manc-mag

Fuck off you boring jock cunt. is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ? Oh aye, he was on here a while back telling us all about how Scotland would be better off with independence. Well that was before their banks went tits up and had to be bailed out by the British government. Which they could have been done by any government scottish or british. You would've been as fucked as Iceland. Not according to most economists. Like who? Andrew Hughes Hallett, professor of economics and public policy at George Mason University in Virginia and a visiting professor at St Andrews University for one. Probably isnt even the best economist in his house tbh.

As if anyone wants to see the swamp donkeys you hang around with. Ask Sammy or Matt, my friend, just you run along and ask them. Could do with some more photo messages to be fair Dave, it's been a while now.

unlike your blazer.

fucking brilliant.

Aye he'd be nicked for public order/incitment to violence at the very least (and wack racially aggravated on the charge sheet to boot).

"arrers" tbh.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict.

Is that the case though? And if so what basis does it stand up? You could write a contract with someone agreeing not to speak Welsh (or whatever), but that wouldn't mean it would actually stand up to scrutiny. There's also plenty of professions where there's nothing legally binding, but they would get shot of BNP members in much the same way people might once have got shot of someone because they are Muslim or mixed race or whatever. It's a strange hypocrisy IMO, and one that has to be watched, as Harmen's ridiculous sexist employment bill clearly showed this summer. I'm by no means a legal expert but it does seem to stand up. All I meant was I think challenging its legality is coming at it from the wrong standpoint, as it were. As in, you might think it's wrong, but I don't think it's 'illegal'. Well maybe not criminally "illegal" (although I dunno with all the recent anti-discrimination legislation), but at least against civil and working practice law. Although I'm slightly amazed they haven't managed to wangle anti-terror into it (I guess they don't need to). It's a very good example of how far the rules can bet bent though, and although most maybe would agree with it in this case, it goes without saying that rules are being bent at least as far in other ways that maybe most wouldn't agree with, but get no publicity. And mainly it weakens and undermines the whole position of British democracy and freedom. Insidious banning is the way of tyranny, even nice tyranny that you don't mind so much (so long as you don't end up disagreeing with it anyway). Ah, not 'criminally illegal'. What? I was wondering how adhering to UK law was illegal I must say. I really don't see this as having anything to do with insidious removals of human rights (or anti-terror either - wtf?). No one is forced to join the police. It's a rather complicated argument as to whether or not it's right to ban police from joining the BNP but it's one I broadly agree with. The only problem with it (or my main one anyway) is that is doesn't make the person in questions views any different. It just makes them secret. Something can be against the law without it leading to a criminal issue (penal/civil etc.). I assume it's like that with the police (although whether they break other laws or indeed it should be deemed a hate crime or whatever is perhaps the issue). The secret issue is just another downside of the hypocrisy, as it helps fester and spread things rather than bring them out into the open where they can be openly discussed and refuted. Is this the case with this issue then? Otherwise I don't see how this is illegal. Can't see how this provision could be found to be unlawful. It's the sort of case that you'd get someone taking to Strasbourg, but I think any element of the dispute which crystalised on the conflict of human rights would be resolved in favour of the state as opposed to a BNP copper tbh. So it's legal to discriminate against someone because of their beliefs? Either way it's murky and hypocritical and rather like the BNP prejudices it's supposedly against. It's legal to discriminate in certain circumstances, aye. Ie in the example mentioned the rationale is that the interests of the state (the millions of people requiring the impartial and free from prejudice protection of the police (don't smirk)) outweighs the interests of the individual BNP member who wants to be employed as a copper. He's having his individual 'rights' curtailed in that limited scenario because to do so would protect a greater number of people who might otherwise be exposed to his prejudices with negative consequences. It depends on your perspective I spose but I think the above is fair enough in the case of the police and certain other agencies for the reasons I've given previously. On the other hand it would probably be a different case if the employer was say a bookmakers or summat. And again depending on your perspective you can either view that dichotomy as 'murky' or an inevitable balancing act between the competing interests of a diverse and complex society-which the law basically has to perform every day. In my opinion the reality of the situation is that society is so complex you're probably never going to get it as clear as you would like it to be tbh Fop.

Fuck off you boring jock cunt. is KCG a member of the SNP I wonder ? Actually he is. Although he isn't Scottish. so what do people think of the SNP ? Comical.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it?

Is that the case though? And if so what basis does it stand up? You could write a contract with someone agreeing not to speak Welsh (or whatever), but that wouldn't mean it would actually stand up to scrutiny. There's also plenty of professions where there's nothing legally binding, but they would get shot of BNP members in much the same way people might once have got shot of someone because they are Muslim or mixed race or whatever. It's a strange hypocrisy IMO, and one that has to be watched, as Harmen's ridiculous sexist employment bill clearly showed this summer. I'm by no means a legal expert but it does seem to stand up. All I meant was I think challenging its legality is coming at it from the wrong standpoint, as it were. As in, you might think it's wrong, but I don't think it's 'illegal'. Well maybe not criminally "illegal" (although I dunno with all the recent anti-discrimination legislation), but at least against civil and working practice law. Although I'm slightly amazed they haven't managed to wangle anti-terror into it (I guess they don't need to). It's a very good example of how far the rules can bet bent though, and although most maybe would agree with it in this case, it goes without saying that rules are being bent at least as far in other ways that maybe most wouldn't agree with, but get no publicity. And mainly it weakens and undermines the whole position of British democracy and freedom. Insidious banning is the way of tyranny, even nice tyranny that you don't mind so much (so long as you don't end up disagreeing with it anyway). Ah, not 'criminally illegal'. What? I was wondering how adhering to UK law was illegal I must say. I really don't see this as having anything to do with insidious removals of human rights (or anti-terror either - wtf?). No one is forced to join the police. It's a rather complicated argument as to whether or not it's right to ban police from joining the BNP but it's one I broadly agree with. The only problem with it (or my main one anyway) is that is doesn't make the person in questions views any different. It just makes them secret. Something can be against the law without it leading to a criminal issue (penal/civil etc.). I assume it's like that with the police (although whether they break other laws or indeed it should be deemed a hate crime or whatever is perhaps the issue). The secret issue is just another downside of the hypocrisy, as it helps fester and spread things rather than bring them out into the open where they can be openly discussed and refuted. Is this the case with this issue then? Otherwise I don't see how this is illegal. Can't see how this provision could be found to be unlawful. It's the sort of case that you'd get someone taking to Strasbourg, but I think any element of the dispute which crystalised on the conflict of human rights would be resolved in favour of the state as opposed to a BNP copper tbh.

no, I'm not. I'm just saying that, its now only a matter of time, as things stand. You do see this don't you ? But even if they did, so what? those areas where they would gain power would be those with a vast majority of Muslims therefore why not have a councillor that understands them? Plus, my understanding of the Islamic party is that they promote integration rather than acting insular. Maybe they wil have more luck in getting those that currently dont attempt to fit in. what would life be like in those areas with a vast majority of muslims, for non - muslims ? An integrated, happy community ? Would it hell. They may be promoting integratation on the surface but is it working, will it work, are they really promoting it ? This is the point PP. The community may well represent the population of the country, but that ends up being a muslim community, totally intolerant of anyone else, starting off in Leicester, then Bradford, the burnley, then Luton ....... etc etc Is this desirable ? Do you think so ? If you are taking the view that its a natural process and you won't be alive when it happens, or you'll be too old to care, then fine, thats your prerogative. But thats admitting its going to happen. Personally I think a divided Britain isn't desirable at all in any shape or form. Take some of your points on board there Leazes, but just to play devil's advocate can't you equally say this about non-muslim/'white' councils? They promote it but it doesnt happen, which ultimately is as much a failing of the non-muslims as it is the muslims. But I'm guessing (without having a go at you and perhaps wrongly) you're less concerned about it as long as it remains that way round?

I don't think theres any ambiguity around the point that membership of the BNP is a bar to membership of the constabulary (at least to the people that it directly affects, ie serving officers or prospective officers). Like you say if there is a debate to be had then it's a case of 'should this be the case'. To be honest I think in as far as the police is concerned it should be the case.

le gumph! etre honnête.

We've all got codified human rights these days (and that includes company employers, which have legal personality). The BNP is obviously a legal party so that much is clear. On the flip side of the coin the police (for instance) clearly feel that their objectives would be prejudiced by having BNP members as serving officers and hence they exclude on that basis. Immigration for instance is something which the police (and certain other agencies) deal with at the 'hard end' so that's a fair enough balance to draw in the complex society that they serve and again is also clear enough to most in the non-ideal world that we live in. Once you step outside of public sector agencies such as the police however then I think it becomes far more complicated provided the political party that the employee is a member of is a legitimate one. Then you're way down the scale to issues of a company's reputation and employment law rights as opposed to headline grabbers such as deaths in custody and deportation of asylum seekers. Life and limb stuff in other words.

I read that as cameltoe property. Mind on something else, presumably.

Wtf? 6-5 is always better than 11-0. Who wants to play in an 11-0? It's 5-a-side man-sposed to be either a bit of a laugh or exciting. I can't get my head round people who play 5-a-side tactically or with any deliberate defensive strategy (and dont get me started on people who actually tip up to play solely in defence). It's five a side man! It's the antidote to the unavoidable tactics and strategising of 11 a side. You tip up and every fucker is Maradona for an hour. Mint. Is that a dig btw? Baldy Beckenbauer. Nah you cover the pitch tbf-you just track back where I don't cos I'm a lazy get. There's a lad I've played with since late teenage though and seriously, he's been past the half way line about twice in fifteen years. He pays £5 to come along and defend/slag everyone else off for not defending. Wtf? Kiss my stones tbh.

Too kind, gents. Seriously though, I can't hack it playing a 5-a-side and you go five goals up. Time to mix the teams tbh.

Wtf? 6-5 is always better than 11-0. Who wants to play in an 11-0? It's 5-a-side man-sposed to be either a bit of a laugh or exciting. I can't get my head round people who play 5-a-side tactically or with any deliberate defensive strategy (and dont get me started on people who actually tip up to play solely in defence). It's five a side man! It's the antidote to the unavoidable tactics and strategising of 11 a side. You tip up and every fucker is Maradona for an hour. Mint.

The slope to the old pitch man. And I'm sure the crossbars were warped too until the 1980's.

joke btw

racists for goalposts etc.

The very fact ethnicity is discussed at all in connection with Obama's candidacy/Presidency speaks for itself tbh. Sorry if he wasn't picking cotton on a Mississippi plantation up until last year, Fop.

I'm not deluded, I'm in denial. Spurs will be fine as there would be a media outcry if they went down/were still anywhere near the relegation zone come February. I know that's not an obviously logical statement, but the media pressure on the team forces up standards where they are not otherwise being enforced directly by management. This rule applies to a few 'media darling' clubs. I think it's safe to say you'll be plying your arrogant, mid-table trade again next season no worries.

Derby away '92 with three sent off. Brian Coddington?? I was in with the Derby fans on top of that.