Renton

Norway gets to protect its fishing stocks as well. I thought you lived in Germany? Do you want free movement rights within Europe or not? Being outside the "political" europe does not restrict free movement. You really should read up on this subject.....If you are interested. I'm sorry but you're wrong. Leaving the EU would restrict free movement, unless negotiated otherwise. Of course, such an arrangement would have to be reciprocal. Don't think free movement would be an issue at all. Because moving to live in the US or Australia is as easy to do as Germany? You haven't thought this through have you - have you actually noticed the seperate queues at the airport?

Which party was it that signed up to the Maastricht Treaty? It was a serious point not a party point scoring jobby Well being serious then. What do you think the EU will say if we go to them and ask to pull out of everything except the free trade market? And also what do you think it would do for British business? I wouldn't end well. Apparently the EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries that are not part of the EU. UKIP says on this....... Have they asked the other Commonwealth countries about this? Why on Earth would we want to increase trade with a heterogenous mix of countries that are thousands of miles away based purely on historical reasons. And at the same time cut us off from our Geographical neighbours - the UK-EU Free Trade deal is no replacement for the benefits we get as part of the single market. Once again, why don't you think the tories embrace this if it were remotely feasible - don't you agree it's a vote winner? Trusting UKIP to make policies on Europe is a bit like asking a paedophile to reform child protection laws. Why not try thinking for yourself rather than simply repeating years of what you've heard? Can you explain this sentence? Neither of us are economists, so no, off the top of my head I couldn't list the differences, but they are different, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. I actually found this wiki article on the European Union, and its subarticles, very enlightening (increasingly I'm growing to respect wiki as a good source of reliable information, better than newspaper articles or political manifestos anyway). It seems to me that it would be hugely detrimental to effectively go it alone, an opinion which is almost universal amongst anlaysts and mainstream politicians - including those from your party. At the end of the day the political parties all agree on keeping the status quo (except the loonys). For largely idealogical reasons, I'd like us to ultimately be in the euro, and I suspect you'd like us out of the it altogether. Fair enough, neither of us will get what we want so we live with the compromise.

Norway gets to protect its fishing stocks as well. I thought you lived in Germany? Do you want free movement rights within Europe or not?

Which party was it that signed up to the Maastricht Treaty? It was a serious point not a party point scoring jobby Well being serious then. What do you think the EU will say if we go to them and ask to pull out of everything except the free trade market? And also what do you think it would do for British business? I wouldn't end well. Apparently the EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries that are not part of the EU. UKIP says on this....... Have they asked the other Commonwealth countries about this? Why on Earth would we want to increase trade with a heterogenous mix of countries that are thousands of miles away based purely on historical reasons. And at the same time cut us off from our Geographical neighbours - the UK-EU Free Trade deal is no replacement for the benefits we get as part of the single market. Once again, why don't you think the tories embrace this if it were remotely feasible - don't you agree it's a vote winner? Trusting UKIP to make policies on Europe is a bit like asking a paedophile to reform child protection laws.

Just outside John Lewis iirc. Aye, at the entrance to Eldon Garden now, although I vaguely remember there may have been two sets..... This thread is brilliant. And the link to Skyscraper city which I daren't click or I'll get no work done today at all.

Any idea what income you'd have to have to be in group 6 or lower? Income decile 6 of 10 that goes up to 100k? 60k. I'd assumed it was cumulative proportion of the population, like in the Lorenz curve. I dont think so, as its a decile grouping up to 100k. It makes sense that way too, tax redistributions will still benefit people on 50, 60k in the UK because everyone benefits from larger tax allowances on the first part of income. The net effects takes account of all changes. Aye, the over 100k bar shows that's right too.

I was referring to him getting lynched actually.

Any idea what income you'd have to have to be in group 6 or lower? Income decile 6 of 10 that goes up to 100k? 60k. I'd assumed it was cumulative proportion of the population, like in the Lorenz curve.

Nice to hear. Makes Brown seem even more of a prick for having a pop at her like. Aye, well done Mrs Duffy for keeping her integrity. I don't think Brown was being malicious but he must feel like a complete tit over this mess.

Well the majority of the country backed the tories for 3 long terms, even after the miners strike. Bastard this democracy lark for the dyed in the wool socialists. They never got 50% in a General Election, did they? Or hardly any support in the North, Scotland, or Wales. This is why I'm a supporter of regional government - it seems to have worked out okay for the Scots an the Welsh and I can't understand why people in the NE rejected it so out of hand. There was a lot of lies about an extra tier when it was actually a replacement level with more powers but still. Of course the converse to the Tories not caring about the regions is Labour taking them for granted which I accept to a degree but I think having a body of people specifically interested in the region beyond the NEDC would work. Strangly enough I was thinking this myself this morning when there was some Welsh politician going on about getting more money for Wales. We have no one to represent us and its our own fault.

It's a good job you aren't German in any case.

Well the majority of the country backed the tories for 3 long terms, even after the miners strike. Bastard this democracy lark for the dyed in the wool socialists. They never got 50% in a General Election, did they? Or hardly any support in the North, Scotland, or Wales.

So you'd want the benefits of Europe without actually contributing to the club. I see. What has the EU ever done for us? - 50 things that are to our advantage - from the Independent. There's a reason even the tories don't want us out of the EU, the benefits far offset the costs. First of all I did not say I wanted the benefits of Europe, my question was more WHAT ARE the benefits of Europe. As for your list I got as far as number 10 and couldnt really see anything on there that is either relevant to today or we couldnt have done without being part of the EU. As for number 3 on the list..... Are you also saying Labour governments need french people to make us make our beaches cleaner????? There is no reason why we couldnt just have the free trade bit. I guess like me, you also have little understanding of the real day to day benefits of being in rather than being out. Its not a particular slight on you btw, its just a fact of we do take a lotta shit for granted without stopping to think about it. You seem to want the benefits of the single market without actually being in the single market? How does that work then? The Independent article was a list of extra benefits above and beyond being part of the single market (with some tongue in cheek examples - see point 50). You can't just opt in for the good bits and opt out the bits you don't like. As one of the richest countries in the EU, we are expected to be net contibutors, and the EU has also redirected money to the provinces of the UK, which is needed unfortunately. The money we pay to be in the EU after Thatcher's rebate (one good thing she did) is peanuts compared to being alone in Europe. As I said, even Mr Cameron recognises that - I'm sure there are enough euroskeptics like yourself to make withdrawal from the EU a vote winner if it were remotely feasible. Without being in the EU. There is a big difference which it seems you dont understand No, I don't understand. The EU operates as a single trading block. How can you be part of it if, well, you're not part of it? Please enlighten me.

I could ask for clarification what you do believe but that's not really the point. I was more trying to establish how you choose what to believe and what not to, out of curiousity. I accept a lot of this is personal and/or can't be rationalised at the end of the day though.

So you'd want the benefits of Europe without actually contributing to the club. I see. What has the EU ever done for us? - 50 things that are to our advantage - from the Independent. There's a reason even the tories don't want us out of the EU, the benefits far offset the costs. First of all I did not say I wanted the benefits of Europe, my question was more WHAT ARE the benefits of Europe. As for your list I got as far as number 10 and couldnt really see anything on there that is either relevant to today or we couldnt have done without being part of the EU. As for number 3 on the list..... Are you also saying Labour governments need french people to make us make our beaches cleaner????? There is no reason why we couldnt just have the free trade bit. I guess like me, you also have little understanding of the real day to day benefits of being in rather than being out. Its not a particular slight on you btw, its just a fact of we do take a lotta shit for granted without stopping to think about it. You seem to want the benefits of the single market without actually being in the single market? How does that work then? The Independent article was a list of extra benefits above and beyond being part of the single market (with some tongue in cheek examples - see point 50). You can't just opt in for the good bits and opt out the bits you don't like. As one of the richest countries in the EU, we are expected to be net contibutors, and the EU has also redirected money to the provinces of the UK, which is needed unfortunately. The money we pay to be in the EU after Thatcher's rebate (one good thing she did) is peanuts compared to being alone in Europe. As I said, even Mr Cameron recognises that - I'm sure there are enough euroskeptics like yourself to make withdrawal from the EU a vote winner if it were remotely feasible.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer I would have loved to have been bright enough to become an astrophysicist, or a particle physicist, but I'm relatively shit at maths. The dark matter and dark energy story is fascinating, about a million times more interesting than theology. I'd also suggest that despite what toonpack says CERN is a good example of pure science which has little or no political bias or motivation - its pure research for the sake of it and will add knowledge to the world.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. Aye, but again you're really talking about human and political failings, not scientific principle per se. And the point is, these theories can be tested and refuted, and gradually we get nearer and nearer the truth. That's why it's so important to me. Religion instead just has an unchanging book which is infallible and can't be tested. Instead, to reconcile the Bible with proven scientific fact, changing moral standards, and good old common sense, people such as yourself have decided that parts of the Bible are actually metaphors. What I'm interested in is how you decide which parts are and which parts aren't. For instance, non-evangelical christians now accept that the reported deluge did not flood the world, and is in fact probably inspired by an ancient localised flood of some sort (which the Bible shares with many other cultures). It's also thought by most christians that Noah didn't literally gather two of each species etc, and the human race was not almost completely extinguished (as can be proved with DNA evidence etc). Yet you're saying that you believe Noah existed and was in communication with God. Why do you accept this and not the rest? Is it because this part of the story isn't testable? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be provocative here.

Yes, it was a complete gimmick, along with his tax cuts for married couples and parents running schools. The man has no substance whatsoever.

So you'd want the benefits of Europe without actually contributing to the club. I see. What has the EU ever done for us? - 50 things that are to our advantage - from the Independent. There's a reason even the tories don't want us out of the EU, the benefits far offset the costs.

Any idea what income you'd have to have to be in group 6 or lower? That would be the median income which is probably around £20k I would guess? Interesting graph, lets look at it again in 5 years if the tories get in power.

Indeed. Clegg has lost the plot on that one. It sends out the wrong message. It's a vote loser and not what Joe Public wants to hear (because they're bigots aren't they Gordon?) Clegg floundering a bit tonight imo. In principal offering all illegals amnesty is a good idea, they come forward, we now have a list of the number of people in the country, they can be given NI numbers and they can work and be taxed however any government would fuck it up so I'm voting Lib Dem The issue is Labour abolished tracking people leaving, Lim Dem wants the amnesty so we can track them better. Personally I don't care if they know the figure as it's only a statistic, they are illegal so would come and stay regardless. Also I think the logistics of an amnesty wouldn't pan out as if 800k people come forward they will more than likely be in pockets of areas. So giving them the right to work will put a major strain on that area. Its a good suggest, but one that i dont think can work. The real problem for me is we shouldn't have an open door policy for the EU. Espcially if we concider Greece and Spains downward spiral. So you want us to withdraw from the EU then? I actually thought it a bit ironic that, imo, Brown wiped the floor with Clegg and Cameron regarding immigration tonight. Iirc it was the Conservatives that stopped 'counting people out' btw.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

The Sun backed out of that too apparently, presumably when they found they couldn't get the right angle out of it.

He says, typing on his computer over the internet, without a trace of irony. To be honest Parky, you've never really demonstrated you understand the principles of science.

What do you base the bolded bit on? Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you? Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah. People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is. Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd. You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath? In a way evangelical christians are more honest really. As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too. As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from You're confusing human bias with science. Good science is neutral and unbiased - that's kind of the point of it - and something I'm not sure can be claimed by a single religion. If I perform a scientific study and select only the results that prove my point, then it's a crap study, and can be shown to be so by my peers. What about religion though?