Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

What's this? Is there a typo in the Brexit documents claiming that British citizens can claim up to 14 weeks vacation a year? TBH that would be great for unemployment, health and boost the baby making. Companies might not be so happy however.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/uks-brexit-white-paper-accidentally-states-brits-are-entitled-to-14-weeks-leave/news-story/5f157ba1468442aa48dcdc662bfec468

[martinuzz]

Thank goodness. So after 14 weeks, the UK returns to the EU?
Sorry fellas your 14 week leave is over.

[TD1]

Rationality.

Acting like one side has the sole claim to rationality is the kinda smug that got liblab in this mess to begin with

(There are good things and bad things about Corbyn, but that three-line whip wasn't a good approach. Better to leave it as a matter of conscience, given he knew there'd be rebels against either position, and to reflect his "new type of politics", with him (the arch-rebel himself) at the helm.)

Three-line whip was the best approach exactly because he knew party rebels were gonna conscientiously divide the country. Corbyn just did the country a proper virtue by ensuring we go forwards united; all those Labour voters who voted to Leave in Labour strongholds are not gonna forget that. Corbyn putting the country ahead of naughty MPs, being so humble as to work hand in hand with his opponents, it's simply the kinda shit I would not expect possible except with such strong-spined leaders. Moreover from a practical point of view Corbyn now knows exactly who he can't count on to follow him, all according to keikaku

You said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against. You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to. You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type, then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.

Tbh I'd vote for UKIP because of the leader not in spite of it, whilst I'd vote in spite of the party not for it. The party has not produced a lot of skilled statesmen or stateswomen and is still in sore need of some maturity. If for example, UKIP had been pro-EU, I do not think so many would have exactly been inspired to lend their full support to the endless Farage barrage upon Brussels

I can agree with that. However, you don't have the (simply marvellous) choice of political parties that I have. Between DUP and UKIP, I choose the kippers.

Starver: I was just pointing out that you claimed leadership alone would make you not vote UKIP, then said nothing to that effect again.

[Sheb]

Vote Sinn Fein TheDwarfy. You know you just want to, at least once...

[martinuzz]

Not really Brexit related.

LW, do you know what's up with the BBC?
Whenever I google a hot news item, Google always presents the Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph articles as 'top stories'. There's dozens of smaller news sites in the list below it, but the BBC is never shown.

Only if I manually add 'BBC' to the search term, will goggle stuff some old BBC articles in the search results, usually of unrelated, years old news.

Did the BBC forget to pay Google? Or does the BBC just fail to catch the breaking news most of the time?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's really starting to annoy me. I'd like to have BBC as one of my main news sources, but I can't find any breaking news from the BBC for quite a few weeks now.

EDIT: Ofcourse, Murphy had to twitch from his grave. The example topic above did turn up a hot BBC item when I added BBC to the search term, instead of some random unrelated BBC article.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38853841

[Starver]

Starver: I was just pointing out that you claimed leadership alone would make you not vote UKIP, then said nothing to that effect again.

No.  I said that leadership or party were not what I voted for, and yet qualified that in some circumstances I might 'vote against'¹ a party's camdidate because of a decade of experience with the party being a provably useful shortcut to my opinion.


¹ I'm running with it, but there' s really no such thing. I 'vote against' all but one candidate only because I'm voting for that one that I do. Or I vote against them all by not voting at all, but it doesn't count, just like the third of people who didn't even use their vote in the referendum are being ignored in the 'landslide result' misnomer.

[Sergarr]

¹ I'm running with it, but there' s really no such thing. I 'vote against' all but one candidate only because I'm voting for that one that I do. Or I vote against them all by not voting at all, but it doesn't count, just like the third of people who didn't even use their vote in the referendum are being ignored in the 'landslide result' misnomer.

This is why I think all important elections should have the "Against everyone" option.

[Loud Whispers]

I can agree with that. However, you don't have the (simply marvellous) choice of political parties that I have. Between DUP and UKIP, I choose the kippers.

When I say choose, I mean the winning choice is between voting for Labour or Liberal Democrat, since they're the only two parties that can win in my borough. Votes for UKIP, Greens, Tories or Monster Raving Looneys are more statements than real attempts at deciding political agenda, so my individual vote carries relatively fewer political capital other than an expressing of intent. Whether to vote for the party you want or the party that wins, I go vote for the one I want to see, makes much more sense that way

LW, do you know what's up with the BBC?
Whenever I google a hot news item, Google always presents the Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph articles as 'top stories'. There's dozens of smaller news sites in the list below it, but the BBC is never shown.
Only if I manually add 'BBC' to the search term, will goggle stuff some old BBC articles in the search results, usually of unrelated, years old news.
Did the BBC forget to pay Google? Or does the BBC just fail to catch the breaking news most of the time?

I can only guess that the Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph all have top notch SEO whilst the Beeb doesn't. It is possible that since Guardian, Daily Mail and Telegraph all run adverts and the BBC doesn't run adverts, google is directing traffic towards private online news and away from public online news, so as to maximize ad revenue. That's all I can think of, really it could be anything

You're not the kind of person using "kekekek" and "fam", especially when it is suggested in private that these are annoyingly distracting, and other memes with variously uninteligable/distracting natures. You may not be "my kind of person", but you at least seem to be trying not to obfuscate everything you say in a neo-elitist manner, just for the 'lulz'.

"Kekekek" is a zerg rush, "fam" does not deserve to be in quotes any more than "mate" does because it's just the English language, gods be good I've never even seen "lulz" been used unironically in aeons, and jesu christo a sense of humour is neo-elitist ahahaha
Gl in life

Speaking of Sinn Fein, I saw an article yesterday (from an entirely unreliable source) saying that secretly, the Queen was unhappy about having to meet Trump. And it made me think, were it true; bitch, you shook Martin McGuinness's hand, the man who led the terrorists who killed your bloody cousin. I don't care if Trump swaggers in, gives you the up-and-down and drawls out 'Howdy Lizzie' before reaching around to pinch your arse, you can smile, shake his hand, and go back to your life of luxury.

In Brexit, sources said the Queen supported Leave and Remain
The Queen is plausible deniability incarnate, with exactly no opinion about everything so as to ensure people don't see monarchs influencing policy in the current century

[MorleyDev]

A former Head of the Foreign Office weighed in on it, saying she is most likely in a difficult position. But she has met with tyrants and such before, and so a narcissistic billionaire is child's play compared to people who have literally ordered the deaths of thousands.

The Queen is plausible deniability incarnate, with exactly no opinion about everything so as to ensure people don't see monarchs influencing policy in the current century

I'm curious what will happen when she eventually passes away. Assuming she doesn't outlive him (which remains a possibility given both their ages), Prince Charles is a lot less quiet and I can't imagine him stopping that. (Honestly, the best thought of a state visit from Trump is that it could involve him and Trump in the same room. I swear, they'd probably have to gag the both of them to stop an international incident. And a twitter war between Trump and Charles would be just delightful to watch)

[wierd]

It was my understanding that Charles was to be passed over, and prince Harry(?) was to be coronated instead upon the queen's passing.

[Dorsidwarf]

It was my understanding that Charles was to be passed over, and prince Harry(?) was to be coronated instead upon the queen's passing.

Thats what a lotan amount I dont know the quantity of people think *should happen. Charles is her heir however, Harry is fifth in line, after William's children.

[ChairmanPoo]

How about it was decided via succesion war? It has been a long while since we had one, and would like be more interesting than current vanilla wars.

[MorleyDev]

Considering the lack of practical power of the monarchy (being more or less figurehead positions), I doubt either of them'd be able to command any military power for a war of succession. As such, I like to imagine that this would involve them just in standing the middle of the Buckingham Palace and slapping each other repeatedly.

[Helgoland]

Gentlemen, consider yourselves invited.

[hector13]

BBC(?) analysis of the results, if you're interested.