 | Forum
Reply | Wetherspoons
at 22:58 31 Aug 2025
" all the bio engineered bugs being released into the world
Big Pharma spends billions trying to engineer genetically modified life"
What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to talk about vaccines? GM foods? Genomes? Based on the above you are about as sticky for believing conspiracy theories as a Wetherspoons carpet. |
| Forum
Reply | Religion and the far right
at 10:18 19 Aug 2025
Stop thinking of "millionaires" or "the rich" as one group. You need to think about what is meant by "rich". Someone can own a painting worth millions and not have a penny to feed themselves. So sell the painting then, you say. Now imagine that instead of a painting it's a farm. where you have sweated all your life to keep it going, working 7 days a week, yet you can't pay the bills. And when you die, instead of it passing to your son to keep going, you have to sell it to pay "inheritcance tax", because you are a "millionaire" apparently. yet the son according to Labour and to you, is a "Millionaire", just the same a James Dyson, but can't afford a new T V or a holiday let alone the time to take one. Did you make the value of your land rise astonomically? Or was it Tesco down the road getting planning permission to build a new superstore? Should you be forced to sell an asset because of what somebody else did rather than yourself? Your second sentence makes the crazy assumption that without actually knowing anything at all about the people in boats, they must all be telling the truth - because they are in a boat rather than going through immigration.. A bit counter intuitive don't you think? Isn't it funny how many of them claiming to be kurds or Iraqis can actually speak only Albanian? But still, according to your logic because they are sat in a rubber boat they must be kurds or Iraqis, and they must be innocent victims, not economic opportunists with a load of money. Oh yes, and you must also believe that they are more deserving than the ones left behind in Iraq or wherever because they had $10000 in cash to pay the people smuggler. Now how did they come by that money? [Post edited 19 Aug 10:51]
|
| Forum
Reply | Religion and the far right
at 16:21 12 Aug 2025
I don't miss points, I just clarify them. FOr instance, with recent immigration at just under 700,000 pa, is your solution to the Health and Care sector shortages a sustained immigration rate that will see a further3.5 million immigrants by 2030? do you imagine 3.5 million vacancies in these sectors? For comparison the entire NHS currently employs around 1.2 million including contract staff and an uptake last year of just 38,000, so tell us what happens to the (over) 3 million "spares"? Are you going to address the issue or not? By your own admission you don't believe in fair taxation, just a system that you don't have to pay any more towards - just get those already paying far more than you to pay even more again and you don't even break sweat. Laughable unworkable, impactical hypocritical Corbynistic bollocks. |
| Forum
Reply | Religion and the far right
at 18:56 8 Aug 2025
It can't be that clear if you are that wrong can it. As others have said, I pointed out that a figure of nearly 700, 000 is unsustainable. If we had net immigration of around 100,000 based on a previously offered position whether in education, health, IT or wherever (as Australia does) then we would have a stable and prosperous growing economy, not a huge offshore refugee camp with no jobs, no income, no tax contribution..... . Labour could remediate this by removing the right for dependents to immigrate on the back of a sole job offer, by repatriating failed asylum seekers, by tightening up loopholes such as bogus colleges offering bogus courses, properly scrutinising bogus tourist visas......... THey could improve the fiscal situation if they removed the triple lock on pensions. If they stopped caving in and abandoning policies that work, such as the recent WEfare Bill, now a watered down waste of time. The Winter Fuel Allowance Fiasco....
And your Corbynist notion of "taxing the rich" is puerile rubbish. The top 10% taxpayers pay 60% of the income tax revenue already,not to mention many other taxes, and they are leaving the UK in droves. So who is going to pay that shortfall instead? Yes the not so rich, so great solution - You;ve just plled more tax on the average wage earners by trying to strangle another group who already pay far more than the lower earners anyway. If there's any greed around it comes from those who think they can avoid paying any share of the defecit by just trying to dump the entire liability onto another group. Austerity should not be a dirty word. It's a bloody necessity already. |
| Forum
Reply | Religion and the far right
at 17:35 7 Aug 2025
I see. So when I checked your data (which you obviously didn't) I see that NHS staff totals rose by 38,000 in the year to March 2025, whereas immigration to the Uk stood at 690,000. So where, pray are the other 652,000 going to work, or are they just there to become the NHS customers that actually require an additional 38,000 staff to service, in some nightmare version of Stalinist job creation? Perhaps we need 652,000 additional Deliveroo drivers, unless you can think of something else for them to do? |
| Forum
Reply | Religion and the far right
at 17:29 7 Aug 2025
Using your model means immigration has to continue (albeit at its ludicrously inefficient rate of less than 10% of the numbers actually filling the posts you claim to be necessary) indefimitely, since - according to your model - every year the population will be even higher , requiring even more nursing staff Ad Nauseam. So I'll ask you again, when, and how do you propose to break out of this ridiculous unsustainable model, or will it continue until the entire country is as teeming as downtown Hong Kong, and even then still needs immigration to feed itself? Any date plus or minus ten years along with a method will do. |
| Forum
Reply | Religion and the far right
at 17:17 6 Aug 2025
If you're trying to defend the current rate of immigration as either sustainable or sensible then you are not as smart as you think you are. The rate last year of nearly 700,000 is unsustainable. It is not Racist to call this lunacy. We cannot build houses at this rate, Our infrastructure and services cannot sustain this rate. Our economy cannot sustain this rate. Moreover it is sophistry to subtract emigration from immigration figures and then just refer to the net amount. People leaving the UK are already integrated into the Society they are leaving. Those arriving are not. And before dismissing those concerns at the rate of immigration as "Racist" (which they are not) many people arriving in the UK will not integrate with the language, customs and culture of their new host nation and are not enccouraged to do so, which is also a mistake and sends a message that such values and customs are not worth attaining. In other words we are replacing a united nation with a disunited and divided one Yes many immigrants bring skills with them into a post to which they have been appointed. They represent a minority of those coming in. Do not use them as the yardstick for the half million or so that are now arriving each year. And if you think the current rate of immigration is "a good thing" when do you think we will reach the limit of what this small, overcrowded nation can sustain? What then? |
| Forum
Reply | Nickname For Bournemouth Fans
at 12:57 19 Feb 2025
We all did basic flying training at Culdrose, for a few months, starting on Fixed Wing then progressing as the Navy saw fit. |
| Forum
Reply | Nickname For Bournemouth Fans
at 10:39 19 Feb 2025
I told you. Because your theory was demonstrably wrong. Here's a tip. Proper reasearch does not interpolate from a desired outcome retrofitting chosen facts that appear to justify your proposition. Any fool can do that and we see it on the internet all the time. Proper research works forwards, establishing the chain that links each fact before linking it to the next, and not just quoting the facts themselves. . And when you work forwards you realise that your string of apparent causation didn't work. The Essex Regiment theory falls down, both in fact and in reason. If you think the entire country in World War 1 would know Portsmouth the City as "Pompey" on the basis of a minor football team playing in a minor league as they did at that time then you are being fanciful. If you think that the nickname spread because the sailors came from just about every city in the land and all knew the Naval Base as such then you are looking at something that fits the facts. And finally, just to stress it one more time, the club seems to have thought its shirts were salmon pink, and nothing to do with "pompadour pink" at all. |
| Forum
Reply | Nickname For Bournemouth Fans
at 08:41 18 Feb 2025
You are starting to obfuscate in order to avoid thinking about what you are claiming. The mere fact that your entire theory hangs on the presence of an obscure territorial regiment from Essex who were only in the town for less than two years several years before the football team were even formed is all you need to think about. The Pompey Pink newspaper is a sideshow, as is the colour of the team's shirts as is a sports report fully thirty years after this obscure regiment had left Porstmouth never to return. Doesn't the record say "Salmon pink?" I don't need your definition of research to know what is more plausible. If you were a legitimate researcher rather than an internet googler you would have referenced the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. You've had enough of my time now, |
| Forum
Reply | Nickname For Bournemouth Fans
at 20:47 17 Feb 2025
Be careful when relying on the internet as a pretence of being well informed, because it will inevitably trip you up. You get an answer but cannot compute its relative significance unless you know the subject already. Your throwing in mention of the Childers Reforms as a titbit is actually a telltale. Army reforms don't seem to have any relevance the derivation of "Pompey" at all, but mentioning them makes you look like an expert when saying it - or so you hope.
It would be obvious to any former sailor that the reason "Pompey" doesn't appear in official documents (although I dispute this) is because Naval slang was nearly all formed below decks and below decks almost all sailors before the 20th c were illiterate and did not usually contribute to official documents such as ships logs where slang would never be permitted in any case. In the wardrooms nicknames such as Pompey were known and often used in conversation but would have been demeaning for a gentleman (as all officers were deemed to be) to commit to writing. However when you examine the private letters from literate sailors and warrant officers to their families the name is often used along with other slang names for bases. It was in common use across the Royal Navy ships from the 17th century onwards. I checked your fanciful story about the Essex Regiment of Foot. Apart embarking from Portsmouth for an overseas posting, on their return in 1866 they stayed in the Town for a mere two years before being posted to Ireland. Hardly enough time to make an impact, let alone for their colours to be seen as somehow emblematic? And then to stretch this even further and claim that the name of the shade of pink would be somehow adopted by the populace as a name for their own city when it was unlikely any of the soldiers even came from the town stretches credibility to breaking point. They recruited in Essex, not in Portsmouth. And as a reminder, the team's shirts were described as "Salmon Pink", not "Pompadour Pink", in other words as little to do with the Essex regiment of Foot as that regiment was to do with the town.
The Pompey Pink or Sports Mail first appeared on Saturday evenings around 1900 and was for most of its life known by its nickname. If you have seen reference to Pompey Pink it is likely to of or about or because of the newspaper not the shirts, which lasted only a short while anyway.Apparently the team had several colours in the early years.
You can keep flogging this dead horse , but it isn't going anywhere. |
| Forum
Reply | Nickname For Bournemouth Fans
at 11:10 17 Feb 2025
I have enough books about Nelson's Navy on my shelves to show me that the name Pompey has been in jackspeak for far longer than Portsmouth FC have been in existence, and having read the works of Cicero I know who Pompey was. Oh yes and I was a serving officer in the Fleet Air Arm (mainly in Guz) , so I was surrounded with the traditions of the Service for 8 years, which I think counts for something, don't you? I don't know whether it's you doing some fancy reverse engineering or whether you just copied it from some fan site but in a town that has been the home of the Navy since the time of the Mary Rose the temporary presence of a territorial regiment is going to cut no ice in the town as a sensible historia n would realise before chasing his desired outcome. The club may have played in Salmon Pink (not "Pompadour pink") for a time but again as they were a small club in the SOuthern League for much of it that is not going to dent a tradition that predated it by 200 years or more.Moreover a local name in the pre internet days meaningless to anyone outside the town was not going to spread worldwide in a way that a name spread affectionately by sailors on land and at at sea has done. I have never put anything on here that wasn't sense and fact checked first. Your explanation is a classic case of wishful thinking because you think it makes them sound like a bunch of sissies. You need to apply some common sense. |
| Forum
Reply | Nickname For Bournemouth Fans
at 09:41 17 Feb 2025
Pompey is a name that originated in the Royal Navy and was already in use during the Napoleonic Wars, which started a long time before any football club came into existence. You want to do a bit of reasoning before swallowing that sort of nonsense. |
| Forum
Reply | I think I will watch Rugby instead
at 10:12 11 Feb 2025
At least Rugby can operate a review process that works and doesn't treat the fans like unregarded money fodder. |
| Forum
Reply | Typhoo Tea
at 13:23 29 Nov 2024
I made sure we switched to TyPhoo at our last shop. They taste better than PG Tips and if enough people did the same it might just save a few jobs. |
| Forum
Reply | Why do people deny mass killings?
at 10:04 18 Nov 2024
Because nobody had a crystal ball at the time it happened you fecking idiot. Acting in a snowstorm of conflicting information so that the information on which the planning was based was stale within an hour meant that any politician -even poor ones - will be risk averse rather than have the sword of History hanging over them saying "They knew this but did nothing". The problem with the Covid reaction was poor execution and poor Governance but in the face of believeing that every hour wasted in talking was going to cost thousands of lives. It resulted in decisions that in hindsight were utter failuresm such as the stampede to procure poor quality PPE, but it wasn't all some kind of conspiracy, it was incompetence. WHat would be the purpose or the point of hatching some machiavellian disease? "To Control the population FFS?" Playing with statistics after the dust has settled is a particularly pointless task. young people pass Covid on to old people too, so considering what vaccines are you need to give them to enough of the population to stop it spreading person to person. THe maths of that have been explained enough times to show that merely vaccinating over 60s or over 70s or over 80s would not work. Jesus Christ it only happened 5 years ago and already the narrative is being rewritten by David Fecking Icke. |
| Forum
Reply | Brereton Diaz
at 09:39 19 Aug 2024
Sir sir, they did it first sir........ it goes on and on and on. Fans get cheated, and just because it sometimes works in their favour they keep tolerating it, then using some unrelated incident from seasons ago to justify it. Paraphrase Johnny Rotten - Do you ever get the feeling you;ve been cheated? Just remember that in a few games time when it;s a Southampton player sent off for an innocuous challenge, or a simulated dive in the box results in a penalty against Southampton. Sure as hell someone on Match of the Day will point out that Brereton Diaz fell over clutching his face in the opening game and the fans didn't complain at all. |
| Forum
Reply | Brereton Diaz
at 13:41 18 Aug 2024
He;s a cheat and there should be a retrospective rule for incidents of simulation - a one game ban should see less of it. The fans are all cheated by gamesmanship and it balances out over a season so nobody wins in the end. Worse though, in this case it galvanised the opposition and their fans to up their game - if Diaz hadn't performed his theatrics at a time when Southampton looked more motivated and Newcastle more frustrated who knows what might have happened without that incident to fire them up? |
| | GasGiant
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.