I'm not, you are! I was pointing out that even using your poisonous version of logic you were wrong
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Still making excuses for a thug? why are you doing that? would you treat a woman that way? note that no one else did.
Just how low can moral standards get in this country? that anyone would defend this man because they share a political attitude?
You saw what he did, there was no reason for him to involve himself , and if he had to , to resort to personal assault and degrading the woman in front of others.
The same individual tweeted this
"
[B]Mark Field MP[/B]Verified account @[B]MarkFieldUK[/B]
The UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe and protected in the work they do, so they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want. My remarks at the Westminster Hall Debate on Women Human Rights Defenders. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-05-07/debates/3C9476AD-C53B-4067-B576-07D632EE846E/WomenHumanRightsDefenders …
Obviously he can't stand to see women mistreated unless it's him doing it!
Hypocrite! and worse, violent and unstable with it.
Supporter tweeted this
"Elderly lady in wheelchair asked me to get a bag of lemon sherbets from the top shelf in Sainsbury's today. She had a handbag, which could have contained a grenade or similar. Didn't take any chances. Smashed bottle of sweet sherry over her head. Her reign of terror is over"
Image of the day
Tory vermin hardly describes this individual and the other vermin do nothing to intervene
What does this do for our image world wide?
That we employ low life like this to run the Country?
Last edited:
Another tweet
[B]Wirral In It Together [/B][B]⏳[/B] @[B]Wirral_In_It[/B]
BREAKING.@metpoliceuk statement released on banquet incident. "No charges to follow. @MarkFieldUK had reason to believe female attacker was comedian Jo Brand, armed with a joke."
[B]Wirral In It Together [/B][B]⏳[/B] @[B]Wirral_In_It[/B]
BREAKING.
Notice OG upto his normal tricks.
We all express our opinions on a particular subject, once or twice, agree to disagree or whatever. But not OG, he has to go on and on repeating, justifying and attempting to batter us down with his myopic view of world. Fact is, nobody ever changes their original opinion,infact quite the reverse. His dogma is merely a catalyst to reinforce opposing views.
Move on OG. We knew your opinions on this topic yesterday.
And, BTW, still waiting for apology over you making up "neat deals" comments. You, ve had weeks to find it now,a few sleepless nights looking no doubt.
We all express our opinions on a particular subject, once or twice, agree to disagree or whatever. But not OG, he has to go on and on repeating, justifying and attempting to batter us down with his myopic view of world. Fact is, nobody ever changes their original opinion,infact quite the reverse. His dogma is merely a catalyst to reinforce opposing views.
Move on OG. We knew your opinions on this topic yesterday.
And, BTW, still waiting for apology over you making up "neat deals" comments. You, ve had weeks to find it now,a few sleepless nights looking no doubt.
Trump says he was 'ready' to bomb Iran, canceled before planes lifted
President Trump says that he had not given the final go ahead for an Iranian attack when he called off a strike on Thursday night.
Is Trump as bad as made out. This incident, if correct, puts him at odds with his Hawk image.
Credit where credit due? Bush wouldnt have stopped it.
It is, of course, wholly wrong to point a finger at someone suggesting that they will in future do something criminal by intent. Everyone has the chance to step back and re-consider.
But if the EU parliament rules on expenses were subject to the same recall rules... ?
And do we believe that everyone elected from a party with the background of funding as described would really be punctilious about expenses claims?
You posted a picture of the lady concerned, presumably to illustrate that she was attractive, and therefore insinuate that she would come to the attention of Donald Trump.
I think this forum needs a Women’s Tsar #metoo
What is so appalling is that he appears only to have realised in the last few minutes.Trump says he was 'ready' to bomb Iran, canceled before planes lifted
President Trump says that he had not given the final go ahead for an Iranian attack when he called off a strike on Thursday night.mol.im
Is Trump as bad as made out. This incident, if correct, puts him at odds with his Hawk image.
Credit where credit due? Bush wouldnt have stopped it.
Is there anyone else on the planet who wouldn't have asked and found out the projected casualties before authorising the missions?
Not much credit.
I’ve thought about this. On the one hand it could be perceived as a fat Tory bully, snout in the trough of entitlement and gorging on self importance, who becomes angry because a pleb intrudes on his gluttony. This results in him losing control and laying his hands on the woman.Still making excuses for a thug? why are you doing that? would you treat a woman that way? note that no one else did.
Just how low can moral standards get in this country? that anyone would defend this man because they share a political attitude?
You saw what he did, there was no reason for him to involve himself , and if he had to , to resort to personal assault and degrading the woman in front of others.
The same individual tweeted this
"
[B]Mark Field MP[/B]Verified account @[B]MarkFieldUK[/B]
The UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe and protected in the work they do, so they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want. My remarks at the Westminster Hall Debate on Women Human Rights Defenders. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-05-07/debates/3C9476AD-C53B-4067-B576-07D632EE846E/WomenHumanRightsDefenders …
Obviously he can't stand to see women mistreated unless it's him doing it!
Hypocrite! and worse, violent and unstable with it.
Supporter tweeted this
"Elderly lady in wheelchair asked me to get a bag of lemon sherbets from the top shelf in Sainsbury's today. She had a handbag, which could have contained a grenade or similar. Didn't take any chances. Smashed bottle of sweet sherry over her head. Her reign of terror is over"
Image of the day
Tory vermin hardly describes this individual and the other vermin do nothing to intervene
What does this do for our image world wide?
That we employ low life like this to run the Country?
On the other hand, it could be a silly and poorly thought out act of protest by people who should know better. Trespassing on a formal event were the Chancellor is present is very likely going to result in your removal by a proportionate level of force.
I think the actual truth is placed somewhere between the two and both have some level of responsibility for what happened. I was please to hear the woman say she wasn’t considering any further action over what took place. I think that’s right under the circumstances.
I know nothing about this incident so can't comment on it. However I did see Mark Field in a TV discussion some while ago and was surprised at the level of aggression he displayed. He clearly has a very short fuse.
.
I’ve thought about this. On the one hand it could be perceived as a fat Tory bully, snout in the trough of entitlement and gorging on self importance, who becomes angry because a pleb intrudes on his gluttony. This results in him losing control and laying his hands on the woman.
On the other hand, it could be a silly and poorly thought out act of protest by people who should know better. Trespassing on a formal event were the Chancellor is present is very likely going to result in your removal by a proportionate level of force.
I think the actual truth is placed somewhere between the two and both have some level of responsibility for what happened. I was please to hear the woman say she wasn’t considering any further action over what took place. I think that’s right under the circumstances.
[/QUOTE]
This is equivocation, a deliberate attempt to make it appear ambiguous to hide the truth. A bit like trump did after Charlottesville when he defended the racist thugs by saying " there were good people on both sides". I dont - practically - mind underendowed right wing nutters with overactive imaginations engaging in this kind of self deceit/deceit. But on a more national level it feels part of an Orwellian kind of double talk emerging that rationalise violence, oppression.
On the other hand, it could be a silly and poorly thought out act of protest by people who should know better. Trespassing on a formal event were the Chancellor is present is very likely going to result in your removal by a proportionate level of force.
I think the actual truth is placed somewhere between the two and both have some level of responsibility for what happened. I was please to hear the woman say she wasn’t considering any further action over what took place. I think that’s right under the circumstances.
[/QUOTE]
This is equivocation, a deliberate attempt to make it appear ambiguous to hide the truth. A bit like trump did after Charlottesville when he defended the racist thugs by saying " there were good people on both sides". I dont - practically - mind underendowed right wing nutters with overactive imaginations engaging in this kind of self deceit/deceit. But on a more national level it feels part of an Orwellian kind of double talk emerging that rationalise violence, oppression.
This kind of bs doesnt do you credit. After I said he acted with unreasonable force you and other leavers rationalized his behaviour. This is not only shameful but also wrong. Field is very lucky she doesnt wish to take action.
This is equivocation, a deliberate attempt to make it appear ambiguous to hide the truth. A bit like trump did after Charlottesville when he defended the racist thugs by saying " there were good people on both sides". I dont - practically - mind underendowed right wing nutters with overactive imaginations engaging in this kind of self deceit/deceit. But on a more national level it feels part of an Orwellian kind of double talk emerging that rationalise violence, oppression.
[/QUOTE]
It’s time for your cup of tea with four sugars again. You’ll be ok once you’ve relaxed.
you could see that other people sitting at the same table were surprised by Mark Field's action when he pounced on the female protester. None got up on their feet to intervene. Everyone in the room could see that she was clutching at her phone with one hand and leaflets with the other.
If Mark Field felt that he was threatened for right or wrong reason, he did not need a) pin her to the column, b) keep his hand on her neck until the other attendants took over. Note that none of the attendants needed to touch her.
Even if a) was justified, I have trouble to see why he did b).
It seems to me that he was a bit of a coward, using force against someone visibly weaker than him.
A bit like Trump bombing weaker countries than Russia.
Climate protesters should consider taking martial arts lessons.
I am glad that at some level you have thought about it. As I posted earlier, my opinion is that the first of your explanations is closer to the truth
On the contrary, it was a brilliant well thought out act of protest,carried out with panach. In major part because of Mr Fields action has achieved much more than the organisers might have hoped . What might have been a one liner at the end of the news bulletin,become a topic of international importance..It even gets addressed on the pages of Pedelec
While you are still in a thoughtful mood,ask yourself, would you really want this nan in charge of your military defence,your police force ,or your labour relations commissions?.
Actually I only looked for it during a morning, but not to worry , this is where we are so far.
Lets go back to your very first lie, and work from there shall we?
Nov 26, 2016
Thanks Flecc..read rule 3.
Seems more ignore it than comply..or comprehend it how they see fit...to do exactly what rule 3 asks people not to..ie push their own agenda..??? ie slate Brexiters, promote remain..( accepted not you but certainly majority on this thread)
You shouldn't justify that on a Pedelec forum.Its not healthy and will lead to insults and threats. Guaranteed. Seen it on other so called sports forums.( ruined a dive forum I used to frequent)
We are not all level headed....its an invite for the aggressive and obsessed types to argue...seems to me most Brexiters have realised this and withdrawn. Only needs one extreme character ...luckily so far absent. ( I,m ashamed to say I didn't vote)
Nov 27, 2016
In a later post you admitted you did vote, when I find it, i'll post it, and all your other lies in due course, for after all, you asked me to!
Apologies for the day I have reached page 408 so far , will continue later,be patient And I will be too!
Last edited:
Are you taking lessons from Fingers? stop trying to wriggle out of responsibility for your insulting remark tabout the lady in question being wrong . the woman at that time was very attractive, and didn't have a face that would stop a clock
I simply posted the picture to prove that your statement was false, and you attempt to spin that
And you reply with this nonsense?
"
You posted a picture of the lady concerned, presumably to illustrate that she was attractive, and therefore insinuate that she would come to the attention of Donald Trump.
I think this forum needs a Women’s Tsar #metoo
No it is you making that insinuation not me, and seriously many of your remarks would get short shift
"I think this forum needs a Women’s Tsar #metoo"
If your wish was granted.
You made a fool of yourself , case closed.
No, not by a million miles, it would prove Bully boy tactics are fine if you are rich
It’s time for your cup of tea with four sugars again. You’ll be ok once you’ve relaxed.
[/QUOTE]
That is weak. Surely you can come up with something better?
Back to the main theme of this thread... and with certain nostalgic references I enclose this article from yesterday's Irish times.. and as can be seen it originated in the FT
On a scale of one to seven, how well do you understand how a flush lavatory works?
This was a question asked by two Yale psychologists, Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil, almost two decades ago. Before I explain why, here’s a follow-up exercise: write down your lavatory explanation in as much detail as you can. You may wish to draw a diagram, or explain it to a friend. Or not.
You may then reflect that you knew a little less than you realised. That was the experience of many of the study’s subjects - and not just for lavatories (why does all the water disappear down the U-bend?) but also for zips, quartz watches, helicopters, speedometers, cylinder locks, piano keys and sewing machines. People felt they understood the mechanisms that surrounded them, but their confidence was severely dented by the simple act of giving them pencil and paper and saying: “Show me.”
Policy
The same exercise can be performed with politics. In 2013, Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach, authors of The Knowledge Illusion, were members of a research team that did just that, inviting people resident in the US to rate their understanding of American policy proposals such as introducing unilateral sanctions on Iran, a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions and a national flat tax. They also asked people to rate their approval of each policy, which would have been unnecessary for lavatories and zips. (Lavatories are useful, zips self-evidently malevolent.)
Professors Sloman and Fernbach and their colleagues found that - just as with locks and speedometers - people tended to overrate their knowledge at first, and then discover some humility when asked to be more specific.
Perhaps British voters could use a dose of the same medicine when it comes to our understanding of Brexit. Leave or Remain, many of us came late to the realisation that there was a difference between the single market and the customs union. I am still not sure most people can explain what that difference is. Many people have strong views about Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement; rather fewer could give a convincing account of how it differs from the political declaration that accompanies it.
Demand
When Mrs May began her premiership with the statement that “Brexit means Brexit”, it dawned on most of us that the details of the whole project might need a little more work. But she wasn’t the only one who was vague.
I’d love to see the contenders for the Conservative party leadership quizzed a little less about their cocaine habits and instead forced to sit down and write a detailed explanation of what a no-deal Brexit actually is. While we wait, perhaps the same exercise could be given to the 160,000 Conservative party members who are about to select the country’s next prime minister.
How long, for example, will HM Revenue & Customs wave through imports without inspections? Will the French reciprocate? What are the implications of “trading under World Trade Organization rules” for the UK’s banking and insurance industries? How large are those industries?
How many other developed countries are content to rely solely on WTO arrangements in their trade with the EU? Is the WTO capable of enforcing the rules anyway, given the current crisis in its appellate body? How likely is the EU to grant permission to British farmers to sell meat, milk or cheese? Would any of these decisions be different if the UK refused to pay the “divorce bill” it had negotiated?
I don’t think it is especially shameful that we ordinary voters are incurious about the ins and outs of Brexit, any more than we should be obliged to understand the workings of a quartz watch. An ability to read the time is generally sufficient. But I am stunned by just how little we seem to demand of our political leaders.
Standards
We want tailors to understand sewing machines, locksmiths to understand locks and plumbers to know that a lavatory is basically a siphon. But our standards for politicians seem far lower. The next prime minister is likely to be a person who believes that if we demanded it with enough gusto, sewage would remove itself from our homes in some scatological remix of Mary Poppins - and that anyone who tells you otherwise is clearly a shill for Big Porcelain.
We should expect more of anyone who wants to lead the country. And since our politicians have grown so fond of punting the hard questions back to us, perhaps we should also demand more of ourselves.
Profs Sloman and Fernbach found that asking people to explain the workings of the policies they so fervently supported or opposed had a humbling effect. When people realised that they knew less than they had once believed, they quite reasonably wound their necks in as a result. It seems strange to die in a ditch for something we can’t clearly explain, even to ourselves.
Next time you find yourself in some heated political debate, perhaps you should suggest that both sides pause to explain the policy in question. You may find you understand less - and agree more - than you realised. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2019
On a scale of one to seven, how well do you understand how a flush lavatory works?
This was a question asked by two Yale psychologists, Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil, almost two decades ago. Before I explain why, here’s a follow-up exercise: write down your lavatory explanation in as much detail as you can. You may wish to draw a diagram, or explain it to a friend. Or not.
You may then reflect that you knew a little less than you realised. That was the experience of many of the study’s subjects - and not just for lavatories (why does all the water disappear down the U-bend?) but also for zips, quartz watches, helicopters, speedometers, cylinder locks, piano keys and sewing machines. People felt they understood the mechanisms that surrounded them, but their confidence was severely dented by the simple act of giving them pencil and paper and saying: “Show me.”
Policy
The same exercise can be performed with politics. In 2013, Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach, authors of The Knowledge Illusion, were members of a research team that did just that, inviting people resident in the US to rate their understanding of American policy proposals such as introducing unilateral sanctions on Iran, a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions and a national flat tax. They also asked people to rate their approval of each policy, which would have been unnecessary for lavatories and zips. (Lavatories are useful, zips self-evidently malevolent.)
Professors Sloman and Fernbach and their colleagues found that - just as with locks and speedometers - people tended to overrate their knowledge at first, and then discover some humility when asked to be more specific.
Perhaps British voters could use a dose of the same medicine when it comes to our understanding of Brexit. Leave or Remain, many of us came late to the realisation that there was a difference between the single market and the customs union. I am still not sure most people can explain what that difference is. Many people have strong views about Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement; rather fewer could give a convincing account of how it differs from the political declaration that accompanies it.
Demand
When Mrs May began her premiership with the statement that “Brexit means Brexit”, it dawned on most of us that the details of the whole project might need a little more work. But she wasn’t the only one who was vague.
I’d love to see the contenders for the Conservative party leadership quizzed a little less about their cocaine habits and instead forced to sit down and write a detailed explanation of what a no-deal Brexit actually is. While we wait, perhaps the same exercise could be given to the 160,000 Conservative party members who are about to select the country’s next prime minister.
How long, for example, will HM Revenue & Customs wave through imports without inspections? Will the French reciprocate? What are the implications of “trading under World Trade Organization rules” for the UK’s banking and insurance industries? How large are those industries?
How many other developed countries are content to rely solely on WTO arrangements in their trade with the EU? Is the WTO capable of enforcing the rules anyway, given the current crisis in its appellate body? How likely is the EU to grant permission to British farmers to sell meat, milk or cheese? Would any of these decisions be different if the UK refused to pay the “divorce bill” it had negotiated?
I don’t think it is especially shameful that we ordinary voters are incurious about the ins and outs of Brexit, any more than we should be obliged to understand the workings of a quartz watch. An ability to read the time is generally sufficient. But I am stunned by just how little we seem to demand of our political leaders.
Standards
We want tailors to understand sewing machines, locksmiths to understand locks and plumbers to know that a lavatory is basically a siphon. But our standards for politicians seem far lower. The next prime minister is likely to be a person who believes that if we demanded it with enough gusto, sewage would remove itself from our homes in some scatological remix of Mary Poppins - and that anyone who tells you otherwise is clearly a shill for Big Porcelain.
We should expect more of anyone who wants to lead the country. And since our politicians have grown so fond of punting the hard questions back to us, perhaps we should also demand more of ourselves.
Profs Sloman and Fernbach found that asking people to explain the workings of the policies they so fervently supported or opposed had a humbling effect. When people realised that they knew less than they had once believed, they quite reasonably wound their necks in as a result. It seems strange to die in a ditch for something we can’t clearly explain, even to ourselves.
Next time you find yourself in some heated political debate, perhaps you should suggest that both sides pause to explain the policy in question. You may find you understand less - and agree more - than you realised. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2019