Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 14 2017, 09:53 PM

Well, he's gone. Hounded out of office by a baying media who are or at least seem to be, anti-Christian. A politician who has done more than almost any other to promote the rights of the lgtg lobby but made the mistake of being a Christian. I've said it before, if a candidate came forward from the Muslim community I wonder if the same fate would befall him?
Didn't agree with his take on Brexit or to be honest many of his proposals but I'd go for a pint with him anyway!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2017, 10:35 PM

Farron wasn't "hounded out of office" for being a Christian, he stood down from leadership of his party because his prurient religious fundamentalism was so painfully incompatible with leadership of a party that positions itself as tolerant and liberal. It's a funny old thing, but Farron obsess over that verse in Matthew about marriage in the Old Testement tradition being between a man and a woman and he feels so very strongly about how other people should be living their lives in response to that passing comment by Christ, but he doesn't appear to have taken any personal responsibility and given all of his possessions away and that was the thrust of what Christ was saying.

Is that shirt polycotton?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 14 2017, 10:46 PM

Still a better man than that pseudo Marxist you swoon after.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 14 2017, 10:51 PM

"During the campaign, he was asked repeatedly in media interviews to clarify his views on gay sex"

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2017, 04:10 AM

Poor old Timmy. Christianity is incompatible with politics these days. Should have coverted. Would have been fine then.

Who will be the next leader?

Posted by: shedboy Jun 15 2017, 05:42 AM

I didn't vote for Mr Farron but admire him for sticking to his Christian principals. No Christian gets everything right, they just do their best to follow Christ.
So Simon 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'

Posted by: newres Jun 15 2017, 07:00 AM

That was my take on it too. He certainly wasn't hounded out. Perhaps he'll join the DUP?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2017, 07:27 AM

Is it? What is compatible with politics these days....aaah yes, modern, inclusive politics is just a matter of screching at each other and anything goes.

Quite apart from personal views, this sexual equality thing is an interesting point. Who decides (or indeed do we actually need to) what the 'rules' are? For instance, what's wrong with polygamous marriage, or filial relationships where they aren't forced and all parties agree? Then, similarly who determines the age limits, the commercial possibilities, or indeed the unforced opportunities.

So, how do we move forward? Or is it as its fast becoming today, just what the populist views is at any point in time - changing day by day?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 15 2017, 07:57 AM

What he stumbled on was being asked whether he thought gay sex was sinful which isn't so much asking for his views as asking him for God's thoughts on the matter, and while Paul may have filled half the New Testament with his prurient judgementalism Farron would have done better to remind the reporter that a person's righteousness is between him and his Creator.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 15 2017, 08:03 AM

Precisely.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2017, 08:16 AM

Which he did, on several occasions, still didn't stop them hammering at it though, wouldn't leave it alone.

Posted by: SirWilliam Jun 15 2017, 08:31 AM

It would appear, to the uninitiated ,that the problem is the religious doctrine as interpreted than the various sexual lifestyles that contravene .
I appreciate that man needs to believe in some higher deity in order to justify his actions but one would have thought by now the imposition of such teachings on those who do not subscribe is as unacceptable as ridiculing those who do .
Little doubt the LibDems committed hari kiri over the EU farce , as did UKIP , but one would have thought they could have protected their leader a little better knowing that his religious leanings could be his achilles heel .

Never a dull moment .

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2017, 09:51 AM

Yes, there are two issues at play here. Frankly, the first about sexual lifestyles is probably the more important and consequently the more difficult. What is the religion free answer? Perhaps that deserves a separate thread but unless there is an answer, we are stuck with religion of whatever shade being inextricably linked to politics.

Protecting their leader doesn't come naturally to either shade of Conservative, LibDem or Tory. Let's face it, both treat them like animals at a cheap zoo. All the time they are pulling the punters, no issue, pay and rations. If in the view of the zoo keepers they stop, it's bye byes time. Look at past history, Charles Kennedy, Mrs Thatcher and Mrs May is now just a caged lion. Ironic, only Jeremy Corbyn seems to have slipped the lock and avoided the tranquiliser darts. Must mean something, perhaps Labour are starting to get it right.

Posted by: SirWilliam Jun 15 2017, 10:48 AM

It's interesting to note that Corbyn is the one who has been on the receiving end of the most vitriol of the various leaders only to find himself as the most likely to be in his given position by the end of the year . May called the election in the belief that she would emulate the last "woman" who occupied No10 and silence those MPs who seemed to think the EU plebiscite was influenced by an over embuliant Borris and a bunch of northern xenophobes . Failure to understand the very people you rely on to achieve your ends must be a worry to everyone .
So in essence we are 2 down and 1 to go . Labour must now actually believe that they are electable and if I was Corbyn pushing for another election PDQ would be my raison d'etre .
Why would it be such as disaster to have a Labour Government anyway ? Yes Blair was a prick as was Brown but I doubt anyone would agree to be completely comfortable in Cameron's presence so , as the good old US of A will discover , if you don't like your leaders vote them out next time round .
The one thing I have learnt is that Politicians love to have their names in lights ,so being hounded out by a disgruntled electorate hurts .

Posted by: spartacus Jun 15 2017, 12:03 PM

He could have taken some time out by claiming to have diabetes 2. Let the circling media vultures get bored and move on.


He was different in that he was an open and committed Christian, which whether you believe in sky fairies or not makes a change from the faux-pious and pompous political leaders who turn up to Sunday services when the TV crews are around, or put on a facade for other religious events where their attendance is 'part of the job' rather than because they have a strong faith that someone above is watching and checking whether they're lip-synching to the hymns or not....

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2017, 01:07 PM

A bit like today, may visits a disaster scene I private, no camera no media, JC arrived with retinue, full on media scrum, full exposure. "Ooh, a disaster, time to win some political advantage, Diane! Round up the posse!"

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 05:08 PM

I guess May is feeling a bit vulnerable, seeing as it is her party that is starving public services.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2017, 06:04 PM

Except, by their own admission that borough is rolling in it. Does not compute Will Robinson!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2017, 06:07 PM

Im surprised she hasn't been accused of arson.😮
Social cleansing... Innit.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/15/grenfell-tower-fire-witness-claims-blaze-wasnt-just-an-accident-6711054/

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 06:45 PM

Rolling in it doesn't mean it is spent wisely; however, whether or not it is because of social neglect, the fact remains she will be feeling contrite right now. I see she was too scared to meet residents today.

So it does compute.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2017, 06:48 PM

Just give everyone a 5 bedroom house, wherever they want ro live. Simples. Surprised JC hasn't promised it... Yet..

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 07:40 PM

Perhaps we could see money spent on things that can protect people from dangerous environments first.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2017, 08:18 PM

Sadly, as you say, indeed it does compute.

Posted by: SirWilliam Jun 15 2017, 08:19 PM

Like wat elf and safety offer up ? Wonder how much tax payers loose change has gone on building regulations ? All very well promising us baskets of goodies in exchange for our patronage, but how about ensuring that the Country is fit to live in . Maybe this will act as a kick in the backside to all of those in power to put aside their political differences to act for the common good .

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2017, 08:24 PM

Would you support the demolition of all these 70s tower blocks?
I agree that they are dangerous eyesores. Where would you put the thousands of people though? They would have to be relocated from places like Kensington and they would resist. Not that I blame them for that. It is home to them. I don't have an answer and I doubt even JC does unlesss he landgrabs from the rich.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 09:49 PM

Dangerous yes, but eyesore is a trivial concern. It is too early to say, but it looks like people needn't have died for the sake of poor building control and regulations. If the reports are true, it seems fire alarms didn't work and an inferior building material was used; however, we will need to wait for the report.

In a country like this I find it incredible something like this can happen. It's third world stuff.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2017, 10:00 PM

The issue comes down to competence and good stewardship.

There is probably very little wrong with those tower blocks which were thoroughly structurally checked after the Rowan Point disaster. So we need to await the outcome of the enquiry as to the subsequent failure. High rise got a very bad name because the local government housing maintenance management of the time was appalling. Failing to keep common areas clean and tidy, failing basic common area maintenance such as lighting and lifts, failing to properly manage bad tenants on and on endlessly. Ironically bad practices exacerbated by cuts carried out by Tory controlled councils even back then. High risers in private or better condominium type management are actually much sought after.

I am fearful we are going to find that building control relaxations and standards reductions made in the name of increased efficiency and economy is likely to have caused the problem. An exactly similar situation to the dreadful safety lapses the railways got into after privatisation caused such a muddle.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 15 2017, 10:05 PM

100+ people by all accounts. Why not be truthful? If people lived there and have not been seen since then they are gone. Landlords should NOT be voting on any laws in parliament to do with building or fire regulations in Parliament. Conflict of interest. Would not be allowed in the Corporate world. Change is needed. But blame of individuals is dangerous. People are looking for individuals to take anger out on. It's the system that is broken. Fix that first and then look to see if any blame should be assigned.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2017, 11:23 PM

So, A, you 'just know' how she's feeling, and B, she didn't want a media scrum, you know? Show respect? Something the corduroy clown doesn't understand.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 11:36 PM

It's nothing to do with what she is feeling. If she wants to be a leader, she has to be prepared to do the hard stuff. Swingeing cuts are easy, facing the public isn't. Shes not fit to be prime minister; she's got to go before she can do any more damage.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 11:38 PM

And the banking system.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 15 2017, 11:40 PM

Agreed. It is too early to say too much, but a 20 story roman candle in the middle of London in the 21stC is incredible. It just shows how quick we have fallen.

Despite what it might look like, I don't blame Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg or May; I blame you and me.


We are seriously turning into a shoite country and Tory vanity is accelerating things.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2017, 11:55 PM

And Brexit!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 15 2017, 11:56 PM

And Brexit!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 16 2017, 12:09 AM

Fark the EU, this happened on their watch too, but I don't see anything getting better while we have a parliament like the one we have at the moment.

Posted by: newres Jun 16 2017, 05:14 AM

How is avoiding the victims showing respect? She's inept. Jeremy Corbyn has never been afraid of people. As time goes on the worse he makes May look.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 16 2017, 06:36 AM

That's just the point, this conflict of interest is exactly what the corporate world is all about today. Before the Tory 'greed is good' became the mantra we started to live by. Andy Capp is right when he says we are to blame here.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 16 2017, 06:13 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40285994

He's nicked my idea...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 16 2017, 06:28 PM

He'll be afraid of the people soon enough if he gets the top job.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 16 2017, 07:30 PM

And boy did that blow up in her face -- but she made sure there were plenty of media when she went to the hospital to visit the injured!

She constantly messes up the PR, she and her advisors are hopeless - she spends far too much time avoiding contat with the uncontrolled public, makes it look as if she's scared. Whereas Corbyn is at his best in such an environment.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 16 2017, 11:03 PM

Said the van driver. 😎

Posted by: newres Jun 17 2017, 06:03 AM

At least the radio works.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 17 2017, 09:08 AM

🙌

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 17 2017, 12:55 PM

The authrorities need to update the figures. I have seen figures banded about of 350.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 03:25 PM

They simply don't know yet. It would be almost impossible to guess until a search of the whole place was done. The intense heat meant some bodies would have been incinerated. Equally, given the number of flats, it's going to be hard to account for casual visitors. Frankly, 'the authorities' have more pressing things to do than confirm numbers with pinpoint accuracy - simply expect many more.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 03:39 PM

They won't be incinerated, probably find d them as lump of carbonised flesh, usually find them in corners, quite often of bedrooms, and under the beds. Usually in the classic 'pugilist' pose. Might be able to find enough DNA if they're lucky.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 17 2017, 03:51 PM

Also. Supposed to be 2 per flat. Talking about 600 in 120 flats. Most subletted. No criticism of that. But shows massively how much under estimated the UK population is. Unfortunately many many of the dead will be unindentified as they were not here legally.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 04:25 PM

That's almost bizzare; two per flat; where did that come from? As far as subletting is concerned, to me, its rather like ticket touting, the unacceptable face of capitalisim. Getting a 'return' for doing nothing, absolutley nothing. And people moan about benefit theft!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 17 2017, 04:41 PM

The 2 per flat was a generalisation so apologies for that. Officially just over 300 people lived in 120 flats. Estimates put it at 6 to 700 though. And if you are illegal you have to live somewhere...Again just relaism. No criticism.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 04:55 PM

Quite agree.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 05:04 PM

Presumably the tenants were doing the subletting?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 05:14 PM

There is a world of difference between taking a lodger, or indeed sharing accommodation and 'subletting'.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 05:16 PM

And do you know they weren't subletting? We know it's common..

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 17 2017, 05:35 PM

The definiton of sub letting is irrelevant. They won't have had contracts. Just a you scratch my back deal. The cost of living in this area is astronomical. The left has made this very political. I dislike that. Especially the likes of Linekar and Allen who seem to be co-ercing the have nots to riot. I would rather a full investigation be done quickly to hopefully put things right for others. Lessons need to be learned and it is no time for political procrastinating.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 05:54 PM

I was referring to this statement,. Where once more Tories seem to be getting blamed when it would have been the very people in the flats engaging in the "unacceptable face of capitalism". But I agree, the politicising of the tragedy is both tasteless and counter productive. Didn't stop Corbyn from bringing in busloads of activists all wearing the same t-shirts for him to lead through London. Half of these poor people have list everything, can hardly speak English and they get press ganged into the middle of Momentums finest. Doubt if even half of them even know who May even is!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 06:31 PM

Oh dear, the truth is starting to hurt isn't it.

Even before an investigation it's becoming very clear what some of the major issues are here; that is slack regulation and enforcement. As National Rail found out to our cost when it tried, you can't gamble with safety.

So in reality, what and how this happened is staring us in the face. Given the austerity cuts and what we know about the management process, the why it happened is also becoming rather more clear.

Sure, we need a detailed investigation, but we also need to learn some big lessons, like immediately. Make no mistake, this whole issue is actually what politics is all about.


Note - most subletting occurs with absentee landlords. People who take a long lease on a property then lease it on short term to others. Very very common in areas of high labour turnover and students.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 06:36 PM

The truth is that we just don't know and trying to blame may without knowing any facts is puerile and pointless. Still doesn't address my other points though.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 17 2017, 06:44 PM

Ha, Mr know all, the truth is ;
"Subletting happens when an existing tenant lets all or part of their home to someone else who is known as a subtenant. Many tenants need permission before they can sublet."
With thanks to the citizens advice.
Tenants, breaking contracts, nothing to do with landlords you Marxist puppet.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 08:23 PM

Well. My Fascist apologist, who can only think Google, define 'let'.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 17 2017, 08:39 PM

I've said it all along and I wont apologise but this is one of the reasons why we voted out of the EU. Uncontrolled immigration results in overcrowding and death.

Also showed up the demographic in London these days. The indigineous population no longer exists.

A lot of the victims will sadly be never identified as they probably never "existed" in this Country officialy anyway. Sad.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 08:46 PM

Err, citizens advice I think. Got a better source or just making it up as you go?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 17 2017, 08:54 PM

True, very true.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 08:57 PM

Sigh, CAB is not the source of law in the UK. If you want real legal advice it doesn't come free.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 17 2017, 09:05 PM

You don't need the law for a definition. A dictionary can do that.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 09:08 PM

Pointless employing solicitors then is it?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 17 2017, 09:11 PM

What? For a definition? Err, I would think I so. But if you like throwing other people's money around go ahead.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 09:18 PM

Apparently me and several thousands of others each day.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jun 17 2017, 09:44 PM

Ok, let's get a Queens council to give a ruling on what a sublet is then.
Why is the Labour party like the circus?
Because they're both full of clowns 🤡

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 09:53 PM

"Subletting"
"The leasing of part or all of the property held by a tenant, as opposed to a landlord, during a portion of his or her unexpired balance of the term of occupancy.
A landlord may prohibit a tenant from subletting the leased premises without the land-lord's permission by including such a term in the lease. When subletting is permitted, the original tenant becomes, in effect, the landlord of the sublessee. The sublessee pays the rent to the tenant, not the landlord. The original tenant is not, however, relieved of his or her responsibilities under the original lease with the landlord."

Posted by: On the edge Jun 17 2017, 09:59 PM

If you must.

Labour would be pleased with that, at least it's stopped the animal cruelty circuses were renowned for. There is a still valid old jibe about you Tory fox hunters, cant remember it at the moment.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 17 2017, 10:10 PM

Substitute labour members for foxes then, then it would be the unspeakable in pursuit of the unelectable. 😂😂😂

Posted by: On the edge Jun 18 2017, 05:46 AM

Does this mean that at long last a Tory has come out against hunting?

Posted by: SirWilliam Jun 18 2017, 08:57 AM

Never mind , the peasant (sic) shooting season will soon be on us and the the opportunity to indulge in " country pursuits " will thankfully result in a return to normality for those who have belief in their lofty position .

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 18 2017, 02:16 PM

I see the bulls managed to score one back yesterday. Good for them.