British politics

Page 77 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The reason I posted the BBC article was being critical towards France's handling of the refugees or migrants whichever you prefer.
I read an article somewhere that was being critical of the Prince and his military service. That he had fired on afgans was in it. particularly interesting when you mentioned give them money.
Refugee and migrant aren't interchangeable, that's pretty fundamental to having any discussion around this topic.


So we've gone from Harry killing Afghan civilians to you reading an article saying he fired on Afghans. That's a pretty big shift of those goalposts. What about globalisation? How is it going to solve our problems?

To the bold, hat's a very interesting interpretation of what I wrote. Some might even call it dishonest. I'm starting to get the feeling that the rest of this discussion could be described in the same way.
 
Surely the Prince Andrew revelations are far more damaging for the monarchy than the Harry/Meghan Wills/Kate sideshow

On another point

Migrant - large defintiion covering all sorts of people including multi-millionaires to refugees

Refugees - those fleeing country where the conditions have become intolerable

Asylum Seeker - those fleeing persecution (will be a subset of refugees)

Neither refugees or Asylum seekers should be coming from the EU , unless we think the EU is not a safe place for them, perhaps after Brexit at some time in the future this may be the case

Anyway the meatloaf Mps are saying they are will do anything to stop no deal, which begs the question why they didn't they vote for the withdrawal agreement, (obviously those that did are excluded from such accusations).
Are you basing this on the legalist argument that all countries should be observing the Dublin Regulation? It's clearly an unworkable solution which is why some countries have effectively suspended it. If so I think that's a pretty poor argument.

On your final point, why would no deal or the withdrawal agreement be the only options? I know many of these MPs wish to remain which comes with its own complications, but I don't think this is a binary decision. The EU have hinted that they would be willing to work with the UK to develop a deal that is more beneficial to both parties (and I know definitions of what is beneficial will depend on your politics), but no deal or the withdrawal agreement aren't the only ways to leave the EU.
 
The pound is now at €1.1.

One of the idiot platitudes to fart out of the mouths of Brexiteers on a frequent basis is that warnings about the threat of Brexit to the economy should be ignored because warnings were made about not joining the Euro and..."look how that turned out".

Of course, the absolute lack of logic ito that argument is risible, because it is not based on rational thought it is superstitioun. But now it looks like we should have joined the Euro. Our currency is worth FA, and with business screwed it isnt as if foreign companies are looking to buy from British companies (as predicted by the Brexit fools)

Instead, foreign companies are buying British companies.

So much for sovereignty.

F'kin thick chumps.
 
@del1962
Are you suggesting that other EU countries should accept refugees and we shouldn't?

Go and read the Amnesty link I posted above about ACTUAL migrant numbers rather than myths.
No I think we should take a share of asylum seekers but these should be direct such as from refugee camps which would include more women and children, not those coming through the EU. This is a far better than rewarding people smugglers.
 
Jun 3, 2019
173
5
345
Refugee and migrant aren't interchangeable, that's pretty fundamental to having any discussion around this topic.


So we've gone from Harry killing Afghan civilians to you reading an article saying he fired on Afghans. That's a pretty big shift of those goalposts. What about globalisation? How is it going to solve our problems?

To the bold, hat's a very interesting interpretation of what I wrote. Some might even call it dishonest. I'm starting to get the feeling that the rest of this discussion could be described in the same way.
Migrants definition says it includes many types here is a link for a definition. Obviously I understand what you want to believe, that all heading into the EU are refugee's. I just disagree.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+migrants&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS850US850&oq=definition+of+migrants+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6322j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Are you saying I made up the Harry killing and shooting at Afghan's?
Since you are a moderator I realize that discussion on the same level is impossible so if what you need is a win, and for me to leave my opinions out of here just let me know.
 
Migrants definition says it includes many types here is a link for a definition. Obviously I understand what you want to believe, that all heading into the EU are refugee's. I just disagree.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+migrants&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS850US850&oq=definition+of+migrants+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6322j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Are you saying I made up the Harry killing and shooting at Afghan's?
Since you are a moderator I realize that discussion on the same level is impossible so if what you need is a win, and for me to leave my opinions out of here just let me know.
It's very simple, all refugees are migrants, not all migrants are refugees. It's like all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

No, I'm saying that your first claim was that Harry killed Afghan civilians which you then doubled down on saying he murdered Afghans from the sky. This was revised to Harry fired on Afghans. Those are very, very different statements.

It's perfectly possible to have a discussion with mods and disagree, it happens all the time on here. We don't moderate opinions (unless they are truly offensive) and I think we do a very good job of walking that line. There are several posters in this thread and others who hold very different positions to me on a range of subjects. Anyone who posts within the rules can post what they want. The issue isn't you holding different opinions, it's you changing statements, disingenuous reading of posts and attempts to obfuscate discussions by implying words mean the same thing when they don't. You'll notice that all I've done is point this out, this has nothing to do with me being a moderator.

Maybe none of that is your intention, but it seems a fair interpretation to me.
 
Since you are a moderator I realize that discussion on the same level is impossible so if what you need is a win, and for me to leave my opinions out of here just let me know.
In the case of some moderators, yes. I found this to be the case with a 'Red Rick' about a month or so ago.

But in the case of KB, emphatically not. Unlike some, being a mod is not central to his ego from what I can see. Post away, but he will hold you to account.
 
Jun 3, 2019
173
5
345
It's very simple, all refugees are migrants, not all migrants are refugees. It's like all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

No, I'm saying that your first claim was that Harry killed Afghan civilians which you then doubled down on saying he murdered Afghans from the sky. This was revised to Harry fired on Afghans. Those are very, very different statements.

It's perfectly possible to have a discussion with mods and disagree, it happens all the time on here. We don't moderate opinions (unless they are truly offensive) and I think we do a very good job of walking that line. There are several posters in this thread and others who hold very different positions to me on a range of subjects. Anyone who posts within the rules can post what they want. The issue isn't you holding different opinions, it's you changing statements, disingenuous reading of posts and attempts to obfuscate discussions by implying words mean the same thing when they don't. You'll notice that all I've done is point this out, this has nothing to do with me being a moderator.

Maybe none of that is your intention, but it seems a fair interpretation to me.
If my posts read disingenuous then i apologize.

When I read your post about the royal family not being a fan and giving money to Harry. I understand you were being sarcastic but I also think it is a funny choice considering Harry firing on, killing and in my opinion killing = murder of innocent civilians in some instances was a funny choice.
 
OK, so your queen is dragged into this, and she gives her consent - what? That's basically saying you're OK with political maneuvers to bypass normal democratic ways. Or, bluntly, two figures that were not elected by the public deciding matters that hugely impact that same public. And you were concerned with the undemocratic EU? What a joke.
 
probably more than you
I dont know what you know, which is why I'm asking you. But now that you are claiming to be knowledgeable you can back up your claim by telling us what you know, and how you came to know it.

Otherwise it might just look like another person with strong views based on no knowledge whatsoever (ie the Brexiteer speciality)
 
If my posts read disingenuous then i apologize.

When I read your post about the royal family not being a fan and giving money to Harry. I understand you were being sarcastic but I also think it is a funny choice considering Harry firing on, killing and in my opinion killing = murder of innocent civilians in some instances was a funny choice.
I think it's clear why I said I'd give the money to Harry and Meghan. I think it's probably clear that I'd also much prefer that we got rid of the royals completely.

We're back to civilians, which is fine, but you'll have to provide some link for this. I'll admit I read very little about the royals, but when I searched around I could only find articles saying he fired on enemy combatants (or words to similar effect), which is very different to civilians. Again, I'm well aware that the definition is applied to different groups depending on one's stance, so it's probably a pointless exercise but it brings me back to my question about abolition of the military.

I think it's absolutely fine to hold the opinion that Harry should receive nothing from the state for firing on Afghans. This position could easily be justified if you think the military action is illegal/unjustified. But it leads to the general question of whether any military action is legal/justified and whether you apply this opinion to all former and current soldiers?
 
OK, so your queen is dragged into this, and she gives her consent - what? That's basically saying you're OK with political maneuvers to bypass normal democratic ways. Or, bluntly, two figures that were not elected by the public deciding matters that hugely impact that same public. And you were concerned with the undemocratic EU? What a joke.
As far as I'm aware she has no choice but to consent.

Boris was elected, that's how our system works.
 
Reactions: Brullnux
Jun 3, 2019
173
5
345
I think it's clear why I said I'd give the money to Harry and Meghan. I think it's probably clear that I'd also much prefer that we got rid of the royals completely.

We're back to civilians, which is fine, but you'll have to provide some link for this. I'll admit I read very little about the royals, but when I searched around I could only find articles saying he fired on enemy combatants (or words to similar effect), which is very different to civilians. Again, I'm well aware that the definition is applied to different groups depending on one's stance, so it's probably a pointless exercise but it brings me back to my question about abolition of the military.

I think it's absolutely fine to hold the opinion that Harry should receive nothing from the state for firing on Afghans. This position could easily be justified if you think the military action is illegal/unjustified. But it leads to the general question of whether any military action is legal/justified and whether you apply this opinion to all former and current soldiers?
So my point about abolition of the military has to do with globalization. If globalization is accepted as advertised then a military is not necessary. No money to wast on it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-kills-innocent-afghans-while-he-is-drunk-says-mujahideen-leader-8435314.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/21/prince-harry-afghanistan

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-harry-afghanistan/britains-prince-harry-says-he-killed-afghan-insurgents-during-tour-idUSBRE90K0SF20130121

I believe the Afghanistan actions by the prince and UK were unnecessary and unjustified.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY