|
Post by 3putts on Feb 1, 2017 2:05:56 GMT
Live on the Parliament channel now. 60% - 40% voted to leave in Newcastle and he 'respects' the referendum but "hasn't given up on trying to change 10% of peoples minds" !?? That's not respect Paul. You had all of the campaign to convince people and you didn't. FUCK OFF. maybe paul farrelly is a dammed sight more intelligent than most of the posters on here. and he still believes leaving our biggest trading partners is a colossal misstake.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 7:58:08 GMT
Live on the Parliament channel now. 60% - 40% voted to leave in Newcastle and he 'respects' the referendum but "hasn't given up on trying to change 10% of peoples minds" !?? That's not respect Paul. You had all of the campaign to convince people and you didn't. FUCK OFF. maybe paul farrelly is a dammed sight more intelligent than most of the posters on here. and he still believes leaving our biggest trading partners is a colossal misstake. Here we go again, another thick dig at brexit voters. Are remainers going to keep playing the we know best card, arrogance at it's best. I never vote labour, yet i have to put up with them every single time i vote, get over it.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 1, 2017 9:52:13 GMT
Live on the Parliament channel now. 60% - 40% voted to leave in Newcastle and he 'respects' the referendum but "hasn't given up on trying to change 10% of peoples minds" !?? That's not respect Paul. You had all of the campaign to convince people and you didn't. FUCK OFF. maybe paul farrelly is a dammed sight more intelligent than most of the posters on here. and he still believes leaving our biggest trading partners is a colossal misstake. I've met him and believe me he's no more intelligent than the next guy. Oh, and we're not 'leaving' the EU we're renegotiating the trading terms.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 10:00:50 GMT
Live on the Parliament channel now. 60% - 40% voted to leave in Newcastle and he 'respects' the referendum but "hasn't given up on trying to change 10% of peoples minds" !?? That's not respect Paul. You had all of the campaign to convince people and you didn't. FUCK OFF. maybe paul farrelly is a dammed sight more intelligent than most of the posters on here. and he still believes leaving our biggest trading partners is a colossal misstake. For dismissing the views of his constituents . I would change "intelligent" for the word arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 1, 2017 12:41:57 GMT
I see there is a full house for the debate Cunts Just been mentioned in the PMQ's. Farron shamed as being absent. Tim then stands and says that's why he's present today to ask the PM a direct question about the debate. The one he didn't attend !? Useless. It's like a script from Yes Prime Minister.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 15:12:24 GMT
I see there is a full house for the debate Cunts Just been mentioned in the PMQ's. Farron shamed as being absent. Tim then stands and says that's why he's present today to ask the PM a direct question about the debate. The one he didn't attend !? Useless. It's like a script from Yes Prime Minister. Farron's a pretender, a desperate party willing to do anything to find a way back.
|
|
|
Post by trentvegas on Feb 2, 2017 1:40:27 GMT
I like Tim Farron, has that innocent Rick Astley look about him, mmm
|
|
|
Post by kingdong on Feb 2, 2017 5:31:46 GMT
I like Tim Farron, has that innocent Rick Astley look about him, mmm Rick Astley doesn't look like a tosser...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 7:36:31 GMT
If we had lost the vote I would still be fighting to leave as futile as that would be. I would never stop. The difference is I'm not an elected MP, never mind an elected MP who represent a constituency that voted heavily in opposition to my view.
Suggestions that Paul Farrelly is intelligent? Quite frankly that insults mine because I'm aware that a political position of power belongs to ordinary people and is merely loaned to politicians.
If politicians want to fight for remain they must first relinquish their political power to do so. It is nothing but a sick abuse of a public resource otherwise. I find it ironic in the extreme that people who haven't figured that out by themselves have the cheek to suggest a lack of intelligence from those of us that know this.
Paul Farrelly may or may not be an intelligent man, I don't know, but if he is intelligent enough to understand what I wrote above then that merely means he is a massive, massive cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 2, 2017 8:34:31 GMT
I like Tim Farron, has that innocent Rick Astley look about him, mmm Rick Astley doesn't look like a tosser... He didn't need to be a tosser with those backing dancers he had
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 2, 2017 8:36:38 GMT
Even as someone who voted remain, I can't really see any reason why this guy would vote against triggering Article 50.
There's a few reasons why a few MPs might have voted against the triggering (if their constituency voted remain, for example), but none of them apply to this guy.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 2, 2017 9:13:47 GMT
The snag arises because we elect an MP to be a representative for his constituency, not a delegate. He/she is therefore supposed to use their brain and do what they think best for their electorate which isn't always the same as what they themselves would think might be best for them. Of course, most MPs conveniently forget about this most of the time and meekly follow party lines.
If he's not representative of the views of the constituency, boot him out at the next election! (Easier said than done in SOT & NuL)
And I speak as someone who voted 'leave' and still believe it to be the right decision.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 2, 2017 9:20:04 GMT
The snag arises because we elect an MP to be a representative for his constituency, not a delegate. He/she is therefore supposed to use their brain and do what they think best for their electorate which isn't always the same as what they themselves would think might be best for them. Of course, most MPs conveniently forget about this most of the time and meekly follow party lines. If he's not representative of the views of the constituency, boot him out at the next election! (Easier said than done in SOT & NuL) And I speak as someone who voted 'leave' and still believe it to be the right decision. Can't his local party members have a vote to remove him from his position ?
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 2, 2017 9:25:50 GMT
The snag arises because we elect an MP to be a representative for his constituency, not a delegate. He/she is therefore supposed to use their brain and do what they think best for their electorate which isn't always the same as what they themselves would think might be best for them. Of course, most MPs conveniently forget about this most of the time and meekly follow party lines. If he's not representative of the views of the constituency, boot him out at the next election! (Easier said than done in SOT & NuL) And I speak as someone who voted 'leave' and still believe it to be the right decision. Can't his local party members have a vote to remove him from his position ? I'm sure they could if they had a willingness to do so. But how often does it ever happen?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 2, 2017 11:15:15 GMT
The snag arises because we elect an MP to be a representative for his constituency, not a delegate. He/she is therefore supposed to use their brain and do what they think best for their electorate which isn't always the same as what they themselves would think might be best for them. Of course, most MPs conveniently forget about this most of the time and meekly follow party lines. If he's not representative of the views of the constituency, boot him out at the next election! (Easier said than done in SOT & NuL) And I speak as someone who voted 'leave' and still believe it to be the right decision. He'll be gone in 2020. Probably back to his corporate banking or Fleet Street columns. Elected in 2001 with 20,000 votes and a majority of 10,000 from the Cons. 2005 18,000 and a majority of 8,000 from the Cons. 2010 16,000 and a majority of 1,500 from the Cons. 2015 16,500 and a majority of 650 !! from the Cons. UKIP has gone from 773 votes to over 7,000 during the same 14 year period. Not because of some disputed slogans on the side of a bus. Or some waffle from Farage in Strasbourg. A numerical snapshot of Labour becoming increasingly out of touch for a decade and a half.
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Feb 2, 2017 12:13:21 GMT
I have always felt it is wrong to say this town voted that, and that town voted this, the referendum was the whole UK 🇬🇧
Having said that and if people want to use these arguments what would be the majority percentage if you TOOK OUT THE SCOTISH votes?
Considerably larger I would suggest.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 2, 2017 12:56:22 GMT
I have always felt it is wrong to say this town voted that, and that town voted this, the referendum was the whole UK 🇬🇧 Having said that and if people want to use these arguments what would be the majority percentage if you TOOK OUT THE SCOTISH votes? Considerably larger I would suggest. Depends how you view statistics. The difference between Leave and Remain in Scotland was about 600,000 votes. 600,000 is lots of crosses in lots of boxes but 'only' about 1.3% of all eligible UK referendum voters. The vote in Scotland represented a 68% to 32% Remain vote which is a high number but you could double the number of all votes in Scotland and the UK would still have voted to Leave.
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Feb 2, 2017 16:01:45 GMT
I have always felt it is wrong to say this town voted that, and that town voted this, the referendum was the whole UK 🇬🇧 Having said that and if people want to use these arguments what would be the majority percentage if you TOOK OUT THE SCOTISH votes? Considerably larger I would suggest. Depends how you view statistics. The difference between Leave and Remain in Scotland was about 600,000 votes. 600,000 is lots of crosses in lots of boxes but 'only' about 1.3% of all eligible UK referendum voters. The vote in Scotland represented a 68% to 32% Remain vote which is a high number but you could double the number of all votes in Scotland and the UK would still have voted to Leave. Fair comment I bow to your superiour knowledge. May be swayed by Nicolas continual propaganda. If your figs are correct( no reason to doubt them) then it really is or could be a case of the " Tail Wagging the Dog".
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Feb 2, 2017 16:17:27 GMT
He's a jockey of a trojan horse. Blairite faction of the Labour party. Instill an anti Brexit candidate and have a local peer vote against brexit in the hope Labour lose the bye-election thus provide the ammunition to topple Corbyn. Don't fall for it.
|
|
|
Post by capto on Feb 2, 2017 17:19:56 GMT
Should Paul Farrelly vote (i) as his conscience tells him (ii) as his Party's manifesto says or (iii) as Jeremy Corbyn says?
Just for info from the web: Farrelly was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, the son of an Irish gas pipe-laying foreman and a former nurse. He is the first MP born and bred in Newcastle to represent the constituency for well over a century.He was educated at the Wolstanton Grammar School on Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, before studying at St Edmund Hall, Oxford where he obtained a BA in PPE in 1984. After his education he worked at managerial level in the corporate finance department with Barclays de Zoete Wedd, and, in 1990 joined Reuters as a correspondent and news editor. Farrelly was appointed as the deputy business editor with the Independent on Sunday in 1995 before joining The Observer in 1997 as the City Editor, where he remained until his election to Westminster.
So, he has local credentials - seems to have come from a working class background & worked & studied hard & become a success - with respect, all the qualities most on here hate & detest?
Saturday, 7th January 2017: Stoke City 0 Wolves 2; the day Mark Hughes, Marko Arnoutovic, Bojan, Shaqiri and Imbula showed how much they care about the fans and the club.
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Feb 2, 2017 19:12:13 GMT
Should Paul Farrelly vote (i) as his conscience tells him (ii) as his Party's manifesto says or (iii) as Jeremy Corbyn says? Just for info from the web: Farrelly was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, the son of an Irish gas pipe-laying foreman and a former nurse. He is the first MP born and bred in Newcastle to represent the constituency for well over a century.He was educated at the Wolstanton Grammar School on Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, before studying at St Edmund Hall, Oxford where he obtained a BA in PPE in 1984. After his education he worked at managerial level in the corporate finance department with Barclays de Zoete Wedd, and, in 1990 joined Reuters as a correspondent and news editor. Farrelly was appointed as the deputy business editor with the Independent on Sunday in 1995 before joining The Observer in 1997 as the City Editor, where he remained until his election to Westminster. So, he has local credentials - seems to have come from a working class background & worked & studied hard & become a success - with respect, all the qualities most on here hate & detest? Saturday, 7th January 2017: Stoke City 0 Wolves 2; the day Mark Hughes, Marko Arnoutovic, Bojan, Shaqiri and Imbula showed how much they care about the fans and the club. Means fuck all. Tony Benn was the elite of the elite yet spent his life protecting the world class. There are plenty of 'working class' mp's that sell out the moment they start mixing with the hoity toity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 19:56:50 GMT
Should Paul Farrelly vote (i) as his conscience tells him (ii) as his Party's manifesto says or (iii) as Jeremy Corbyn says? Just for info from the web: Farrelly was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, the son of an Irish gas pipe-laying foreman and a former nurse. He is the first MP born and bred in Newcastle to represent the constituency for well over a century.He was educated at the Wolstanton Grammar School on Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, before studying at St Edmund Hall, Oxford where he obtained a BA in PPE in 1984. After his education he worked at managerial level in the corporate finance department with Barclays de Zoete Wedd, and, in 1990 joined Reuters as a correspondent and news editor. Farrelly was appointed as the deputy business editor with the Independent on Sunday in 1995 before joining The Observer in 1997 as the City Editor, where he remained until his election to Westminster. So, he has local credentials - seems to have come from a working class background & worked & studied hard & become a success - with respect, all the qualities most on here hate & detest? Saturday, 7th January 2017: Stoke City 0 Wolves 2; the day Mark Hughes, Marko Arnoutovic, Bojan, Shaqiri and Imbula showed how much they care about the fans and the club. Should the people of Stoke on Trent A vote for what they believe in Or B stop doing that and vote what a politician tells them to believe in
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Feb 2, 2017 21:05:14 GMT
Should Paul Farrelly vote (i) as his conscience tells him (ii) as his Party's manifesto says or (iii) as Jeremy Corbyn says? Just for info from the web: Farrelly was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, the son of an Irish gas pipe-laying foreman and a former nurse. He is the first MP born and bred in Newcastle to represent the constituency for well over a century.He was educated at the Wolstanton Grammar School on Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, before studying at St Edmund Hall, Oxford where he obtained a BA in PPE in 1984. After his education he worked at managerial level in the corporate finance department with Barclays de Zoete Wedd, and, in 1990 joined Reuters as a correspondent and news editor. Farrelly was appointed as the deputy business editor with the Independent on Sunday in 1995 before joining The Observer in 1997 as the City Editor, where he remained until his election to Westminster. So, he has local credentials - seems to have come from a working class background & worked & studied hard & become a success - with respect, all the qualities most on here hate & detest? Saturday, 7th January 2017: Stoke City 0 Wolves 2; the day Mark Hughes, Marko Arnoutovic, Bojan, Shaqiri and Imbula showed how much they care about the fans and the club. Off topic a bit but wasn't Wolstanton Grammar called Marshlands in the early 80's and a bit rough?
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Feb 2, 2017 21:11:18 GMT
I think Farrelly came from a terraced house in Freehold Street in Newcastle.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 2, 2017 21:29:15 GMT
I see there is a full house for the debate Cunts Apart from dirty Dianne of course.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 2, 2017 21:40:28 GMT
Anybody with a conscience would vote against the Brexit we have been set up for, especially at this time when it puts us straight into the hands of Trump
I have been as anti-EU as anybody but this Brexit has been manipulated by a small group of billionaires who stand to gain great amounts at our expense.
That is their only motivation and we are not going to benefit from that.
Us Brexits are just pawns in their game and we have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The following is worth a read if you are really interested why this Brexit has been pushed so hard in certain quarters and where it has been really led from and why May is acting so servile towards Trump
In 1997, the year the Conservatives lost office to Tony Blair, Fox, who is on the hard right of the Conservative party, founded an organisation called The Atlantic Bridge. Its patron was Margaret Thatcher. On its advisory council sat future cabinet ministers Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague and Chris Grayling. Fox, a leading campaigner for Brexit, described the mission of Atlantic Bridge as “to bring people together who have common interests”. It would defend these interests from “European integrationists who would like to pull Britain away from its relationship with the United States”.
The diplomatic mission Liam Fox developed through Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration Atlantic Bridge was later registered as a charity. In fact it was part of the UK’s own dark money network: only after it collapsed did we discover the full story of who had funded it. Its main sponsor was the immensely rich Michael Hintze, who worked at Goldman Sachs before setting up the hedge fund CQS. Hintze is one of the Conservative party’s biggest donors. In 2012 he was revealed as a funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which casts doubt on the science of climate change. As well as making cash grants and loans to Atlantic Bridge, he lent Fox his private jet to fly to and from Washington.
Another funder was the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. It paid for a researcher at Atlantic Bridge called Gabby Bertin. She went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary, and now sits in the House of Lords: Cameron gave her a life peerage in his resignation honours list.
In 2007, a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) set up a sister organisation, the Atlantic Bridge Project. Alec is perhaps the most controversial corporate-funded thinktank in the US. It specialises in bringing together corporate lobbyists with state and federal legislators to develop “model bills”. The legislators and their families enjoy lavish hospitality from the group, then take the model bills home with them, to promote as if they were their own initiatives.
In 2007, a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) set up a sister organisation, the Atlantic Bridge Project. Alec is perhaps the most controversial corporate-funded thinktank in the US. It specialises in bringing together corporate lobbyists with state and federal legislators to develop “model bills”. The legislators and their families enjoy lavish hospitality from the group, then take the model bills home with them, to promote as if they were their own initiatives.
Alec has claimed that more than 1,000 of its bills are introduced by legislators every year, and one in five of them becomes law. It has been heavily funded by tobacco companies, the oil company Exxon, drug companies and Charles and David Koch – the billionaires who founded the first Tea Party organisations. Pfizer, which funded Bertin’s post at Atlantic Bridge, sits on Alec’s corporate board. Some of the most contentious legislation in recent years, such as state bills lowering the minimum wage, bills granting corporations immunity from prosecution and the “ag-gag” laws – forbidding people to investigate factory farming practices – were developed by Alec.
To run the US arm of Atlantic Bridge, Alec brought in its director of international relations, Catherine Bray. She is a British woman who had previously worked for the Conservative MEP Richard Ashworth and the Ukip MEP Roger Helmer. Bray has subsequently worked for Conservative MEP and Brexit campaigner Daniel Hannan. Her husband is Wells Griffith, the battleground states director for Trump’s presidential campaign.
Among the members of Atlantic Bridge’s US advisory council were the ultra-conservative senators James Inhofe, Jon Kyl and Jim DeMint. Inhofe is reported to have received over $2m in campaign finance from coal and oil companies. Both Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have been major donors.
Kyl, now retired, is currently acting as the “sherpa” guiding Jeff Sessions’s nomination as Trump’s attorney general through the Senate. Jim DeMint resigned his seat in the Senate to become president of the Heritage Foundation – the thinktank founded with a grant from Joseph Coors of the Coors brewing empire, and built up with money from the banking and oil billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Like Alec, it has been richly funded by the Koch brothers. Heritage, under DeMint’s presidency, drove the attempt to ensure that Congress blocked the federal budget, temporarily shutting down the government in 2013. Fox’s former special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, an American called Luke Coffey, now works for the foundation.
The Heritage Foundation is now at the heart of Trump’s administration. Its board members, fellows and staff comprise a large part of his transition team. Among them are Rebekah Mercer, who sits on Trump’s executive committee; Steven Groves and Jim Carafano (State Department); Curtis Dubay (Treasury); and Ed Meese, Paul Winfree, Russ Vought and John Gray (management and budget). CNN reports that “no other Washington institution has that kind of footprint in the transition”.
Trump’s extraordinary plan to cut federal spending by $10.5tn was drafted by the Heritage Foundation, which called it a “blueprint for a new administration”. Vought and Gray, who moved on to Trump’s team from Heritage, are now turning this blueprint into his first budget.
This will, if passed, inflict devastating cuts on healthcare, social security, legal aid, financial regulation and environmental protections; eliminate programmes to prevent violence against women, defend civil rights and fund the arts; and will privatise the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump, as you follow this story, begins to look less like a president and more like an intermediary, implementing an agenda that has been handed down to him.
In July last year, soon after he became trade secretary, Liam Fox flew to Washington. One of his first stops was a place he has visited often over the past 15 years: the office of the Heritage Foundation, where he spoke to, among others, Jim DeMint. A freedom of information request reveals that one of the topics raised at the meeting was the European ban on American chicken washed in chlorine: a ban that producers hope the UK will lift under a new trade agreement. Afterwards, Fox wrote to DeMint, looking forward to “working with you as the new UK government develops its trade policy priorities, including in high value areas that we discussed such as defence”.
How did Fox get to be in this position, after the scandal that brought him down in 2011? The scandal itself provides a clue: it involved a crossing of the boundaries between public and private interests. The man who ran the UK branch of Atlantic Bridge was his friend Adam Werritty, who operated out of Michael Hintze’s office building. Werritty’s work became entangled with Fox’s official business as defence secretary. Werritty, who carried a business card naming him as Fox’s adviser but was never employed by the Ministry of Defence, joined the secretary of state on numerous ministerial visits overseas, and made frequent visits to Fox’s office.
By the time details of this relationship began to leak, the charity commission had investigated Atlantic Bridge and determined that its work didn’t look very charitable. It had to pay back the tax from which it had been exempted (Hintze picked up the bill). In response, the trustees shut the organisation down. As the story about Werritty’s unauthorised involvement in government business began to grow, Fox made a number of misleading statements. He was left with no choice but to resign.
When Theresa May brought Fox back into government, it was as strong a signal as we might receive about the intentions of her government. The trade treaties that Fox is charged with developing set the limits of sovereignty. US food and environmental standards tend to be lower than Britain’s, and will become lower still if Trump gets his way. Any trade treaty we strike will create a common set of standards for products and services. Trump’s administration will demand that ours are adjusted downwards, so that US corporations can penetrate our markets without having to modify their practices. All the cards, post-Brexit vote, are in US hands: if the UK doesn’t cooperate, there will be no trade deal.
May needed someone who is unlikely to resist. She chose Fox, who has become an indispensable member of her team. The shadow diplomatic mission he developed through Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration.
Long before Trump won, campaign funding in the US had systematically corrupted the political system. A new analysis by US political scientists finds an almost perfect linear relationship, across 32 years, between the money gathered by the two parties for congressional elections and their share of the vote. But there has also been a shift over these years: corporate donors have come to dominate this funding.
By tying our fortunes to those of the United States, the UK government binds us into this system. This is part of what Brexit was about: European laws protecting the public interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom. Taking back control from Europe means closer integration with the US. The transatlantic special relationship is a special relationship between political and corporate power. That power is cemented by the networks Liam Fox helped to develop.
In April 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent the US Congress the following warning: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.” It is a warning we would do well to remember.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 2, 2017 22:12:06 GMT
Should Paul Farrelly vote (i) as his conscience tells him (ii) as his Party's manifesto says or (iii) as Jeremy Corbyn says? Just for info from the web: Farrelly was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, the son of an Irish gas pipe-laying foreman and a former nurse. He is the first MP born and bred in Newcastle to represent the constituency for well over a century.He was educated at the Wolstanton Grammar School on Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, before studying at St Edmund Hall, Oxford where he obtained a BA in PPE in 1984. After his education he worked at managerial level in the corporate finance department with Barclays de Zoete Wedd, and, in 1990 joined Reuters as a correspondent and news editor. Farrelly was appointed as the deputy business editor with the Independent on Sunday in 1995 before joining The Observer in 1997 as the City Editor, where he remained until his election to Westminster. So, he has local credentials - seems to have come from a working class background & worked & studied hard & become a success - with respect, all the qualities most on here hate & detest? Saturday, 7th January 2017: Stoke City 0 Wolves 2; the day Mark Hughes, Marko Arnoutovic, Bojan, Shaqiri and Imbula showed how much they care about the fans and the club. Off topic a bit but wasn't Wolstanton Grammar called Marshlands in the early 80's and a bit rough? Yes. But some of the guys we're alright. Carter and Pato etc and the girls were 'friendly'. Shame they were shit at volleyball :-)
|
|
|
Post by capto on Feb 2, 2017 22:31:49 GMT
Anybody with a conscience would vote against the Brexit we have been set up for, especially at this time when it puts us straight into the hands of Trump I have been as anti-EU as anybody but this Brexit has been manipulated by a small group of billionaires who stand to gain great amounts at our expense. That is their only motivation and we are not going to benefit from that. Us Brexits are just pawns in their game and we have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The following is worth a read if you are really interested why this Brexit has been pushed so hard in certain quarters and where it has been really led from and why May is acting so servile towards Trump In 1997, the year the Conservatives lost office to Tony Blair, Fox, who is on the hard right of the Conservative party, founded an organisation called The Atlantic Bridge. Its patron was Margaret Thatcher. On its advisory council sat future cabinet ministers Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague and Chris Grayling. Fox, a leading campaigner for Brexit, described the mission of Atlantic Bridge as “to bring people together who have common interests”. It would defend these interests from “European integrationists who would like to pull Britain away from its relationship with the United States”. The diplomatic mission Liam Fox developed through Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration Atlantic Bridge was later registered as a charity. In fact it was part of the UK’s own dark money network: only after it collapsed did we discover the full story of who had funded it. Its main sponsor was the immensely rich Michael Hintze, who worked at Goldman Sachs before setting up the hedge fund CQS. Hintze is one of the Conservative party’s biggest donors. In 2012 he was revealed as a funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which casts doubt on the science of climate change. As well as making cash grants and loans to Atlantic Bridge, he lent Fox his private jet to fly to and from Washington. Another funder was the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. It paid for a researcher at Atlantic Bridge called Gabby Bertin. She went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary, and now sits in the House of Lords: Cameron gave her a life peerage in his resignation honours list. In 2007, a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) set up a sister organisation, the Atlantic Bridge Project. Alec is perhaps the most controversial corporate-funded thinktank in the US. It specialises in bringing together corporate lobbyists with state and federal legislators to develop “model bills”. The legislators and their families enjoy lavish hospitality from the group, then take the model bills home with them, to promote as if they were their own initiatives. In 2007, a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) set up a sister organisation, the Atlantic Bridge Project. Alec is perhaps the most controversial corporate-funded thinktank in the US. It specialises in bringing together corporate lobbyists with state and federal legislators to develop “model bills”. The legislators and their families enjoy lavish hospitality from the group, then take the model bills home with them, to promote as if they were their own initiatives. Alec has claimed that more than 1,000 of its bills are introduced by legislators every year, and one in five of them becomes law. It has been heavily funded by tobacco companies, the oil company Exxon, drug companies and Charles and David Koch – the billionaires who founded the first Tea Party organisations. Pfizer, which funded Bertin’s post at Atlantic Bridge, sits on Alec’s corporate board. Some of the most contentious legislation in recent years, such as state bills lowering the minimum wage, bills granting corporations immunity from prosecution and the “ag-gag” laws – forbidding people to investigate factory farming practices – were developed by Alec. To run the US arm of Atlantic Bridge, Alec brought in its director of international relations, Catherine Bray. She is a British woman who had previously worked for the Conservative MEP Richard Ashworth and the Ukip MEP Roger Helmer. Bray has subsequently worked for Conservative MEP and Brexit campaigner Daniel Hannan. Her husband is Wells Griffith, the battleground states director for Trump’s presidential campaign. Among the members of Atlantic Bridge’s US advisory council were the ultra-conservative senators James Inhofe, Jon Kyl and Jim DeMint. Inhofe is reported to have received over $2m in campaign finance from coal and oil companies. Both Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have been major donors. Kyl, now retired, is currently acting as the “sherpa” guiding Jeff Sessions’s nomination as Trump’s attorney general through the Senate. Jim DeMint resigned his seat in the Senate to become president of the Heritage Foundation – the thinktank founded with a grant from Joseph Coors of the Coors brewing empire, and built up with money from the banking and oil billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Like Alec, it has been richly funded by the Koch brothers. Heritage, under DeMint’s presidency, drove the attempt to ensure that Congress blocked the federal budget, temporarily shutting down the government in 2013. Fox’s former special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, an American called Luke Coffey, now works for the foundation. The Heritage Foundation is now at the heart of Trump’s administration. Its board members, fellows and staff comprise a large part of his transition team. Among them are Rebekah Mercer, who sits on Trump’s executive committee; Steven Groves and Jim Carafano (State Department); Curtis Dubay (Treasury); and Ed Meese, Paul Winfree, Russ Vought and John Gray (management and budget). CNN reports that “no other Washington institution has that kind of footprint in the transition”. Trump’s extraordinary plan to cut federal spending by $10.5tn was drafted by the Heritage Foundation, which called it a “blueprint for a new administration”. Vought and Gray, who moved on to Trump’s team from Heritage, are now turning this blueprint into his first budget. This will, if passed, inflict devastating cuts on healthcare, social security, legal aid, financial regulation and environmental protections; eliminate programmes to prevent violence against women, defend civil rights and fund the arts; and will privatise the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump, as you follow this story, begins to look less like a president and more like an intermediary, implementing an agenda that has been handed down to him. In July last year, soon after he became trade secretary, Liam Fox flew to Washington. One of his first stops was a place he has visited often over the past 15 years: the office of the Heritage Foundation, where he spoke to, among others, Jim DeMint. A freedom of information request reveals that one of the topics raised at the meeting was the European ban on American chicken washed in chlorine: a ban that producers hope the UK will lift under a new trade agreement. Afterwards, Fox wrote to DeMint, looking forward to “working with you as the new UK government develops its trade policy priorities, including in high value areas that we discussed such as defence”. How did Fox get to be in this position, after the scandal that brought him down in 2011? The scandal itself provides a clue: it involved a crossing of the boundaries between public and private interests. The man who ran the UK branch of Atlantic Bridge was his friend Adam Werritty, who operated out of Michael Hintze’s office building. Werritty’s work became entangled with Fox’s official business as defence secretary. Werritty, who carried a business card naming him as Fox’s adviser but was never employed by the Ministry of Defence, joined the secretary of state on numerous ministerial visits overseas, and made frequent visits to Fox’s office. By the time details of this relationship began to leak, the charity commission had investigated Atlantic Bridge and determined that its work didn’t look very charitable. It had to pay back the tax from which it had been exempted (Hintze picked up the bill). In response, the trustees shut the organisation down. As the story about Werritty’s unauthorised involvement in government business began to grow, Fox made a number of misleading statements. He was left with no choice but to resign. When Theresa May brought Fox back into government, it was as strong a signal as we might receive about the intentions of her government. The trade treaties that Fox is charged with developing set the limits of sovereignty. US food and environmental standards tend to be lower than Britain’s, and will become lower still if Trump gets his way. Any trade treaty we strike will create a common set of standards for products and services. Trump’s administration will demand that ours are adjusted downwards, so that US corporations can penetrate our markets without having to modify their practices. All the cards, post-Brexit vote, are in US hands: if the UK doesn’t cooperate, there will be no trade deal. May needed someone who is unlikely to resist. She chose Fox, who has become an indispensable member of her team. The shadow diplomatic mission he developed through Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration. Long before Trump won, campaign funding in the US had systematically corrupted the political system. A new analysis by US political scientists finds an almost perfect linear relationship, across 32 years, between the money gathered by the two parties for congressional elections and their share of the vote. But there has also been a shift over these years: corporate donors have come to dominate this funding. By tying our fortunes to those of the United States, the UK government binds us into this system. This is part of what Brexit was about: European laws protecting the public interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom. Taking back control from Europe means closer integration with the US. The transatlantic special relationship is a special relationship between political and corporate power. That power is cemented by the networks Liam Fox helped to develop. In April 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent the US Congress the following warning: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.” It is a warning we would do well to remember. That is very interesting - but can I ask the source? It makes sense but I'd like to see the full details before 'buying' it, so to speak? Saturday, 7th January 2017: Stoke City 0 Wolves 2; the day Mark Hughes, Marko Arnoutovic, Bojan, Shaqiri and Imbula showed how much they care about the fans and the club.
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Feb 4, 2017 3:54:07 GMT
If we had lost the vote I would still be fighting to leave as futile as that would be. I would never stop. The difference is I'm not an elected MP, never mind an elected MP who represent a constituency that voted heavily in opposition to my view. Suggestions that Paul Farrelly is intelligent? Quite frankly that insults mine because I'm aware that a political position of power belongs to ordinary people and is merely loaned to politicians. If politicians want to fight for remain they must first relinquish their political power to do so. It is nothing but a sick abuse of a public resource otherwise. I find it ironic in the extreme that people who haven't figured that out by themselves have the cheek to suggest a lack of intelligence from those of us that know this. Paul Farrelly may or may not be an intelligent man, I don't know, but if he is intelligent enough to understand what I wrote above then that merely means he is a massive, massive cunt. the fact that you resort to calling someone a cunt merely highlights that you have allready lost the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 12:00:01 GMT
the fact that you resort to calling someone a cunt merely highlights that you have allready lost the argument. This is a ridiculous thing to say and here's why. 1. The use of the word "cunt" is merely an adjective used to convey my feelings towards somebody. It's a lot harsher than fool/idiot/twat and it's a lot softer than evil/diabolic/monstrous. If I was talking about the physicist Neil De Grasse Tyson and I wrote a post enthusing about his wonderful ability to make complicated science accessible to ordinary people, thus making our world a better place, then I might finish that post by saying, "NDGT is a saint.". The use of the word "saint" in this context is a metaphorical adjective that, within the limits of my current level of vocabulary, most adequately displays how I feel about this man. No different to describing someone else as a "cunt". If another poster read my post and replied "the fact that you call someone a "saint" means your argument is invalid" then the level of ridiculousness would be no different, in my eyes, than the level you previously demonstrated. 2. Refusing to actually engage with my post is legitimate. I accept it may be very difficult to respond as our views are so diametrically opposed that there is little hope of either party possessing the ability to make the required compromises for us to ever see eye-to-eye. Choosing to respond anyway by focusing on one tiny aspect of my post, at best reveals laziness on your part, and at worst a deep level of conceited bigotry. You've attempted to completely shut down and discredit my argument not with a better argument, but because I chose to use one four letter adjective. "I don't know whether you're just lazy or a deeply conceited bigot 3putts..." "The fact that you called me a conceited bigot proves you have lost the argument." I can see parallels with the way in which certain persuasions of modern society attempt to quickly silence valid arguments that contradict their own views. These subsets have no desire to use counter-arguments, they instead opt to label views that oppose their own. They quite possibly don't even believe they are required to provide an argument to the contrary, such is their level of bigotry and misguided sense of moral superiority in their own outlook. 3. The use of the word cunt, in this context, was not even a definitive statement. It was a mere postulation. For all I know, Paul Farrelly might just be an idiot. A fucking idiot if you will. "the fact that you said fucking proves you have lost the argument..." 4. "cunt" was literally the last word in my post. You say my decision to use it shows that I have "allready lost the argument". Clearly, my reasons had been demonstrated before that point so from a logical vantage point your post is ridiculous. 5. There's a deep irony in being unable/unwilling to offer any meaningful response to a post and yet stating that one insignificant detail proves the points of that post invalid.
|
|