MrSmith

The taxpayers alliance has identified government waste that could save £120 Billion - enough to effectively wipe out the Uk's budget defecit, without closing a single hospital, firing a single teacher, or disbanding a single regiment.

 

Some examples:

 

Arts council paying £95,000 for an art instalation consisting of a skip covered in yellow lights.

 

Ministry of defence paying £22 for light bulbs that cost 65p.

 

£19,000 spent on a 'motivational magician' to boost staff morale.

 

£40,000 spent by Hull council on a concert to honour the new Lord Mayor.

 

£21 million spent by the dept. for International Development on a road project in Bangladesh that had to be pulled.

 

£720,000 paid by HM Prison Service to professional actors for role play to help inmates.

 

£330,000 spent by Stoke council on redundancy packages and then rehiring 25 members of staff.

 

£5,070 spent on hot drinks vending machines, when the equivalent number of tea backs would have cost £200.

 

(Source; the annual 'Big bumper book Government waste')

 

The list is endless. Why do we put up with it?

The reality is that about 3 millions public sector jobs depend on this waste.

Oh dear another racist attack against Muslims I hope all recover well.

 

Man arrested for attempted murder at the moment.

Not if is this is accurate.

A man who was praying at the time has claimed that the suspect, who regularly attended the mosque, was involved in a heated argument moments before the attack.

The eye-witness, who asked not to be named, said: 'The man, who is from Somalia, had been at the mosque for the last prayer of the day before the men started arguing.

It turned violent quite quickly. Some people tried to get the man to calm down and asked him to leave.

'But next thing he had stabbed the three men and everybody just panicked - it was an extremely scary thing to witness. This is a place of worship and respect - not a battlefield.'

"it is not compatible with EU rules". What sort of bs newspeak is that?

 

People going feel how they feel, with good reason, EU rules not going to change that, are they.

I like this bit.

incompatible with European rules” and with “the basis on which Europe is founded”

This is what is wrong with the EU, Europe wasn't founded, it’s a continent full of many different people with very diverse opinions and beliefs, and they can't all be expected to think alike, a small group of powerful people at the top setting rules that no one has agreed to, won't change everyone’s opinions and beliefs, but it will create more resentment.

It's simple... the sale of goods act basically boils down to 3 words "Fit for purpose"

 

if she's fit for the purpose of sex, then she's just that... her looks shouldn't have anything to do with it, you don't need her to look pretty just to have sex with her, which let's face it, is the reason people go to a prostitute!

But if he ordered a Ferrari with its sleek lines, but got a stumpy mini, both fit for the purpose of driving, he would most definitely have a case on the sale of goods act because it also as to be as described.

It is the oldest profession in the world, and prostitutes are the 'goods'.

 

Yesterday this was the top trending BBC article;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22887138

 

 

 

A man in Solihull recently complained to the police about a breach of the sales of goods act. The police did nothing, well they did, they warned him, the customer for wasting police time.

 

Was he right to complain?

 

Should the sales of goods act apply wrt prostitution?

 

What do you think?

He should have contacted trading standards and not the police.

i'll zap em with that muslamic ray gun!

.............

I think (given enough time) that I can prove spiders are not animals, they're life forms from another planet

Alienist.

Alienism

Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of Aliens.

Species

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

They don't have to come from earth.

The lack of housing is the problem. We can build 25 million more houses and have our population exceed 100 million, no problem.

 

We could increase our food production too, by using land more efficiently (in terms of land efficiency, not labour efficiency)

Yep if we are all willing to live like this.

Why should we thank God for immigration? Housing would be cheaper without the increased demand due to immigration. The population shrinking would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

He doesn't get that immigration is part of the problem when it comes to house prices, he doesn't understand that as we increase the population we can import more food from poor countries but we can't import houses and because our land mass isn’t increasing house prices will inevitably go up..

Whilst snoring softly last night, I dreamt I was at Heston Blumenthal's restaurant sampling his unique and tasty morsels. One particular treat was so fresh it was almost alive...but wait, it WAS alive!! I was startled from my slumber by the scramblings of Satan the Spider attempting to rehome in my oral cavity. Satan is the mutha of all arachnids, he has a cavalier attitude to procreation and seems to sire numerous offspring which then torture the life out of me. He's already appeared on Jeremy Kyle and his feckless progeny issued with ASBOs but little challenges their behaviour.

 

Now for those of you who don't know, I f****** hate spiders, in fact I'm so scared of them I can't even vacuum their dessicated carcasses from my carpet after an evening of indiscriminate insecticide spraying. Whilst god may well have invented all creatures great and small, there are none that he can claim paternity for that possess more than 4 legs, in fact the more legs the less godly they are..I guess that places the hitherto humble amoeba now at the top of the food chain..hmm.

 

Don't bother chiding me with "oh, he's harmless"-this is the Devil's spawn and this bed ain't big enough for the both of us!!

 

So my friends, gather round as I introduce you to the Electrifed Duvet Cover (patent pending).

 

It came to me in a hair raising flash having wet the bed with the electric blanket on...expose the wires and put the blanket over the top of the duvet-eureka, spider deterrent!!

 

I shall sleep soundly tonight confident in the knowledge that if Satan tries to squat in my mouth again (ooo-er missus) he'll be incinerated long before he gets there. It also has the added benefit of acting as aversion therapy for overactive drooling.

 

Sweet dreams

Speciesist.

It doesn't seem very fair that another living creature as to die just because you have an irrational fear of it.

Speciesism

Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals.

Not necessarily. That's true only if the mortgage is:

a. on the repayment basis; or

b. covered by a sufficiently successful endowment assurance policy.

a. yes good point.

b. do the sufficiently successful endowment even exist.

Nobody is forcing someone to buy a house. House ownership isn't the be-all-and-end-all of life.

Its not about owning an house, young people need somewhere to live and renting is more expensive than owning, paying rent is also for the rest of your life whilst paying a mortgage is usually only 25 years, after which time you are rent free, mortgage free and stress free.

---------- Post added 14-06-2013 at 16:12 ----------

It's an insane policy on a macroeconomic level

 

But for many individuals it'll be like manna from heaven - their own property. And remember this is about winning votes. And people like it when their houses are gaining in value.

I wouldn't give a monkies if the value of mine dropped to zero, I own it, its mine, I can do with it what I want within reason, and it costs next to nothing to maintain. Renting doesn't tick any of the boxes, rent is for life and in most cases costs substantially more than buying.

People who value freedom, the rule of law, and the principles of democracy.

 

next question?

We can still have freedom, the rule of law, and the principles of democracy whilst Abu Qatada is enjoying a reunion with his fellow countrymen.

Of course it is. I contend that your sole purpose is to promote ill feeling towards Muslims and constantly attempt to portray them and their prophet in a poor light.

 

I think such actions are likely to promote hate crimes, in asking you the question I offer you an opportunity to remove the suspicion that I and others reading might have that your quite deliberately encouraging a climate in which hate crime can flourish.

Just pointing out how violent the birth of the religion of piece was, and how violent it as been since its beginning. Most people despise Hitler and anyone that revers him, it stands to reason that most people should also despise Mohammad and the people that revere him.

I'm defining it by the scope of this discussion, was Muhammed as bad as Hitler; with the justification that he committed genocide on the Jews being used for the argument. Something that I do not believe to be true.

 

He did some bad things, just like an awful lot of military leaders around at the time, but to try compare him to Hitler smacks of double standards.

The only reason Hitler and his followers killed more people than Mohammad and his followers was that there were more people and better weapons during Hitlers rain of terror.

So Muhammed, by killing all the men who were old enough to fight, who belonged to a tribe who they'd just been fighting alongside until they turned against Muhammed, was attempting to wipe out all the Jews? That is despite letting over half of the tribe live, and without attacking the other Jewish tribes in the area?

 

Sounds like either a half-assed attempt at genocide, or more like a revenge attack, like that which Itinerary would probably support.

 

Isn't 6th century tribal politics fun when you judge it by 21st century western norms!

He didn't stop at that tribe of Jews, he continued as did his followers, it rampaged through the region conquering everyone in it's path until it got to Spain. Most sane people would condemn his action yet millions revere him.

You've contradicted yourself already, this happened a year before you allege that he committed the genocide.

 

Also this was happened due to conflict that occurred, he didn't wipe the Jews out in Medina, just the tribe he has at war with. Jews continued to live in Mecca, so to try to compare this to the Holocaust is wrong on so many levels.

Hitler didn't wipe the Jews out, does that mean he also didn't commit genocide. The point is they both tried which fits in with the definition of genocide.

---------- Post added 13-06-2013 at 18:42 ----------

Do you or do you not condemn hate crime committed against Muslims in this country?

 

Amaze me. Answer the question you've already avoided several times.

Its no relevant to the discussion.

Your timeline handily misses out several things. Like why did Muhammed leave Mecca (which then triggered the 8 years of feuding between Mecca and Muhammed's followers)? Why did the muslims start raiding the Meccan caravans? Why were the Jews evicted from Medina in 624? And so on...

 

Your posts make it sound like this was one man set out on a determined attempt to silence opponents and punish innocent people, when if you look at the history books, and judge him by his contemporaries rather than today's standards, anyone will realise you're talking cobblers.

 

It's worth remembering that while this was happening, England didn't exist, instead we were in the grips of constant wars, battles and invasions. Sound familiar?

But then there aren't millions of aderants that revere the barbarians of early England.

It's not my definition, it's the generally accepted definition.

 

What you describe here isn't genocide.

 

Your claim is clearly and demonstrably false.

So what the generally accepted definition?

No it isn't. He didn't kill the women and children.

He didn't need to for it to be genocide, he enslaved them, and no doubt raped them as is permissible in the Quran.

---------- Post added 13-06-2013 at 18:32 ----------

The episode you refer clearly wasn't genocide.

What is your definition of genocide?

That statement means nothing. Explain where, why and how you believe he committed the genocide, maybe with an estimate of the numbers that again you allege.

 

If I didn't know you I'd also ask you to provide evidence of your claim, but seeing as we are struggling to even define your claim, we'll take it one step at a time.

Posted 5 minutes after I give you the information for the second time.

You haven't answered.

 

Your claim is without foundation.

In AD 627, Muhammad committed an atrocity against the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina: the Qurayza.

He beheaded the men and the pubescent boys and enslaved the women and children. In doing this, he wiped an entire tribe off the map.

This is genocide.

No you haven't, you redefined genocide a few times, and you've reworded your original statement, but you haven't actually answered as to when did Mohammed commit genocide?

 

So can your back up your claim that Mohammed committed genocide?

He started in 628.

 

Where? When?

Already answered.

This is nonsense. Islam isn't a single entity - as was the Nazi party.

Besides, you have utterly failed to provide any evidence that Islam - a widely diverse belief system with no central authority - has attempted to exterminate the Jews.

Its not an entity, its an ideology which is based on the word of a man whom claims its the last word of God. It was spread using war and violence against anyone who wouldn't submit to God.