Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).

I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.

Please don't use a straw man, its rude. I never said that, and I don't think it. You're making a personal attack based on something I did not say.

It has everything to do with his far right politics, AND his mentall illness (possibly caused or aggravated by drug use).

Mentally ill people are more susceptible to the influences of extremists. People who are ill and sometimes lash out violently but otherwise do not go around plottimg mass murder, can fall under the influences of extremists (e.g. Islamist preachers) who manipulate them and focus their energies into something destructive like a terror attack.

Lone wolf Terrorists are often diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses. That doesn't excuse their actions, or mean that their views and beliefs are irrelevant. IIRC, the muslim who made a knife attack on a commuter at the leytonstone underground was diagnosed with a mentally illness. The killers of Lee Right were heavy cannabis users.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).

I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.

Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.

So? That does not make him a liar.

Yes, he has a personal crusade against drugs, yes he's biased. But that doesn't mean hes not telling the truth when he reports that terrorists and murderers who engage in random acts of violence against strangers were drug users. He does a lot of digging and dredges up old police reports, arrests etc. Its surprising how much of a correlation there is between drug use, violence and mental illness.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:
Bloody hell, this is a daming scoop on the EU

The ambassadors of the 28 European Union member states had agreed to secrecy. "Under no circumstances" should the public learn what was said at the talks that took place on March 23rd, the European Commission warned during the meeting of the Permanent Representatives Committee. A staff member of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini even warned that Europe's reputation could be at stake.

Under the heading "TOP 37: Country fiches," the leading diplomats that day discussed a plan that the EU member states had agreed to: They would work together with dictatorships around the Horn of Africa in order to stop the refugee flows to Europe -- under Germany's leadership.

Yes, great idea, lets work with and give legitimacy to dictators, war criminals, repressive regimes and other scumbags to stop migrants. And how do you think these scumbags will stop migrants? Gaol? Beatings? State sponsored murder? Pick one...

Great. After the Arab Spring, the last thing we need is an "African Summer".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).

I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.

Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.

So? That does not make him a liar.

Yes, he has a personal crusade against drugs, yes he's biased. But that doesn't mean hes not telling the truth when he reports that terrorists and murderers who engage in random acts of violence against strangers were drug users. He does a lot of digging and dredges up old police reports, arrests etc. Its surprising how much of a correlation there is between drug use, violence and mental illness.

And? Correlation is not causation, which is what he wants to believe and attempts to lead his readers into believing. There is also a massive correlation between poverty and violence and lots of other types of crime but he doesn't rant about that every time.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).

I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.

Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.

So? That does not make him a liar.

Yes, he has a personal crusade against drugs, yes he's biased. But that doesn't mean hes not telling the truth when he reports that terrorists and murderers who engage in random acts of violence against strangers were drug users. He does a lot of digging and dredges up old police reports, arrests etc. Its surprising how much of a correlation there is between drug use, violence and mental illness.

And? Correlation is not causation, which is what he wants to believe and attempts to lead his readers into believing. There is also a massive correlation between poverty and violence and lots of other types of crime but he doesn't rant about that every time.

No, but Correlation is grounds for further investigation. If theres a strong correlation, then it should be investigated. Thats what Hitchens is calling for.

I think that in honour of our fallen MP, that we reserve conversation about it to the other thread and not bring her death into the EU referendum debate.

I'm from a Catholic family in Belfast. I'm the only one voting to leave in my family. They tell me that the reasons why they're voting to stay is because they're worried that the money the EU invests here will not be given by the British government if we leave the EU, that the boarder between here and the Republic will be closed if we leave, and that they genuinely believe the British government will hammer us without the EU as a retraining bolt. That last one is important. My brother and father are very anti-British government but for different reasons. My brother is a typical socialist Corbyn fanboy student, and my dad is from the 'Troubles' generation. I'm struggling to get through to them, because they won't even let me talk. They both drown me out the second I try to put a point across. I don't think I can persuade them to change their mind.

And what aew your reasons to want to leave FWC?

Because I think the EU is a busted flush that's doomed to failure, and we need to get out while we still can. Also, it's extremely undemocratic, bloated, wasteful and deceitful. Everything it does is behind close doors. It's builders lied to us for years, and it's designed to bypass democratic opinion. It's scary how much it's modeled on the Soviet Union. It wastes millions and demands more in return, hasn't once signed off on its accounts the whole time it's been running, is killing the Mediterranean countries with its idiotic currency, has destroyed our fishing industry, and it's attitude is generally 'you need us to regulate every aspect of your life because you're too stupid to make your own decisions'. Not to mention its desire to build its own army to enact its own foreign policy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
it's extremely undemocratic, bloated, wasteful and deceitful. Everything it does is behind close doors. It's builders lied to us for years, and it's designed to bypass democratic opinion. It's scary how much it's modeled on the Soviet Union. ... it's attitude is generally 'you need us to regulate every aspect of your life because you're too stupid to make your own decisions'. Not to mention its desire to build its own army...

I'd vote Out if that were close to reality.

There has been so much propaganda about "undemocratic"... "unelected officials" which doesn't resemble reality. The EU has fewer bureaucrats, for the entire organisation than we have in the UK alone. Elected officials get to vote on all laws.

I saw somewhere one Ukip founder talk about the secret project at the heart of the EU - but on investigation, there simply wasn't one.

Bloated and wasteful? In fact we pay very little into the EU compared with our GDP - it's pretty likely that if we were out of the EU we would still pay one way or another, either with tariffs, or paying EU costs to access its market. We'd be paying money and getting nothing back in terms of influence - that's surely more wasteful.

Which regulations do you find troubling? Because most of them turn out to either not exist, or be much of a big deal when you look at them. That's why so many businesses are in favour of the EU. We'd have to conform with most of those standards anyway, if we wanted to sell stuff into the EU. The main regulation are about competition, against things like price fixing. That's why JCB are one of the only two main companies in favour of Leave - as JCB was fined for price fixing.

Finally, re the EU Army. Some people have proposed it, I like you think it's an irrelevance. But the UK will always have the chance to veto it, were it seriously supposed. It's likely, too, that EVERY EU member's parliament would have to vote in favour. To decide your country's future on the basis of a plan that someone once suggested, which you can unilaterally stop, would seem extreme to me.

Throughout, you\re characterising the EU as this toxic organism - "it" wants to do this, "it" wants to do that. "It" doesn't exist. Because we are part of the EU, we can influence it, we can improve its faults. we can influence every aspect of it (as long as our MEPs actually turn up for debates). And we can stand together against the true threats that face us, which includes Vladimir Putin, who is one of the only foreign leaders who'd like us to Leave.

As an American, who obviously doesn't have a say in the issue, I would think it would make more sense to remain in the EU and have a direct hand in shaping policy and some pull with the pursestrings. Being out of the EU, Britain wouldn't get that level of influence, but would probably still have to tow the EU line in most instances simply given the realities of international politics and economics in Europe.

The only problem is that a single country doesn't have that much away in the EU at all. Fair less than say a state in America.

What influence?

We're on the losing side of most decisions. We can't even get them to stop that moving back and forth between Brussels and Strasburg nonsense. That costs £100,000,000 a year. Bloated and wasteful.

And as more countries join our influence will further wane. Right now we're 1/28 of a decision making process. That is set to further decrease. We're on the verge of leaving yet when Dave went asking for reform they gave him scraps. Scraps that are not even legally binding at present and which are going to vetoed asap.

And as the EU demonstrated with the Lisbon Treaty, they will always make sure that their plans go through uninterrupted. If the EU wants an army it will get one, regardless of what anyone says.

And the regulations that bother me are the ones regarding the CAP and the CFP. The former is a bribe for lazy French farmers that hinders the third world whilst the later has destroyed this counties fishing industry.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What influence?

We're on the losing side of most decisions. We can't even get them to stop that moving back and forth between Brussels and Strasburg nonsense. That costs £100,000,000 a year. Bloated and wasteful.

And as more countries join our influence will further wane. Right now we're 1/28 of a decision making process. That is set to further decrease. We're on the verge of leaving yet when Dave went asking for reform they gave him scraps. Scraps that are not even legally binding at present and which are going to vetoed asap.

And as the EU demonstrated with the Lisbon Treaty, they will always make sure that their plans go through uninterrupted. If the EU wants an army it will get one, regardless of what anyone says.

And the regulations that bother me are the ones regarding the CAP and the CFP. The former is a bribe for lazy French farmers that hinders the third world whilst the later has destroyed this counties fishing industry.

We would probably do a lot better if we actually elected decent MEPs who actually turn up to the votes and debates they are meant to, such as Farage not going to the debates/votes on fishing rights.

Also, they cannot force the UK to hand over control of the UK military. That is not going to happen. Also, in case nobody has noticed, there is basically no military scenario where our armed forces act on their own any more. I think us having closer ties to the military forces of countries who we are likely to be fighting alongside is a good thing as it provides the opportunity for joint training exercises and other such things which will make us all more effective a force.

If the UK as one of the richest and most populous countries in the eu with huge cultural and historical advantages cannot sway things their way, they should fire all their diplomats as they must be awful.

As a side note, do you guys know which group the tories are in in the EU parliament?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That costs £100,000,000 a year. Bloated and wasteful.
.

£100million a year. So less that £1.60 per person. Lest put these "huge" numbers in perspective.

 Da Boss wrote:


As a side note, do you guys know which group the tories are in in the EU parliament?

Goggle tells me it is apparently the "European Conservatives and Reformists" who are apparently the 3rd largest group in the European parliament

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That costs £100,000,000 a year. Bloated and wasteful.
.

£100million a year. So less that £1.60 per person. Lest put these "huge" numbers in perspective.

Oh so that's alright then is it?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


As a side note, do you guys know which group the tories are in in the EU parliament?

Goggle tells me it is apparently the "European Conservatives and Reformists" who are apparently the 3rd largest group in the European parliament

Aye, cameron took them out of the EPP which is the biggest group. In UK terms, he defected from the Tories to UKIP. I wonder why his former EPP allies might not be all ears to him, after he substantially weakened them and nearly handed the comission presidency to the socialists?

You never see this stuff reported on in britain. Also worth checking who else is in that group. He is keeping good company.

So pissing away £100,000,000 just to keep the French ego satisfied is ok?

About about the CAP and CFP too?

And curiously enough Farage is actually a chairmen of a eu parliament group with 50 members.

Edit: this is actually the post that means the majority of my posts are in the off topic forum.


I'm officially an off topicer!

 welshhoppo wrote:
And curiously enough Farage is actually a chairmen of a eu parliament group with 50 members.

And boy he has some interesting bedfellows in that group - he actually looks like the sane one with that supporting cast.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Because I think the EU is a busted flush that's doomed to failure, and we need to get out while we still can. Also, it's extremely undemocratic, bloated, wasteful and deceitful. Everything it does is behind close doors. It's builders lied to us for years, and it's designed to bypass democratic opinion. It's scary how much it's modeled on the Soviet Union. It wastes millions and demands more in return, hasn't once signed off on its accounts the whole time it's been running, is killing the Mediterranean countries with its idiotic currency, has destroyed our fishing industry, and it's attitude is generally 'you need us to regulate every aspect of your life because you're too stupid to make your own decisions'. Not to mention its desire to build its own army to enact its own foreign policy.

If you swap the bit about the countries on the Med with 'stealing our oil money', I seem to have heard all this before, except it was Scots talking about the UK.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What influence?

We're on the losing side of most decisions.

I can see how it might look that way if you don't understand maths, so I'm not quite sure why you think that, because I assume you understand maths.

source

ITV Fact Check wrote:Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

It's absolutely shocking what happens when you actually look for the facts and figures rather than making things up!

 Goliath wrote:


Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

It's absolutely shocking what happens when you actually look for the facts and figures rather than making things up!

And that of course, is why the Leave side want you to believe their memes and not consult "the experts."

This is why, with figures like the nonsensical, totally discredited "£350m" painted on the side of a battle bus, my friends are starting to refer to the "new, post-facts world."

It's nothing new, the tabloid press have been at it for decades.

Sky News dropped in to a Northampton gamers club to ask around for opinions... bit pro-remain biased journalism IMO
http://news.sky.com/video/1714324/war-gamers-talk-eu-vote-tactics

Apologies for posting if this has been posted already

 Goliath wrote:

Spoiler:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What influence?

We're on the losing side of most decisions.

I can see how it might look that way if you don't understand maths, so I'm not quite sure why you think that, because I assume you understand maths.

source

ITV Fact Check wrote:Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999.

In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.

It's absolutely shocking what happens when you actually look for the facts and figures rather than making things up!

Isn't that a prime example of our politicians engaging in vote-trading? and getting very little back for going with the flow for 95% of the time?

Or is that proof of the point that after a leave vote that there wouldn't be any barriers to trade and diplomacy since we agree with europe 95% of the time?


Is the future change full of 'uncertainty' or is it ripe with 'opportunity'?
Opportunity if you're logical about it - nobody has gained anything new by avoiding change

We cannot allow our scheming, conniving, self-intrested politicians an excuse as to why they can't do our wishes.
We also can't trust the EU to keep to it's own moral standards as their secret negotiations with a wanted war-criminal to 'stop immigration' through the sudan reveal.
Thats going to end real well as according to amnesty international, he's already torturing his opposition and is apparently involved in funding terrorism, never mind the involvement in Genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
Angela merkel is taking the angle (ba-dum) that to stop migration you improve living conditions in the area of origin which i agree with, but that is going to involve giving large ammounts of money to a despot - do you think he's going to keep his word or will some of those funds go into his terrorism funding connections?

The whole situation is beyond belief and shows the spectacular naivety of the EU in sacrificing even their moral values to support the new EU super-state fantasy.

The economies of greece, italy and the taxpayers of europe are paying (literally for the taxpayers) for their single-currency fantasy and i don't intend on letting britains economy and culture pay for their 'unlimited immigration/no borders' fantasy either.


edit: i don't think the EU ever wanted this, but not seeing this type of thing coming from sharing dodgy bedfellows is willful ignorance.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/turkish-border-guards-kill-at-least-11-syrian-civilians-trying-to-enter-illegally-1466337945

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sky News dropped in to a Northampton gamers club to ask around for opinions... bit pro-remain biased journalism IMO
http://news.sky.com/video/1714324/war-gamers-talk-eu-vote-tactics

Apologies for posting if this has been posted already

Those are some crisp Fists that they keep lingering on.


I look forward to the brexit. The British Pound won't be worth a British Damn, and I can pick up minis cheap due ot the exchange rate. I might even be able to pick up stuff cheap in Europe if the Euro gets dragged down with it.

Since that's one thing that's a guarantee if Brexit takes place a devalued pound. It doesn't matter what the economic reality is, there's been so much fear mongering about Brexit that this one's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah, we got the ignorant Yank side of things when Obama was over here recently. Didn't need a repeat thank you.

Don't mock other user's contributions to threads, remember Rule 1 at all times, thanks

 notprop wrote:

£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.

It's 10% above the average UK wage (£32k).