said people dying was beyond my wildest dreams And apologies it was the LSE not the ONS, my mistake. You just don't seem to get it, the context of your beyond your wildest dreams comment is that people died in those riots. And you seem to think it's somehow ok because you don't like the government even though you don't seem sure as to whether it was a political protest or not. Er...yes I do get it. I never said innocent deaths were "beyond my wildest dreams" as you well know. I fully support your quoted LSE statement regarding the riots causes.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 18, 2014 20:30:46 GMT
You just don't seem to get it, the context of your beyond your wildest dreams comment is that people died in those riots. And you seem to think it's somehow ok because you don't like the government even though you don't seem sure as to whether it was a political protest or not. Er...yes I do get it. I never said innocent deaths were "beyond my wildest dreams" as you well know. I fully support your quoted LSE statement regarding the riots causes. Errrr no you don't if you fully support the LSE report, how do you get it was beyond your wildest dreams as it was the first act of rebellion against this “terrible government“. You do realise the perceived social injustice they talk about is the Duggan shooting and no one being charged and not a conservative government being elected ? Just a few reminders of what is beyond your wildest dreams, a carpet store in Stoke Newington being burnt to the ground, the same with a furniture store in Croydon, a student being beaten up and robbed in Lewisham. In two out of three of those examples I know people directly and indirectly affected by the riots, i'd love you to come and tell the mother in law so scared by the rioting she wouldn't go home for a month how it was it beyond your wildest dreams all because you don't like the government but that's socialists for you.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Oct 18, 2014 21:12:20 GMT
"but that's socialists for you"
Hahahaha ....what a tool.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 18, 2014 21:26:03 GMT
Er...yes I do get it. I never said innocent deaths were "beyond my wildest dreams" as you well know. I fully support your quoted LSE statement regarding the riots causes. Errrr no you don't if you fully support the LSE report, how do you get it was beyond your wildest dreams as it was the first act of rebellion against this “terrible government“. You do realise the perceived social injustice they talk about is the Duggan shooting and no one being charged and not a conservative government being elected ? Just a few reminders of what is beyond your wildest dreams, a carpet store in Stoke Newington being burnt to the ground, the same with a furniture store in Croydon, a student being beaten up and robbed in Lewisham. In two out of three of those examples I know people directly and indirectly affected by the riots, i'd love you to come and tell the mother in law so scared by the rioting she wouldn't go home for a month how it was it beyond your wildest dreams all because you don't like the government but that's socialists for you. I'm sorry you're completely missing my point.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 18, 2014 21:40:28 GMT
"but that's socialists for you" Hahahaha ....what a tool. Thanks for you thoughts, I guess you gave up waiting to sell them at a penny as they were massively overpriced and you had no takers. For one socialist the riots were beyond their wildest dreams, another socialist was asking if anyone else was with the rioters.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 18, 2014 21:42:50 GMT
Errrr no you don't if you fully support the LSE report, how do you get it was beyond your wildest dreams as it was the first act of rebellion against this “terrible government“. You do realise the perceived social injustice they talk about is the Duggan shooting and no one being charged and not a conservative government being elected ? Just a few reminders of what is beyond your wildest dreams, a carpet store in Stoke Newington being burnt to the ground, the same with a furniture store in Croydon, a student being beaten up and robbed in Lewisham. In two out of three of those examples I know people directly and indirectly affected by the riots, i'd love you to come and tell the mother in law so scared by the rioting she wouldn't go home for a month how it was it beyond your wildest dreams all because you don't like the government but that's socialists for you. I'm sorry you're completely missing my point. You have a point ? Feel free to make it anytime, you've had a couple of days now so no rush,
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Oct 19, 2014 7:51:38 GMT
So lets get this right.... A Tory minister states disabled people are not "worth" the minimum wage I highlight the fact on here and state that his comments are appalling and unacceptable and that I feel Cameron should have done more to distance himself and his party from these comments ie sack him and suddenly you feel I should be tasked with finding a solution to this whole issue !! I am not a politician I have told you I feel we need to tackle the whole issue of stigma and agreed with you that State support is needed but we elect politicians ( or not in "Lord" Freud's case ) to find solutions and we are right to expect that they do not make the situation worse by making such crass insensitive comments !! If only you were as outspoken against some of the heinous shit labour has done, like FYD Alluded to earlier. Rotherham etc. A poor choice of words highlighting a problem with employment v mass rape of kids. Labour hardly have any credibility to go on offensive I have no problem acknowledging the appalling failings of local police, politicians and social services in South Yorkshire however that isn't what this thread is about is it ! I stand by MY view that Cameron should have done more to distance himself and his party from Lord Freud and his comments it's a shame you can't bring yourself to condemn his comments and continue to try and defend the indefensible !!
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor Sexualchocolate on Oct 19, 2014 8:39:34 GMT
So just to clarify....did anyone come up with an alternative way to improve the employment prospects of the disabled?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 9:03:22 GMT
I'm sorry you're completely missing my point. You have a point ? Feel free to make it anytime, you've had a couple of days now so no rush, I've made myself perfectly clear, enough said on this.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 10:16:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 19, 2014 12:24:55 GMT
Mr Selous defended his position last night. He said: "I was Iain Duncan Smith's PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] for four years. My recollection is that the point I was making was the feedback I had... that employers are often very, very pleased with disabled employees; they work harder, they are loyal. These are good reasons to employ disabled people and offenders." Yes what a twat
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 19, 2014 12:32:03 GMT
So just to clarify....did anyone come up with an alternative way to improve the employment prospects of the disabled? Actually, all the political parties do agree with the concept. Sadly, there is a risk a potentially good policy could die due to Labour's shameless opportunism looking to exploit a poor choice of word to create political advantage. Of course, I've no doubt that the Tories would do the same if circumstances were switched. Any Answers this week spends a lot of time on this subject and is well worth a listen. Gives some real life perspective on this topic away from the party political bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 18:02:16 GMT
Mr Selous defended his position last night. He said: "I was Iain Duncan Smith's PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] for four years. My recollection is that the point I was making was the feedback I had... that employers are often very, very pleased with disabled employees; they work harder, they are loyal. These are good reasons to employ disabled people and offenders." Yes what a twat Glad you agree...what a condescending tosspot.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 18:05:41 GMT
No as usual you put two and two together and make 5. Ask yourself why the riots happened, or even better read the quote from FYD. Incidentally without violent uprising against Governments in the past, you and I wouldn't have the freedom to discuss it on a messageboard today. total bollocks as usual. We can disagree on the cause all we want doesnt matter. Get on the streets with your soapbox, persuade people to change if that's your message, not sitting smiling and revelling in arnarchy and violence I can accept violent riots against oppressive violent governments. The end justify the means I will not accept riots that were largely copy cat opportunists criminal events In this country we have a right to protest a right to vent opinion . A right to march Through the capital without fear. A right to peacefully protest. No right to anarchy, no right to violence, no right to steal. The London riots of 2011 and the spread have no link to overthrowing dictators and the like elsewhere. and by linking the two actually demeans creating democracy elsewhere. You voted for this lot matey, not me. Bollocks from your side methinks. Incidentally peaceful protesters were arrested and thrown off Parliament Square last night.. I said PEACEFUL protesters... Welcome to the Police State Al...remember you voted for this.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 19, 2014 19:13:34 GMT
total bollocks as usual. We can disagree on the cause all we want doesnt matter. Get on the streets with your soapbox, persuade people to change if that's your message, not sitting smiling and revelling in arnarchy and violence I can accept violent riots against oppressive violent governments. The end justify the means I will not accept riots that were largely copy cat opportunists criminal events In this country we have a right to protest a right to vent opinion . A right to march Through the capital without fear. A right to peacefully protest. No right to anarchy, no right to violence, no right to steal. The London riots of 2011 and the spread have no link to overthrowing dictators and the like elsewhere. and by linking the two actually demeans creating democracy elsewhere. You voted for this lot matey, not me. Bollocks from your side methinks. Incidentally peaceful protesters were arrested and thrown off Parliament Square last night.. I said PEACEFUL protesters... Welcome to the Police State Al...remember you voted for this. Nothing to with your views on violence and anarchy. Incidentally matey the protestors may have been peaceful but were breaking the law Too right they should be removed
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 19:22:41 GMT
You voted for this lot matey, not me. Bollocks from your side methinks. Incidentally peaceful protesters were arrested and thrown off Parliament Square last night.. I said PEACEFUL protesters... Welcome to the Police State Al...remember you voted for this. Nothing to with your views on violence and anarchy. Incidentally matey the protestors may have been peaceful but were breaking the law Too right they should be removed I see..in what way are they breaking the law? Please explain. Think you've lost it again matey.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 19, 2014 19:28:21 GMT
Huddy there are laws in place to restrict protests in parliment square especially if they involve sleeping there
Do your research
While you are on about my voting habits, these laws that come into place around 2012 based on similar laws of 2005 Introduced as a result of sleep in protests of wars. Wars your vote contributed to
Ignorance of the law is not a defence
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 19:54:23 GMT
Huddy there are laws in place to restrict protests in parliment square especially if they involve sleeping there Do your research While you are on about my voting habits, these laws that come into place around 2012 based on similar laws of 2005 Introduced as a result of sleep in protests of wars. Wars your vote contributed to Ignorance of the law is not a defence Introduced in 2011 by the Condems in an attempt to silence PEACEFUL protest which you've said is OK The protesters know the law Al that's why they used tarpaulins to sit on wet ground, not tents. However the authorities backed by their boot boys the police have decided that tarpaulins are classed as..wait for it..."structures" Stop trying to wriggle out of this one with your usual labour did this and that blah blah blah...admit it you're wrong on this one matey. Oh and ignorance of the law may not be defence Rumpole...but defiance and civil disobedience of a crap law is the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 19, 2014 19:58:33 GMT
Huddy there are laws in place to restrict protests in parliment square especially if they involve sleeping there Do your research While you are on about my voting habits, these laws that come into place around 2012 based on similar laws of 2005 Introduced as a result of sleep in protests of wars. Wars your vote contributed to Ignorance of the law is not a defence Introduced in 2011 by the Condems in an attempt to silence PEACEFUL protest which you've said is OK The protesters know the law Al that's why they used tarpaulins to sit on wet ground, not tents. However the authorities backed by their boot boys the police have decided that tarpaulins are classed as..wait for it..."structures" Stop trying to wriggle out of this one with your usual labour did this and that blah blah blah...admit it you're wrong on this one matey. Oh and ignorance of the law may not be defence Rumpole...but defiance and civil disobedience of a crap law is the right thing to do. Found Wikipedia have we 10 minutes ago you didn't know it existed
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 19, 2014 20:51:04 GMT
Huddy there are laws in place to restrict protests in parliment square especially if they involve sleeping there Do your research While you are on about my voting habits, these laws that come into place around 2012 based on similar laws of 2005 Introduced as a result of sleep in protests of wars. Wars your vote contributed to Ignorance of the law is not a defence Introduced in 2011 by the Condems in an attempt to silence PEACEFUL protest which you've said is OK The protesters know the law Al that's why they used tarpaulins to sit on wet ground, not tents. However the authorities backed by their boot boys the police have decided that tarpaulins are classed as..wait for it..."structures" Stop trying to wriggle out of this one with your usual labour did this and that blah blah blah...admit it you're wrong on this one matey. Oh and ignorance of the law may not be defence Rumpole...but defiance and civil disobedience of a crap law is the right thing to do. Liberty seem to be of a slightly different opinion The 2011 Act also repeals provisions in SOCPA which banned unauthorised protests within 1km of Parliament Square. Among other things, the controversial SOCPA provisions included: Making it a crime to demonstrate around Parliament without permission from the police – you could be arrested for breaking this law; and Limitations, imposed by police, on the size, timing, place and noise level of any demonstration. While Liberty welcomed the repeal of these SOCPA provisions, replacing them with new expansive and ill-defined restrictions means the threat to protest in this area remains. We will continue to lobby against restrictions on peaceful protest in a place where it is so effectively heard. Seems the police state operated in 2005 until the Condems came in and repealed some of the draconian laws imposed by Labour, where were you then Huddy ? Nothing particular draconian people are free to protest, they are just not allowed to erect camps, the laws are quite simple the following are prohibited Operating amplified noise equipment such as a loudspeaker or loudhailer, unless you have authorisation to do so from the Greater London Authority or Westminster Council; Erecting a tent or other sleeping structure, or sleeping in one; Placing or keeping a sleeping bag, mattress or similar equipment in the area in order to sleep there; orUsing any sleeping equipment to sleep overnight in the area.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 19, 2014 21:04:24 GMT
Mr Selous defended his position last night. He said: "I was Iain Duncan Smith's PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] for four years. My recollection is that the point I was making was the feedback I had... that employers are often very, very pleased with disabled employees; they work harder, they are loyal. These are good reasons to employ disabled people and offenders." Yes what a twat Glad you agree...what a condescending tosspot. So just to confirm if Freund says essentially some disabled people are not employable he's the devil incarnate, another guy essentially says if you give disabled employees a chance you will find they work harder and are loyal he is been condescending (don't say tossput Luke will get offended by name calling bless him), it's almost like you can find fault with anything any Tory MP says You still didn't really clarify why the riots were beyond your wildest dreams, on one had you said it was because it was the first sign of rebellion against this government on the other you say you agree with the LSE report which says it was nothing of the sort - seriously if you can clear up how it can be both of these things, this thicko right winger will never mention it again.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 19, 2014 21:07:24 GMT
Glad you agree...what a condescending tosspot. So just to confirm if Freund says essentially some disabled people are not employable he's the devil incarnate, another guy essentially says if you give disabled employees a chance you will find they work harder and are loyal he is been condescending (don't say tossput Luke will get offended by name calling bless him), it's almost like you can find fault with anything any Tory MP says You still didn't really clarify why the riots were beyond your wildest dreams, on one had you said it was because it was the first sign of rebellion against this government on the other you say you agree with the LSE report which says it was nothing of the sort - seriously if you can clear up how it can be both of these things, this thicko right winger will never mention it again. Don't confuse him, he's already posting bullshit as he's totally ignorant of the laws of the land
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 19, 2014 21:20:28 GMT
Introduced in 2011 by the Condems in an attempt to silence PEACEFUL protest which you've said is OK The protesters know the law Al that's why they used tarpaulins to sit on wet ground, not tents. However the authorities backed by their boot boys the police have decided that tarpaulins are classed as..wait for it..."structures" Stop trying to wriggle out of this one with your usual labour did this and that blah blah blah...admit it you're wrong on this one matey. Oh and ignorance of the law may not be defence Rumpole...but defiance and civil disobedience of a crap law is the right thing to do. Liberty seem to be of a slightly different opinion The 2011 Act also repeals provisions in SOCPA which banned unauthorised protests within 1km of Parliament Square. Among other things, the controversial SOCPA provisions included: Making it a crime to demonstrate around Parliament without permission from the police – you could be arrested for breaking this law; and Limitations, imposed by police, on the size, timing, place and noise level of any demonstration. While Liberty welcomed the repeal of these SOCPA provisions, replacing them with new expansive and ill-defined restrictions means the threat to protest in this area remains. We will continue to lobby against restrictions on peaceful protest in a place where it is so effectively heard. Seems the police state operated in 2005 until the Condems came in and repealed some of the draconian laws imposed by Labour, where were you then Huddy ? Nothing particular draconian people are free to protest, they are just not allowed to erect camps, the laws are quite simple the following are prohibited Operating amplified noise equipment such as a loudspeaker or loudhailer, unless you have authorisation to do so from the Greater London Authority or Westminster Council; Erecting a tent or other sleeping structure, or sleeping in one; Placing or keeping a sleeping bag, mattress or similar equipment in the area in order to sleep there; orUsing any sleeping equipment to sleep overnight in the area. Fyd, told you he knows nothing, quick to blame the party he hates without doing his proper research And he told me that "I'd lost it" over this issue. You can't take him serious, on one hand he doesn't know the laws on the other he supports senseless violence It seems the law is only valid if Lord huddy agrees with it
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 19, 2014 22:30:41 GMT
So just to confirm if Freund says essentially some disabled people are not employable he's the devil incarnate, another guy essentially says if you give disabled employees a chance you will find they work harder and are loyal he is been condescending (don't say tossput Luke will get offended by name calling bless him), it's almost like you can find fault with anything any Tory MP says You still didn't really clarify why the riots were beyond your wildest dreams, on one had you said it was because it was the first sign of rebellion against this government on the other you say you agree with the LSE report which says it was nothing of the sort - seriously if you can clear up how it can be both of these things, this thicko right winger will never mention it again. Don't confuse him, he's already posting bullshit as he's totally ignorant of the laws of the land Am I...really? So a tarpaulin represents a "structure" does it? I think the bullshit's coming from your end matey. And yet again you purport to support peaceful protest then say it's illegal. I think anyone reading this thread can clearly see where the bullshit is emanating from.
|
|