Nightbird

There is nothing worse than being lectured to by morally superior goody goodies about what you're supposed to find funny and not.

16 minutes ago, bendix said:

 many are too busy watching daytime tv and Love Island to care that much.

While ever people are comfortable in their own terms and within their own lives, they'll forgive the top 1%. The British establishment understand this which is why we're well served with a rich and diverse entertainment industry catering for every level of taste, and with well stocked shops full of relatively cheap sweet and salty food.

5 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The left are perpetually angry because they see that in 2019 there are still huge inequalities in society and those inequalities seem to be increasing rather than diminishing. 

 

Not sure why the right are angry as they are living in a conservative monarchy where the acquisition of wealth has more importance than the good of the people as a whole.

 

Angelfire is an oddball as a working class ex lorry driver who seems to support those who have devalued him throughout his working life.

We live in a left wing capitalist society. The idea of that 100 years ago would have seemed mad, but its where we are.

32 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Are you trying to claim that there isn't?

In the entertainment industry Its not as simple as men are paid more than women. Some women are paid more than men, some women are paid more than other women, and men are paid more than other men. People are not paid equally. In the broadcast/entertainment industry you can't equalise pay as what individuals (we're all individuals, not homogenous groups) are worth is completely subjective, and can depend on you and/or your agents negotiating skills.

I have no spite towards the staff that will need to find new jobs, but this is good news. The gambling industry is terrible and damages people.

Just now, Borista336 said:

winning is everything or else what is the point of taking part??? if you dont strive to win you never will?

 

Speaking personally, when playing pool, so long as I've had a good enjoyable close game, I'm not bothered when I lose, but I suppose you think I should go away and quietly kill myself for being such a loser?!

Just now, Janus said:

Huw Edwards is on over half a million now. More than the prime minister lol. 

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/news-anchor-huw-edwards-now-bbcs-highest-paid-journalist-after-big-beast-pay-cuts-but-bbc-women-say-still-far-to-go-on-pay-equality-full-list-of-salaries/

 

 

 

 

Much more than most other male news presenters, but the feminists will have you believe that its a gender pay gap.

26 minutes ago, lil-minx92 said:

Surely the whole point of sport is that it is competitive? Kids need to learn how to deal with not winning (try harder) and how to win graciously, otherwise when the get out into the world which like it or not is competitive they will not be well equipped to cope.

I agree but lets not be like the Americans about it; their winning is everything attitude that they like to outwardly project, masks a collective  psychological weakness they have.

On ‎26‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 14:58, Voice of reason said:

 

I'm just interested in why a jointly beneficial fta requires the pooling of sovereignty that we have engaged in so far.

Europe including Britain, should pool its sovereignty.

On ‎30‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 08:59, Annie Bynnol said:

Mavericks, outsiders, independents and serendipity all move science forward and it would be a very dark day for understanding if this changed. Wallace and Darwin developed their theories of evolution independent of each other, independent of any institution, in isolation thousands of miles apart in the remotest parts of the world.

They submitted their work to public scrutiny and without publicity. They did not mock or rubbish previous work or the opinions of their peers. Over the decades they accepted change to their theories from new evidence. Neither became 'institutionalized' and rejected most of the gongs and honours offered.  That's being an outsider. That's getting it right.

 

This lot love institutions, conferences, publishing  papers and award ceremonies so much they create their own.

They are desperate to belong  to the mainstream but have been rejected. 

 

They have been rejected because science relies on  the rigorous testing.  So far their peers from around the  world  have shown that they have failed to meet these standards.

Isaac Newton said that "I saw further than others because I stood on the shoulders of giants".

11 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Seems very unlikely to be anything to do with personal politics.  It's far more likely to do with levels of academic achievement, which are closely linked to levels of relative prosperity or poverty.

UK Chinese btw are one of the most likely groups to go onto higher education.  So I've no idea how you've identified a low number of UK Chinese at universities.  Their proportion at uni is over represented compared to the proportion of the population they make up.

 

I'm slightly confused as to why you're grouping together a religion a sub continent and an entire continent of people though.  You're talking about UK born students at a guess, the people I know of african descent are just as distributed on the political scale as the caucasians I know.

 

I think the fact that you call something an agenda actually tips your hand and your own agenda to be honest...

Its the very westernised, secular BME's that are open to progressive agendas, if they are. As for the Chinese, I'm told they generally keep themselves very much to themselves within universities, as they do in general society.

If universities are so anti-racist and right-on, why is the lack of BME students in them a thing? could it be the fact that many BME people, such as Muslims, Sikhs, Africans and Chinese, etc, are moderately conservative, with a small c, in nature, and that universities being in the grip of such Bolshevik type far left mobs is putting many of them off?

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

I disagree.  The University offers an education not a job.  There is a strong argument that the guy shouldn't be a social worker because of his views.  That would be up to any future potential employer, not a provider of education.

 

However, that doesn't mean he should be denied an education.

How many Muslim, Indian, and African doctors do you think truly buy in to all this self-identifying, trans people agenda? lets be honest many of them won't buy into it at all.

In general, mobile phones being multi media devices are an absolute scourge on society. My phone makes/receives calls and texts only, and has a basic camera on it.

3 minutes ago, bendix said:

Given that Sky News is this morning reporting that around 1 in 10 people put dirty nappies out with their recyclables, it could be that the 'pyoo' smell is coming from something more obvious.

 

Seriously, what are people like?

 

 

Well I can assure you in my case its nothing to do with nappies.

Speaking of nappies though, I was disappointed to see nappies left around Hillsborough park during that Owls In The Park event last weekend. There are some horrible people.

On ‎02‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 11:12, Octopus99 said:

It might be worth getting in touch with Cosatto. We had a Mamas and Papas pram, and a few years ago they were able to do a full valet and safety check on it in preparation for our second child. 

If not, my friend used a company in Chesterfield, I think, called Rascal Baby. 

You're perfectly entitled to spend your money as you wish of course, but seriously, you'd pay through the nose to have a premium company clean and check the pram??

3 minutes ago, Halibut said:

How do you suggest the government enforce this idea of yours?

Furthermore, do you think the government should compel Universities to, for example,  allow homphobic students to become teachers or social workers? Should the government make Universities allow racists to train as doctors?

There is a degree of government oversight over universities, and there are measures a government can take, like shutting down the bogus ones for instance, which was done a few years back.

3 minutes ago, Halibut said:

There are plenty of places where he can do exactly that - but you still haven't addressed what you mean by the government forcing neutrality on Universities - nor have you addressed the questions posed by Cyclone in post 473.

When you say "plenty of places" I take it you mean, not universities?

On neutrality, I just mean that obnoxious blow hard leftie students shouldn't be allowed to form mobs, enforcing "safe spaces" which are just an excuse for people to block out views different to their own.

As for cyclones questions, I'm not indulging his hysterical godwins law nonsense. 

They should just be places where someone like Jacob Rees Mogg can give a talk without being set upon by an aggressive ugly mob. Is that too much to ask?

Don't the council, or whoever it is, do audits of road signage? I think its laughable that there is a sign on Rivellin valley road warning of ice!

21 minutes ago, francypants said:

Surely if the top is screwed on the empty bottle it doesn't smell.  Mine don't.

I should have mentioned that the tops are not on mine; I'm sure I heard somewhere that the tops are not recyclable like the bottles, so I've always removed them before putting them in the recycling bin.  

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

Seeking clarification isn't unreasonable

I think I answered it in the second paragraph of post 468.

Just now, Halibut said:

Then what did you mean when you mean when you said the government should force neutrality in Universities?

What is this, 20 questions? 

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

Because that's what the Secretary of State and the government decided would happen.   See Communications Act 2003  (sec 364).

 

Paying for a general licence to  be able to watch live broadcast television is one thing, but an increasing amount of people resent it paying for one particular broadcaster.

6 minutes ago, Halibut said:

I suspect you mean tell Universities what they can and can't teach - it's a signature of fascist states.

Even as you were typing that out you must have known that isn't what I meant at all. How does neutrality mean "tell Universities what they can and can't teach"? I think you're just a troll.

Universities seem to be overrun with the far, far left at the moment, shutting down any one that doesn't subscribe to hivemind. Within the bounds of reason, all points of view should be aired in universities.

3 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Doesnt work like that.  Its not a BBC subscription service linked to a set top box. 

 

The law requires anyone receiving any live broadcast television on any device to have a licence to receive it.

Why is the license fee linked to the BBC?