Jump to content

blandy

Moderators
  • Content Count

    14,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by blandy

  1. There was an Olive The Olive was in the Oil The Oil was on the table And the table was in the room The room was in the building the building was in the yard The yard was in the area And the area was in the town The town was in the county the county was in the country The country was in the union and the union was in the world the world was in the universe the universe was in the stars Oh, the stars. Oh, oh the stars
  2. I hear he's a reformed character now, and will be working to protect people from future egg based attacks - a sort of Poacher turned Gamekeeper.
  3. It's nice that they offer a choice, clear blue water, from Labour's policy of being institutionally Anti-semitic. It gives the floating racist a different option. Racists are very much an oppressed minority and it's nice that some positive discrimination is being enacted to give them the leg up they so badly need - apart from all the newspaper columns, TV guest slots, LBC radio shows they host, and their internet channels - well they're just ignored and suppressed and have nowhere to foam their hateful bile from. Bravo the tories, Bravo for the racisms. Bravo the Labours. Bravo for being nasty to foreigners. Up the Brexit!
  4. Indeed. The rest of the post - I don't see it like you do at all, but that's by the by.
  5. You've confused me (easily done). I don't follow all of the logic. If we revoke A50, then there is no longer any leave negotiation with the EU, no draft deal, it's all gone. There are no "available options", surely? We're just at where we were say 8 years ago - a member of the EU, only this time with a bunch of furious throbbers all pulsing away about betrayal. If we revoke A50, then by definition of ending the process to leave before we've left, then yes, we will stay in. Anyone wanting to Leave is not going to call for it to be revoked, so what you wrote is right, logically, there - but did you mean that, or did you mean anyone calling for a second ref wants to stay in? Because while that may be the case, it is unknowable and utterly of no consequence. They clearly do countenance the possibility of another option happening. A second ref would be (IMO) less divisive than revoking A50 (I'd revoke, 'cus **** the throbbers, it's less bad than any other deal or no deal). A ref on "you asked to leave, this is what leave looks like, do you still want it? " is far less of a divisive thing than "you asked to leave, but no". A ref has the advantage of being able to say "we're not trying to stop it, we're offering you a chance to confirm it". Like I said, if I was King of the Land I'd can it. too much lies etc. Sort out the rest after, but parliament has to be a bit more...edemocratic.
  6. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    I don't think she's quite right, really. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/mueller-report-leaves-one-key-question-unanswered/585625/
  7. A couple of comments on this - firstly, I think the EU will get worse, rather than better. I think further integration/commonality and further cumbersome procedures which fudge stuff will come into play because it's so unwieldy at times and because a fair chunk of the other member coutries want that. The ones that don't, with or without the UK, will stuggle against that - maybe stop it, maybe not. Dead right that all the throbbers in the tory party want to leave to get rid of all the protections that the EU offers ordinary people - workers rights, enviro protection, food standards and whatever. Revoking A50 would , I'd imagine, be the most "divisive" path to take (It's what I'd do personally, but I'm not sure parliament will, unless under extreme duress (about to "no deal", when unless a pretty unlikely chain of events were to occur ( a mentalist being in charge of the Gov't on Apr 12th.) the PM would pull it. )
  8. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    Yes. From what I've seen the US media has been very partisan on each side. In terms of what has happeneed with people pleading guilty and being charged, there's loads of facts that have come out of it Russian agents/officials hacked the Democrat computer and then used Facebook, Twitter etc. to damage Clinton and elevate Trump, and Trump's and his team knew about it and encouraged it and called for more of it. They tried to hide the fact they had contacts with Russians and Turkish etc. officials. Flynn lied to the enquiry about it, I think. Stone knew about the Wikileaks thing and told team people it was going to happen. Trump was trying to build a hotel in Moscow and thus had an interest and contacts he lied about. A bunch of his team have gone to Jail and/or been charged with fraud, conspiracy etc. And then there's the payments to women, the concealing and lying about them...there's a whole bunch of stuff in the public domain resulting from Muellers enquiry saying he's a "naughty man done bad thing". Just no smoking gun that he cospired with Russia to become Pres. He's more like their semi useful semi idiot.
  9. I wonder if parliament (both Houses) can (or will) take up the fact that what's being attempted is " inconsistent with the promised course of action". I wonder if there will be trouble making/assertion of role (delete as apllicable) as a consequence?
  10. There's certainly some wriggle room in any definition.
  11. The state of the hills due to sheep grazing is sad. The deforestation over the years has led to the disappearance of all kinds of wildlife. Fishing, apart from near extinction has killed all kinds of other critters in by-catch, and through drift nets and plastic pollution, lead pollution. Then the fish is turned into fish meal and used to grow crops to feed to cattle... Sure, I think you’re right about small scale, organic, free range farming being low impact, and the same goes for rod and line fishing for your dinner, but mass agriculture, whether for meat - really bad, or vegetables- still bad, is wrecking the planet.
  12. Agreed. They’ve really picked up. Same goes for the Windies. This notion that England are miles ahead of everybody else is very wrong. It’s wide open.
  13. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    No, not conspiracy, as I said above “...them being manipulated, rather than doing the manipulating - at least in terms of the amount of proof needed to prosecute. A sort of wilful naivety and ignorance of the law, rather than all out clear cut consciously breaking the law they knew to be in place. Low level effwittery” We already all but know there’s been collusion (which isn’t a crime). The meeting between Trump junior and and the Russian in trump tower to get dirt on Clinton... there’s loads of stuff out there already.
  14. Alright then, in a bit more detail. You asked A pounds is fine. as is a tenner or £100. When it gets to £100K, I suspect that's very much borderline. They'd maybe look at the overall state of the FFP submission - so if a club was under the limit by say a very small margin, and that was down to a claim by that club that a "small gift" of £100K had kept them just inside (they'd be maybe 90K over the limit if it weren't for the gift, then maybe they'd fudge it and let the club off the hook, for want of avoiding legal action. But realistically people don't give 100K to football clubs. Now Edens is not an unrelated party - he's an owner, so he is not allowed, in the FFP calls to "gift" money to the club - he can do it, but it isn't counted in the sums. If they want it back, it's not a gift, it's a loan, and therefore wouldn't be permitted for FFP calls. Friends family & relations are likely to be looked at as to whether they are "related parties" - "person or entity (or any Associate of that person or entity) that is Interested in the Championship Club (or any member of the Group that is included within the Accounts lodged in accordance with these Rules)." So a spouse, for example would likely be counted as a related party and thus any "gift" wouldn't count for FFP purposes. Friends...it would need to be established that there was no underhand "ills catch your back..." type of deal going on. Hard to prove, but likely to come under suspicion. You'd surely start from the perspective that people don't give large sums of money to businesses without wanting anything back and where they have no financial reason for doing so "an interest". If a friend or relative is considered to be a related party, then (from the link above)

×
×
  • Create New...
Â