Politics Thread 5

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Squinty » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:30 pm

Preezy wrote:I find it quite disgusting that abortion is still illegal in Norn Iron. I assume it's purely religiously motivated? Muppets.


DUP. Fairly sure someone tried to put something through for it a few years ago and the DUP basically voted it down. Loyalist/Unionists are retrogressive wankers.

User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Garth » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:15 am


User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:35 am

BBC News wrote:The police operation for Donald Trump's controversial visit to the UK in July cost nearly £18m, it has emerged.

The US president's four-day trip saw nearly 10,000 officers deployed from all over the country with over 26,000 shifts worked.

Protests over the visit were held in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

The visit coincided with increased demands on policing linked to the hot weather, summer festivals and the World Cup finals.

Sara Thornton, chairwoman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, revealed the policing bill and said that "the majority of forces had to cancel officers' rest days, and extend the length of their shifts".

She praised the "hard work" of officers in ensuring that the "public were kept safe throughout".

In July the Treasury said it would fund policing costs of up to £5m for police operations during Mr Trump's visit to his Scottish golf course.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45820394

Let's hope he doesn't come back for a while...

Image
User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Garth » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:12 pm




User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Jenuall » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:14 pm

Garth wrote:


Thie coming from a man who looks like he's in the process of holding back an orgasm there.

ImageImage
User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by lex-man » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:24 pm

If he ain't getting any, why should anyone else.

Serious question, has politics always been this nuts or is it just me?

User avatar
satriales
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by satriales » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pm

Garth wrote:

Last week May announced that austerity was over and yesterday that nobody would be worse off on UC, surely she wasn't lying again? :shifty:

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by KK » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:46 pm

Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Image
User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Lagamorph » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:30 pm

KK wrote:Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Even if the Royal Family pay it's still the taxpayer picking up the tab.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by lex-man » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:31 pm

Lagamorph wrote:
KK wrote:Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Even if the Royal Family pay it's still the taxpayer picking up the tab.


The queen does make a fair bit selling mechanising crap to gullible chumps.

User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Tineash » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:15 pm

lex-man wrote:
Lagamorph wrote:
KK wrote:Discussing on CNN currently if the U.K. taxpayer should pay for security at tomorrow’s poxy Royal z-list wedding, which has even more guests than Harry and Meghan. Answer: strawberry float NO.

Even if the Royal Family pay it's still the taxpayer picking up the tab.


The queen does make a fair bit selling mechanising crap to gullible chumps.


In our future People's Republic, we will make up the shortfall by selling commemorative guillotines.

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:53 am

Image

Fetch me old brown trousers, bring them to me now, I'll wear them in the rigging as they fire across the bow. Fetch me old brown trousers, I fear we may be hit, for even if they shoot me now, they'll never see me... ;)
User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Garth » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:30 am


User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Drumstick » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:40 am

Charities and companies working with universal credit claimants have been banned from criticising or harming the reputation of the work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, The Times can reveal.

At least 22 organisations have been required to sign gagging clauses as part of their involvement with programmes to help people back to work.

Banned and required by who?

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:48 am

Drumstick wrote:
Charities and companies working with universal credit claimants have been banned from criticising or harming the reputation of the work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, The Times can reveal.

At least 22 organisations have been required to sign gagging clauses as part of their involvement with programmes to help people back to work.

Banned and required by who?


Charities and companies working with universal credit claimants have been banned from criticising or harming the reputation of the work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, The Times can reveal.

At least 22 organisations have been required to sign gagging clauses as part of their involvement with programmes to help people back to work.

The contracts, worth a total of £1.8 billion, state that groups receiving the money must “pay the utmost regard to the standing and reputation” of the work and pensions secretary.

They must “not do anything which may attract adverse publicity” to her, damage her reputation or harm the public’s confidence in her.


Basically if the charities want government funding, they are not allowed to speak ill of McVey.

The government has done a similar thing with haulage firms. If haulage firms want to be involved with government talks on Brexit plans, then they are not allowed to speak about it, even if the plans are strawberry floating awful (and they are!).

User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Drumstick » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:50 am

Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:54 am

Drumstick wrote:Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?


A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Drumstick » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:57 am

Moggy wrote:
Drumstick wrote:Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

Don't you try and tell me what I can and can't say.

So it's not legally binding then?

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Moggy » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:04 am

Drumstick wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Drumstick wrote:Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

Don't you try and tell me what I can and can't say.

So it's not legally binding then?


I’d imagine it is legally binding. Non disclosure agreements are pretty standard.

Whether the government would take a charity to court is a different matter. Especially if all the charity has done is say that McVey is a useless and heartless twat.

User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 5
by Drumstick » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:14 am

Moggy wrote:
Drumstick wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Drumstick wrote:Isn't that some form of blackmail or denial of free speech?

A gagging order isn't blackmail and we don't really have freedom of speech in the UK.

Don't you try and tell me what I can and can't say.

So it's not legally binding then?

I’d imagine it is legally binding. Non disclosure agreements are pretty standard.

Whether the government would take a charity to court is a different matter. Especially if all the charity has done is say that McVey is a useless and heartless twat.

Exactly. It'd make them look even worse and more heartless than they do now. :lol:

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 52 guests