Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 24/08/2020 19:52:38
-
You guys love to make fun of our accents and mannerisms (among other things). Well... we sometimes like to make fun of you.
(PBS is our BBC)
Also, is that how promiscuous, young alcoholic women in the UK look? Hair up with short skirts or denim cut-off shorts?
-
we sometimes like to make fun of you.
We know. But we don't care.
Nobody does a better job of making fun of the brits than the bits do.
Also, is that how promiscuous, young alcoholic women in the UK look? Hair up with short skirts or denim cut-off shorts?
Well...
And this character
is a well known part of this show.
Good luck doing a better job a better job of taking the piss out of Britain than the brits.
-
It wasn't nearly as funny as the real thing. Self-deprecation is the foundation of British humor. One of the winners in the actual show was a cake model of the pub owned by the contestant's parents. The detail was astounding, including a pool table standing on a sticky carpet.
We tend to greater precision in our language. A nation that doesn't have baths in most of its bathrooms, or beds in any of its restrooms, has no authority in that matter. The apposite (and much funnier) word at 1:59 is "toilet", for chrissake. Not sure about "suck on it" either - "shove it" would be closer to the British demotic.
That said, it must nevertheless be admitted that the USA is the country of equal opportunity. Nowhere else could a lying, draft-dodging, illiterate, bankrupt moron get to be president. And not just George W Bush - twice. You have been warned.
-
Nowhere else could a lying, draft-dodging, illiterate, bankrupt moron get to be president. And not just George W Bush - twice.
Bill Clinton was a draft dodger too.
-
But insufficiently qualified in the dark arts of deceit and failure to run as a Republican.
Everyone I've lived with and worked with, from coast to coast, has been charming, intelligent, honest and industrious, but somehow the lunatics end up running the asylum. Where did it all go wrong?
-
It's important to remember that Boris is an immigrant from America.
-
I thought they where from texas ?
-
Last time I visited, Texas was in America.
It's a bit like Yorkshire, without the culture.
I'll give Texans a bit of credit for self-mockery, though. Invited out for lunch with a Stetson-wearing colleague in DC, we walked into a car park dominated by an aircraft carrier on wheels. "Can ya guess which one is mine, buddy?" He opened the door and said "Just walk around and find somewhere to sit." But the steak was excellent.
-
Last time I visited Texas, it was a DIY store.
-
But insufficiently qualified in the dark arts of deceit and failure to run as a Republican.
What the hell do you know about how to run as a republican? You're British. You see me giving my thoughts about the workings of the tories or the BNP?
It's important to remember that Boris is an immigrant from America.
Boris Johnson is British, speaks with a British accent and is a family man that is a crusader for good health.
-
What the hell do you know about how to run as a republican? You're British. You see me giving my thoughts about the workings of the tories or the BNP?
For reasons of cheap journalism, everything that your dictator does or says is faithfully repeated on UK television. Believe me, we know how it's done. Anyone who has watched the Nuremberg rallies has seen it all before.
Boris Johnson is British, speaks with a British accent and is a family man that is a crusader for good health.
You jest, surely. The man is a philanderer and a political opportunist whose blatant disregard for simple science is responsible for 45,000 avoidable deaths.
Johnson was born on 19 June 1964 in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York City.....in the autumn term of 1977 he began using as his given name Boris rather than Alex, and developed "the eccentric English persona" for which he became famous......School reports complained about his idleness, complacency, and lateness,
Conrad Black called him "ineffably duplicitous". Who better to judge.
So there it is: pretentious, idle, complacent and procrastinatory,. Not that it matters, because all Cabinet decisions in the UK are made by Dominic Cummings, who knows where the bodies are buried.
-
[
Boris Johnson is British, speaks with a British accent and is a family man that is a crusader for good health.
You are aware that david cameron (prime minister 2010 to 2017 ) and boris just so happened to attend oxford at the same time. Plus george osbourne (chancellor for some time under Mr cameron) awas also at oxford with johnsons brother.
https://historycollection.com/10-shocking-facts-about-the-bullingdon-club-oxfords-ugly-secret/9/
Along with eton and other elite institutions they all come through together(certainly not cambridge though). Literally a effing sham.
-
You are aware that david cameron (prime minister 2010 to 2017 ) and boris just so happened to attend oxford at the same time.
So did I.
Indeed I was at college with Cameron. (I vaguely knew Boris from his Union hacking).
So what?
-
Boris Johnson is British, speaks with a British accent and is a family man that is a crusader for good health.
I assume that's irony.
-
david cameron (prime minister 2010 to 2017 ) and boris just so happened to attend oxford at the same time. Plus george osbourne (chancellor for some time under Mr cameron) awas also at oxford with johnsons brother.
Oxford men are not all moronic pigshaggers. Indeed my sparring partner BC can behave like a gentleman when the mood takes him, and Bill Clinton (alto sax and University College Oxford) annoyed the Republicans by actually having sex with a live human.
-
You are aware that david cameron (prime minister 2010 to 2017 ) and boris just so happened to attend oxford at the same time. Plus george osbourne (chancellor for some time under Mr cameron) awas also at oxford with johnsons brother.
It's true that they all went to Oxford.
I'd imagine it's also true that they all drink wine, have two arms...
The relevant common factor is that they are all Tories. That's what makes it easy to identify them as lying selfish bastards*.
*that's "bastards" in the less technical sense; I really don't care if their mothers were married to their fathers.
-
I've learned a few things on this post.
1. Not only do Republicans not have sex with live humans, but they also get offended when other people do.
2. Trump (who I hate, by way) is just as worse as Hitler.
3. Texas is completely cultureless.
4. If you're born here in the U.S. you're most likely destined to be stupid and everything that goes along with it.
(and yes, in regards to my Boris Johnson quip, I was being facetious. It was a sarcastic response to your doughy PM's campaign to fight British obesity.)
-
Almost correct, except for one very important point.
The majority of US citizens are thoughtful intelligent and moral people, as evidenced by the last presidential election. The problem is that their votes don't count, as evidenced by the last presidential election.
δεμοσ - the people. κρασοσ - the worst. ∴ democracy = government by the worst people. QED.
Prediction: more of the same.
Not that the UK is much better. The prime minister is chosen by 90,001 paid-up members of the conservative party, does what he is told by an unelected moron who is above the law, and is treated like a president by everyone else.
-
Not that the UK is much better.
I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected 0n 50 percent vote share ? First past the post in constituencies, to get 50 percent of seats. 0.5 of constituencies x 33 percent of the vote in said constituencies equals you can get elected on 16.5 percent of the vote, which is perfectly feasible. Such cannot happen in america.
-
Such cannot happen in america.
In America, in a two horse race, the candidate with fewer votes (46% vs 48%) became president.
In the UK the guy with less than half the votes (44%) became PM.
The two systems are pretty much as bad as each other.
-
I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected
The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.
The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.
The leader of the parliamentary Conservative party is chosen by a simple majority of paid-up members, of whom there are about 180,000. Other parties choose their leaders by popular ballot or conference vote.
This all made sense until 1979 because the country was governed by Parliament and the PM was just that: primus inter pares - the chairman and spokesman for the executive, and answerable as such to all MPs. Margaret Thatcher introduced government by an unelected president and subsequent holders of the post have simply evaded answering any questions and usurped the position of head of the armed forces, that is constitutionally the monarch, as in civilised countries.
The country is currently governed by Dominic Cummings, who holds no public office, is above the law, and is accountable to nobody. Typically British, the revolution was bloodless.
-
I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected
The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.
The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.
Just out of interest could you name me the last time a priminister was not the leader with the most seats ? Even coalitions its the leader of the party with the most seats leading the coalition. It is twaddle. The monarch has been under the thumb of parliament ever since the invite back after cromwell , and has been gotten rid of by parliament when wanted.
-
Just out of interest could you name me the last time a priminister was not the leader with the most seats ?
2010 Gordon Brown, for a few days in May before he realised he was better off resigning.
In 1974 the Conservatives got more votes (though not more seats) than Labour, but Labour got the PM job.
Parties don't exists which is why MPs can change party without causing a by-election.
-
Conservatives lost their majority in 2017 but Theresa May gave lots of your money to the DUP in order to form a government. Had the Liberals offered to support Labour, the result would have been quite different, less obviously corrupt, and arguably just as disastrous. As I said earlier, the monarch asks the person most likely to command a majority to form a government, regardless of integrity, aptitude or intent. Parties have no constitutional status.
-
I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected
The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.
The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.
Just out of interest could you name me the last time a priminister was not the leader with the most seats ? Even coalitions its the leader of the party with the most seats leading the coalition. It is twaddle. The monarch has been under the thumb of parliament ever since the invite back after cromwell , and has been gotten rid of by parliament when wanted.
Is that a "talking misleading rubbish tantamount to spam" then Alan. Once more name a priminister that the queen has chosen who had less seats under their control than anyone else, OR a priminister who was not the leader of their party. Please.
-
Gordon Brown, as stated. Prior to that, Harold Wilson, 1974.
Not "less than anyone else" which would be absurd, but not necessarily the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.
Even the Parliamentary Labour Party has from time to time not been peopled entirely by paid-up members of Labour, but all sorts of Cooperatives, Scottish Labour and independent socialists who accept the Labour whip. Likewise the Conservative and Unionist party is a somewhat more homogeneous agglomeration of whatever people will vote for under a blue flag.
-
Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.
So basically no the queen doesnt.
Scarce details, gordon brown no, harold who ? Was he a party leader at some stage ?
-
Scarce details, gordon brown no,
Are you allergic to facts or something?
-
Now add Alec Douglas-Home (1963-4) who was not even a member of the House of Commons.
-
Now add Alec Douglas-Home (1963-4) who was not even a member of the House of Commons.
But was the leader of the party.
-
Now add Alec Douglas-Home (1963-4) who was not even a member of the House of Commons.
But was the leader of the party.
Constitutionally, parties do not exist.
-
Conservatives lost their majority in 2017 but Theresa May gave lots of your money to the DUP in order to form a government. Had the Liberals offered to support Labour, the result would have been quite different, less obviously corrupt, and arguably just as disastrous. As I said earlier, the monarch asks the person most likely to command a majority to form a government, regardless of integrity, aptitude or intent. Parties have no constitutional status.
Has no bearing therefore spam
-
Gordon Brown, as stated. Prior to that, Harold Wilson, 1974.
Not "less than anyone else" which would be absurd, but not necessarily the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.
Even the Parliamentary Labour Party has from time to time not been peopled entirely by paid-up members of Labour, but all sorts of Cooperatives, Scottish Labour and independent socialists who accept the Labour whip. Likewise the Conservative and Unionist party is a somewhat more homogeneous agglomeration of whatever people will vote for under a blue flag.
Gordon brown untrue
-
I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected
The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.
The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.
The leader of the parliamentary Conservative party is chosen by a simple majority of paid-up members, of whom there are about 180,000. Other parties choose their leaders by popular ballot or conference vote.
This all made sense until 1979 because the country was governed by Parliament and the PM was just that: primus inter pares - the chairman and spokesman for the executive, and answerable as such to all MPs. Margaret Thatcher introduced government by an unelected president and subsequent holders of the post have simply evaded answering any questions and usurped the position of head of the armed forces, that is constitutionally the monarch, as in civilised countries.
The country is currently governed by Dominic Cummings, who holds no public office, is above the law, and is accountable to nobody. Typically British, the revolution was bloodless.
Queen doesnt ask. Leader of party in seat majority or largest minority ( some have struggled on) is pm, rather by default, as they have the most clout. Goes something like "who would you rather cast your parliamentary for ?"
-
Conservatives lost their majority in 2017 but Theresa May gave lots of your money to the DUP in order to form a government. Had the Liberals offered to support Labour, the result would have been quite different, less obviously corrupt, and arguably just as disastrous. As I said earlier, the monarch asks the person most likely to command a majority to form a government, regardless of integrity, aptitude or intent. Parties have no constitutional status.
And commanded majority, was leader of party. Queen didnt pick the window cleaner. Queen couldnt pick the window cleaner.
-
Gordon Brown, as stated. Prior to that, Harold Wilson, 1974.
Not "less than anyone else" which would be absurd, but not necessarily the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.
Even the Parliamentary Labour Party has from time to time not been peopled entirely by paid-up members of Labour, but all sorts of Cooperatives, Scottish Labour and independent socialists who accept the Labour whip. Likewise the Conservative and Unionist party is a somewhat more homogeneous agglomeration of whatever people will vote for under a blue flag.
Gordon brown untrue
That's a little harsh.
I'm sure he's at least as honest as any other politician.
On the 6th of May there was an election. At that time, he was PM.
The poll result was that the labour Party had 258 seats.
The Conservatives had won 306
But there was a reasonable chance that some of the other parties would enter a coalition with Labour - in which case, he would (presumably) have remained PM.
In fact the Conservatives and Liberals (who presumably didn't have a dictionary) formed a coalition.
But, until that was in place Brown was still PM.
So, he was leader of a party with the second biggest number of seats.
It was only on the 11th of May that he resigned as PM.
Now will you please shut up about UK politics because you clearly don't know about it.
-
Almost correct, except for one very important point.
The majority of US citizens are thoughtful intelligent and moral people, as evidenced by the last presidential election. The problem is that their votes don't count, as evidenced by the last presidential election.
δεμοσ - the people. κρασοσ - the worst. ∴ democracy = government by the worst people. QED.
Prediction: more of the same.
Not that the UK is much better. The prime minister is chosen by 90,001 paid-up members of the conservative party, does what he is told by an unelected moron who is above the law, and is treated like a president by everyone else.
America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.
-
America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.
You just claimed that 46% is far greater than 44%
Were you expecting to be taken seriously?
One party states do even better in terms of the % of votes that the winner gets.
Is that a good thing?
Saddam Hussein got 100% That must be really democratic.
-
America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.
but a smaller share of the vote than the loser. No wonder we Brits make fun of the USA - it's a bent banana republic headed by an idiot - and not for the first time.
And for the nth time, the prime minister is not elected.
-
America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.
but a smaller share of the vote than the loser. No wonder we Brits make fun of the USA - it's a bent banana republic headed by an idiot - and not for the first time.
And for the nth time, the prime minister is not elected.
Again leader of party, has largest proportion of seats in parliament, by election. Queen doesnt choose joebloggs, leader of party is elected via seats, no chance of second choice as in us presidentials second rounds
-
Drivel. We don't vote for parties, but for named local representatives. We have provided examples of minority governments, formal coalitions, PMs who were not even MPs, and the words of the constitution. The leader of the Labour Party and most others is elected by the annual conference, not MPs, and of the Conservatives by a postal ballot of paid-up members. None of this seems to have any impact on your misunderstanding.
It would be better to keep your ignorance to yourself - this display is unbecoming.
-
At the last general election, Jeremy Corbyn won the only election where his name was on the ballot.
He got 64% of the votes in that poll.
34600 people voted for him
At that same election, Boris Johnson was also elected.
He only got 52% of the votes
Only 25400 people voted for him.
But Corbyn is not PM.
Because we don't vote for a Prime Minister.
-
Drivel. We don't vote for parties, but for named local representatives. We have provided examples of minority governments, formal coalitions, PMs who were not even MPs, and the words of the constitution. The leader of the Labour Party and most others is elected by the annual conference, not MPs, and of the Conservatives by a postal ballot of paid-up members. None of this seems to have any impact on your misunderstanding.
It would be better to keep your ignorance to yourself - this display is unbecoming.
This is unsubstanciated abuse now alan. Mps support party leader, party leader with greatest share of support is by default destined to be pm, with an overburgeoning minority of the popular vote. Us president usually has majority of popular vote. Had we forgotten US presidental elections far worse than the uks and queen picking anyone she likes for pm.
-
party leader with greatest share of support is by default destined to be pm,
No. Douglas-Home was not the leader of the Conservative party when appointed PM, and the constitutional requirement is for the monarch to invite the person most capable of commanding a majority to form a government. BC has quoted the numbers by which Gordon Brown became PM despite the Labour Party occupying fewer seats than the Conservatives.
with an overburgeoning minority of the popular vote.
What does this mean?
Us president usually has majority of popular vote.
Not a constitutional requirement. OI don't have previous figures but the present incumbent did not have a majority of the popular vote, The US President is chosen by the electoral college.
Had we forgotten US presidental elections far worse than the uks and queen picking anyone she likes for pm.
No evidence that the Queen ever liked Margaret Thatcher, and whilst she eventually got on well with Harold Wilson, there was a lot of early distrust.
Back to basics. The prime minister is not elected and is not head of state. The US president is elected and is head of state.
You are correct. Your refusal to accept facts is not ignorance, but something much deeper and more worrying.
-
party leader with greatest share of support is by default destined to be pm,
No. Douglas-Home was not the leader of the Conservative party when appointed PM, and the constitutional requirement is for the monarch to invite the person most capable of commanding a majority to form a government. BC has quoted the numbers by which Gordon Brown became PM despite the Labour Party occupying fewer seats
yes he was the leader, constitution not monarch. Commanding the seats as in the person who leads the mps or the leader. Not whoever the queen likes. Gordon bown is incorrect. Leader of largest seats pm by default
What does this mean?
it means you cannot understand english.
Not a constitutional requirement. OI don't have previous figures but the present incumbent did not have a majority of the popular vote, The US President is chosen by the electoral college.
better than the uk though, trump better than johnson
.[
No evidence that the Queen ever liked Margaret Thatcher, and whilst she eventually got on well with Harold Wilson, there was a lot of early distrust.
Back to basics. The prime minister is not elected and is not head of state. The US president is elected and is head of state.
You are correct. Your refusal to accept facts is not ignorance, but something much deeper and more worrying.
again terrorism and abuse, why not just shove your nuts and screach satan at the lightning ?
-
IMHO, anyone who desires to be the President, Prime Minister or Dictator should be automatically disqualified.
-
Gordon bown is incorrect.
Ture.
But only because of your typing.
For a few days he was PM but not leader of the party with the most seats.
terrorism
In what way has anything here been "terrorism"?
-
Terrorism is not defined in UK law. During the reign of Tony B Liar, a man was detained under the Terrorism Act (formerly the Prevention of Terrorism Act) for calling Jack Straw a liar during the Party conference, so the precedent exists for anyone to use the word to mean anything that makes him blush with maidenly embarrassment.
-
Terrorism is not defined in UK law. During the reign of Tony B Liar, a man was detained under the Terrorism Act (formerly the Prevention of Terrorism Act) for calling Jack Straw a liar during the Party conference, so the precedent exists for anyone to use the word to mean anything that makes him blush with maidenly embarrassment.
He was detained, but not arrested or charged.
Because, in fact, he wasn't a terrorist (and they knew it).
-
Arrest precedes detention, but fortunately custody sergeants know a lot more about the law and human behavior than the average politician, which is why he was released without charge.
-
Arrest precedes detention
No it doesn't.
For example, a PCSO does not have authority to arrest you, but can detain you until a police officer arrives.
custody sergeants know a lot more about the law
Perhaps you should have asked one.
know a lot more about the law and human behavior than the average politician
I doubt that the person was detained (or arrested) by a politician.
-
From West Yorkshire police manual: "PCSO powers of arrest and detention. PCSOs can utilise the 'any person' powers of arrest under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (commonly known as a citizens' arrest). All PCSOs can also make common law arrests in exactly the same manner …" The "20 minute" rule is a local restriction imposed by some but not all police forces.
In the case of Straw v Common Sense, I don't think any action would have been taken if a politician hadn't requested it. The general public is much less easily offended by the truth.
-
Yes, being a so called "plastic plod" doesn't actually reduce your powers of arrest below those of any other citizen.
There are situations where a citizen's arrest would not be lawful (For amusing example would be that there was a police officer present- which there probably would have been).
In that case, a PCSO is allowed to detain you until a police officer arrives- and they- with their broader powers of arrest, may well decide to arrest you.
The point remains, you can be detained without being arrested.
"Fact 2: Although PCSOs do not have the power of arrest, they can detain people when necessary. As a PCSO you also have designated powers surrounding anti-social behaviour, tobacco and alcohol, transport and fixed penalty notices, for example."
From
https://northyorkshire.police.uk/jobs/pcso/five-facts-pcsos/
And you can also be detained under the mental health act, without any question of an arrest.
This may have been a better outcome in the case of Reality vs Straw.