guest1957

Sequoiadendron Gigantea

Progress to my mind is the move towards a society where you aren't defined my where you are born or what you look like. A society where politicians are no longer able to gain political capital by targeting groups of people because they look different or speak a different language. A society where a woman isn't considered to be inferior and told by men that she can't make her own choices. Outdated and irrelevant is a description of those who believe they are somehow special because they were born white, British\American and often male. Such people also tend to think their views are unquestionably right without providing any intellectual or moral justification for them. They also generally think they have an authoritarian right to force their own world order on others. The intolerance we are seeing is impinging on other citizens' freedom and that is why we need to shut it down.

If you are tolerant of those who are intolerant, you create a paradox as the intolerant would abuse the tolerence they are being shown. To prevent this, it is necessary to be intolerant of the intolerant.

It is interesting you categorise me as "left". I certainly don't consider myself to be economically left. What I am is an anti-authoritarian who believes in the rule of law and the core values of liberty. I also don't understand why you see 'liberal' as a dirty word. All I can think is you are using the same misapplication of the word as the majority of the right wing press. Like the stupid term 'snowflake' it has become a stick to beat people who disagree with the dross that Farage, Trump etc are spewing because those using the term lack the eloquence to win the intellectual argument. And believe me, if you met me you wouldn't think I was smug; just lacking in tolerence for those who suddenly think they have a free pass to air their abhorrent views as a result of the events of the last twelve months.

Ah yes, so familiarising yourself with the writings of one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century would be a waste of your time? I think I'm beginning to understand you...

As it was mentioned further up the thread, we should be clear that the suspect charged with the Quebec shootings is a white man with right with sympathies: http://news.sky.com/story/quebec-mosque-suspect-charged-as-victims-named-10749579 The second man arrested is now being treated as a witness, not a suspect.

Read Karl Popper on the Paradox of Tolerence. There is absolutely no need for us to tolerate the intolerance of Trump and his gang of cronies.

I think we are in fact seeing the polar opposite. Brexit, Trump etc is the last stand of those who have become outdated and irrelevant and can't bear the sight of progress. The boorishness, use of stupid put downs like "snowflake" etc. are the tactics of people who no longer have anything to add so have had to resort to creating anger and division to feel relevant. History will judge those who let these people get away with it. They are no different to those who start smashing a few chairs after being told to leave the pub by the landlord.

Well this is awkward...

Some here would have you believe that these are the actions of a rational man

Worth a read: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

I missed two on Saturday...

If you walk around London you can quite easily end up on national television 'without permission'. Is it really such a problem?

£8/brace is a bit mean from the keeper given he'd get 50p from the dealer. I often ask for extra game after a shoot and have always been given it. Had seven brace one time and no one batted an eyelid.

Did I read that they are now recycling scrap using arc furnaces as opposed to blasting new stuff from coke and ore?

By on a whim I meant shortly following the vote. The EU isn't the preserve of the the left, far from it. It really isn't that many years since Thatcher was banging the drum for Europe and I've never heard her called a leftie.

I think it delayed the government making any rash decisions and throwing in an Article 50 notice on a whim. I also think it sends a clear message to Theresa that she isn't the captain of the great ship Britannia; it's a bit more nuanced than that.

I would imagine so. Miller was one of a number of people who brought similar proceedings. The government itself may even have sought a declaration to accompany the Article 50 notice and thus demonstrate Article 50 had been complied with. It would have failed to get the declaration, but given how apparently confident it was, it might well have tried. There is a leading tax QC Jolyon Maugham bringing proceedings in Ireland on the revocation point as well. Miller isn't alone in all of this.

Jurys determine matters of fact, not matters of law, so the analogy cannot be made. Given the number of justices sitting some dissent was likely, but it isn't considered, legally, to be a tight decision. The different reasoning can be found at paragraphs 153 to 283 of the judgment.

You are appealing to powers that have no basis in UK constitutional law like non-binding referenda and executive action. She does have to run this by parliament. You are quite simply wrong. To coin a phrase I'm sure you love - you lost, get over it. Bremoaner...

The lack of understanding is entirely yours. The primacy of EU law was authorised by our sovereign parliament. The EU was not, therefore 'riding roughshod'. What Theresa May was trying to do was make a power grab for the executive and ignore the will of our sovereign parliament and our constitutional laws. Entirely different. Also, you haven't explicitly said it, but it looks as though you aren't aware of the role of the ECtHR and how that has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit...

She should have known this was coming. Read section 5 of this: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

In a purely legal sense, the EU doesn't.

It sets an important precedent and sends a warning to any governments that feel they can go off on a frolic of their own without recourse to parliament. Given the spinlessness of the opposition it won't change the outcome, but it may be an opportunity to temper the hard line taken by May to date.

Well the Supreme Court has ruled that the PM can't ride roughshod over nearly 1000 years of British constitutional history. A 97 page read if anyone is interested...