Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Andyjs247, 10 Feb 2017.
No but it's not an excuse to treat soldiers doing a 5h1t job as potential abusers.
Except, of course, that the rest of the EU would also pay tariffs on their exports to us.
Given the trade imbalance in their favour that would make us net winners.
...unless a substansive allegation is made that they abused someone. In which case it should be investigated.
It may have been evolving but it was a good deal better defined than the numerous "alternatives" being pushed by the Brexiters.
What are the benefits of Brexit since we are now stuck with it at some point in the future? I know the Daily Mail are keen to tell us how the country is booming despite Brexit even though we haven't actually left the EU yet. We are going to escape the shackles of the EU and make trade deals with more sane regimes like the US, India and China.
Sarcasm. I hope.
After seeing Trump's latest press conference, sanity seemed in short supply.
In what way? I would imagine that the EU comapnies looking to trade with us in that scenario would, quite rightly, simply increase the price that we have to pay at the "checkout" for the goods that have had the tarriffs applied to, making us likely to be net losers, not winners.
There is very little chance that being outside of the EU will get us beneficial trade with the rest of the EU - infact, put simply, that cannot be allowed to happen from an EU stand point, and we have very little to bargain with to gain such an agreement.
What type of press release makes you laugh the most. On of Trump's or one of the usual RMT ones?
Indeed, what would the British view if it had been France or Germany had been the ones to declare they would be leaving the EU.
In the case of France, we would be cheering all the way to the bank as the chance to reform the CAP would have arrived.
In the case of Germany, we would have been pushing them out of the way to get out of the door first!
France would be an interesting one. France is, to all intents and purposes, our main gateway to the rest of the EU. The majority of (non-air) access points with mainland Europe go through France via the Channel. It would leave us in a somewhat unusual position that we'd have a significant barrier to our trade with the rEU. I think it would have accelerated our departure.
Apologies, I was joking.
I had a quick scan through the thread and didn't see it, apologies if I'm repeating something already posted.
This is the Daily Mail cancer list. It lists most of the things that The Mail has said causes cancer, along with links to the articles.
I'm very surprised that the moderators haven't taken exception to the discussion here!
I agree that Mail doesn't deserve the description of a newspaper, but most of this seems to be a debate on Brexit rather than the Mail's value as a source of information...
I get your point but the Daily Mail is allegedly a Newspaper. It is difficult to discuss the stuff it prints without discussing the news.
The Brexit discussion has to go somewhere whilst the main Brexit thread deals with the question of the Death Penalty!
At the end of the day the thread was started by someone making a comment that the Daily Mail had been judged by Wikipedia not to be a credible news source. If we stay 100% on thread then surely it would be a really short thread with 1 reply saying "Wikipedia are allowed to do that, if you don't like it carry on reading the Daily Mail and don't use Wikipedia".
lol! That was exactly my thought! Although now that the main Brexit thread has further wandered - into the question of racial stereotyping - maybe we need to temporarily bring the death penalty discussion into this thread too
I see the Mail has today launched an attack on Wiki. It's a rather long article but here is a snippet:
Full piece here:
Singling out one newspaper for erroneous facts is like stopping one car for speeding at Brands Hatch. Every case I've known that has made a local or national newspaper has been factually flawed, often seriously so.
Ha ha ha. If the Daily Mail was like Wikipedia it would need some kind of citation to say that there was a democratic ballot or even that one was needed. As it stands I think anyone would take anything in the Daily Mail or Wikipedia with a pinch of salt. I just find it amusing that Wikipedia have decided that this hate filled rag is an unreliable news source. Personally I take my information from a number of sources and make my own assessment based on them and my own experiences of the world around me.
A case of "The Empire Strikes Back"...
The Mail is far worse than most though. The ban is no actual hardship; anything even remotely true can be sourced from a more reliable source.
The Mail is infamously known for its inaccuracies and incredible bias, and we can't fix those inaccuracies. People can fix inaccuracies on Wikipedia.
Out of interest would the Daily Mail have a democratic ballot over using Wikipedia for its information?
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a conspiracy.
It's all about patterns of behaviour.
It must be thirty years since I've seen a copy of the Mail, so can't comment on its factual verisimilitude. However it does host the redoubtable Peter Hitchens, whose on-line column is one of the few havens of good sense in a political mire. Wikipedia editing has been taken over by vested interests who commit themselves full time to removing anything they disagree with by fair means or foul.
Having read the marriage discussion thread, in which you disagree with just about everyone else, and having read Peter Hitchens' Wikipedia entry, I can see why you would be a fan of his column
He's a political Conservative, whereas I'm a social conservative, and a Labour voter. However I'm sure he'd agree that's a much smaller difference than the chasm between the laissez faire social and economic liberalism that dominates the political agenda of the main parties, and each other's political compass.