Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[Duty281]

Instead of a protest vote, then its better to spoil your ballot.

Ukip are dangerous because some people actually believe what they say, and they target the middle classes in areas of law multi culturalism - ( if thats a word). And as gets shown every now and then, the Councillors they put up have been shown as a bit racist. But its easy for them to make grand statements, because realistically they will not get voted in and have to back up the statements they have made.  

Have no fear, the nutters are getting kicked out at regular intervals.

And some people may believe what they say for, a lot of the time, it's common sense.

[Diggers]

What are basing them being the third largest party on...genuine question by the way. Is it party membership or polling? I've no idea of the top of my head who would have the biggest membership though one would imagine it would be the Liberals. If its polling I think we have to wait to see how the Euro vote goes and even then we really have to see if they can go on to win seats in the Commons.
Many more little incidents like this weeks and you'd think they would suffer, that said as I mentioned to Mrs Diggers, I'd imagine a lot of current UKIP voters (not all) have a lot of sympathy for the views or Mr Lampitt.
That said they will never become a major player when they have some party member comes out every month with extreme right wing bile.

[Diggers]

Instead of a protest vote, then its better to spoil your ballot.

Ukip are dangerous because some people actually believe what they say, and they target the middle classes in areas of law multi culturalism - ( if thats a word). And as gets shown every now and then, the Councillors they put up have been shown as a bit racist. But its easy for them to make grand statements, because realistically they will not get voted in and have to back up the statements they have made.  

Have no fear, the nutters are getting kicked out at regular intervals.

And some people may believe what they say for, a lot of the time, it's common sense.

And being replaced by more extreme nutters...

[Duty281]

Hmmm...third largest party being based on polls and that the Lib Dems are facing a bit of a wipe-out in the European Parliament. Could all change of course, but unlikely whilst Clegg is leader.

And, in fairness to UKIP, they do, seemingly, try their best to eradicate the extremists from their party. Previous BNP/Britain First etc. members are banned from UKIP membership, and there does seem to be a growing push from Farage to show that his party is multi-ethnic.

[beninho]

Its not common sense, it is usually sensationalist statements.Very rarely based on actual fact. Blame the foreigners!! I am still waiting on the mass influx of Bulgarians that we had to be so scared of.

Anyone see that ridiculous article by the Daily Mail, when they sent a journalist, who lied to get food bank vouchers, then claimed that it was an issue with the food bank charity.

[Diggers]

Hmmm...third largest party being based on polls and that the Lib Dems are facing a bit of a wipe-out in the European Parliament. Could all change of course, but unlikely whilst Clegg is leader.

And, in fairness to UKIP, they do, seemingly, try their best to eradicate the extremists from their party. Previous BNP/Britain First etc. members are banned from UKIP membership, and there does seem to be a growing push from Farage to show that his party is multi-ethnic.

The problem they have Duty, and I'm not sure that there is a solution, is that they claim to hate bureaucracy, structured party systems and red tape.
The realisation is that you have to vet you people thoroughly, and it just doesn't sit with their laissez faire approach. I've read a fair bit on UKIP and apparently when the techies and professional advisers try to help...and this is the only way you prevent incidents like last week.....then the old school guys cold shoulder them and force them out.
They are a party operating in the wrong century basically. And I don't mean they should have been around in the 20th either...

[Duty281]

Its not common sense, it is usually sensationalist statements.Very rarely based on actual fact. Blame the foreigners!! I am still waiting on the mass influx of Bulgarians that we had to be so scared of.  

Anyone see that ridiculous article by the Daily Mail, when they sent a  journalist, who lied to get food bank vouchers, then claimed that it was an issue with the food bank charity.

So if I were to say that 4,000 people a week come to live in Britain from the EU (quoted from the office of National Statistics), you would say...?

Anyway, it is more about regaining control of our borders and courts from the EU. Our sovereign power. Something we've never had a vote on.

Whether UKIP are the answer, and I have one major sticking point and a couple of minor ones, remains to be seen.

[Duty281]

Hmmm...third largest party being based on polls and that the Lib Dems are facing a bit of a wipe-out in the European Parliament. Could all change of course, but unlikely whilst Clegg is leader.

And, in fairness to UKIP, they do, seemingly, try their best to eradicate the extremists from their party. Previous BNP/Britain First etc. members are banned from UKIP membership, and there does seem to be a growing push from Farage to show that his party is multi-ethnic.

The problem they have Duty, and I'm not sure that there is a solution, is that they claim to hate bureaucracy, structured party systems and red tape.
The realisation is that you have to vet you people thoroughly, and it just doesn't sit with their laissez faire approach. I've read a fair bit on UKIP and apparently when the techies and professional advisers try to help...and this is the only way you prevent incidents like last week.....then the old school guys cold shoulder them and force them out.
They are a party operating in the wrong century basically. And I don't mean they should have been around in the 20th either...

Oh I'm living in the wrong century as well.

Victorian Britain, them were the days. Sometimes, looking at his dress sense, that's where I think Farage has been magically transported from.

[Diggers]

Its not common sense, it is usually sensationalist statements.Very rarely based on actual fact. Blame the foreigners!! I am still waiting on the mass influx of Bulgarians that we had to be so scared of.  

Anyone see that ridiculous article by the Daily Mail, when they sent a  journalist, who lied to get food bank vouchers, then claimed that it was an issue with the food bank charity.

So if I were to say that 4,000 people a week come to live in Britain from the EU (quoted from the office of National Statistics), you would say...?

Anyway, it is more about regaining control of our borders and courts from the EU. Our sovereign power. Something we've never had a vote on.

Whether UKIP are the answer, and I have one major sticking point and a couple of minor ones, remains to be seen.

Its looking increasingly likely that the big players in Europe might look to cut a deal with UK membership, especially if Cameron stays in power. I suspect this will centre around future restrictions on movement plus obviously sovereignty and finances.
You could make a case that UKIP served a purpose in making this happen, I think it would probably happen anyway. But its all conjecture really.

[GunsGerms]

The female in question, as I understand it, got pregnant whilst working as a prostitute (having first come to public notice by being given a breast enlargement on the NHS). She knows who the father is. He is reasonably well off and has said he would provide financially for the child. Then the Big Brother offer came up and she decided that she might have an abortion so she could do the show. I blame the producers of Big Brother as much as the female!

Wow what a bizarre story. Only in the Uk.

[incontinentia]

The female in question, as I understand it, got pregnant whilst working as a prostitute (having first come to public notice by being given a breast enlargement on the NHS). She knows who the father is. He is reasonably well off and has said he would provide financially for the child. Then the Big Brother offer came up and she decided that she might have an abortion so she could do the show. I blame the producers of Big Brother as much as the female!

The Big Brother house gets classier by the year

[skyeman]

Id tar anyone who thinks abortion is a bad idea a quack.

Sounds like you are quite intolerant of other views. Maybe you should open your mind a little and accept that not everyone thinks the same way as you nor should they?

Where have I said that they are not entitled to a view? Odd comment.
Tolerance though, for me that isn't making a girl have a baby that's unwanted. Clearly you can see the pro's in that scenario though.

  I am for the individuals right. Please check back.

[skyeman]

So i was right then  

You make the mistake of tarring all supporters of a particcular party with the same brush whether they agree with some polices or not.

Your way or the by-way.

Glad this is a democratic country.

Or tarring anyone who considers themselves to be religious as being a quack?

Agreed, everyone has their own views. But Diggers thinks that any that differ from his/hers is an idiot.

That i disagree with.

Remember, my wife as her faith.

[Diggers]

So i was right then  

You make the mistake of tarring all supporters of a particcular party with the same brush whether they agree with some polices or not.

Your way or the by-way.

Glad this is a democratic country.

Or tarring anyone who considers themselves to be religious as being a quack?

Agreed, everyone has their own views. But Diggers thinks that any that differ from his/hers is an idiot.

That i disagree with.

Remember, my wife as her faith.

No that's actually a complete misrepresentation.
Firstly I haven't based my argument on abortion as an anti religious one. I've defended peoples rights to religion on here many times, ask Super. In this debate I've talked about people enforcing their own moral position. That doesn't have to involve religion in the case of abortion.
Secondly I believe earlier you talked about tarring everyone with the same brush. Well I certainly don't consider everyone with a different viewpoint to me to be wrong on the vast number of subjects that might come up, in many cases they may well be right. I do however reserve the right to consider particular viewpoints completely unreasonable or indeed that support of a party holding particular viewpoints to be idiotic.
If you discuss evocate subjects you will get evocative arguments. I'll say again, I haven't seen one decent or sensible pro abortion comment on here.

[GunsGerms]

Agreed, everyone has their own views. But Diggers thinks that any that differ from his/hers is an idiot.

That i disagree with.

Remember, my wife as her faith.

Yep I got that alright and IMO that is just a form of persecution.

[GunsGerms]

No that's actually a complete misrepresentation.
Firstly I haven't based my argument on abortion as an anti religious one. I've defended peoples rights to religion on here many times, ask Super. In this debate I've talked about people enforcing their own moral position. That doesn't have to involve religion in the case of abortion.
Secondly I believe earlier you talked about tarring everyone with the same brush. Well I certainly don't consider everyone with a different viewpoint to me to be wrong on the vast number of subjects that might come up, in many cases they may well be right. I do however reserve the right to consider particular viewpoints completely unreasonable or indeed that support of a party holding particular viewpoints to be idiotic.
If you discuss evocate subjects you will get evocative arguments. I'll say again, I haven't seen one decent or sensible pro abortion comment on here.

Im not aware of any "right" to call someone an idiot or a quack. Though under section 4.1 of the Uk's Public Order Act 1986 it is actually against the law to use towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour

Im not sure if there is any precident for this being enforced or not.

[Diggers]

I wasn't using it directly against anyone, so I think you'll probably find that it would fall under the freedom of speech act and therefore be considered my right. Especially considering the word itself.
I'd hope so anyway.

[GunsGerms]

I wasn't using it directly against anyone, so I think you'll probably find that it would fall under the freedom of speech act and therefore be considered my right. Especially considering the word itself.
I'd hope so anyway.

The freedom of speech act contains a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

Had to google that. Nice try though.

[Diggers]

It also specifies how and where the words are used and in what context. So I don't think I'll have the internet police kicking my door down anytime soon.

[skyeman]

No that's actually a complete misrepresentation.
Firstly I haven't based my argument on abortion as an anti religious one. I've defended peoples rights to religion on here many times, ask Super. In this debate I've talked about people enforcing their own moral position. That doesn't have to involve religion in the case of abortion.
Secondly I believe earlier you talked about tarring everyone with the same brush. Well I certainly don't consider everyone with a different viewpoint to me to be wrong on the vast number of subjects that might come up, in many cases they may well be right. I do however reserve the right to consider particular viewpoints completely unreasonable or indeed that support of a party holding particular viewpoints to be idiotic.
If you discuss evocate subjects you will get evocative arguments. I'll say again, I haven't seen one decent or sensible pro abortion comment on here.

Im not aware of any "right" to call someone an idiot or a quack. Though under section 4.1 of the Uk's Public Order Act 1986 it is actually against the law to use towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour

Im not sure if there is any precident for this being enforced or not.

Spot on, just because i/you disagree with someone elses views. It does not make them a quack/idiot for their views, but you can however in your own mind think that they are wrong on any given subject.

Some extreme cases can of course be justified.

[Diggers]

I'm pretty sure from a legal standpoint I can call collective UKIP posters idiots. Not in public to an individual or group, but I wouldn't do that.
Freedom of speech gives a lot of slack.
On the quack abortion comment, I stand by my views. Unless I see a reasonable pro argument then IMO any supporters must be bonkers. Is saying bonkers allowed.
Anyway, Im off out for a few jars. Have a good weekend chaps.

[super_realist]

So i was right then  

You make the mistake of tarring all supporters of a particcular party with the same brush whether they agree with some polices or not.

Your way or the by-way.

Glad this is a democratic country.

Or tarring anyone who considers themselves to be religious as being a quack?

Agreed, everyone has their own views. But Diggers thinks that any that differ from his/hers is an idiot.

That i disagree with.


Remember, my wife as her faith.

....and you know that faith is simply the excuse people give when they haven't got a good reason to believe something, if you had a good reason, you don't need faith.

In regards to every other aspect of her life, she probably isn't mad as a hatter. In regards to holding a belief without a scintilla of proof or evidence to back it up is by definition the same as being gullible, naive, vascillating and suggestible.
It is literally the same as having an imaginary friend as a grown up, and therefore on that particular issue, she is stark raving bonkers.

There is NO justification for holding a belief until there is sufficient evidence to support it, if you believe one thing on no proof or evidence then you have to believe every other thing that doesn't have proof or evidence in the same way.

[skyeman]

So i was right then  

You make the mistake of tarring all supporters of a particcular party with the same brush whether they agree with some polices or not.

Your way or the by-way.

Glad this is a democratic country.

Or tarring anyone who considers themselves to be religious as being a quack?

Agreed, everyone has their own views. But Diggers thinks that any that differ from his/hers is an idiot.

That i disagree with.


Remember, my wife as her faith.

....and you know that faith is simply the excuse people give when they haven't got a good reason to believe something, if you had a good reason, you don't need faith.

In regards to every other aspect of her life, she probably isn't mad as a hatter. In regards to holding a belief without a scintilla of proof or evidence to back it up is by definition the same as being gullible, naive, vascillating and suggestible.
It is literally the same as having an imaginary friend as a grown up, and therefore on that particular issue, she is stark raving bonkers.

There is NO justification for holding a belief until there is sufficient evidence to support it, if you believe one thing on no proof or evidence then you have to believe every other thing that doesn't have proof or evidence in the same way.

I am totally a Darwinian and science person. Facts and proof speak for themselves.

Have to agree with the belief comment because i have always personally thought that anyone that thought that there was a god just wanted there to be something better in or after their life for anything to be worthwhile. A type of coping mechanism. And of course from parents to children over time but ever diminishing in this country at least.

Does that make them bonkers in other things? Obviously no. My wife is very intelligent with a good outlook on life, she just thinks that it should be a personal thing and upto ones own beliefs.

Many of the worlds past and present most intellectual people have believed in a god, which in it's self would seem like a contradiction to us, but if they want to believe it, so be it.


Do i think my wife is bonkers in that one respect though.  YES  But i love her anyway.

[super_realist]

I've no problem with people believing whatever they want, providing they keep it to themselves, don't try to assert it as fact and don't try to have it influence education, politics or culture or to gain preferential treatment such as tax free status. If they can do all that, no problem, but I'll still never respect their beliefs anymore than I'd respect anyone for asserting they had an invisible pet dragon in their pocket.
That would be barmy.

Wouldn't it be great if a British pro, won a competition in America (that would be fine for a start), put on an American drawl and said in his acceptance speech "Gee, I'd just like to thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for helping me win today and for favouring me over all the other people in the competition"

That's how crazy it sounds to rational people when they thank their god, not to mention the staggering arrogance that a god would care about a bloody golf competition.

[skyeman]

I've no problem with people believing whatever they want, providing they keep it to themselves, don't try to assert it as fact and don't try to have it influence education, politics or culture or to gain preferential treatment such as tax free status. If they can do all that,  no problem, but I'll still never respect their beliefs anymore than I'd respect anyone for asserting they had an invisible pet dragon in their pocket.
That would be barmy.

Wouldn't it be great if a British pro, won a competition in America (that would be fine for a start), put on an American drawl and said in his acceptance speech "Gee, I'd just like to thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for helping me win today and for favouring me over all the other people in the competition"

That's how crazy it sounds to rational people when they thank their god, not to mention the staggering arrogance that a god would care about a bloody golf competition.

Don't get me started on those multi-millionaire American TV pastors. Robbing frigs.

[pedro]

s_r, do you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real? It helped my through several tournaments.

Diggers, Abortion: Any individual should always be first in line to decide over his/hers body. You can agree or disagree with that individuals dispositions, but who are we to decide what a woman should do with her own body? (If there is a god, I'm sure he'll eventually let that person know.) That alone should be a sufficient argument for pro- abortion.

[McLaren]

I blame the producers of Big Brother as much as the female!

Is it just me or is that the most worrying comment so far. It is the sort of creepy language used by man who have zero respect for women in general.

[Diggers]

s_r, do you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real? It helped my through several tournaments.

Diggers, Abortion: Any individual should always be first in line to decide over his/hers body. You can agree or disagree with that individuals dispositions, but who are we to decide what a woman should do with her own body? (If there is a god, I'm sure he'll eventually let that person know.) That alone should be a sufficient argument for pro- abortion.

Sorry Pedro, was too eager to get to the pub. I meant any decent anti abortion arguments.

[golfermartin]

I blame the producers of Big Brother as much as the female!

Is it just me or is that the most worrying comment so far.  It is the sort of creepy language used by man who have zero respect for women in general.

I hope it's just you. I have a great deal of respect for women, and did not mean to imply any disrespect to women in general. As I understand the situation, the woman in question was quite happy to have her baby until she was offered a place on Big Brother. Now, if she didn't want the baby from the word go - fair enough, but to change her mind due to an offer of fame on a reality TV programme.....?

[Diggers]

Did the producers know she was pregnant, Id guess not myself.

[golfermartin]

Did the producers know she was pregnant, Id guess not myself.

Her story was in the press before she was offered the Big Brother "gig". I knew she had had a breast enlargement on the NHS before I knew she had become pregnant by a "client" and I knew that before the story about having a termination to appear on Big Brother. They were three separate storeies over a number of months. So I doubt very much that they didn't know.

[Diggers]

Fair enough, you are obviously a keen follower of the young ladies exploits GM!
I suppose just like any gig you can't exclude someone just because they are pregnant, and you can't really second guess the action that she took.
Still, all in all utterly mad scenario and she's clearly not fit to be a mother so probably for the best at the end of the day.

[Diggers]

Fantastic performance by Sarries today, Id love to see Ashton playing in an England side playing attacking rugby and actually trying to move the ball out wide. Suspect he's just booked a seat to New Zealand after today.

[beninho]

I hate football. Wycombe going to fall out of the league after falling in the bottom two with 1 game to go. Also hit a cat when driving, it got away so didn't kill it, but I feel awful still. Crap day all round.

[westisbest]

Hopefully Munster can win tomorrow.

Will be very tough, think Toulon win win.

[pedro]

Did the producers know she was pregnant, Id guess not myself.

It's quite simple: She sh@gged the producer to get on the show - and got pregnant.    

[mystiroakey]

Fantastic performance by Sarries today, Id love to see Ashton playing in an England side playing attacking rugby and actually trying to move the ball out wide. Suspect he's just booked a seat to New Zealand after today.

Unbelivable stuff from sarries. I had to look back at the score 3 times till it sank in.

Brilliant timing for Ashton, SL has so many 'good' problems at the moment.

Shame the first test is a write off as our top players will not be available - but them more names could step up i suppose.

I think we can get 1 win out there.

[mystiroakey]

Fair enough, you are obviously a keen follower of the young ladies exploits GM!
I suppose just like any gig you can't exclude someone just because they are pregnant, and you can't really second guess the action that she took.
Still, all in all utterly mad scenario and she's clearly not fit to be a mother so probably for the best at the end of the day.

I would guess BB could exclude someone from being pregnant- due to what they are put through its in the best interests of the baby for the mother not to be on BB, due to stress , the tasks they have to perform which include having to eat wierd foods, paint themselves in weird stuff, eat randomly due to restrictions and food budgets etc.

she would end up being excluded from most of the tasks for health and safety, so BB i doubt would ever knowingly take a pregnant mother

[Diggers]

I always said Conner Wickham was a top drawer striker...
Dodgy penalty as clearly outside the box but a fair sending off, I was hoping the ref was playing advantage.
Should be out of the bottom 3 tonight barring a collapse.

[mystiroakey]

the foul continued on in to the area diggs

so far play. good reffing- if connor did go down he wouldn't have got to the penalty area- so IMO honesty wins out- well done REF!(for once)

I do however think the red card is to much of a punishment when giving away a penalty

If you lot go down can you sell us Wickham- quality prospect

[Diggers]

Definitely now have a much better goal difference than the now bottom three, worth an extra point.
Two home games left, win those and we'd be safe I reckon. Not impossible a win and a draw would do it.
Amazing what a bit of momentum does.
After the DiCanio farce if Gus keeps is up and got us to a cup final...suddenly doesn't look too bad.

[navyblueshorts]

the foul continued on in to the area diggs

so far play. good reffing- if connor did go down he wouldn't have got to the penalty area- so IMO honesty wins out- well done REF!(for once)

I do however think the red card is to much of a punishment when giving away a penalty

If you lot go down can you sell us Wickham- quality prospect

Eh? If the foul was committed initially outside the area it's not a penalty...

Good on Sunderland though. Sure some hack'll be suggesting "Poyet for ManU" in the press now...

[mystiroakey]

the foul continued on in to the area diggs

so far play. good reffing- if connor did go down he wouldn't have got to the penalty area- so IMO honesty wins out- well done REF!(for once)

I do however think the red card is to much of a punishment when giving away a penalty

If you lot go down can you sell us Wickham- quality prospect

Eh? If the foul was committed initially outside the area it's not a penalty...

Good on Sunderland though. Sure some hack'll be suggesting "Poyet for ManU" in the press now...

sorry NBS the rule is if any infringement continues on to the pen area its a foul and a pen- it isnt where it starts- its where it ends- That is the official rule

[Diggers]

Why on why have player of the year awards before the end of the season. Never understood that.

[navyblueshorts]

the foul continued on in to the area diggs

so far play. good reffing- if connor did go down he wouldn't have got to the penalty area- so IMO honesty wins out- well done REF!(for once)

I do however think the red card is to much of a punishment when giving away a penalty

If you lot go down can you sell us Wickham- quality prospect

Eh? If the foul was committed initially outside the area it's not a penalty...

Good on Sunderland though. Sure some hack'll be suggesting "Poyet for ManU" in the press now...

sorry NBS the rule is if any infringement continues on to the pen area its a foul and a pen- it isnt where it starts- its where it ends- That is the official rule

Some of the 'experts' need some education then it seems. I've lost count of the times 'experts' have stated it's where the initial foul takes place and not where it finishes. Don't know why I should be surprised that football 'experts' get it wrong though.

Bollox! Chelski take the lead on half-time....

[mystiroakey]

well gonna be honest NBS they said that was the official rule during the half time commentary- I am only going of that!!!

[Diggers]

Yeah, it was Quinn who said it. Legend.

[kwinigolfer]

Liverpool missed your mate Henderson big time today, Diggers . . . . .

[Diggers]

Think you are right Kwini. That said they played OK but a tad lucky on the first goal and then trying to beat a Jose side when they are one nil up, always tricky. Still, Palace the form side, could well get so etching today.

[Diggers]

So looking at City's fixtures, realistically Liverpool need Everton to do them a massive favour and at least hold City to a drawer at Goodison. Ah, the irony of football.

[Sponsored content]