churchward

Quite so. Do not get too het up about what is in the water (up to a point) as firstly have you seen what plants grow in? and secondly plants roots are excellent filters. I fertilise my ground at home with all kinds of organic (composted) matter including chicken poo plants (and I mean mostly vegetables) love it.

Almost any prescribed drug has possible side effects in some people. It is just that on the whole they will benefit the patient in helping to alleviate symptoms etc. I know from reading my fathers drugs side effects that he takes for Parkinson's Disease he could suffer a wide range of them including hallucinations and other quite serious issues. The drugs after all do alter the chemicals in the brain. Thankfully none of the serious issues have surfaced for him and the drugs help symptoms of the disease.

I have no horse high or otherwise. Beside that I am well thank you.

You can dress it up as a noble crusade if you wish but the reality is you made a dumb remark about the persons partner not the individual or better yet the concepts they were speaking about. In any case if you want to combat hatred of others why not actually put forward a positive argument rather than a sarcastic one.

Yes it should.

Themselves maybe but not an innocent 3rd party you said "...or is she a self-hating Indonesian?" not a comment ridiculing the poster at all but someone else. You said "I am afraid" twice why are you so afraid or is it you are being condescending? I am not going to be drawn into hypothetical discussions about what this or that represents to support your position. I am saying you are using poor and insulting tactics to forward your point of view and taking an argument far outside of what this topic is all about. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Meanwhile back on topic. I watched some of the Commons debate both live and in review on the parliament website. I thought it was quite a good debate on all sides of the argument. Several of the key players provided a strong contribution like Rees-Mogg (I know he gets derided and with good reason sometimes but I can't help like the chap despite his politics) Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and Seema Malhotra and Hilary Benn A close call in the vote but the government won the vote and the House of Lords have passed it now and so just rule ascent to now make it law. The debate on Nato after shaped up to be a good one but I had to leave it to have tea and other things. Not the point and you know it. You posted to sting the other poster by besmirching an innocent 3rd party . I consider that a line crossed. There is no need to bring the debate down to the lowest levels to get back at someone. We all live with dilemmas I have no idea if your point represents one but I do know it is none of your or my business.

I watched the live broadcast of the Ministers statement and following debate in the Commons (I know I am strange that way) it was quite moving and a very sad account of a series of awful events and a long overdue publication of a report into what has gone on in this hospital.

Oh come-on that is getting rather near the knuckle even for veiled insults. You need to learn to ignore rather than join in and be dragged down to that level.

I do not think they are quislings at all. It is just the democratic parliamentary process has played out and a it has voted a particular way. It will be interesting to look later and see who voted for what. Especially how many Conservative rebels there were and how abstaining Labour MPs effected the outcome. But that's just me being interested in such things. But that is the nature of democracy the majority wins even when the minority does not like it or that it may seem to be worse to the minority.

I understand but that viewpoint works just as well for a person who voted leave too i.e. why should they be held back by what you think is right for you.

While I agree with a general point that a vote for Remain was a vote for the status quo and so to a point a known entity. Your attempt at invalidating a point someone might make with disdain is not altogether reasonable. None of us has a crystal ball we do not know what the future holds and although a Remain vote was a "more of the same please" response it does not mean people know exactly what they may get as a consequence in the future. More so than a Leave vote but still plenty of room for surprises. For example it is quite possible that the EU would try and force the UK to take the Euro as a currency. There are plenty of reasons to think that is what they are planning to do to Sweden in the next couple of years or so. Now some may say that would be a good idea others would not but it may not be what all people expected from a remain vote. The future is less certain for the UK than it might have been but it does not mean that it will be a disastrous one either. People have voted to throw the dice and take a chance that it will be better. For many (I think) it is tempting to forget the UK prior to 2016 was not a sunny upland of opportunity for all and neither is it now. I am not saying that the problems of the UK prior to the referendum are due to the EU (some would) but I think it is true to say people wanted change and a shake-up and that is what they are getting. Whether the outcome will be better than before or worse is an open question but that is in the nature of taking a chance on something new.

It would be highly unusual/rare for the Lords to vote down a bill introduced by the Commons but it is not unknown or not possible and only beyond 3rd reading in specific circumstances. The Lords, thanks to the Salisbury Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention ) will not vote down a bill that has been introduced by the House of Commons or rather the government of the day because of an election manifesto promise/policy i.e. a bill that introduces a bill in support of something people have voted for in a general election e.g. Brexit. Although to be clear the convention is not formalised in terms of being the law but to break it would be a constitutional/Parliamentary crisis. None of which will stop the Lorsds making noise and demonstrating they are unhappy with events or the bills contents. The Lords is able and does introduce its own bills for consideration. So, the Lords can and does vote down its own bills sometimes. All bills go through the same set of processes and stages but they can start in either house. The Parliament Act of 1911 and 1949 does legislate for limitations on what the Lords can do in terms of stopping a bill introduced in the Commons. They have no power of veto much anymore other than the power to veto an extension of parliament beyond a 5 year term and a few other things. They can delay a bills passing for a year or so. Private bills are not subject to the acts restrictions. More details here https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/ The most recent rejection of a government bill ( I can think of) was one on Tax Credits in 2015 and prompted a review of the Powers of the House of Lords.

It is not anti-democratic to say an event like the Brexit referendum result is wrong. I think you are confusing a democratic act with a personal freedom of speech and action in a free society. At times Democracy (universal suffrage of people over an agreed age to be able to vote for a government etc.) can seem to be at odds with personal freedoms e.g. not accept what a majority has voted for. They with closer examination are not at odds but part of a free society that allows a person to have contrary opinions from a voting majority. It's OK it's part of being free. Of course it works all ways and you are also allowed not to like that. With regard to my own twopenn'th then I am OK with people wanting a different result or another referendum although I also think that a new referendum is not required or desirable but I do think that there should be a debate and vote in Parliament on the negotiated deal and if they don't like it what to do next. I also think that although I do not like referendum on principle we had one and although the result was not what I voted for once you have had it you have to go with and respect the result.

The hereditary peerage is an odd thing (and has no merit element just the accident of birth) but not confined to the UK quite of a lot of Europe has them. They do not on the whole play a part in parliament though. There is no right as I said for a son to sit in the house of Lords because their father did. The current count of Lords sitting in the house is 784. It was talked about as an interim state but there was no particular time limit placed on when it would change again. It has rather become the defacto status quo in reality with presently no motivation to do much else. That may suddenly change of course if the Lords rebel against Brexit too much. On the whole I agree but worrying too much about these titles is a little aside from the main point as in all likelihood if you stripped them of these titles the families are likely to still be in possession of large amounts of property, land and money and the power that often goes with it. We can get too caught up in titles when there is other more important issues in creating a fair society.