Ed Milibrand

[missunderstood]

The Labour party ceased being influenced by the trade union movement a long time ago, which many of us think is a great shame

Missunderstood - So you want to go back to the dark days of Arthur Scargill then

I remember those days as the dark days of Thatcher, who did more harm to British industry than the Luftwaffe and doodlebugs put together.

[Eastside Urchin]

Good old maggie,depends what industry you are talking about.

Banks seemed to do ok as did the financial sector and let's face it,its where the moneys at.

Labour ruined the city

[missunderstood]

Good old maggie,depends what industry you are talking about.

Banks seemed to do ok as did the financial sector and let's face it,its where the moneys at.

Labour ruined the city

 

What a load of rubbish, it wasn't Labour that ruined the city, it was greedy corrupt bankers. Labour should have brought in legislation to control that greed, and the Tories were calling for less, so I don't think they have any credibility whatsoever.

[Eastside Urchin]

Garbage

[Loose]

No, Alan's right, it is rubbish. Only yanks and pretentious toryboys call it garbage.

 

[Rhodes]

I remember those days as the dark days of Thatcher, who did more harm to British industry than the Luftwaffe and doodlebugs put together.

Missunderstood - How can you possibly say that, the best thing Margaret Thatcher did for the Country, other than perhaps win the Falklands war single handedly, was quosh the Unions!

[Hookey]

I remember those days as the dark days of Thatcher, who did more harm to British industry than the Luftwaffe and doodlebugs put together.

Missunderstood - How can you possibly say that, the best thing Margaret Thatcher did for the Country, other than perhaps win the Falklands war single handedly, was quosh the Unions!

 

To say Thatcher won the war single handedly is a huge insult to the men that died in that conflict.

[Rhodes]

Hookey - But we would have received far worse casualties had we lost the war wouldn't we and what would have happened to the then Falkland Islands residents had we just sat back and allowed Argentina to claim the so called Malvinas

[Loose]

The British had a top level spy who gathered convincing, corroborated and hard intelligence of Galtieri's invasion plans which were ignored by Thatcher, her Government and Ministry of Defence. How many lives would have been saved if the deterrent of a strong British Garrison had been in place on the Falklands following such intelligence? Instead, 255 british soldiers, 3 Falkland civilians (women), and over 600 argentinians died after a war was allowed to develop. Over 1,100 argentinian and 777 british non fatal casualties - and we all know how well their government and country looked after them don't we?

 

They and their families must be so proud now that a lickspittle can wax lyrical over how one power-crazed madwoman won the war.

[Eastside Urchin]

Its impossible to say if lives would of been saved.

As for being pretentious,moi??

[Loose]

Its impossible to say if lives would of been saved.

As for being pretentious,moi??

 

Yes, impossible but guesses can be made that Argentina's largely conscript army were no match for a well trained, highly motivated, extremely coherently and well equipped fighting force, an easy occupation versus a difficult invasion might have made the difference between Galtieri's dreams of a quick political distracting victory from his woes in Argentina inciting patriotism and a decision indicating farce and loss of face.

 

How many lives saved? We'll never know. Just one? A dozen? Hundreds or all? Impossible as you say, but easy to see a twat grandstanding over a complete failure portrayed as a cheap victory which the loss of lives certainly isn't.

[Yugow]

Thanks for sharing this link! I missed this

[Rhodes]

I see that Ed Milliband has put his foot in it yet again and given Labour's backing for gay marriage, he said that Churches should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies for same sex couples and in a statement stated 'I think whether you are gay or straight you should be able to signify your commitment and your love with the term 'marriage' so the Labour Party provides its wholehearted support for this campaign.

[missunderstood]

I see that Ed Milliband has put his foot in it yet again and given Labour's backing for gay marriage, he said that Churches should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies for same sex couples and in a statement stated 'I think whether you are gay or straight you should be able to signify your commitment and your love with the term 'marriage' so the Labour Party provides its wholehearted support for this campaign.

 

To his credit Cameron also has a liberal view on gay marriage. Hopefully your next post will be a sincere apology for giving the impression of being a gay bashing bigot..

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

The problem is church and state should be separate, and the latter should not 'police' the former.

 

I have no problems at all with gay people - they have been around since Jesus was in nappies. However, when they want to impose their 'rights' on Christians then that too is bigoted and wrong. Leviticus 18:22 says that 'Man shalt not lie with man as with a woman.' and that forms part of the backbone of Christianity - The Bible.

 

Are we to get rid of The Bible for 'hate crimes against homosexuals?'

 

Marriage is also for the procreation of children.

 

A civil partnership and rights in law (and responsibilities!) should be enough for them, but as ever it is a handful of the 'noisy rabble' who are demanding change for change's sake. Most gay people in Gloucester (truly gay, not just ones who say they are) are fine just to have equality with their straight friends and don't feel the need to bang any drums. Heck, can I have a straight parade? The answer to that is a definite 'uvavu' (as Vic and Bob would have said).

[Loose]

Can't see why it matters to you so much Adam tbh.

[missunderstood]

The problem is church and state should be separate, and the latter should not 'police' the former.

 

I have no problems at all with gay people - they have been around since Jesus was in nappies. However, when they want to impose their 'rights' on Christians then that too is bigoted and wrong. Leviticus 18:22 says that 'Man shalt not lie with man as with a woman.' and that forms part of the backbone of Christianity - The Bible.

 

Are we to get rid of The Bible for 'hate crimes against homosexuals?'

 

Marriage is also for the procreation of children.

 

A civil partnership and rights in law (and responsibilities!) should be enough for them, but as ever it is a handful of the 'noisy rabble' who are demanding change for change's sake. Most gay people in Gloucester (truly gay, not just ones who say they are) are fine just to have equality with their straight friends and don't feel the need to bang any drums. Heck, can I have a straight parade? The answer to that is a definite 'uvavu' (as Vic and Bob would have said).

 

Of coarse the state should police the various religions that are part of our national fabric Adam. Paedophile catholic priests, radical Islamic preachers spewing out hatred against the west, and Anglican bishops who hold the view that gay people are not the equal of the heterosexual majority in the eyes of their lord, dictate that religious groups certainly do need policing.

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

I agree with weeding out extremists, religious or not.

 

Most Catholic Priests are not sex offenders and most Iman's are quite calm and polite. The Iman at Barton Mosque in Gloucester, for example, wants the local Muslim community to integrate more with the people of the city and to be 'a part of it and not apart from it.'

 

As ever, it's the immature minority who cause problems. It's like saying that because some fans of Chelsea, Millwall, Rangers, Cardiff City and Leeds United cause trouble that all their fans are bad.

 

If the law starts to tell the Church what to do, and starts to boss it around, then it is going to get a backlash. If a Priest does not want to marry a gay couple, he should not be threatened with arrest or be branded a bigot. The biggest bigots are usually the ones to cast the first stone without realising why the Church takes its stance - it is because they believe that the Bible is the written word and the truth. Whether or not it is the literal truth and word for word what the apostles wrote is open to interpretation.

[Rhodes]

Can't see why it matters to you so much Adam tbh

Why not, I make him spot on!

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Loose,

 

I'm not cross about the subject, but I was born into a Catholic family.

 

I am no longer a Church-goer but I do believe in a 'God' or a 'Controlling Force' in the Universe. I don't believe it is Science alone that makes up the world - there is too much order, form and design for it to be random.

 

Anyway, I believe in rights and responsibilities for all people gay/straight/black/white/young/old/rich/poor etc. We are part of the human race, so let's work on that rather than dividing and conquering.