colhint

My parents did this a few years back, on my fathers side it went all the way back to nobility, my great great great (repeat ad nauseum) fought in the battle of Bosworth field in 1485.  My middle name is named after him. 

there was a man called underscore at Bosworth field?

Thats not true. You can become a member of the conservative party without being an MP.

Show us your membership card then. The words Party and Association are not synonyms in this instance. Its different for the other parties, anyone can be a member of those, but the Tories...

I'm not a member, but here's the link if you want to sign up

https://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join/Member.aspx

Jon,  isnt that a prejudicial remark about the Conservative Party, and therefore exactly what you are accusing the Conservative party of being?

 

Tarring one side of society ie Conservative Party Members,  with the same brush is being prejudiced is it not.  And not factually correct.

How can it be prejudicial when its a recorded public fact.

The only people that are members of THE Conservative Party are MPs. A greater number of Conservative Party members therefore voted through he bigoted lobby, it is then very safe to assume that a democratic organisation that has over 50% of its members favour the bigoted and prejudicial No way can only be tarred with that brush. That democracy is it not?

Thats not true. You can become a member of the conservative party without being an MP., and where does this fear bit come in. Just because you vote against some thing doesn't mean you fear it

I have to agree with the OP, This, too, shall pass is one I've said to myself many a time.

 

Otherwise...

 

 

This post has had my brain tied up for a good 20 minutes trying to remember where I'd heard it.

 

Think i'm right in saying that it's a lyric in Metallica's St Anger.

Nah its from Frank Sinatra's  My Way

I do think that he got bad press. In fact, I think he's the victim of probably one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever undertaken. Strangely enough, if it hadn't been for Shakespeare's character assasaination for Elizabeth I, he probably would have been forgotton as an irrelivant caretaker. Richard believed (and probably now quite correctly) that the two princes in the tower were actually illegitimate. Henry VII's claim to the throne was, at any rate, much weaker than Richard's. Of course he ordered or even did the executions himself, but in the medieval context this is hardly the most tyranical act of the time. Elizabeth / Mary hung drew and quartered people for a lot less.

 

How you get from a bloke suicidally running into the main portion of Henry's army to try and face him to "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" really does show what the subsequent monarchs did to him.

well said sir. Pretty much my take on it

my Labrador tore one up  and that left vote Lab

"The Ukraine"

"The Cameroon(s)"

Any assorted addition of the word "the" to a country name. Colonial throwback bollocks.

You get a beep on your phone when someone quotes you on VT? That was a rapid response!

I had a mate in New York, who quite proudly told me that The Bronx is the only place in the world which starts with a The. I asked him if that had been ratified in the Hague

and a certain mr Petrov

no effing way NO NO NO NO that is not right, shoot him, report him, do whatever. Do not let him become a mate

^

unless PL has already filed him under, Must get him when he becomes available he's going to be very good.

Seeing as we got a bit nostalgic over the last few days, it got me thinking who is the greatest Brummie ever. I suppose it should be people either born there and done great things elsewhere, or people who may not have come from the City but who's greatest achievements are associated there. And I didn't know whether to open it up to the surrounding areas. Open to ideas on this but my first stab might well be Matthew Boulton. If its the surrounding areas then Shakespeare

As I get older and maybe a little bit wiser, I think its time to remove honourable from their title. I maybe wrong but I haven't seen a decent one for a decade. I agree with Paulo on Nellist. I didn't agree with his policies but admired him much for his taking a Factory workers pay, as most of his constituents were factory workers

Like I said , some positives may have arisen from colonialism but it can't possibly be used as any justification for some major transgressions. We stole lands that were not ours , we enslaved millions of people for profit and exploited the poor to increase our wealth and power.

It was in no way a golden age . In fact it was quite the opposite , regardless of whether some of the colonies did indeed become better off somehow in the aftermath.

You really can't defend immoral behaviour on such an epic scale like that let alone look back at it out with pride .

Thats not really a fair reflection though, in my opinion, without colonisation from the earliest civilizations, there would have been very little progress for mankind. The majority of these brought benefits to mankind. the uk itself has been colonised several times. Now the fact that people die during the colonisation is just the way things have always been. If the alternative had been no colonisation I still maintain the human race would have been between 200 and 500 years behind where we are now. Without the Romans and Normans we would probably still have lived in wooden houses. The Origins of our empire really started during the 100 years war. The lessons from the vikings probably united the uk more than anything into one kingdom. The Norman invasion was horrific in lives lost. About the time of the Black prince is when we first dallied, into France, this was because the trade and taxation was all controlled in Normandy. When William the conquerer died there was a power struggle within the Norman kingdom, which left us with King Stephen. Bad King, this set the wheels in motion for the English to start defending for themselves and when the French decided our trade was not really permitted with either themselves or the Flemish. We started to take lands in Northern France. So really our empire started from a position of defending ourselves.

Now in Europe as a whole there were several nations seeking to colonise. Had they gained enormous wealth and power and we had not, there is no doubt we would have been bending the knee to most of the powers in Europe at the time.

Skip a couple of hundred years. Now as for the slave trade It was long in existence before we got involved. In fact our main involvement was shipping the slaves between Africa and The sugar plantations in the West Indies. Now thats not to say we did not bring thousands of slaves to these shores, but our prime revenue was in shipping them. Not that that excuses it. And as Tony mentioned earlier we ended it. Wilberforce tried for 20 years to bring it to an end. The main problem for him was there could be no agreement between the other key nations involved. Everyone was making to much money. If the Uk had unilaterally stopped. The slave trade would have continued, but no revenue for the UK. Now this is at a time when there is much power struggle in Europe when everyone was arming themselves. Again we had to pour money into our defenses. The only option was to increase trade, not likely without a strong Navy or increase taxation. So although it is a stain on mankind it was not just a UK thing. (Incidentally Penny lane by the Beatles is named after one of the biggest slave traders in England) However it must be remembered, there have been slaves since the begining of time. Now 2 of the main reasons for the slave trade were Sugar and cotton. There was huge demand for both throughout Europe. But that is human nature, something new and everyone wants it. You hear about the conditions in factories in the far east, and everyone complains , but as soon as nike or whoever bring a new range out the same people buy them by the millions.

So although empire building has caused very many deaths, and the Slave trade is a very cruel business, it was part of a cycle which has brought mankind to where it is now.

Well I believe without conquest, from whichever nation you decide, and all the resource and sharing of knowledge, the world would have been about 200 years behind where it is now. I mean most medicine and drugs originated in the rainforest. Should we have just waited until the tribes decided to share them with us?

Would England have ever been the same without the battle of senlac ridge. Certainly we benefited afterwards

not sure I agree with Drat, If the rot set in with maggie, that suggests everything was great before her. It clearly wasn't. In fact she got in because things were so bad. However. I'm not blaming any party as such. I think the rot set in following the second world war. Agreements were put in place to prevent war and to build up nations. Good things. However that was done but no massive infrastructure was planned for Brittain. Consequently we were still using old factories and machines, but trying to keep up with the modern equivalents we were helping to buy for other countries

opera is fantastic in my eyes. most people either love it or hate it. And its not a class thing as some thing. I have seen people in jeans and T shirts with tears of emotion rolling down their cheeks, Likewise I have seen people in the posh boxes talking all the way through, And it is so much better live. And earn yourself brownie points, don't mention Italia 90 when Nessun Dorma is sang

people who enjoy your misery. My father in law who has absolutely no interest in football always mentions it when we lose. Never when we win or draw. I mean he has no interest in footie at all. I can accept it from my mates who support other teams, at least they know something about football. His main interest is his catholic church. I wouldn't gloat to him about priests being carted off or their stand on Gay marriage. In fact I feel a bit sorry for him as I know these things really upset him.

If Tory MP who is quite an obnoxious git did not swear at the Police none of this would have happened ? :-)

This sums it up perfectly to me. An MP swearing at a policeman. Its wrong. Swear in private if you like, but not to his face. I used to expect standards of politicians, thats gone a long time ago. There are places where it is wrong to swear, in a classroom, in church etc. But MP's have to deserve this honourable tag they get. They shouldn't swear at anyone.

extra time v leeds is what we want, leeds winning obviously

[url=http://www.skysports.com/football/]Sky Sports Football

[url=http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/europe_for_families_families_for_europe] mercatonetFootball

Isn't that disputed (at least whether there were attempts at contact)?

What was the timeline?

They didn't transmit it live, did they? 5.30am would be what 4.30pm in Sydney? When was it broadcast? Were they an evening show/breakfast show or what?

Were they the same DJs?

I have read the same regarding the consent, they tried 5 times but could not. Thats no justification though without consent. i want to borrow your car, I'll ring you at home 5 times , but if you dont answer, I'll just presume its OK. (obv a joke)

point 2 It wasn't live. So if it was recorded and played later, why phone up at 5 am. Why not at midday, or was it just that it had to be these DJ'S. if so couldn't they have got up at 5am to make the call to be around 5 am uk time. To me this still stinks of it being inconvenient to them.

No It wasn't the same DJ',s I wasn't blaming them, but it may have come across like that, sorry. But its still the same station, it seems anything goes with them.

I don't think you can blame the DJ's for the Suicide directly, however. What would have happened if she had not committed suicide, what if she had just lost her job? It would not have made the press. Would that have been OK. Now as I understand according to OZ broadcasting rules you are not allowed to record and play things without the other persons consent. No consent was asked for but it was still played. Is that OK. Why phone a hospital at 5 in the morning to get to a patient, presumably it would have just been as funny at midday uk, but of course that wouldn't have been prime time in OZ, maybe a just a bit inconvenient for them.

The other thing is when they connected a 14 year old to a lie detector, why ask a minor about their sex life. Is that OK.

Now how could they have known that a suicide would occur, or a 14 year old admitted being raped.

IMO they don't give a toss about the victims unless they get caught out.

but didn't we have all this stuff back in 1984

I agree, if there is away to cancel the contract, legally, if the contracts were unsound or unreasonable they could be and should be. Point 2 should be that whoever drafted the contract should be sacked. not paid off with a golden handshake. Sacked properly sacked

I know what you mean about the beeb, but in only screws up every 6 or 7 years. and by and large it does a pretty good job. More importantly its left to its own devices. The only time politicians get involved is when something goes wrong. The trouble with the NHS is that every politician wants to talk about it. And politicians spend more time following their own party line. So they discuss whether funding is up or down, going on about ward closures, Mrsa, anything but solving the problem.