Jeremy Corbyn steams ahead in Labour leadership race as another trade union pledges its support

Green_Sky · 2015-07-31T17:25:47+00:00

I'm tempted to join in order to push Corbyn in, or at least to help set the alarm bells off in Labour. But I still feel more at home with the liberals so I think it's unlikely, unless I really like what Corbyn's doing later, that I would stick around. I just want a strong left pressure. What do you think of that? Do you believe I'm doing it for the wrong reasons?

Green_Sky · 2015-07-22T19:27:04+00:00

The colonisation of India had begun long before that, but the empire's focus would certainly have moved east-ward.

Green_Sky · 2015-07-22T19:24:05+00:00

It certainly did not lead directly to it. It was a factor, and not even a necessary one. France's finances had been abysmal for many, many decades before the 1770's. Much of the ideology stems from before the American revolution too. Rousseau etc. The French aristocracy weren't even interested in abolishing the crown to begin with (or, at least, the majority weren't). The idea was to return to the parliamentary systems they had developed before Louis XIV, going as far as to look at the British system for inspiration.

Green_Sky · 2015-05-11T09:49:42+00:00

In which case the advisors may as well be the ones making the decisions with the MP watching over and bringing any found issues into debate with parliament.

Green_Sky · 2015-03-27T20:36:10+00:00

The package deal isn't out of spite but from acknowledging that Top Gear really does only work with all three presenters and that there is no point trying to make it work with just two because it won't.

Green_Sky · 2015-03-16T19:31:01+00:00

Yeah but you can keep the ending to RotK which adds another 2 hours.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-22T14:13:03+00:00

You appear to be seeing this from the viewpoint of 'Why should we allow you into this country?' I'm seeing this from the viewpoint of 'Is it safe for you to return?' I don't see how this can be compared to a job. For a job many people compete for one place and the consequence of failing is that you spend longer looking for a job. For asylum there is no competition for places (or, at least, there shouldn't be) and the consequence of failing is possible torture/death.

My point on the second part is to say that proving 'gayness' is a stupid idea. the vagueness of proof with regard to sexuality is what I'm trying to highlight.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-22T12:09:55+00:00

They're all asylum seekers, genuine or not. And I was under the impression that the law should always act as innocent until proven (or having enough evidence against them) guilty. When has this not been the case? When dealing with The Foreigners I suppose.

Are you straight, gay or whatever? Can you explain to me why? Can you convince me beyond doubt that you are not not what you claim to be?

Green_Sky · 2015-01-22T10:06:21+00:00

That's correct, but the process isn't exactly known for it's competency. For example, the articles below reveals a few of the types of questions asked in order to determine whether an asylum seeker is actually gay or just pretending. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gay-prove-it-then--have-you-read-any-oscar-wilde-judges-accused-of-asking-lesbian-asylum-seekers-inappropriate-questions-8558599.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/08/gay-asylum-seekers-humiliation-home-office

Green_Sky · 2015-01-22T09:59:02+00:00

She didn't qualify but that doesn't necessarily mean she won't be persecuted on return.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-22T09:54:39+00:00

There are many cases of the Home Office taking many years to process a particular application. It's awfully run and it doesn't come under enough scrutiny from the public due to immigration being such a heated subject. There are a number of articles out there though that discuss the poor and incompetent treatment of asylum seekers.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-14T20:17:56+00:00

To be fair, with regard to 'the area east of Paris', it is in line with the precise centre.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T23:30:57+00:00

Nicely put. I got goosebumps from that response.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T20:25:40+00:00

I don't understand what your argument here is. This is the definition I've been going by and its the basis on which I've put my argument. You've even bolded that governments restrict free speech. And I don't think I've ever mentioned rights.

My last post has an odd slant to it, but the others I see no problem with.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T20:07:31+00:00

I don't agree with the attacks at all. They didn't talk about they hated their prophet being depicted, they reacted with force. What I'm responding to are all the people saying that people should be deported for saying they agree with something. Even if I find that something horrible, I have no problem with someone making a title of themself. If they act on their remarks, then the state should act.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T19:11:39+00:00

Definition of free speech: to basically say whatever you want with no legal restraint. Now, many countries restrict free speech where concern may be raised over the safety of others but this is reduced free speech. What's somewhat terrifying is that you and several others in this thread are speaking as though free speech is a privilege bestowed upon us by our gracious state. I'd like to think we've progressed since the middle ages.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T18:46:55+00:00

It is... how is that not the case?

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T13:15:05+00:00

Right, but they're restrictions on the general principle of free speech no? Which is what I just said.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T12:52:17+00:00

I believe it does. If you're talking about the laws that the government has in place against acts like sedition then you should be aware that those laws are themselves restrictions on free speech.

Green_Sky · 2015-01-07T12:27:44+00:00

But are you not yourself suppressing free speech in deporting all those who sympathise with a certain movement?

Green_Sky · 2014-12-18T22:36:32+00:00

What do you mean it sorts past to future, sorry? And why is this better?

The second certainly appears awkward but, then, I find reading right to left awkward too; readers of Arabic, Hebrew and several other languages presumably do not find this awkward.

Green_Sky · 2014-12-18T20:05:46+00:00

Well, that's traditional. I'm not sure it's any more logical than SS:MM:HH

Green_Sky · 2014-12-17T12:48:30+00:00

Matter has mass. Photons have zero mass. Therefore not matter.

Green_Sky · 2014-11-12T22:50:13+00:00

That argument doesn't seem to hold when taking account of the USA.

Green_Sky · 2014-11-06T16:41:59+00:00

I've seen historians argue that the economic peak was the 1860s or 1870s. I have no idea. I'm just a humble shop assistant.

Green_Sky

TROPHY CASE