brommy

9 hours ago, KSV said:

Waiting for a third signing and announce triple signing.

Chair Central.

Another disappointing end.

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Maybe the parents shouldn't have promised to spend £350m a week on toys before asking the kids what they thought about the divorce. 

Agreed and the other parent shouldn't have promised the kids they wouldn't have to share their toys with any more than 99,999 other kids.

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

You've really put my mind at rest there.

Glad to be of service, although, to be honest, there's nothing much more we can do. Like any divorce, it was always going to be messy, take time and we all knew the kids would be upset. Hopefully the partners will be grown up enough to complete it without damaging the kids long term. Either way, for so many, the marriage was failing.

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Worth it though.

 

We'll have to wait and see.

Cameron knows that it's only by luck of timing that he or another Conservative PM didn't make exactly the same decisions. 

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Using which plan?

It's a process that will take years with a result that will last decades so I'm patient enough to wait for one. After all, the plan to enter the EU took a while to formulate.

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

 

What job?  There is absolutely no plan.

The job of leaving the EU!

One should realise that the UK government's decisions wouldn't have been any different under either of the two major parties. Whatever the report had concluded there would be those who see it as nothing more than a 'lessons learnt' summary and those who would see it as a reason for political upheaval.

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Not suprising, I am no expert on financial things but I could have told anyone who voted exit this was going to happen. I predict its going to plunge even further

I don't think it's unexpected to any of the leave voters I have spoken to. None of them were thinking the job could be completed without financial market issues and without short and possibly medium term economic downturn. I'm not surprised the pound is down at the moment. I am surprised the stock markets aren't a lot lower at the moment.

I think we need to expect a rocky economic road for the next few years. I've as much clue as an economic advisor in 2006 who couldn't see a World crash less than 18 months away (no wonder they were doubted this time!), whether we'll be better or worse off economically in the long term but I'm optimistic we can get through this.

I'll guess what happened in less than 2.6 million words.

Military intelligence (I once had a badge that said it was a 'contradiction in terms') had unconfirmed information that Iraq was capable of producing WMD. A few months and dozens of high level management meetings later, this went though the 'yes but what if...' process. If they could have WMD they probably do have WMD. All set to a back drop of atrocities being committed by the Iraq government on it's own people, evidence of which made it easier to 'sell' military intervention. Unfortunately, the U.S. and many of the governments of Europe were too quick to believe the military intelligence and were listening too hard to the advice being given that action would be reasonably swift, save lives in the long term and free millions from tyranny, whilst the financial cost could be partially offset by oil control gains.

In summary, don't just consider advice from those whose who are set to gain (military budgets and power) from their advice being followed. Weigh up the gain of saving hundreds of thousands from tyranny and torture against the possibility of several million spending a generation or more attempting to cope with a vacuous society - freedom for some, hell for others.

I hope the benefits of hindsight are heeded for generations to come.

16 minutes ago, limpid said:

That's why the guidelines clearly tell you to PM a mod if you aren't sure  

Guidelines? I thought being a bloke meant never reading instructions. Probably why my IKEA wardrobe looks like a spice rack.

I'll take the current lack of corrective action as a sign I've not transgressed on this occasion. 

13 hours ago, limpid said:

You've been here over nine years. You tell us  

Etiquette has never been my strong point and I'm never quite sure whether rules 'are rules' or 'are there to be broken'! 

My post from the 'ISIS' thread that might be better suited here. Originally asked in a slightly mischievous manner, I will be interested in any serious responses, presumably from those who have a faith.

What makes one old book of prophecy better than another? Is the Old Testament best because it is older and more 'original' than subsequent teachings? Is the New Testament better because it is updated and corrects the bugs of the Old Testament? Or is the Quran more modern and therefore better? So is Judaism, Christianity or Islam the best? Then which sect to follow? Or should one turn to a newer, perhaps cooler religion? Then again, my big belly might suit Buddhism. Someone new to religion could easily be confused.

I'd still be interested in any serious answers to my earlier 'what makes one old book of prophecy better than another?' post. It might have already been asked in the religion thread but I feel it's time to debate it again so I'll copy it over to there. Apologies in advance if that's not the done thing on VT.

I really hope RDM and staff are the ones to finally remove Traore's constant 'raw' tag line.

1 minute ago, Junxs said:

Does anyone know if there's a squad limited in the championship like there is in the Premier League of 25 players?

We won't need to be worried about being too limited.

Just now, choffer said:

4% of Ukippers voted to remain?

According to the poll that has a few percent error margin so I suppose it could be as many as 1 in 7 or as few as 1 in 100. I think this has already been highlighted though.

25 minutes ago, jon_c said:

Because SNP actually have people voting for them, so 64% of SNP voters in Scotland is more than probably 100% of the Labour voters in Scotland. 

Also the referendum required politicians to appeal to all voters, not just their core demographic. Like say a General Election, instead of conference of party members. 

That still doesn't explain the criticism Corbyn has faced because of the referendum result. Labour voters backed their party's stance as much as SNP voters.

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Mrs H uttered those words that no man likes to hear last night 

" I quite like Corbyn at least he sounds genuine "

I sent her back to the kitchen to get my tea and hopefully she wont offer an opinion again  ....

I think she's plotting to oust you.

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Darren I don't think I am wrong on this mate. When you have the leader of the labour party saying he is "7- 7 1/2 out of Europe" doesn't sound very encouraging to Labour supporters. makes you sound like your heart isn't 100% in it and you don't believe in what your preaching about. I think even Gordon Brown did a better job than Corbyn in presenting the argument of staying in. 

Corbyn was asked to put a number out of 10 on what he thought of the EU. His score 7 to 7.5 reflected that he was in favour of being in the EU but it wasn't perfect and needed some reform. Pretty much what most of the Conservative party campaigned to Remain on.

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

he did not lose the support of Labour voters

 

Looking at those statistics, if Corbyn is under pressure to resign due to the 'performance' of Labour voters in the referendum, why isn't Sturgeon under pressure to resign after more than 1 in 3 SNP voters went against her?

2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I'm definitely the wrong person to take that question given my previous technical term "sky fairies"

No worries, I'm happy to take advice from anyone. 

31 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Not really. Its more like Catholics and Protestants blowing each other up at Christmas. Same religion, same sky fairy, different factions and rules of worship etc. 

The old 'My form of religion is better than yours'.

On a slightly not unrelated matter, what makes one old book of prophecy better than another? Is the Old Testament best because it is older and more 'original' than subsequent teachings? Is the New Testament better because it is updated and corrects the bugs of the Old Testament? Or is the Quran more modern and therefore better? So is Judaism, Christianity or Islam the best? Then which sect to follow? Or should one turn to a newer, perhaps cooler religion? Then again, my big belly might suit Buddhism. Someone new to religion could easily be confused.