Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Funnily enough I couldn't care what you rate me as gf. I think you are an utter tosser, but I don't suppose for one minute that makes any difference to your life.:-)

.............................................................

Dave Camoron‏@EtonOldBoys24m

Lets just put something in context, Royal Mail is valued at £3.3bn..... Bankers share £7bn in bonuses, just rejoice at that news

fred - I don't need any political view to determine whether or not I like smoking in a restaurant any more than I do to know whether or not I like to eat fish

goldfinger - 10 Oct 2013 22:31 - 13221 of 13221

O/Topic.........

doodlebug4 - 10 Oct 2013 20:30 - 13212 of 13220

gf, you are one of these people who will argue black is white. Just how do you figure out that despite the CR thread has most posts it is not the most popular? I see a little green-eyed monster in there who will not admit to the evidence of statistics........ENDS

Statistics today taken from 7.05 am to 10pm

1. Cockneys Den

7.05am........155955

10.00pm..........156064

109 posts in total.

2. TOP Traders Thread

7.05am........327355

10.00pm......327939

584 posts in total.

= 435.7% overall gain over Cockneys Den thread.

YET AGAIN DOODLES you have been found wanting.
2nd rater.

Do you like smoked salmon.

I agree with the sentiment and avoid smoking areas and I am delighted for the few times I go into a pub that they are now smoke free.

But, "Political" has a multitude of definitions such as:-

"Belonging to or taking the side of an individual, organization, etc.; supporting particular ideas, principles"

However, as much as you dispute it, I see you as part of the con party faithful.

-------

Hays,

With your background I would have expected more empathy and insight, but, perhaps, it a reaction to the past.

Read the comments:



Can this Immigration Bill succeed where its predecessors failed?


By Philip Johnston Politics Last updated: October 10th, 2013

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/100240804/can-this-immigration-bill-succeed-where-its-predecessors-failed/


We have had at least half a dozen major pieces of legislation controlling immigration and as many minor measures since 1997. So isn't it astonishing that it is still possible for someone to obtain a driving licence despite having no legal right to be in the country? Furthermore, how is an illegal immigrant able to open a bank account or access routine health treatment? Most countries require proof of residence, social security or NI numbers before either are possible.

The latest Immigration Bill aims to close these loopholes, but we are entitled to be sceptical – and most of us are. A YouGov survey shows that a majority believes the problem lies not with the system itself, but with the poor enforcement of existing rules by immigration officers. The poll found that 60 per cent of people believed immigration rules were not properly applied, allowing too many illegal migrants to remain in Britain.

Theresa May says she wants to "create a really hostile environment for illegal migrants" but the same was said by her Labour predecessors. When we still have not yet managed to put effective e-border controls in place, as this week’s report from John Vine the inspector of the Borders Agency revealed, it is hard to see this measure being any more effective than its predecessors.

Some lawyers are already saying that in order for the checks to be made appropriately and fairly, we will have to revisit the whole agonising debate over ID cards. The Bill’s central aim is to stop migrants using public services to which they are not entitled, thereby reducing the pull factors encouraging people to come to the UK. But the principal difficulty that besets immigration policy is its conflicting aims. On the one hand we want to maintain an open economy, attracting the best and brightest to our shores; on the other we don’t want immigrants placing pressure on our public services or living off benefits.

We don’t have even a rough idea of the number of illegal immigrants. The only officially commissioned estimate, published in 2005, estimated the size of the illegally resident population at 430,000, based on census data from 2001. The London School of Economics, put the number higher at around 600,000, mostly living in the capital. Migration Watch UK estimate the illegal population at 1.1 million.

Since 1997, government policy on illegal migration has ranged from tougher visa regimes to attempts to manage identity either at the borders or internally with the ill-fated ID Card; or through employer compliance. Companies who employ unauthorized workers can be fined, but few are. There are also already some restrictions on access to public services, such as non-emergency health care and schooling.

So what difference will the new Bill make? It promises that patients registering with a GP will be asked to prove that they are legally entitled to live in the UK and to access free NHS treatment. Councils will be ordered to stop giving social housing to those with no connection to their area. Private landlords will have to run background checks to ensure tenants are residing legally in this country – and are understandably unhappy with the idea of internally policing borders that have already been breached.

Employers who hire illegal employees could face a fine of £20,000 for each worker; and foreigners who are refused permission to stay in the UK – including criminals – will be made to leave immediately. We have heard much of this tough talk before – not least from the Labour Party which now has the temerity to attack this measure as failing to "address some of the biggest problems" in the immigration area. But public scepticism can only grow if the Government has to return to Parliament for yet more new laws if these don't work.

Fred - Chess.com, all your prayers will be answered. Trouble I have is playing instead of learning, but then again you can only learn by your mistakes by not repeating them. Does that make sense? If it doesn't I'll put it down to nicotine depravation :O)

Dave Camoron ‏@EtonOldBoys 37m

I never thought that I would live to see, Britain become a 3rd World Country, with the Red Cross providing Emergency Food Aid to 500,000

The Red Cross having to provide food.

Thats what Camorons austerity Britain has done for us.

Chris

Am trying to get use to Chess . com , it is a bit confusing at first because of so much information they give you , and they send you a lot of emails as well .

Last word/word's on the subject of Fred.

Has Paul Merton once said to Robert Gillroy Silk on " Have I Got News For You "

Shut the Fuck up ,, Shut the Fuck up , Shut the fuck up ,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO6kbU0SWiY

Just out.

Hays hays hays your falling further behind................

electionista ‏@electionista 1h
UK - YouGov/Sun poll: CON 33%, LAB 40%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 11%

7% lead now.

aldwick - Aye can be confusing initially, select play now and choose 3 day move option, you will then start a game with anybody in the world. Once you get used to it site is straight forward, lot of learning facilities for free. You can if you wish (not mandatory) subscribe for more entirely up to you.

Chris

I thought the 3 day option was the time limit for the game , I have played a few 30 minute games on chess.com

Must be due to the conned tories being disappointed by not getting their expected allotment of the country's silver and deserting the party in droves.

Talk about arranging a party in a Brewery and one thinks of the dropouts of the Bullingdon Old Boys' Club.

ald - That's right, 3 day option suits me, if your happy with 30 minutes great. I'm a bit slow and learning. :O)

Two thirds of economists oppose help to buy
by Guy Bentley
October 11, 2013, 8:58am

A Bloomberg News survey of 31 economists has shown a majority oppose the government's controversial Help to Buy scheme. Two thirds of the economists surveyed described the scheme as "bad."

The government intervention into the housing market will see taxpayers on the hook for 15 per cent of a home's value, the purpose of which is so banks will once again be willing to offer 95 per cent mortgages and provide a step up on to the housing ladder.

House prices have already been rising beyond the rate of inflation and wage growth at a rapid rate. The buoyant market saw RICS rising 14 points to 54 in September, the highest level since 2002. Such rapid increases will lead to further questioning of the value of the scheme.

The government says guarantees will amount to £12bn over the next three years. However economists warn that the policy is encouraging households to take on excessive debt and that without a dramatic increase in the supply of housing the effect of the policy simply be to drive up prices.

The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, has described the scheme as "totally ill-thought through."

The rates for the scheme were unveiled on Tuesday with RBS announcing it would be offering two and five-year fixed rate contracts at 4.99 and 5.19 per cent respectively. Halifax will be offering a two-year fixed rate of 5.19 per cent.

Although critical of the Help to Buy initiative economists were optimistic about the overall future of the UK economy.They agree with the IMF that growth this year and next will be higher than previously forecast. GDP is expected to rise by 1.4 per cent this year and 1.9 per cent next year with the projection for 2015 rising to 2.4 per cent.

- See more at: http://www.cityam.com/blog/1381478320/two-thirds-economists-oppose-help-buy#sthash.VJ9GPAik.dpuf

balls-up is a genuine expert at ill thought out schemes.

Right off fishing see U muckers.

GF.

Post 30907.

This once again demonstrates the misdirected state intervention of capital (tax payers’ money) of this incompetent government, by dispensing it more, or less directly the cash into a small group of private pockets leading to another housing ramp.

I have heard bleating constantly from the cons about the efficiency of private ownership and management, but when the "capitalist preachers" are asked to “fund” the expansion of the economy they arrive cap in hand on the pavement outside No 10, 11 Downing Street, to borrow from the state and at the same time having the “state” to “insure” them.

Considering that alongside the valuation of the Royal Mail and selling off the “kitchen table” at a falsely low price to “friends” in the city to finance their economic “deficits”, the incompetents are screwing down on the weakest in society.

======

GF.

I hope you are not taking a Tizer bottle and a lump of Carbide with you.