UK General Election 2017

[Idaho]

No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.

[Idaho]

With personal disposable incomes dropping, the city has no good line of income from liquid assets. Consequently they must have a stab at fixed assets - in this case houses.

[Sarmatian]

Why are you trying to steer the discussion away from foxes and hounds? I wasn't this entertained about British policies regarding small wild animals since that episode of Yes, Minister with the beavers.

[Pannonian]

No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.

Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.

I have just seen this post online:

‘People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.

I work in the City....

Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.

[Idaho]

Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.



Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.

I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.

[Beskar]

So, the internet is on the agenda for being hitlisted by the Tories. If Corbyn said about restricting free speech and controlling the internet akin to North Korea and China, a few posters here wouldn't quiet down about Stalinism.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7744176.html

[Pannonian]

When I linked to an extremely well-respected documentary on the Labour party's history, featuring just about everyone who was anyone (who was still alive), speaking on camera, thus providing both primary sources and unassailable attribution, Idaho dismissed it as:

Wow - argument from authority! Keep them coming.

Then Idaho gets quoted an unattributed post, probably on social media.

No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.

I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.

Hang on, here's some more. I posted a list of direct quotes, open letters and such from people who used to work with Corbyn, and here's Idaho's response.

This is called argument from authority. Usually a favourite rhetorical fallacy of American gun nuts and anti abortionists.

[AE Bravo]

Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.

Do some hard sparring with a human, in a fair one, if you want to be honest with yourself.

[Gilrandir]

Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.

You mean the hunted animal would feel better if it knew it was going to be eaten after all, and this chase is not for fun?

[Beskar]

Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!

Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.

[Pannonian]

Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!

Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.

While Corbyn himself may not be a Communist, it's not that much of a stretch as he's sympathised with the USSR in the past and still sympathises with Russia, Cuba (he prioritised attending a Cuba rally over meeting with the Parliamentary party) and others in that bloc. His associates and staff are even less removed from the accusation of being Communists. His shadow chancellor and no.2 John McDonnell recently attended a rally and gave a speech with Baathist and USSR flags just above his head. His campaign chief was still a Communist party member in May last year, having been so for decades. His chief of staff was considered an extremist and a lapdog of the USSR by the leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain (there's something wrong when the head of the UK's Communist Party thinks you're too close to Soviet Russia). His shadow home secretary reckons Mao Zedong did more good than bad. So that's at least four of his close circle, who decide the direction of the Labour party (not the shadow cabinet as a whole, as we've seen from accounts of former shadow cabinet ministers), who reckon Communism is a good thing. I've seen videos from a conference where Corbyn introduced and spoke glowingly of Andrew Murray and Seumas Milne (two of the above) and George Galloway.

Is it that unfair to call Corbyn a Communist or accuse him of consorting with Communists?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.

Well, if we had no foxes the only predators for livestock would be badgers and curs - so killing foxes is certainly advantageous, so if fencing.

However, hunting with hounds is essentially predation against foxes. Without the hunt the fox essentially becomes the apex predator in most rural environments. Possibly they are challenged by badgers, but badgers have a different diet so they don't often directly conflict.

We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.

Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.

Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.

Do some hard sparring with a human, in a fair one, if you want to be honest with yourself.

It's not a martial art. Unlike boar hunting fox and stag hunting have nothing really martial about them.

Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!

Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.

Excellent question.

Have you considered that it has to do with Corbyn and McDonnall's characters, and not their policies?

In any case,5% is not a "tiny bit more" in tax, it's a lot more in tax. Also, you'll note that Churchill paid less in indirect taxes, and the basic rate at the time was over 30%, not the 20% of today. If Corbyn committed himself to reducing VAT whilst increasing tax for higher earners then his plans would be better recieved. Anyway, these aren't even the most eye-watering changes, the worst one so far is the increase in Private Medical Insurrance Tax.

So - get this - you pay NI which pays for the NHS, then you buy private insurance so you don't use the NHS, then you pay AGAIN on that private insurance. Corbyn wants to hike that one by 8%, which will likely drive people back into the NHS, negating the benefit of them opting out but still paying NI.

[Furunculus]

Just like 2015, my facebook feed is filling up with likes and shares from the usual anti-tory bile.

One I'm particularly amused by is "Nobody likes a Tory".

Amused, because it is a significant part of why the left is going to lose the election: these people do not know how to communicate. By these people, i don't just mean the vendors of this social media bile or the parties they advocate (tho it applies to them too), but the people sharing this content!

When they share such aggressive and polarising content, they are not just attacking a party, they are attacking the values of people who find themselves attracted to that party's ideas. This is beyond polite disagreement, it is a public and visceral denigration of that person's perceived moral worth.

What does someone normally do when an acquaintence treats their values with contempt? I'm willing to bet they don't roll over and say; "Fair enough, I can see your point of view, and I've reconsidered my opinion in consequence. Thanks for taking the time, appreciated!" What matters is not that it happens here and there, rather, that up and down the land everyone's social media feed is filling up with this bile. What affect do they think this has?

I mention this not because i'm feeling particularly snowflake'y today, but in anticipation of the shock and despair on June 9th from those same people: "How did this happen, again? I don't know anyone who'd vote this way!"

Really?

[Elephantine]

We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.

Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.

Well that is earth shattering revelation.
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.

Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?

Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?
How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?

Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.

Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve