 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 31 Oct 23 - 03:30 PM Starmer is wriggling. He's trying to shut up the critics in his party by "criticising" Israel, a little bit. But still no ceasefire call. No principles on show here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Nov 23 - 07:03 PM "David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary who visited the region last week, said that the “number of dead Palestinian civilians and children is shocking” as he called on Israel to take further steps to stop a “humanitarian catastrophe”. He said that Israel “must uphold international law” and also warned of violence in the West Bank." Talk about soft words. Why couldn't he say that Israel has been breaching international law for four weeks. Yes it's shocking. Yeah, David, how did we ever know that before you told us. Thanks for telling us what we already know in spades, David. Yes Israel should uphold international law. Thing is, Israel never does. But Lammy, a member of Labour Friends of Israel (aka a man in the pocket of the pro-Israel lobby) can't criticise Israel. His party leader will make sure of that. In a word, bollocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 23 - 06:34 AM The only reason I will (extremely reluctantly) hope for at least two Labour terms after the next election is that Braverman is not unlikely to be the next Tory leader. The woman is the nearest thing to being a true fascist we have in Parliament. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Nov 23 - 08:49 PM Try having a read of it, Nige. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Nov 23 - 05:28 AM Sorry, Nigel - I don't know where the 'ell that 'l' went...:-( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 23 - 09:32 AM Well read it and see. I'd put it at dead-centre Labour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Nov 23 - 06:11 PM From a Guardian letter responding to suggestions that the marches on Armistice weekend should be called off, or even banned: ...I shall be marching for a small boy, surrounded by siblings, standing in the ruins of his neighbourhood whose cry, “We’ve done nothing wrong”, has so much more power and honesty than UK politicians who seek to divide us with their claims that the marches are “hate-filled” or “disrespectful”. I'm not big on hate, but I could so easily come to hate these sanctimonious, mealy-mouthed hypocrites who appear on our screens to criticise the marches straight after we've just watched the nightly routine of the horrors being visited on the civilians of Gaza who have done nothing wrong. The people who we commemorate on Armistice day died so that those of us who come after can enjoy democracy, our human rights and freedom of expression. A plague on the houses of those hypocrites. And please don't tell me that I'm not criticising Hamas or being fair to Israel. I've done that on every possible occasion in these threads, but my current gaze is on the plight of the benighted civilians of Gaza. That little boy is just one of thousands of children living or dying or being maimed for over a month in conditions that no child should have to endure, and we seem to have decided to be no more than spectators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Nov 23 - 04:27 PM I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Nov 23 - 06:48 AM Sunak last night condemned the “violent, wholly unacceptable” scenes. He said both the far right and “Hamas sympathisers” had been responsible. Liar. There were no violent scenes on a march of around half a million people (a bit of difference-splitting there). There was serious violence at the cenotaph, caused by a bunch of right-wing extremists. Out of that half-million, the police are looking for a handful of people who might have had pro-Hamas regalia. Sunak went on to condemn "antisemitic chants," by which I assume he meant "from the river to the sea", which is not an antisemitic chant. It was one of the largest marches ever in this country and it was entirely peaceful, but our scumbag prime minister couldn't resist making a false equivalence in order to apportion blame for the trouble in London yesterday. Both he and Starmer are refusing to call for a ceasefire. Make no bones about it: they are simply giving the nod to Israel to carry on with the killing. Despicable. There they both were this morning at the cenotaph, honouring the dead yet refusing to call for a halt to the killing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Nov 23 - 02:12 PM Thanks for that, Nigel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Nov 23 - 07:29 PM It's the fake equivalence between 'protesters and counter-protesters" that gets me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Nov 23 - 06:31 AM Cameron, a man who should never have been allowed anywhere near Downing Street ever again, fer chrissake... Put him in that big barge all on his own and float the bloody thing off to Rwanda. Anyone got a spare ball and chain? Anyone contemplating that he could well be the next Tory leader? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Nov 23 - 07:03 AM How would you know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Nov 23 - 08:22 AM We are allowed just one UK political thread. Keep your politics out of it, please. I hate Cameron. Hubris led to brexit, a terrible misjudgement. The architect of austerity ("we're all in it together"). Very dodgy lobbying. NHS starting to implode on his watch. Hardly any growth. Explosion of zero-hours contracts. Shat on the public sector via pay freeze after pay freeze. He did one excellent thing: he completely nobbled that shabby bunch of naive opportunists, the Lib Dems. However, he's a big hitter. He scrubs up well. He's not far right. From a Tory point of view, this isn't at all a bad move. Stodgy Starmer beware. And, after her showing on the Today programme this morning, for God's sake keep Rachel Reeves out of the spotlight. Could do worse than shutting Yvette up while he's at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Nov 23 - 09:09 AM It's Thérèse f'Coffey, Filk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Nov 23 - 09:52 AM I watched the whole of the Supreme Court ruling this morning. What struck me was the fact that Rwanda's blatant failings to abide by previous agreed understandings on how asylum seekers should be treated, particularly with Israel, as well as a mass of solid evidence on this from the UN refugee agency, seem to have been ignored by this government. They were pursuing a doomed policy that has already cost taxpayers many millions of pounds. I feel like suing them to get my bloody money back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Nov 23 - 05:48 PM Sunak is entering a minefield. His daft tough talk today reeks of his need to react sharply to the idiot Braverman, which he doesn't need to do. He ignored a mass of evidence from Israel and UNHCR that Rwanda does not comply with agreements as to how asylum seekers should be treated, and it's clear that "safe country" does not apply to Rwanda. That's one thing. But Starmer. As an opposition leader, as the leader of a party that's supposed to put ordinary people first, in contrast to self-serving Tories, why can't he call for a ceasefire? It's just a call. It's not a demand. It won't happen just because he calls for it. It would be a symbolic call only. It would, though, put clear blue water between Labour and the Tories. Instead, he clings to Sunak's coat tails. He runs scared of Biden should he beat Sunak in the election. He is not a leader. He's a follower. And his stance on the conflict is splitting the party. As any fule no, split parties always lose elections. So the next election is going to come down to who's more split, Labour or Tories. Sir K, it really doesn't need to be that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Nov 23 - 05:52 PM "I can also say we are allowed just one US political thread so keep your politics out of it please but I agree with free speech with all its curses and benefits. Let's keep your personal animosities out of it. Comparing US reports to UK reports is sometimes different." But the trouble is that you wade in but have absolutely no desire to discuss our politics. The simple reason for that is that you have not studied our politics and your posts show no understanding of it. By all means join in. By which I mean, join in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Nov 23 - 06:40 PM Some Labour spokespeople I've heard today: Pat McFadden Yvette Cooper Keir Starmer Peter Kyle Rachel Reeves David Lammy Barry Gardiner (and others) All calling for no ceasefire. In other words, carry on the slaughter but do listen to our very mild cautions. All members of Labour Friends Of Israel. Then Jess Phillips. Feminist, anti-Corbynite. She left the front bench today in protest against the anti-ceasefire stance. She's also a member of Labour Friends of Israel. My opinion of her has soared. A real humanitarian. Kudos, Jess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Nov 23 - 06:51 PM Gosh, didn't think that last post of mine had taken. I meant to add this comment from Jess's letter, with which I couldn't agree more. "I can see no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region now and in the future." Absolutely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 31 Oct 23 - 07:58 AM With the Covid enquiry well on the way, and the admission from political advisors that the government was so ill prepared, the least the pandemic could have done is waited until we had a competent government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 05 Nov 23 - 08:36 AM Noticed that that piece of toxic proverbial had provided more proof the ALL tories and their supporters are racists, why else would it spout on about homeless people being mostly foreigners. did it personally check all their passports? What is the betting that the tory **** are too tight fisted to buy homes out of their own pockets to give homeless people a place to live rent free until they get back on their feet, and then pay an affordable rent. Where are the high streets with the rows and rows of tents? I haven't seen any, or is it referring to camp sites? Maybe it believes that homeless people should report for just be wiped of the face of the earth so that it doesn't have to look at the problem its party and the pathetic excuse for human skin that votes for it have created just because it lowers the value of their properties. There is no room for neo-n****m in my society, so as far as I am concern, every tory voter should be deported to some tin pot, extreme right dictatorship with appalling human rights where they can live happily amongst their own kind, and we can get back to being a decent, caring welcoming society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 05 Nov 23 - 08:37 AM I really should have just said what I really thought, rather than holding back just now |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 25 Oct 23 - 10:49 AM > The first sentence warns you cannot read too much into a single by > election result. Then every following sentence makes exactly that > assumption. That's straight out of the "I'm not an unreasonable person but" book.* I heard many years ago that the trick is to read up to the "but", and take the inverse of what goes before it as the speaker's POV; the rest of the statement can then optionally be disregarded as too obvious to need to be stated. * It's a standard rhetorical technique. Fifty bonus points for correctly naming it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 10 Nov 23 - 05:56 AM For some reason, the original third verse in "All things bright and beautiful" tends to not appear in modern hymnals. It went:
Oh, and for completeness, my father used to leave in the verse ending
.... partly from simple mischief, and partly to see how many of the congregation engaged their brains while singing hymns. NB: No tents were harmed in the production of this comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 13 Nov 23 - 11:27 AM This has been brewing for nearly a week: it seems it was the "tents" issue that pushed Rishi over the top, not Cruella being, erm, economical with the diplomacy about the marches (which just added the cherry). I await the front-page picture on this week's New European with interest, but it should feature Cruella's head poking out of a tent on the doorstep of Number Ten. For the record, at the time of typoing: * Cruella -> back benches * Cleverley -> Home Office * the boy Cameron -> Foreign Office * Theresa Coffey (sp?) -> back benches* ..... and more to follow. * Despite paying her respects to Larry the Cat on the way in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 15 Nov 23 - 10:14 AM Herself's comment this morning: "That's typical of the Tories: no Plan B." My response: "Plan B is Plan A, shouted louder." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 15 Nov 23 - 05:04 PM Passing a law stating that Rwanda is safe forcibly reminds me of the Indiana Pi Bill. I commend the Wikipedia page to you, but can't resist:
Happily, a real mathematician was in the building on other business, he educated members of the Indiana Senate, the bill was duly blocked, and the newspapers in other States ceased heaping ridicule on the Indiana State Legislature. Sadly, in our case, the grownups seem to have deserted the House of Commons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 19 Nov 23 - 09:00 AM UK's Online Safety Bill has become the Online Safety Act, complete with the section which states that the Forces of Law and Order shall be able to intercept any and all communications (the CSAM measure). The language carefully states that end-to-end encryption is not banned, but that intercepts shall be permitted once the technology exists to permit it. Since it's mathematically impossible for said technology to work as advertised, the Act has deemed (again) that black is white by legislative fiat. More at the The Shapeshifting Crypto Wars at the Lawfare site. Once I find the earlier article I've been paraphrasing, I'll post a link to that too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Nov 23 - 07:43 AM Legislation saying that if something currently impossible becomes possible other things that are currently impossible will be legal is rational enough, even if it's a bit nonsensical. Like saying if pigs could fly air traffic control would need to be modified to prevent accidents. It's not like passing a law saying that from now on throwing people over a cliff is safe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 27 Nov 23 - 09:12 AM > Like saying if pigs could fly air traffic control would need > to be modified to prevent accidents. It's slightly worse than that. The precise wording of the |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Dec 23 - 07:35 PM Well, if anyone is still in doubt about Starmer's socialist credentials, he's blown them out of the water now by praising Thatcher. From the Sunday Telegraph (!) via the Guardian: Keir Starmer has praised Margaret Thatcher for effecting “meaningful change” in Britain in an article directly appealing to Conservative voters to switch to Labour. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, the Labour leader said Thatcher had “set loose our natural entrepreneurialism” during her time as prime minister. I can scarcely bring myself to say more. Except that I've been bloody telling you about him, haven't I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Dec 23 - 03:46 AM He said a lot more than that, didn’t he? Here’s a link to the whole Guardian piece, And another to the Telegraph article, so people can read the whole thing and form their own impressions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 23 - 04:42 AM You can't read the Telegraph piece unless you subscribe (I'd sooner hack off the family jewels with a rusty machete, frankly), and the Guardian piece says what I quoted and very little more. In other words, your "links" are next to useless except to dyed-in-the-wool Torygraph aficionados. Instead, I recommend a listen to Paddy O'Connell giving Starmer a rather uncomfortable grilling on Broadcasting House on Radio 4 this morning. I'm trusting the capable readers of this thread to find that for themselves. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Backwoodsman Date: 03 Dec 23 - 11:43 AM ”You can't read the Telegraph piece unless you subscribe” Nonsense. I don’t subscribe and I read it. As I’ve told you several times now, rather than rely on your frequently edited C&Ps, I prefer to read the source material and form my own opinions. I can only guess at the true reason for your obstinacy in refusing to give links to your sources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 23 - 12:10 PM Keep guessing. Perhaps you have a conspiracy theory about me. I almost feel honoured. Well you must have magic powers because I couldn't get past the second line of that piece. Anyway, do you have an opinion of Starmer's praising of Thatcher or would you rather discuss further why I don't do links as good as your last two? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Geoff Wallis Date: 03 Dec 23 - 12:22 PM It's definitely not nonsense. The Bellylaugh's Starmer interview is for subscribers only. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Rain Dog Date: 03 Dec 23 - 02:42 PM I followed the link and was able to read the Telegraph piece. Just had to keep scrolling down. I am not a subscriber to The Telegraph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 23 - 04:11 PM That's what they all say... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 03 Dec 23 - 06:46 PM For the benefit of those who claim an inability to read the Telegraph (probably just Steve) here's the full quote: From the Telegraph 02/12/2023 "Sir Keir Starmer heaped praise on Margaret Thatcher for effecting “meaningful change” in Britain as he launched an explicit appeal to Conservative voters to switch to Labour. In his most audacious bid yet to woo centre-Right support, reminiscent of the New Labour years, the Labour leader accused the Tories of a “betrayal” of their promises to control migration. In a shift from his staunch opposition to Britain’s departure from the EU before becoming leader, Sir Keir added that the Conservatives have “failed to realise the possibilities of Brexit”. Writing for The Telegraph, he praised Thatcher for “setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism” and warned that public was again fed up with politicians “hectoring”. His intervention is likely to fuel Tory MPs’ concerns about disillusionment among many 2019 Conservative voters with the Government’s approach to key areas such as immigration, inflation and crime. It comes as Rishi Sunak prepares to decide how radical an approach to take with a new law to secure deportation flights to Rwanda before the next election. A plan – a radical version of which would allow ministers to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to asylum – could be finalised within 24 hours and put to the Cabinet as soon as Tuesday." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 23 - 07:05 PM "Probably just Steve" my arse, Nigel! I should think that probably four, maybe five people (I'm not counting) here have discussed this, and two of us, Geoff and I, have both said, quite correctly, that you can't read that article unless you subscribe. I'm not at all surprised that, in your case, you're pleased that Starmer aligned himself with the woman who wrecked this country's industry (especially in Wales, Nigel!) and who engendered the culture of the spiv. Anyway, cheers for subjecting me to the Torygraph piece. I mentioned the Broadcasting House interview earlier. Did you listen? He got far more of a drubbing from Paddy O'Connell than he got from the Telegraph, which latter must have thought that it was their birthday when he spouted his Thatcher nonsense. Do have a listen and report back if you dare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 03 Dec 23 - 07:51 PM I never claimed to be glad of the alignment. That's just in your narrow mind. I don't believe that Thatcher "wrecked this country's industry" but she did restrict the power of the unions to stop industry from moving forwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Dec 23 - 08:25 PM That last sentence brands you as an archetypal Tory, Nigel. Good for you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Backwoodsman Date: 04 Dec 23 - 02:30 AM ”two of us, Geoff and I, have both said, quite correctly, that you can't read that article unless you subscribe.” Then you did something wrong. I repeat - I am not a subscriber, I seldom read anything the Torygraph has to say and I certainly wouldn't pay to read it, but I Googled it, found the piece, read the whole thing, and created and posted the link. A bit of IT-literacy is always helpful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Dec 23 - 04:02 AM Have you actually got anything at all to say about Starmer's praise for Thatcher? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: DMcG Date: 04 Dec 23 - 04:08 AM I think John McTernen's article in the Guardian today makes some excellent points. Here is an extract It happened because Starmer is listening to focus groups of swing voters. But the brutal truth is that there are no swing voters left – when support for the Tory party has fallen to 25%, there is no longer a pond to fish in. You’re convening groups of voters who are undecided whether to vote Tory, stay at home or opt for Nigel Farage and the Reform party. Sure they have views on what would make them listen to Labour – but they will never switch. The priority for Starmer is to talk to the 45% of the voters he has won over and to reassure them that he is the change they want to see in the world of British politics. ... That’s why Starmer shouldn’t give the Tories any quarter. A simple two-line manifesto is all he needs: “Get them out. We will fix it.” “No complacency” is a crucial position for any political party. But the most dangerous complacency of all is to take your own voters for granted. None of the voters who are currently supporting Labour are wavering because they are worried that Starmer is insufficiently respectful of Margaret Thatcher. They want the Tories out. Labour needs to make that its rallying cry. I am very much of the opinion that Starmer has worked very well and hard to turn round the massive gap from the 2019 election, though greatly helped by the incompetence of the government that won. But there comes a point where he needs to be speaking to the people most likely to vote for him, not just the people in the middle. It is a glib over-simplification to say Corbyn mainly spoke to those who would vote for him anyway. Starmer hasn't made that mistake. But he is at risk of not talking to them at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Dec 23 - 05:13 AM The access to the Telegraph article is very client dependent. On my tablet, using Chrome, I could read it. On my desktop, using Firefox and clicking the link provided, I could read it. On my desktop using Chrome, it was blocked. On my desktop using Edge, it was blocked. It also seems to depend on whether you accept or reject cookies but I couldn't be bothered testing all the combinations. Once you understand that not all browsers and devices act in the same way you can understand that people who can read it and people who cannot read it are not doing anything different, but their equipment is. There is no right or wrong here. What was it you said, John? "A bit of IT-literacy is always helpful". As someone who worked in high-end IT design, support and testing I thing the phrase "A bit of IT-literacy is dangerous" would be more suitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Dec 23 - 05:21 AM BTW - I think Steve uses an iPad (Correct me if I'm wrong). Probably with the default Safari browser. They are a law unto themselves |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: DMcG Date: 04 Dec 23 - 05:35 AM Very off topic, but on the IT-literacy angle. I wrote a website for a group of shanty singers I am with, which launched around three weeks ago. One of the things it can do is email a setlist to everyone taking part in gigs. Roughly half of the recipient's systems put it in the spam folder. The other half are quite happy. I have sent it to a spam-assessment site and it is 100% clean/not spam in its opinion. My ISP asserts all the Internet configuration is correct. It gets to me fine, which is a shame because otherwise I could investigate. I don;t have access to their machines to try to find out why they think it is spam. Moral and relevance of the tale: IT systems are tricksy and just because things work for you does not mean it works for anyone else. Oh, and for me, the articles being discussed are behind a paywall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3 From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Dec 23 - 06:04 AM The comments that Starmer made in praise of the blue-rinse 80s country-wrecking harridan in that awful newspaper have been all over the media in any case this weekend. Thatcher single-mindedly tried to destroy the trade unions and Starmer is single-mindedly trying to destroy the left. Similar sentiments in play, so no wonder he's in love with her ghost. As we've seen from the actions of rail workers, nurses, junior doctors, hospital consultants and teachers, she failed to kill the unions, and he's going to find the left coming back to bite him. I'm iPad only these days, Dave. As for me and links, there's a mottled history on this forum of frivolous, time-wasting links, links to stuff 45 minutes long, links to irrelevant YouTube songs that are supposed to make some political point or other, links that don't work, links that take you to a paywall, links that only people in the linker's country can see and, worst of all, posts containing links that are unsupported by any comments from the poster. Those last ones I consider to be lazy and bad-mannered and I never look at them. If I see something interesting I'll tell you where I saw it and post a relevant clip/comment on it. If you can't handle that I feel sorry for you, and criticising me for such a tiny peccadillo whilst simultaneously having nothing to say about the topic in hand is, frankly, childish. |
