Saintslass

Coach
  • Content count

    9,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,203 Excellent

About Saintslass

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. My point was that Christians appear not to be allowed to hold views that go against the current trends - they are automatically labelled 'fundamentalist' - even though they continue to do their jobs regardless of those views. You do not know what Khan believes about homosexuality because he wouldn't tell you even if you asked him. Just because he has marched in support of the gay pride parade doesn't mean he doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin. He might not. But likewise he might. However, like Farron, he also knows he has a job to do: the job of representing his whole constituency and not just those whose sexuality (in this instance) fits with his personal beliefs. What matters where Farron is concerned is that he does his job, representing his constituents regardless of their backgrounds or views. His personal faith beliefs are irrelevant unless they undermine his ability to do that job and clearly they do not.
  2. I've seen May mixing with the general public on TV a few times now, so I think you'll find she is out and about meeting members of the public. All she has refused to do is to be involved in a head to head TV debate. Tony Blair refused to do that as well, as did Cameron in 2015.
  3. Do you hold the same concerns about the Mayor of London's 'religious fundamentalism'? After all, lots of Muslims (and Jews) believe homosexuality is a sin too.
  4. The same age range could vote in the EU referendum as could vote in the General Election so I'm not sure what your point is?
  5. I thought this paragraph was interesting: "This court has experienced, on more than one occasion, great difficulties in getting a solicitor who is prepared to deal with criminal legal aid for a committal in breach of Housing Act injunctions. It has proved somewhat difficult.” 'This court' would suggest the problem is a local one and 'a solicitor who is prepared' suggests that solicitors may be choosing not to represent rather than the legal aid system making it difficult for them to do so. If the woman was as vulnerable as suggested (although the judge was convinced of her mental capacity, it says in the article) then why didn't a solicitor work pro bono? It's not like solicitors are paid the minimum wage. I think this paragraph was also interesting: "Baker was originally given a civil injunction because she was begging from vulnerable and older people. But the injunction banned her from all begging." She was apparently vulnerable but had no qualms about begging from vulnerable and elderly people. She also repeatedly breached injunctions, not just one of them according to the article.
  6. On the point about social media generally, I'm not on Facebook but I am on Twitter. I remember during the 2015 GE thinking that there didn't seem to be many Tories on Twitter. In fact I have all of two followers who I know to be Tories. However, I have followers in double figures who I know to be Labour supporters. I am not on Twitter for political reasons though so I am probably unusual; my initial reason for going on Twitter was to talk rugby league and find out about events and stuff locally. But based on my 2015 GE experience and indeed the EU referendum when my timeline seemed to be overwhelmed by remain supporters, I have learned that Twitter does not reflect the real world because had it done so in 2015 and 2016 then we would have a Labour government now and be staying in the EU.
  7. I watched PMQs today as I'm on the last day of my Easter break so I was at home and able to watch. May wasn't embarrassed. She wasn't out of her depth. She was just her usual self. She is no off the cuff speaker and that has been clear from the first day of her time as PM.
  8. I don't disagree that there are potential upsides but there are three more years with lots of work to do and she does have a majority and so, as I said, it wasn't a risk she needed to take. I see it as a risk simply because I don't take anything for granted. I would imagine her motives were mixed: I think she genuinely believes that Brexit negotiations would be better served by having a stronger mandate from the electorate. And all the opposition parties agree of course because they were calling her for not deciding on a snap GE earlier in the year. You wouldn't know that now obviously because she has called a snap GE and so is opportunistic of course! But I think most people would agree that given she was not leader when the 2015 GE took place, and given the enormity of the decision made last June, going to the country is definitely democratic and certainly wise from the point of view of credibility for the Brexit negotiations. If she wins then she will also have a mandate for her version of a Conservative government which I suspect is a little less laissez faire than Cameron's. And so from a domestic policy point of view she will also have greater credibility. She has cited those as two reasons for the move to call a GE and I can believe those reasons are genuine. Obviously they also coincide with Labour being in the doldrums. If the situation was reversed Labour would be similarly tempted to capitalise as that is the nature of the beast: snooze and you lose. I think Labour's situation could be an underlying reason: that is, had Labour been stronger she might not have taken the risk even given the two reasons I spoke about above. Labour's current problems make her wish for validity by calling a GE less of a risk than it would otherwise have been but I don't think that is her primary reason. I think her main reasons are a mandate for Brexit and a mandate for adaptions in domestic policy, for example the industrial strategy. However, I still feel uncomfortable as the British political world is full of surprises and polls have been as wrong as a wrong thing in recent years.
  9. As a Tory I am not really very happy that May has called this election. I think it is a gamble she didn't need to take.
  10. I think she is taking a big risk. I can see her point about the political game playing but polls have shown to be very unreliable and so she is taking a big risk. I'm voting Tory.
  11. Smoking was becoming less popular before the smoking ban and indeed before any of the anti-smoking campaigns took off. However, if you are a believer in government influencing how people behave then you would no doubt advocate insistent anti-narcotic campaigns on TV, on the sides of buses, at schools, everywhere really plus encouraging people to think of narcotics as dirty, disgusting and the use of the same as putting other people's lives at risk (which of course they do, usually due to the violent and other anti-social behaviour that narcotics create as well as stuff like revolting used needles lying around).
  12. Strange how people on here cannot read. I said 'smoking' has become equivalent to paedophilia. I didn't say 'smokers' had become equivalent to paedophilia.
  13. It isn't the 'government sponsored programmes' which have influenced smokers to quit. It is the cultural shift in society which has done that. Smokers have become pariahs and smoking has become equivalent to paedophilia. Take the same attitude towards druggies and drugs and maybe the problem will diminish. It's very effective.
  14. I was born when the EU was created. I was even old enough to vote. I'm talking about the EU, not the Common Market.
  15. Some of us were born proud Brits and we didn't even get the chance to vote on whether we wanted to be a part of the EU. Some of us feel little or no cultural connection to continental Europe at all. Finally, we have had the chance to have our say.