|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 29, 2024 16:49:11 GMT
Again it's the West Bank so some will choose to ignore but what a top bloke to do this so passionately and articulately...... Clearly a raging antisemite with that sort of rhetoric. Organising demonstrations FFS! 🙄
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 29, 2024 13:02:01 GMT
Right to self defence or a massacre?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 29, 2024 12:22:57 GMT
View AttachmentSo the people displaced according to this map would only have been forced to move somewhere else? Which goes to show what a disastrous decision it was to create an artificial State of Israel in Palestine The Father of Modern Zionism Theodore Herzl presented to the the World Zionist Organization's Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903 in Basel a proposal by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to establisha JewishHomeland which is now part of Kenya.. After much debate the vote to consider the proposal was carried by a 2/3 Majority. So in effect there was no particular imperative to create a Jewish Homeland in Palestine the overriding reason to create a Jewish Homeland being Anti-semitism in EUROPE where Zionists felt they would never be allowed to assimilate NOT in Arab States In fac as your Map shows Jews lived happily in Arab States for hundreds if not thousands of years The catalyst for antagonism by Arab States was Western UK US imposing a displacement of their Palestinian Fraternal Brothers from the homes they had occupied for centuries As you enjoy Maps the one below shows how the progressive Land Grab has been so successful and now Israel controls all of Palestine in one way or another. The completion of the exercise will be when those remaining Palestinians Fuck Off or are Killed Off. It seems incongruous to me that "The West" Countries and some Citizens have a Major Problem with a Russian Land Grab and are prepared to pour $ Billions to support the defender but takes a 180 Degree view in Palestine View AttachmentAnd the reason the Jewish Homeland wasn't created in Uganda? Britain had to withdraw the offer to the Zionists, when white British settlers started rebelling against the idea. Just who the fuck did Britain think they were giving land the settlers had already stolen from the Africans to the Jews FFS?! Cheeky bastards. So we gave them Palestine instead. We knew the Arabs would kick up less of a fuss than the white settlers and they were (of course) not much more than savages anyway. To quote Churchill, when considering the position of the Palestinians ... "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 29, 2024 12:05:35 GMT
Yep. Look at Wes Streeting nodding in an agreement behind him and yet he's one of the worst of the lot now. Sold their principles and sold their souls, it's utterly sickening.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 29, 2024 0:46:07 GMT
What I wanted to know then Paul ( I just have not had time to keep up) ....what was the link that Hoyle wanted us to make? There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's minds he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. The most worrying thing is that it's been done completely in plain sight and so many of the public dont even realise. If this is what we're going to get as an alternative to the Tories, then you can count me out. Peter Oborne today explaining it far better than I ever could ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 23:57:45 GMT
Can an entire European nation be accused of being antisemitic?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 23:02:39 GMT
For everyone detained to be immediately released, we're going to need a ratio of at LEAST 10:1. Is it making sense now? I don’t know why you need a ratio. I think the lot who are not charged for a criminal offence should be released. All of them. On both sides. Otherwise they cannot really complain about the other side holding people without charge. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Will you even condemn what Hamas have done? Or will you stick to only blaming Israel? Were Hamas justified in raping and murdering because many Palestinians are locked up without charge? Is rape and murder the best way to get them released do you think? I don’t. Blimey Oggy, this thread has been running for five months and you ruck up today, acting like it started yesterday, with niave post after niave post, clearly demonstrating that you have little understanding of the history of the conflict, whilst displaying the most ridiculously primitive grasp of how international diplomacy works. Poster after poster, has politely attempted to steer you in the right direction but you're not interested in a single word that anybody else has to say, all the while, embarassing yourself, by asking people ignorant questions, like, will they condemn Hamas? or accusing them of being terrorist sympathisers with a swivel eyed view of the conflict. Christ alive man, all this stuff was addressed MONTHS ago. Apologies if you feel that I'm being a bit strong in my response mate but I'm genuinely at a loss at where else to go with this now.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 17:51:20 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 28, 2024 12:59:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 12:59:54 GMT
No, they shouldn’t keep people in prison without charge. Why is one Israeli hostage worth 10 Palestinians? I don’t follow why asking the above question and pointing out that is odd from a monster such as Netanyahu is taken as I am suddenly saying Israel have clean hands and have done nothing wrong. I have made it very clear that both sides are at fault here and the vast majority of people suffering are completely innocent and the vast majority of them are Palestinian. If Israel hadn’t acted as genocidal fuckwits for the last seventy odd years Than there would of been no need and no support for hamas to exist Exactly.
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 28, 2024 12:59:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 12:59:32 GMT
No, they shouldn’t keep people in prison without charge. Why is one Israeli hostage worth 10 Palestinians? I don’t follow why asking the above question and pointing out that is odd from a monster such as Netanyahu is taken as I am suddenly saying Israel have clean hands and have done nothing wrong. I have made it very clear that both sides are at fault here and the vast majority of people suffering are completely innocent and the vast majority of them are Palestinian. Isn't it just a question of ratios of Prisoners being held and not comparatively worth of human beings? Isn't the 10:1 ratio arrived at to ensure each side gets ALL its own people back? I don't know the comparative numbers but presume Israel has roughly 10 times the number of hostages/ Prisoners as Hamas. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 12:59:08 GMT
But we are where we are, we're not living in a fairy tale world of your 'should or shouldn't haves'. You've said that it isn't 'fair' that the Palestinians shouldn't be getting 10 hostages back for every one that they return. This is playground diplomacy. How many hostages do you think they'd be getting back at all if they hadn't taken any of their own? Are you really justifying Hamas’ attack on 7 October and their taking of hostages as a means to get their own people released? If that was indeed their tactic and justification of mass murder and rape, that has backfired spectacularly for Hamas and Palestine. Repeating my comments once more, neither side should be taking any hostages and anyone detained by either side for illegitimate reasons (so have not be arrested and charged with a crime) should be immediately released without any conditions. For everyone detained to be immediately released, we're going to need a ratio of at LEAST 10:1. Is it making sense now?
|
|
|
Israel
Feb 28, 2024 12:14:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 12:14:34 GMT
Christ alive, I really have no words, that is an unbelievably simplistic attitude. So you are indeed claiming that Hamas should have taken as many hostages as Israel have. Out of interest, what 'value' are you placing on 30,000 dead Gazans? Hamas shouldn’t have taken any hostages. Just as they shouldn’t have been launching rockets into Israel every day for decades. Israel shouldn’t be taking any hostages and should only arrest people on legitimate grounds. They shouldn’t be bombing Palestine and killing civilians. This isn’t the one sided conflict you portray. If Hamas had any concern for Palestinians they wouldn’t have committed the attacks that sparked the Israeli invasion. Perhaps I am wrong for not only seeing things from one side. But we are where we are, we're not living in a fairy tale world of your 'should or shouldn't haves'. You've said that it isn't 'fair' that the Palestinians shouldn't be getting 10 hostages back for every one that they return. This is playground diplomacy. How many hostages do you think they'd be getting back at all if they hadn't taken any of their own?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 11:46:33 GMT
Whilst I obviously don't condone MP's being harassed at their homes, I don't think this is particularly anything new is it? If you decide to be an MP, then you've always known that this sort of stuff comes with the territory.
Hell it was far, far worse in the 80's, where it was part of an MP's daily routine to check under their cars for bombs, before turning the ignition key, I don't remember this sort of intimidation putting quality candidates off from standing.
After the Brighton bomb, Thatcher didn't complain of intimidation, she dusted herself down and went back to work the very next day, off the top of my head, I can think of at least four MP's who were murdered in the 80's alone.
And just look at the incendiary rhetoric we've had from Braverman, Jenrick, Scully and Anderson this week, all deliberately meant to be inflammatory and all meant to be divisive, if they want to turn down the dial on the verbal abuse that some of them are receiving, then maybe they might like to consider the language and discourse that some of their colleagues are using as well.
i notice you only mention the tories there .
I think that starmer, and khan are equally as bad .
both sides are playing the racist cards at the moment. tories re anti semitic labour and liebour about islamist tories.
just putting things into perspective considering its an election year.
Which specific comments are you referring to Phil? I'm more than happy to link the ones from the four I've mentioned above if you need me to.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 11:24:29 GMT
I find that a truly bizarre logic oggy. You do realise that Israel has got hundreds of kids locked-up without charge don't you? You're essentially saying that because Hamas didn't take as many hostages as Israel have taken, then they don't get to get back all THEIR hostages. The inference being, that they needed to take even more hostages, to get a 'fair' deal for their hostages. If one child hostage on one side is to be released, that doesn't then mean that only one child hostage on the other side should be released. As for your other point, Netanyahu IS a genocidal maniac ... 13,000 kids have been slaughtered in the last 20 weeks. From way before October 7th: www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-on-palestinian-children--I disagree. I don’t think the lives of Palestinian hostages are worth more than the lives of Israeli hostages. Christ alive, I really have no words, that is an unbelievably simplistic attitude. So you are indeed claiming that Hamas should have taken as many hostages as Israel have. Out of interest, what 'value' are you placing on 30,000 dead Gazans?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 28, 2024 1:16:33 GMT
Could someone put it in a nutshell for me, I have a very low attention span!!! It would appear that the OP, has miraculously revealed, that our owners aren't that great when it comes to making decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 22:52:52 GMT
Why are Hamas still keeping children, the sick and elderly hostage? Absolutely inexcusable. Actually, why did they take any hostages whatsoever and provoke this barbaric response which they surely knew it would? It is a reminder that both sides are culpable and neither come with clean hands (unlike I suspect 99.9% who have died or been taken hostage since 7 October). We have no idea why or on what grounds the Palestinians prisoners being released were arrested in the first place, but worst case they have done nothing wrong whatsoever, something we can say with absolute certainty about each and every hostage. So why the 10:1 ratio? I find that a truly bizarre logic oggy. You do realise that Israel has got hundreds of kids locked-up without charge don't you? You're essentially saying that because Hamas didn't take as many hostages as Israel have taken, then they don't get to get back all THEIR hostages. The inference being, that they needed to take even more hostages, to get a 'fair' deal for their hostages. If one child hostage on one side is to be released, that doesn't then mean that only one child hostage on the other side should be released. As for your other point, Netanyahu IS a genocidal maniac ... 13,000 kids have been slaughtered in the last 20 weeks. From way before October 7th: www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-on-palestinian-children--
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 21:15:52 GMT
Vale 2-0, the derby is on!! Without starting a thread, would it be a sell out at the 365??? Easily it would. Well apart from how many seats they deem would be necessary to be netted off ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 21:13:28 GMT
This Luton v Citeh game is absolutely bonkers!
|
|
|
Good girl
Feb 27, 2024 21:07:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 21:07:28 GMT
Pretty similar to what’s in the news today about Mary Poppins and Peppa Pig I've completely missed this! Is there a video of it knocking about?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 20:52:48 GMT
We've got this stuff down: www.millboard.com/en-gbIt looks completely authentic, is a piece of piss to clean, doesn't get slippy and comes with a thirty year guarantee. The kicker of course (as you have suggested) is that it is insanely expensive. Is it value for money? Well I guess that is in the eye of the beholder, but we're really happy with it and it definitely does do what it says on the tin. Looks lovely that does Paul, and completely agree that you get what you pay for. We’re thinking of moving in the not so distant future, so although I do want something down that doesn’t look naff, I don’t particularly want to spend a fortune. After looking at the different slabs available I think that’s the option I’m going to go with👍🏻 Definitely mate. Unless you intend staying at your place for a very long time, then it certainly isn't value for money, it would never add as much value to your property as you'd end up paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 20:38:11 GMT
Any advice on decking🤔 hearing it’s pretty shit to maintain, slippy etc. looking at an area of about 15m2. Looked at composite decking but it’s quite expensive. Or should I just slab it? We've got this stuff down: www.millboard.com/en-gbIt looks completely authentic, is a piece of piss to clean, doesn't get slippy and comes with a thirty year guarantee. The kicker of course (as you have suggested) is that it is insanely expensive. Is it value for money? Well I guess that is in the eye of the beholder, but we're really happy with it and it definitely does do what it says on the tin.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 16:21:36 GMT
I won't requote the large Links Paul but it's seems like a certain group of Conservative Politicians want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy so they can say, I told you so. As Kevin Maguire says the fact that the claims are demonstrably false is immaterial as the objective is publicly for themselves and their Crusade, I use the word deliberately. They operate like a Football Team that use consecutive persistent fouling as a tactic to avoid individual Sanction. Its a bit Rum for MPs to complain about harassment, although they shouldn't be subjected to violence, when they are the ones irresponsibly stiring division with lies. Indeed and all the while, (sadly) chunks of the public lap it up as being fact.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 15:09:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 14:07:39 GMT
Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link? The link is what he's implying. He's implying that he broke convention due to MP safety. You're right that it doesn't make sense because if you're breaking convention due to caving into intimidation then you usually do what those intimidating you want you to do (vote for the SNP motion) not the opposite. The majority of our public won't know what an opposition day is, they won't know Hoyle used different reasoning before changing it to MP safety hours later, they won't know what the difference was between SNp motion and Labour ammendment, they won't know how many opposition days SNP gets, they won't know Starmer was on phone with Israeli president before this happened, they won't know that 40% of the Labour cabinet received donations from Israel lobbyists, they won't know about the significant donations the conservative party get from Israel lobbyists. Joe Public will read "Labour broke convention due to vote for ceasefire after threats to MP safety" And the link for those people is in the headline. People who wanted a ceasefire must have threatened Labour MPs causing them to do this. Its those Muslim extremists. And then 30p Lee and Co add fuel to the fire by then further implying that Sadiq Khan has no control of London and its ran by islamists who have control of him. Or that all these areas in Brimingham and London are not safe for white people etc... You're right that when you go through the fine details there isn't a link that makes sense for labour to break convention due to mp safety. But if a headline can be made which suggests that enough then all you need is the imagination of the public to connect the dots and think what you want them to think.
Perfectly articulated.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 14:01:57 GMT
Whilst I obviously don't condone MP's being harassed at their homes, I don't think this is particularly anything new is it? If you decide to be an MP, then you've always known that this sort of stuff comes with the territory.
Hell it was far, far worse in the 80's, where it was part of an MP's daily routine to check under their cars for bombs, before turning the ignition key, I don't remember this sort of intimidation putting quality candidates off from standing.
After the Brighton bomb, Thatcher didn't complain of intimidation, she dusted herself down and went back to work the very next day, off the top of my head, I can think of at least four MP's who were murdered in the 80's alone.
And just look at the incendiary rhetoric we've had from Braverman, Jenrick, Scully and Anderson this week, all deliberately meant to be inflammatory and all meant to be divisive, if they want to turn down the dial on the verbal abuse that some of them are receiving, then maybe they might like to consider the language and discourse that some of their colleagues are using as well.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 13:30:43 GMT
Of course BJR there is an alternative to the above which is the action was followed due to MP threats. If that was the case though, would you: - Not make this clear when you broke convention rather than in the aftermath upon receiving backlash. - If you're caving into intimidation that usually means you do what you're intimidated to do. Not the opposite. - If it was for MP safety then you wouldn't say an hour later that you deeply regret your decision and it was the wrong decision on hindsight. - Would you even mention MP safety at all if it was genuine? Thats pretty much saying "were breaking the rules because we were threatened" and an admission that intimidation does work and would just further it. - A conservstive party which is polling 20 points behind labour and was accused by Starmer of sleeze and corruption under Boris. Surely you'd attack labour with the same jibes after what Starmer did and would call for the speaker to be sacked. But instead they're defending the speaker. All part of the establishment playbook in my opinion. Very convenient all this transpired when Starmer (Pro establishment candidate) was about to be defied by a number of MPs in his party which could have threatened his leadership. I imagine had it been Corbyn doing this sleeze when he got attacked in public or was being used as target practice the conservative and media's response would have been completely different. It's all a farce in my opinion and a further attempt by the establishment to try and paint anyone opposed to 10s of thousands of women and children dying as terrorists. The only terrorist sympathisers in my eyes are those pushing for more innocent civillians to die. Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link?
There simply isn't a link BJR.
They were under immense pressure and concocted a bullshit excuse on the hoof, which, on reflection, they've realised, doesn't hold any water at all.
However, amongst the smoke of the fallout of the whole sorry episode and with the help of friends in the media, they've managed to get the public to focus on a completely different narrative and deflect attention away from their original indiscretions.
It is the very definition of gaslighting and it absolutely stinks to high heaven.
I don't think I've ever had such a low opinion of British politics, as the one I have right now.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 12:39:18 GMT
There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There were was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's views he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. Thanks Paul , I knew most of the background but just couldn't work out where the safety aspect was .... so I thought I'd missed something Mind you... I still don't know what the link was from the amendments that he selected to MP safety....in HIS mind And Starmer's ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 12:30:10 GMT
There wasn't one, it was a lie concocted by Starmer and Hoyle, in an attempt to save the Speaker's bacon. British politics is in the gutter. What I wanted to know then Paul ( I just have not had time to keep up) ....what was the link that Hoyle wanted us to make? There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's minds he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. The most worrying thing is that it's been done completely in plain sight and so many of the public dont even realise. If this is what we're going to get as an alternative to the Tories, then you can count me out.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 10:52:32 GMT
Cobs all I can say to that, is that most of my family on my Dad's side were born and live in Croydon and NONE of them are worried about walking the streets. I'm down there regularly and it would never cross my mind to not walk down certain streets, at certain times on my own. I'm not suggesting for a moment, that it's Utopia, it isn't, it's an inner city borough ffs but it seems to me, that so often, the people actually being critical of the area, don't even live there. Fair comment. I guess it’s personal opinion but a good work mate was born there and his family still live there and they say the opposite and only last week his brother was robbed for the 2nd time. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. In relation to boundaries if my opinion was based on the square mile and the tourist areas London is indeed a beautiful city. It’s the outskirts I’m concerned about as you can’t base the identity of London on the square mile. I’m sure you could walk around the trendy / busy areas and feel very safe but is that all that matters? What about the likes of Barking, Croydon, Dalston, Shoreditch etc if they’re under the mayors charge they should count too when a pictures painted. I've lived in Brixton, Tulse Hill, Streatham, Norwood and Croydon and all fine, as SD says above though, if I was guided by the media and never actually went to these places, then I almost certainly never would.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 10:40:56 GMT
That's a separate discussion. BJR asked a question and I gave him the answer. Hoyle and Starmer concocted a story between them in attempt to get Hoyle off the hook. The reasons Hoyle gave originally in the HOC wete entirely different to the one he gave the next day. It was widely discussed in the media and extensively discussed on more than one thread on this message board. You surely must be aware of it? Oh and the Guardian was very much complicit in this new low for British politics.
|
|