thetrees

The pond life in the lower Witton Lane also had a 'Justice for Lee Mockble' banner

People with religious views have no rights that supersede the law. I think that you will find religion came first :winkold:

Not a 'cause' worthy enough then?

Moving things along. In my local free sheet this week there is a half page advert for a 'no men' gym Is that discriminatory?

Who said they were homophobic? Just because they don't want to facilitate homosexual activity in their own home doesn't make them homophobic. I, like I suspect many people, have no problem with homosexuals, but would feel the same way as them were I a B&B operator. And I assume from your message that people with religious views have no rights?

I really don't have a problem, but thanks for the concern So discussion is intolerant? There are no people more intolerant than those who are not prepared to consider all views. The law was ill thought out and may be flawed, as are most of the PC laws passed under the stewardship of this government Don't start a B&B after 2007 I presume?

Pink News Is Grayling intolerant, or merely trying to look at it from the point of view of all people involved? I am all for equality, but equality with the exclusion of others defeats the object somewhat. Once again an example of plain speaking that gets blown out of all proportion by the politically correct.

Not stopped denying, no. I like plain speaking*, as opposed to political correctness, so I suppose that puts me more in Tory/UKIP territory, but I am not decided as to my voting intentions. In a non-Tory view I quite favour PR, as it would give UKIP, BNP, Greens etc a voice in parliament, which would inevitably spring up further parties (Muslim Party?) that would also gain a voice.** We could have true gloves off politics for the first time ever, and probably an end to political correctness. *plain speaking on the understanding that it is not outright offensive speaking. **Edit: in a 'Russian roulette' kind of way

Snowy, are you in denial? :winkold: Joking apart, 'more likely' will suffice for the message that I was trying to bring.

What are you classing as a 'win'? Most seats? If it isn't an absolute majority then it is quite possible that it wouldn't turn out to be a 'win'. In the electoral system that applies to this general election, an overall majority.

What doesn't he know? Yes, you vote for your MP, but the Sky/Internet generation clamour for televised debates has ensured that we are now voting for a Prime Minister-how else would the Liberals gain so much support? In particular there does appear to have been a deal between the attractive, ever so cuddly and electable Tony Blair, and the grumpy, dour completely unelectable Gordon Brown, where the former would win the election for the party and then pass the torch across to the latter. Cameron is addressing the situation with a modernist proposal, in turn dispelling the 'dinosaur' accusations that are thrown at the Tory party.

That beats hands down any 'in the know' posts in transfer threads either past or in the future. Eh? Its from a pretty good source, our election briefing session. Perhaps wishful thinking on the part of the person writing or giving the brief? Sorry to shatter the illusion, but the still favourites to win are the Tories, who would not move to a PR system. The other 'big club', Labour, may well make noises about electoral reform, in case the result is narrow and the need is there to cuddle up to their Liberal friends, but the reality is that Labour don't want PR either. In the event of coalition, which would inevitably be another Lib-Lab pact, Labour would string it out and, if necessary, go to an October election rather than concede PR. Ain't gonna happen.

My old man reads the Mail as well, but there isn't a cat in hells chance of him voting Tory. Indeed, in the unlikely event that he outlives Maggie, I think that he will be applying to join Bickster's celebrations.

That beats hands down any 'in the know' posts in transfer threads either past or in the future.

I shouldn't worry too much, the place will be teeming with Villa shirts. In my experience at derbys our pond life and their pond life tend to 'find' each other and do what they need to do to get their kicks.

I've seen about 6 polls .. some have a tie with Clegg and Cameron , Some say Clegg won , some say Cameron won ..I know Murdoch has some media influence but I don't believe he controls the whole world just yet I've not looked at the Mirror but I can be assured they will say Cameron came last by a country mile .. should they be investigated as well ?? or is it only papers that showed Cameron winning that must be investigated ?? Tonyh29: I agree the Mirror is just as much a rag but Murdoch is well known to influence party politics here and in Australia, and i find it just a tad treacherous that a very wealthy foreigner influencing British Politics in such a damming way as Murdoch does, but maybe thats just me and it being St Georges day :winkold: I didn't see the debate and don't read newspapers but saw a bloke from the Daily Mail on breakfast TV this morning who stated that a 'winner' was difficult to call and that Brown had performed well. Given what I have read on here about the Daily Mail I was quite surprised. They then cut to Kevin McGuire of the Mirror, who was scoffing at the Mail guy and calling him 'Tory Boy'. I found the guy completely rude and he made himself look an idiot to boot.

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :? It is a major issue though. The Tory party and their blood thirsty hunt supporters want to change the law back to the barbaric one of allowing the Hooray's to smear blood on faces and the like. On that basis should we be looking to ban boxing and Quentin Tarantino films? :winkold: Please note that I don't give a damn either way about hunting, particularly foxes. I would favour keeping the ban in place purely because such a huge amount of government time and money was spent on banning it in the first place. I am partial to a bit of venison though, so the powder must be kept dry to bump off the odd Bambi or two :winkold:

Apparently I agree with Labour on a number of issues, the Tories (surprise, surprise) a bit more, and the Liberals nothing.

A couple of comments APD is higher for business class tickets than economy anyway, as drat will testify. Flights have become more expensive since the recession and will continue to rise. Ryanair have approx 240 aircraft in their fleet, the oldest of which is 8 years old. 185 aircraft are 5 years or younger, with around half that total being less than 2 years old. Most airlines are flying modern fuel efficient aircraft because it makes commercial sense. It's normal for the green agenda to hit the airline industry as it is a soft target. They forget that cars are a far bigger pollutant.

How silly, someone whose 20 can't have sex with someone whose 22 but they can have sex with a 16 year old? Again, I didn't state that, and that wouldn't be the case (as it couldn't) Was it acceptable? I think the smokers aged 16 and 17 didn't think so, especially as they were legal one day and not the next 'Acceptable' in the fact that it was changed without too many non-affected people noticing. Again I feel that is silly too as the only probable definition would come in terms of alcohol percentage and there is bound to be a limit set at such a low level as to cause more idiotic scenarios. Youth drinking problems aren't generally caused by spirits but alcopops / cider because they taste acceptably sweet to the kids palates and they drink too many too quickly You mention 'youth' and 'kids' in the same sentence. My impression is that the level of spirits consumption amongst young people (youth), particularly vodka and 'shots', is worryingly high, and potentially damaging. Generally young people supping beer, cider and sweet alcopops don't become alcoholics. Those drinking bottles of Vodka stand a lot better chance of having long term alcohol problems. Doesn't make you right though Is anyone right in a thread like this?

In certain countries in Europe they have graduated consent. A little thought could have done the same, thus protecting 16 year old children from predatory people who are much older than them. Under this 16 would be the initial age of consent, but with 21 being the age where consensual sex can be between partners of any age. Raising the age to buy tobacco was acceptable, so why not a considerate tweaking of the consent laws? Oh, and I would also raise the age at which people can buy and consume spirits. I may live in the dark ages, but maybe it's because I care about the society around me and the welfare of its young people.

Hey guys, thanks for reading my post before jerking your knees :winkold:

Labour have promised to call a vote on lowering the voting age in the commons if elected I believe. Which would no doubt be rejected. when I was 16 I didn't know anyone who actually took the remotest of interest in politics. It's not taught in our schools to any kind of level so how they can say that someone in this country who is 16 years old can make an informed decision on who to vote for is rubbish. when you are 16 it's football, fanny, fags, fruity alcoholic beverages, food, fannying about. This is true, it wasn't until I came to uni did I even understand the differences between tha parties and their names. However if at 16 you can pay tax and can join the army I think you should get the right to vote. There's a good idea. If you pay tax, you have the right to vote. The government screwed up when they didn't properly consider the consent laws. The need to fix them should have been the catalyst to raising the age of full consent and majority to 21 on alcohol, smoking, voting and sex. As I say, populist thinking over common sense thinking.

I've just read that both the Libs and Labour are planning to lower the voting age to 16. More unbelievable populist politics crap.

Be careful for a knock on the door. Sensible suggestions are not welcome at this, or any other General Election.