Ukip
#101
Posted 21 November 2014 - 09:37 PM
Bob Crow, the former leader of the RMT and self confessed former communist, was vehemently anti EU. Why was that?
#102
Posted 21 November 2014 - 09:53 PM
This post has been edited by bman: 21 November 2014 - 09:55 PM
#103
Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:36 PM
bman, on 21 November 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:
you could always answer the direct question though. Why would a confessed communist and left wing union leader be so anti EU if its so right wing to be anti EU?
Surely a contradiction?
Just seen Sir Dennis on the news, and his point about the NHS - "you want to send them back (cardiologists)" - again this is disinformation. Workers we NEED, ie, vital NHS workers would be welcomed, and given VISA and Work Permits etc.
These people would/should be welcomed with open arms.
I`m actually disappointed in Dennis for letting party politice get in the way of facts.
We don't need unskilled workers who come here to work, and claim tax credits as a way of getting a much better standard of living, when we have over 1,000,000 under 24 yr old unemployed.
Thats 1 million kids on the scrap heap. Are you trying to suggest 1 million unemployed kids, while we have several million employed unskilled migrants is a good economic and social policy?
Its complete madness.
This post has been edited by a kick in the balls: 21 November 2014 - 10:38 PM
#104
Posted 21 November 2014 - 10:47 PM
So the national flag is now a dangerous symbol? Not the black flag of Islamic State, or the Swastica - no - its the national flag. God forbid anyone now goes to an England football match, or support the national team.
Ye gods........what is the world coming to? Why not burn anyone at stake that has a tattoo of the flag and go the whole hog. Its a political version of the Spanish inquisition.
Its exactly this sort of political nonsense that infuriates the ordinary man, and that has lost the working mans support for the labour party, and seen the rise of support for UKIP.
#105
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:10 AM
a kick in the balls, on 21 November 2014 - 10:36 PM, said:
Surely a contradiction?
Okay, I'll answer the direct question. Because he was a moron.
I'll come back to the other stuff later.
#106
Posted 22 November 2014 - 09:31 AM
bman, on 22 November 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:
I'll come back to the other stuff later.
shouldn't that be "because you don't agree with him"?
#107
Posted 22 November 2014 - 10:32 AM
#108
Posted 22 November 2014 - 11:17 AM
calvin plummers socks, on 22 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:
that's a sweeping statement if ever I saw one............
#109
Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:44 PM
calvin plummers socks, on 22 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:
Keep St George in my heart keep it UKIP
ANOTHER EASY VICTORY FOR THE PEOPLES ARMY
#111
Posted 22 November 2014 - 05:04 PM
calvin plummers socks, on 22 November 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:
Think Jeremy Kyle...
as I said, what a sweeping statement.............almost bigoted
#112
Posted 22 November 2014 - 09:11 PM
calvin plummers socks, on 22 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:
Your crude description of Rochester is a travesty. True, Medway towns like Gillingham and Chatham have suffered from economic depression, unemployment and blight and are not pretty on the eye.
Rochester, by contrast, is an oasis of Dickensian charm. With it's towering Norman castle flanked by a mediaeval Cathedral, its pretty high street boasts a wealth of architectural gems from the high Victorian to the medieval. Architect students are taken there as part of their studies. There are not many places where you can drink in pubs that straggle the 11th-17th centuries. There are numerous gift and toys shops, cafes and restaurants and plenty of independent traders. As far as I can recall there are no - or very few - high street conglomerates allowed. There are probably more antiques shops in Rochester than all of the Medway towns combined. These things may not be to every one's cup of tea but, combined, they present something very pleasing to the eye.
When the nights draw in, the illuminated shops and cafes are a wonder. You almost expect Charles Dickens to tap you on the shoulder. In short, Rochester is a charming, extremely popular tourist destination and comes highly recommended, especially if you have a young family.
NB. Charles Dickens was a Victorian novelist.
This post has been edited by frearsghost: 22 November 2014 - 09:14 PM
#113
Posted 23 November 2014 - 09:39 AM
frearsghost, on 22 November 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:
Rochester, by contrast, is an oasis of Dickensian charm. With it's towering Norman castle flanked by a mediaeval Cathedral, its pretty high street boasts a wealth of architectural gems from the high Victorian to the medieval. Architect students are taken there as part of their studies. There are not many places where you can drink in pubs that straggle the 11th-17th centuries. There are numerous gift and toys shops, cafes and restaurants and plenty of independent traders. As far as I can recall there are no - or very few - high street conglomerates allowed. There are probably more antiques shops in Rochester than all of the Medway towns combined. These things may not be to every one's cup of tea but, combined, they present something very pleasing to the eye.
When the nights draw in, the illuminated shops and cafes are a wonder. You almost expect Charles Dickens to tap you on the shoulder. In short, Rochester is a charming, extremely popular tourist destination and comes highly recommended, especially if you have a young family.
NB. Charles Dickens was a Victorian novelist.
Lool was that copied and pasted from the Rochester tourist guide?
Dreadful town and very ugly area in general. Known as the outside khazi in the garden of England
#114
Posted 23 November 2014 - 10:19 AM
calvin plummers socks, on 23 November 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Dreadful town and very ugly area in general. Known as the outside khazi in the garden of England
I wouldnt go as far as FG - however there is no way you could say the town centre is dreadfull.
I can only assume you were on the wrong side of the river in Chatham and got your bearings a little mixed up.
#115
Posted 23 November 2014 - 10:33 AM
#117
Posted 23 November 2014 - 12:02 PM
calvin plummers socks, on 22 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:
That's exactly the sort of bigoted view that's making UKIP stronger. Instead of Labour and Tory supporters focusing on the mess their own parties are in to get disenchanted voters going to UKIP back on side, they just condescend and make snobbishly abusive comments about their homes and personalities as though they are some sort of sub-human culture and a class not worth dealing. The ordinary man then seeing how far removed the political elite and middle class supporters are from their class then take a stand against such arrogant views by voting UKIP who are playing the working man's party to get all the disenchanted on side.
#118
Posted 23 November 2014 - 12:14 PM
SpireiteFitzy, on 23 November 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:
I offer this link by Janet Daley - surely a strong candidate for journalist of the year - who writes, today, this excellent summation of the Labour Party's relationship with it's traditional voters and UKIP's growth. A must read for anybody struggling - like me - to understand the ramifications of Thorberry's tweet. A must read.
http://www.telegraph...understand.html
#119
Posted 23 November 2014 - 12:40 PM
calvin plummers socks, on 22 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:
What a ludicrous, uninformed statement.
Yorkshire is Yorkshire
Never the twain shall meet.
Again