churchward

Whatever we think about Boris or whoever gets the job he will have been elected. Just not by all the country. In fact the PM is never elected by all the country only the people in their constituency directly vote for them. Corbyn was not elected by the country but by party membership as is any other party leader who may if their party gets enough MPs will become PM. However, I can understand the frustration of a person getting into the role by a small sub-set of people mid-term without a general election. In fact I would rather that a PM be tied to office for the whole term and only replaced if they die or are in some other predefined way, unable to continue.

I agree we should demand that people are of the highest quality when wanting to be Prime minister (or just an MP really) . I also agree scrutiny of a personas character is in the public interest. I also do not like the Boris team tactic of him keeping his head-down and saying as little as possible. However, some do need to dial back their hysteria over the recent events. Boris had a row (loud) with his girlfriend and the likelihood that on the same day many people in the UK did much the same. Some relationships are more fiery than others. The Police attended and concluded it was OK. It does look like the reporting did have a political motive as they not only had the presence of mind to call the Police but a newspaper too. If I was Boris I would have said it was regrettable and he and his girlfriend have kissed and made up (assuming they have) and he was sorry for any distress caused to his neighbours and then go on to talk about the important stuff. That was probably all that was need to dampen the issue. Jeremy Corbyn has notched a couple of points with me. I am not normally a fan of his but his attitude to Boris and his private life has been a good one and with Gove's Cocaine revelations too. He seems to be taking a stance of wanting to talk about important issues and private lives less so. One could be cynical and say he is trying to be statesman like and leaving the dirty work to others but I do think he has struck the right note this time.

No indeed not but to be even handed as possible one needs to study ones own bias to be able to recognise it. The danger comes when someone is biased but they cannot see it in themselves and think they are neutral. fair enough and of course accepted.

I do try and be as "green" as possible but it isn't easy and requires a change in attitude. I have not flown in an airplane in around 6 years now and do not intend to. I try and buy local produce where possible and choose things that have least packaging but a lot of stuff still comes in too much needing to be thrown way that does not need it. We grow as much of our own vegetables as we can. It takes some adjustment as one has to get used to a degree of seasonality in what is available but we "can", preserve, and dry store as much as possible for the winter months. For instance growing our own chillies and garlic we did not need to buy any in the winter months. But alas we are not self sufficient and some stuff especially in the winter we have to buy in. Also weather takes its toll. For instance this year the apples are going to be much less than they were last year as late frosts put paid to a lot of blossom. I have been trying to use a device to make news/waste paper seed pots this year with some success. I have never bought a bottle of water in my life plastic or otherwise as I can see no reason too. I do take water when we go out but that comes from the tap or our spring and is in a refillable container. Snag is I do drive a car but living in a very rural area alternatives are not viable and neither are electric cars ( I can afford) just now but I am hoping by the time we buy another vehicle things will be different in terms of range, affordability and recharging facilities.

I am struggling to know what the heck you mean as well but if you don't know I can't tell you. You certainly did quote me in your post (see your post #15175 and see below) which is what I was responding to. Having been away for a few days I have ploughed through all the many pages. A couple of things have jumped out in the reading. 1. For some reason known only to themselves Brexiteers seem to call everyone who disagrees with them leavers or similar. Just to clear up any doubt in anyone's mind there is no link between leaving and the risk of domestic violence/discord nor is there any link between whether you voted leave and agree/or disagree with how protesters are treated. 2. How, again for some unknown reason, those who support Brexit struggle to make a post without attempting to be offensive,insulting etc. If you don't believe these observations have 3 or 4 days away from the thread and then plough through the posts. It will become clear I assure you. Report post #15175 Posted 1 hour ago

None of which has anything to do with what I posted or that you got your facts wrong. I find your post very odd and rather random. As far as I can see there is often a tit-for-tat as far as insults are concerned and nothing to do with being Brexiteer or pro-remain.

I agree with you someone dropped the ball on security. Given the people assembled getting a number of people to come into the room for an unknown purpose must have been a nervous moment. Thankfully the protestors had no violent intent but all the same, they should not have been able to gain entry to the building let alone the banqueting room itself. BTW Mansion House is the official residence of the Lord Mayor of London (Peter Erstin just now) not to be confused with the political Mayor of course and is not part of the Conservative party as a political appointed role. The dinner would have been held (and has been) no matter what party forms the government.

Three answers to that. One tell that to Jerra who brings the subject up repeatedly, two my statement was one of fact as it is a fact that I am fundamentally opposed to a supermajority vote and three, equally to your statement repeating it also does not make it wrong. So, I can't see the point of your post.

Firstly, your post might carry more weight if you checked your facts first. More than a million people voted to leave (1,200,051 in fact) than voted to remain. As for a supermajority in referendums, I am fundamentally opposed as I have said many times when you repeatedly bring this up. The issue is that the change vote (leave in the case of Brexit) needing to be over 60% means a stay as we are vote (Remain) has more value. It runs a coach and horses through a one man one vote principle and each vote counting equally. If there is a 2nd referendum you will be arguing for that to be a 60% vote needed to reverse the 1st vote then? All a supermajority achieves is the likelyhood of the status Quo being maintained and change quashed. I agree a minority should have a voice and continue to press for what they want. I see no evidence that has not happened. I doubt it will have run smoother if people had taken a different line as we are dealing with a polarised stance of staying or going. There is not much middle ground as PM May has found out. She has tried to steer a middle course and keep differing factions happy (although making may mistakes along the way) but as we saw with the indicative votes (and sometimes contradictory pnes) in the Commons there is no consensus or compromise from either side. There are split opinions and will continue to be but I see no issue in everyday life of conflict between people. There are plenty of insults from either faction in evidence on this thread so finger pointing and suggesting all is whiter than white on one side but if only the other was reasonable is delusional. We will all get on with our lives no matter what happens next.

Indeed. Left, right, remain, Pro-Brexit and many others all shout the BBC is biased or pro to the opposing side so like you, I rather think they are walking a difficult line pretty well and being fair in their reporting. Personally, I hope the BBC continues as is for many years.

I beg to differ in that he effectively was describing the whole Windrush generation and suggesting it has not gone well for them. That is true for some but for some, it has been a good thing to make a new life here.

Firstly may I say well done to you for having a go at making a dent in the litter that does get strewn about. If we all did a bit like that it would change things significantly. I am amazed often at how short-sighted and selfish people are in their disposing their waste and making it "someone else's problem" It is nothing short of disgraceful. There is really little excuse for people to not know how much damage plastic and other waste does to our environment.

That is rather a sweeping large brush to damn a whole generation of people who came here from the Caribbean in that era. Many of that generation and ethnic origin have done very well out of settling here but of course, others have not. The Americans seem to culturally celebrate their ethnic origins. You will often hear them describing themselves and family as Italian/American Irish/American Hispanic/American etc. although what unites them (most of the time) is that they are all Americans.

You originally said "...If ,however,you are now saying that 1000 Brexit Party voters were dumb enough to give their postal votes to someone with previous convictions for electoral fraud, so that he can then burn them, I would suggest that they probably didn't deserve to have the vote in the first place. " My response still stands not only am I saying you are wrong the law does too. Many people who are conned pay for the privilege. If some of the people have done something illegal rather than being gullible they should be prosecuted too but that does not mean they should not have had the vote in the first place. It also will not make them ineligible to vote again unless the offence is deemed to be "corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election" Such a restriction will last 5 years after which they would be eligible to vote again. I doubt giving or even selling a postal vote is likely to do that without being able to show a fraudulent intent rather than being persuaded to give or sell.

NOT the point and a rather odd reply given it was you asserting that they did not deserve the vote because they let someone else deal with the postal vote. A person who lets someone into their home is subsequently robbed is a victim and not considered to be party to the crime and criminally involved. My point was and is that you (thankfully) do not get to decide who deserves to have a vote. If the person qualifies they can vote no ifs or buts and their right vote must be defended, certainly not derided. The voting process also needs to be defended and if people have tried to influence the result of an election by illegal means they need to be prosecuted.