Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve recently seen a lot of posts on social media about the health lottery supporting refugees. It’s caused a big debate and alot of people have stopped doing it because they feel that it’s making the migrant situation worse here. What’s people’s thoughts on this?" Similar situation to the people who stopped donating to the RNLI because they didn't want them saving the lives of drowning foreigners. People are free to stop donating, no matter how bonkers their reasoning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.".it might be that people started playing it yrs ago and haven't kept up with who they are helping now they have seen theve changed there's mind. What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.". What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on?" The health issues you list sound logical for something called the health lottery but the integration of refugees and asylum seekers seems unrelated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.". What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on? The health issues you list sound logical for something called the health lottery but the integration of refugees and asylum seekers seems unrelated. " I what what you are saying... but it's in line (possibly) with healtj and well being "Thanks to you playing The Health Lottery, over £129m has been raised for good causes. The money raised is used to give grants to thousands of small charities doing vital work at local level. They support the health and well-being of people living in some of the most disadvantaged communities in Great Britain right now." But I suspect most ppl play the lottery for the chance of personal upside as much as the causes. Otherwise give direct ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.". What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on?" "The health issues you list sound logical for something called the health lottery but the integration of refugees and asylum seekers seems unrelated. " They've also given money to a musical instrument library that loans out instruments to kids, to a 'meeting place' cafe that runs mornings for lonely people, to a language school that teaches foreigners to speak English, and to a kids sport organisation. All worthy causes, but not really related to health. The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.". What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on? The health issues you list sound logical for something called the health lottery but the integration of refugees and asylum seekers seems unrelated. They've also given money to a musical instrument library that loans out instruments to kids, to a 'meeting place' cafe that runs mornings for lonely people, to a language school that teaches foreigners to speak English, and to a kids sport organisation. All worthy causes, but not really related to health. The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days." Mental health (well-being) not related to health? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.". What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on? The health issues you list sound logical for something called the health lottery but the integration of refugees and asylum seekers seems unrelated. They've also given money to a musical instrument library that loans out instruments to kids, to a 'meeting place' cafe that runs mornings for lonely people, to a language school that teaches foreigners to speak English, and to a kids sport organisation. All worthy causes, but not really related to health. The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health?" The problem being anything ca be dearer.fkr mental health reasoning really, sports teams knitting gatherings you name it . All come under the banner of helping people socialise and menta health stability. It's up to people to check what they're donating to. I have a few very select charities indonte to where I know the money goes predominantly to the research or to the community Sadly most are just ponzi schemes there to only pay wages for people who have bo other skills for real world jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days." "Mental health (well-being) not related to health?" The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy." Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy." I'd be interested in seeing any studies that show being given an Aston Martin improves happiness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy." A person's well-being doesn't cover transient emotions such happy or sad, so I realise you're being consciously ridiculous  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To quote from their website - "Causes supported by the funding raised through Health Lottery South West have tackled issues such as Alzheimer’s disease, post-natal depression, misconceptions around disability, and the integration of refugees and asylum seekers.". What sort of person gives money to a charity without bothering to find out what they are going to spend it on? The health issues you list sound logical for something called the health lottery but the integration of refugees and asylum seekers seems unrelated. I what what you are saying... but it's in line (possibly) with healtj and well being "Thanks to you playing The Health Lottery, over £129m has been raised for good causes. The money raised is used to give grants to thousands of small charities doing vital work at local level. They support the health and well-being of people living in some of the most disadvantaged communities in Great Britain right now." But I suspect most ppl play the lottery for the chance of personal upside as much as the causes. Otherwise give direct !" It seems misleading to me. Maybe it should just be a lottery and drop the health bit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy." "Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing?" I should have realised that that post would be misunderstood. I do recognise that depression is a real illness, and needs proper treatment. What I was talking about is the sort of thing we see in this news article: "The Good Childhood Report says that nearly one in 12 boys (7.7%) aged 10 to 15 years old - the equivalent of 180,000 - are unhappy with their appearance. Although boys remain consistently happier with their appearance than girls, the gap has narrowed and boys' happiness with their appearance was significantly lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2009-10. Over-13s were significantly less happy with how they look compared to 10 to 12 year olds. Read more about how body image pressure for boys is affecting their mental health." -- It's becoming very common for people to talk about 'mental health issues' when they mean 'experiencing negative emotions'. In my opinion, this makes them look foolish and also cheapens the experiences of people with real mental health issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing?" It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? I should have realised that that post would be misunderstood. I do recognise that depression is a real illness, and needs proper treatment. What I was talking about is the sort of thing we see in this news article: "The Good Childhood Report says that nearly one in 12 boys (7.7%) aged 10 to 15 years old - the equivalent of 180,000 - are unhappy with their appearance. Although boys remain consistently happier with their appearance than girls, the gap has narrowed and boys' happiness with their appearance was significantly lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2009-10. Over-13s were significantly less happy with how they look compared to 10 to 12 year olds. Read more about how body image pressure for boys is affecting their mental health." -- It's becoming very common for people to talk about 'mental health issues' when they mean 'experiencing negative emotions'. In my opinion, this makes them look foolish and also cheapens the experiences of people with real mental health issues. " 100% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? I should have realised that that post would be misunderstood. I do recognise that depression is a real illness, and needs proper treatment. What I was talking about is the sort of thing we see in this news article: "The Good Childhood Report says that nearly one in 12 boys (7.7%) aged 10 to 15 years old - the equivalent of 180,000 - are unhappy with their appearance. Although boys remain consistently happier with their appearance than girls, the gap has narrowed and boys' happiness with their appearance was significantly lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2009-10. Over-13s were significantly less happy with how they look compared to 10 to 12 year olds. Read more about how body image pressure for boys is affecting their mental health." -- It's becoming very common for people to talk about 'mental health issues' when they mean 'experiencing negative emotions'. In my opinion, this makes them look foolish and also cheapens the experiences of people with real mental health issues. " Imo mental health, like actual health, is a scale and can have proactive preventative measures. Boys feeling bad about their bodies isnt a negative emotion, like grief, but the thin end that can lead to darker places, much like a few extra pounds can build over time. Helping here is no less a good cause than a fat club. And I say this as someone who has been through three years of hard therapy and have been effectively a carer of a su1cidal OH.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem." The first post was dismissive and borderline offensive. However, Mr Discretion has gone on to explain what he meant and that is a far better post. Yours wasn’t really necessary after his 2nd post but you felt the need  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. The first post was dismissive and borderline offensive. However, Mr Discretion has gone on to explain what he meant and that is a far better post. Yours wasn’t really necessary after his 2nd post but you felt the need "This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem." I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? I should have realised that that post would be misunderstood. I do recognise that depression is a real illness, and needs proper treatment. What I was talking about is the sort of thing we see in this news article: "The Good Childhood Report says that nearly one in 12 boys (7.7%) aged 10 to 15 years old - the equivalent of 180,000 - are unhappy with their appearance. Although boys remain consistently happier with their appearance than girls, the gap has narrowed and boys' happiness with their appearance was significantly lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2009-10. Over-13s were significantly less happy with how they look compared to 10 to 12 year olds. Read more about how body image pressure for boys is affecting their mental health." -- It's becoming very common for people to talk about 'mental health issues' when they mean 'experiencing negative emotions'. In my opinion, this makes them look foolish and also cheapens the experiences of people with real mental health issues. " It's good people open up. Hopefully yours is not a common opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? I should have realised that that post would be misunderstood. I do recognise that depression is a real illness, and needs proper treatment. What I was talking about is the sort of thing we see in this news article: "The Good Childhood Report says that nearly one in 12 boys (7.7%) aged 10 to 15 years old - the equivalent of 180,000 - are unhappy with their appearance. Although boys remain consistently happier with their appearance than girls, the gap has narrowed and boys' happiness with their appearance was significantly lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2009-10. Over-13s were significantly less happy with how they look compared to 10 to 12 year olds. Read more about how body image pressure for boys is affecting their mental health." -- It's becoming very common for people to talk about 'mental health issues' when they mean 'experiencing negative emotions'. In my opinion, this makes them look foolish and also cheapens the experiences of people with real mental health issues. Imo mental health, like actual health, is a scale and can have proactive preventative measures. Boys feeling bad about their bodies isnt a negative emotion, like grief, but the thin end that can lead to darker places, much like a few extra pounds can build over time. Helping here is no less a good cause than a fat club. And I say this as someone who has been through three years of hard therapy and have been effectively a carer of a su1cidal OH. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. The first post was dismissive and borderline offensive. However, Mr Discretion has gone on to explain what he meant and that is a far better post. Yours wasn’t really necessary after his 2nd post but you felt the need "Ahhh you being tbe post monitor again? It's ok. Go back to your sarcasm. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. " Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A properly run society shouldn't need to depend on marketing gambling games to their population to fund their health services regardless of where them funds end up. " You're right. Sadly the nhs is all consuming and no matter how much momey you throw at it it's never enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. The first post was dismissive and borderline offensive. However, Mr Discretion has gone on to explain what he meant and that is a far better post. Yours wasn’t really necessary after his 2nd post but you felt the need
Ahhh you being tbe post monitor again?
It's ok.
Go back to your sarcasm."Sarcastic? Me? I am shocked, shocked I tell you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. " What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue." Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending." do you have an example that you feel is taking the piss ? Or is it more "in theory one could set up charity that, while having a public benefit through improving mental health, is also a piss take". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending." Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) as I haven't stated anything re lottery spending, let alone criticise people. And since I'm a HCP why would I know what charities allow and disallow. I've made statements about health (NHS). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending.do you have an example that you feel is taking the piss ? Or is it more "in theory one could set up charity that, while having a public benefit through improving mental health, is also a piss take". " It's up to you guys to provide what covers mental health first | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending. Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) as I haven't stated anything re lottery spending, let alone criticise people. And since I'm a HCP why would I know what charities allow and disallow. I've made statements about health (NHS)." I usually just type pretty quick because I only dip in and out of this forum to sadly have to correct people who don't read the articles they share or understand the subjects they talk about. I'm good on the typos thanks. When you want to make a coherent point on what constitutes mental health spending we can have a discussion I am talking about this spending re the original point. If you don't want to talk about that. Then we don't have an issue and you can move on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending. Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) as I haven't stated anything re lottery spending, let alone criticise people. And since I'm a HCP why would I know what charities allow and disallow. I've made statements about health (NHS). I usually just type pretty quick because I only dip in and out of this forum to sadly have to correct people who don't read the articles they share or understand the subjects they talk about. I'm good on the typos thanks. When you want to make a coherent point on what constitutes mental health spending we can have a discussion I am talking about this spending re the original point. If you don't want to talk about that. Then we don't have an issue and you can move on." Thanks for being patronising but whoosh, there it goes flying over my head. When people discuss mental health, it's normally what constitutes as being dealt with by a HCP. In the case of charities, they may want to deal with triggers for mental health, but I cannot see that they would have any differing opinions on diagnoses. Oh and thanks for the apology... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The original purpose was to fund charities that provided health care that wasn't funded by the NHS. It seems they've branched out a bit since the early days. Mental health (well-being) not related to health? The problem is that mental health can mean anything you want it to. Especially in today's world where 'being a bit sad' is seen as a mental health problem that needs to be addressed. I'd like to have an Aston Martin, and it makes me sad that I'll never have one, but that doesn't mean that a charity should be formed to buy me one and make me happy. Mental health can be anything you want it to be? A bit sad? That feels very dismissive of people suffering with depression. You don’t go from 1 to 10. There is a journey towards depression, which sadly for some has a rather finite ending. Loneliness is a contributing factor. Surely prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure? I agree some of the things listed seem odd for the Health Lottery to be supporting. But mental health being dismissed as “being a bit sad” feels completely off the mark here! Possibly better to have said nothing? It's not dismissive. It's that anything can be designated a mental health issue. And there in lies a problem. I have to disagree. Perhaps the populace have a tendency to do/think so but I can assure you the health service doesn't. It just doesn't have the funding to cover actual mental health issues causing people to go into crises. And still not get the help needed. As a HCP for physical health, I am mindful of patients, holistically. Sadly, everything is time and motion working, so the physical ailments take precedence. A patient's well-being is assessed on a continuum (repeated visits and building up a picture). Physical and mental health are interconnected. One affecting the other; causing or exacerbating the other. But if you have knowledge of "anything being designated a mental health issue", do share. Sorry but completely disagree. Anything can be considered a mental health issue now. Such as emotional support animals and alike. Indont think this needs funding but could well be funded under a "mental health" point. Same with other things such as charitable days out for the lonely etc. It'd just too open ended. Feel free to declare what falls under wmntak health. What are you disagreeing with? There are issues known to trigger depression such as loneliness/isolation but in itself it's not a mental health issue. Well then as stated. Any bad feelings ca fall under mental health. And thus anything a charity wishes to provide to deal with that would fall under health spending. So I am asking what falls under mental health allowable charity spending It seems if you wish fk Or it you should clarify what falls under mental health instead of criticising people saying it shouldn't fall under the lottery sending.do you have an example that you feel is taking the piss ? Or is it more "in theory one could set up charity that, while having a public benefit through improving mental health, is also a piss take". It's up to you guys to provide what covers mental health first " is it? I'm not even sure what claim ha seen made. It just feels to me there is this fear that anything can fall under MH and that the lottery money will go on rediculous stuf. Maybe I have misunderstood why it's important for us to define this for you. I don't have a definition for the lottery. I also don't have any examples of something that I feel shouldn't have fallen under the lotter but did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind!" Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem." Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person." I come across arrogant because others do. As per the points above. I treat people how they treat me. I simply asked you to define mental health and you attacked my typing and me personally. So please. Do look in the mirror before crying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirror" Still you don't read properly. I cannot answer re charity. As for telling you to read properly, that was because I hadn't criticised what you had accused me of. I clearly stated my views come from a health perspective and not what a charity's. Like I stated: READ PROPERLY. Psssst I often scan read, but I'm happy to admit when I misread or misinterpret or simply get things wrong. That's a sign I am not lead by my ego. You cannot claim the same (as per my post above). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirror" to be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person. I come across arrogant because others do. As per the points above. I treat people how they treat me. I simply asked you to define mental health and you attacked my typing and me personally. So please. Do look in the mirror before crying." I'll cry after looking in the mirror .
As per typos, your posts are extremely difficult to read at times. If you've taken that as an attack when it wasn't intended, that's a bonus.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person. I come across arrogant because others do. As per the points above. I treat people how they treat me. I simply asked you to define mental health and you attacked my typing and me personally. So please. Do look in the mirror before crying. I'll cry after looking in the mirror .
As per typos, your posts are extremely difficult to read at times. If you've taken that as an attack when it wasn't intended, that's a bonus. "Bingo Well done on proving my point.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirror Still you don't read properly. I cannot answer re charity. As for telling you to read properly, that was because I hadn't criticised what you had accused me of. I clearly stated my views come from a health perspective and not what a charity's. Like I stated: READ PROPERLY. Psssst I often scan read, but I'm happy to admit when I misread or misinterpret or simply get things wrong. That's a sign I am not lead by my ego. You cannot claim the same (as per my post above)." Al you're reoli3s have done is continually prove my point on how people reply to me and then cry when I reply in kind. So thanks for proving precisely what is etc out to. Fine you don't want to address what falls under mental health. Then you have no right to dismiss my point that anything can fall under mental health. Jobs a goldun | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. " Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"P.s I do admit when I am wrong. I do it on here and I encourage people to be adults and admit being wrong. So far I haven't been wrong on this thread as there is nothing i could be wrong on as I haven't stated anything as fact I was wrong ona passport issue and held my hands up, I was wrong on particulates vs c02 and held my hand up for misremembering. It's a shame other on this forum can't do the same and delete accounts or just don't come back onto the politics forum. Or they just continually never apologise for lying/ being wrong and change subjects. Next time as I say. Take a good long hard look in that mirror. I wasn't the problem here. " Glad you can admit you're wrong, sometimes .
As for the mirror... dunno about you but it's a nice way of stating "stop projecting". And as I have an extremely high sense of self awareness, I know I'm not. However, if I'm not coherent, then that may not be evident. But that's ok cos I'm human and have many flaws.
Also in this medium, it's difficult to represent your self in 360 degrees. We tend to show ourselves through passions. Health is one of mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person. I come across arrogant because others do. As per the points above. I treat people how they treat me. I simply asked you to define mental health and you attacked my typing and me personally. So please. Do look in the mirror before crying. I'll cry after looking in the mirror .
As per typos, your posts are extremely difficult to read at times. If you've taken that as an attack when it wasn't intended, that's a bonus.
Bingo
Well done on proving my point. "Bless ya, it's called humour. Try it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirror Still you don't read properly. I cannot answer re charity. As for telling you to read properly, that was because I hadn't criticised what you had accused me of. I clearly stated my views come from a health perspective and not what a charity's. Like I stated: READ PROPERLY. Psssst I often scan read, but I'm happy to admit when I misread or misinterpret or simply get things wrong. That's a sign I am not lead by my ego. You cannot claim the same (as per my post above). Al you're reoli3s have done is continually prove my point on how people reply to me and then cry when I reply in kind. So thanks for proving precisely what is etc out to. Fine you don't want to address what falls under mental health. Then you have no right to dismiss my point that anything can fall under mental health. Jobs a goldun " Who's crying? You drone on about wanting a response to something I cannot answer and have stated. But don't accept that as a response. Now that is incredibly strange. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?" Can you not answer the very lucid question that poster asked? Or do you not actually know what you want, apart from being disagreeable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person. I come across arrogant because others do. As per the points above. I treat people how they treat me. I simply asked you to define mental health and you attacked my typing and me personally. So please. Do look in the mirror before crying. I'll cry after looking in the mirror .
As per typos, your posts are extremely difficult to read at times. If you've taken that as an attack when it wasn't intended, that's a bonus.
Bingo
Well done on proving my point.
Bless ya, it's called humour. Try it."Aaaah the old. I've shown my true colours. It was a joke routine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer? Can you not answer the very lucid question that poster asked? Or do you not actually know what you want, apart from being disagreeable?" I asked what falls under mental health. the reply didn't answer that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?" No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is?" Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make. I tmhave always replied in kind as to how people treat me. The problem is most on here wanted to take schadenfreude in what they at the time assum3d was the uk doing poorly and have a grand standing soap box to be heard from They then had a severe problem with being corrected with facts because they hadn't read past headlines, didn't understand what was in working papers etc. Other people's fragile egos are not my problem. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Do you realise how arrogant you come over? Bullshit posts, corrected with facts and call out other peoples egos. I've noticed when you can no longer discuss you're pov as it's been evidenced, you don't face the music. However, when you believe you're right (even when you're wrong), you'll "shout louder". Have humility and admit when you're wrong. You'll grow as a person. I come across arrogant because others do. As per the points above. I treat people how they treat me. I simply asked you to define mental health and you attacked my typing and me personally. So please. Do look in the mirror before crying. I'll cry after looking in the mirror .
As per typos, your posts are extremely difficult to read at times. If you've taken that as an attack when it wasn't intended, that's a bonus.
Bingo
Well done on proving my point.
Bless ya, it's called humour. Try it.
Aaaah the old. I've shown my true colours.
It was a joke routine"Well I am old. And have a sense humour.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though." I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke." Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is?" As I say. I reply to people how they replied to me. The problem is when i was on here last time people took so much glee in gloomy headlines and particularly remainers with a superiority complex that I tried engaging nicely. I was open to courteous discussion. We discussed Australia meat I said that the uk had always imported Australian meat. i was told I was wrong I was told I didn't know what I was talking about and food standards would lower. I provided links to hmrc which had a history of all Australian beef imported. I provided links to the Australian export pages on how much they'd exported People ignored it because it was funny to rip into brexit and be superior. I was told that the uk had higher gas prices because e.u cut us off and America wouldn't ship to us. People mocked me off saying that's not how the natural gas and energy supply worked. I pointed to an lng tanker arriving in 2 days time from texts I tbe usa on a uk ports website and also to the tabker that had landed I days prior. People said the website was a crock of shit or didn't reply. The particular range seemed to come from whe the IMF made its prediction in January for about 4 threads I was resoundingly mocked as knowing nothing on economics Vs IMF and other economists. I explained how the IMF was wrong I explained the tolerance levels of competent predictions vs tbe IMF corrections. I explained how the uk recalculated its deflator and services to follow oecd principles. Again people preferred to mock me as tbe "resident economist" mock economists I follow in dilip shah etc. I predicted inflation would be 4% in October cpi ( not double digits) and I predicted a 0.6-0.8% growth for the year of 2023 not a -0.6% decline. It looks like I am going to be right. People get the replies from me they give out. I could go on. From how we accept asylum seekers without them needing to come to the uk where 95% of tbe forum mocked me. Until they quoted the UN spokesperson agreeing with me. I said that the renewable energy prices were a con and that the coats spared and was mocked as a Tufton street stooge. But then no bids were made for any more windfarms I discussed uk vs German server connection and provided links to the german government papers on server connections vs UK The poster simply never replied again. I have always treated people the exact way with how they treat me and other posters. Not me, discretion and yourself simply have a lot more patience and treat people with respect. I take the other road. If you mock me I will mock you back. The only problem is. Their fragile egos can't take this treatment. Do as I say not as I do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition?" Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness." Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? As I say. I reply to people how they replied to me. The problem is when i was on here last time people took so much glee in gloomy headlines and particularly remainers with a superiority complex that I tried engaging nicely. I was open to courteous discussion. We discussed Australia meat I said that the uk had always imported Australian meat. i was told I was wrong I was told I didn't know what I was talking about and food standards would lower. I provided links to hmrc which had a history of all Australian beef imported. I provided links to the Australian export pages on how much they'd exported People ignored it because it was funny to rip into brexit and be superior. I was told that the uk had higher gas prices because e.u cut us off and America wouldn't ship to us. People mocked me off saying that's not how the natural gas and energy supply worked. I pointed to an lng tanker arriving in 2 days time from texts I tbe usa on a uk ports website and also to the tabker that had landed I days prior. People said the website was a crock of shit or didn't reply. The particular range seemed to come from whe the IMF made its prediction in January for about 4 threads I was resoundingly mocked as knowing nothing on economics Vs IMF and other economists. I explained how the IMF was wrong I explained the tolerance levels of competent predictions vs tbe IMF corrections. I explained how the uk recalculated its deflator and services to follow oecd principles. Again people preferred to mock me as tbe "resident economist" mock economists I follow in dilip shah etc. I predicted inflation would be 4% in October cpi ( not double digits) and I predicted a 0.6-0.8% growth for the year of 2023 not a -0.6% decline. It looks like I am going to be right. People get the replies from me they give out. I could go on. From how we accept asylum seekers without them needing to come to the uk where 95% of tbe forum mocked me. Until they quoted the UN spokesperson agreeing with me. I said that the renewable energy prices were a con and that the coats spared and was mocked as a Tufton street stooge. But then no bids were made for any more windfarms I discussed uk vs German server connection and provided links to the german government papers on server connections vs UK The poster simply never replied again. I have always treated people the exact way with how they treat me and other posters. Not me, discretion and yourself simply have a lot more patience and treat people with respect. I take the other road. If you mock me I will mock you back. The only problem is. Their fragile egos can't take this treatment. Do as I say not as I do. " Haven't indulged in those threads. But am happy to acknowledge I'm a brexiteer .
And "do I say..." etc, bloody hell my dad is here . Horrid saying but in what context are you using it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. " Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify." I can't believe I'm having to explain this but... You made a comment, the comment was taken in a way, you pass it off as a joke. Now whether you meant it as a joke or not (we'll never know), surely, especially on a thread about mental health, we should be mindful of how the person takes that comment. Instead of acknowledgement, you've decided to double down and refuse to apologise for a joke/sarcasm. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify." 'Many a true word said in jest' actually means you meant what you said. Wish we had a facepalm emoji. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify. I can't believe I'm having to explain this but... You made a comment, the comment was taken in a way, you pass it off as a joke. Now whether you meant it as a joke or not (we'll never know), surely, especially on a thread about mental health, we should be mindful of how the person takes that comment. Instead of acknowledgement, you've decided to double down and refuse to apologise for a joke/sarcasm." I've already stated I won't apologise for humour. The fact is I've stated it was humour. I'm of the belief that one chooses whether to feel insulted or not. For me on the receiving end I choose not to be on the receiving end. On the dishing out, intention is everything as I don't expect others to be like me (we all have different paths to tread), and it IS not my intention to hurt others. I'm going to have to sleep soon. Brain is giving out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify. 'Many a true word said in jest' actually means you meant what you said. Wish we had a facepalm emoji. " And? It's still "jesting". I've explicated my thoughts re feeling insulted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this." What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify. 'Many a true word said in jest' actually means you meant what you said. Wish we had a facepalm emoji. And? It's still "jesting". I've explicated my thoughts re feeling insulted." So Morley was right, you were showing your true colours
I'm actually of the same belief. That doesn't mean that you can't apologise for the way someone has taken something. Especially on a mental health thread.
Anyway, I think we've got to the bottom of it.
Guys/Girls, if you wanna say something to someone that's offensive, just add a little humour I to the mix, that makes it OK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm one who will say Morley often comes across as (insert whatever word you please). He is often attacked personally though, there's another thread running where a poster has come on just this morning to attack him without any relevance to any post. Do you blame him for being the way he is? Has he been "attacked"? He accused me of attacking him when, hopefully, I have merely made observations and pointed out how his behaviour through posts have come across to me. I never ever intend to insult and if perceived that way then I apologise for that perception. I won't apologise for sarcasm or humour though. I said on another thread, but yeah he was attacked by _irldn on this thread too. Or maybe you don't see someone directing a 'common denominator' comment without any relevance whatsoever as an attack. BTW, your 'that's a bonus' comment definitely didn't come across as a joke. Re Birldn, I know there's often to-ing and fro-ing between them. As for my joke, why do you think I used an emoticon? The devil = imp = impishness. Using an emoji does not negate the true meaning of the words. As an aside, here we are on a thread speaking about mental health. People are going at a particular poster and you're trying to pass it off. Think about that for a second. Maybe a more accurate phrase would be to say I was jesting, after all, many a true word said in jest. Re "trying to pass it off", please clarify. 'Many a true word said in jest' actually means you meant what you said. Wish we had a facepalm emoji. And? It's still "jesting". I've explicated my thoughts re feeling insulted. So Morley was right, you were showing your true colours
I'm actually of the same belief. That doesn't mean that you can't apologise for the way someone has taken something. Especially on a mental health thread.
Anyway, I think we've got to the bottom of it.
Guys/Girls, if you wanna say something to someone that's offensive, just add a little humour I to the mix, that makes it OK. "I show my true colours in every post so there 
And woohoo you finished on sarcasm, high five. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. " So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and the thread isn't a mental health thread per se. If someone is expressing their mental health you'll find my true colours there: compassionate, supportive and, signposting (agencies, strategies)." As with most threads, they diverge. This has definitely turned into a Mental Health thread. I'm done now though, you can be right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and the thread isn't a mental health thread per se. If someone is expressing their mental health you'll find my true colours there: compassionate, supportive and, signposting (agencies, strategies). As with most threads, they diverge. This has definitely turned into a Mental Health thread. I'm done now though, you can be right. " Thanks for your permission, I shall puff my chest in pride .
And the thread is still about the lottery but re mental health. Hasn't gone in a complete tangent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind!" That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply?" The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult?" "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! " See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all." I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him?" Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me "How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it!" And that was between Morley and Fabio. As I said, Notsofunfella jumped in with nothing to add. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it! And that was between Morley and Fabio. As I said, Notsofunfella jumped in with nothing to add. " You mean how you jumped in here between Morley and Amelie and accused me of attacking Morley | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it! And that was between Morley and Fabio. As I said, Notsofunfella jumped in with nothing to add. You mean how you jumped in here between Morley and Amelie and accused me of attacking Morley "Your comprehension isn't up to scratch today. I explained possibly why Morley may act the way he did and then asked a question. I didn't name you until after that 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy "Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it! And that was between Morley and Fabio. As I said, Notsofunfella jumped in with nothing to add. You mean how you jumped in here between Morley and Amelie and accused me of attacking Morley
Your comprehension isn't up to scratch today.
I explained possibly why Morley may act the way he did and then asked a question.
I didn't name you until after that
"Shouldn’t have named me at all or linked me to an “attack” which clearly overstated things! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy
Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise."Did you just put me into a pigeon hole of 'grown up'?
Seriously though, I know I can be a dickhead at times. I also know everybody else in here can be. Well some a lot of the time.
You got shitty before when you called out a 'pile on', just the same as I get shitty when people attack without actually adding any opinion. Hence, me appearing to stick up for Morley today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy
Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise.
Did you just put me into a pigeon hole of 'grown up'?
Seriously though, I know I can be a dickhead at times. I also know everybody else in here can be. Well some a lot of the time.
You got shitty before when you called out a 'pile on', just the same as I get shitty when people attack without actually adding any opinion. Hence, me appearing to stick up for Morley today. "Probably best to leave me and Morley to it though ay? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy
Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise.
Did you just put me into a pigeon hole of 'grown up'?
Seriously though, I know I can be a dickhead at times. I also know everybody else in here can be. Well some a lot of the time.
You got shitty before when you called out a 'pile on', just the same as I get shitty when people attack without actually adding any opinion. Hence, me appearing to stick up for Morley today.
Probably best to leave me and Morley to it though ay?"Why? You're allowed to defend people but no one is allowed to defend someone against you? That's how it comes across.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy
Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise.
Did you just put me into a pigeon hole of 'grown up'?
Seriously though, I know I can be a dickhead at times. I also know everybody else in here can be. Well some a lot of the time.
You got shitty before when you called out a 'pile on', just the same as I get shitty when people attack without actually adding any opinion. Hence, me appearing to stick up for Morley today.
Probably best to leave me and Morley to it though ay?
Why? You're allowed to defend people but no one is allowed to defend someone against you?
That's how it comes across.."At last you are getting it. Bow down and worship at my feet underling
You could have questioned me and asked what I meant by “common denominator” but you didn’t. You didn’t query or quote me at all. You referenced me “attacking” Morley in a post(s) to someone else. I’d say that’s different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy
Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise.
Did you just put me into a pigeon hole of 'grown up'?
Seriously though, I know I can be a dickhead at times. I also know everybody else in here can be. Well some a lot of the time.
You got shitty before when you called out a 'pile on', just the same as I get shitty when people attack without actually adding any opinion. Hence, me appearing to stick up for Morley today.
Probably best to leave me and Morley to it though ay?
Why? You're allowed to defend people but no one is allowed to defend someone against you?
That's how it comes across..
At last you are getting it. Bow down and worship at my feet underling
You could have questioned me and asked what I meant by “common denominator” but you didn’t. You didn’t query or quote me at all. You referenced me “attacking” Morley in a post(s) to someone else. I’d say that’s different."I didn't query or question you because it was clear to me what you meant... unless you're saying you didn't mean that? I could through it back at you and say you didn't question Morley, you made a standalone post. We really could go back and forth but what's the point. As I said before, some things trigger you and some things trigger me. Are you looking for me to agree or apologise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I think my explanation for why Morley ends up in the firing line stands as fact not opinion. Multiple threads are evidence of that. Hmmm my history with Pat goes back years before you ever started posting here. We have jokingly sparred via his multiple pseudonyms in all that time. If Pat had an issue he would say so. Eva! Well the mobility scooter thing was started by them after asking me if I had one. Been trying to get clarity on why they asked ever since but suspiciously quiet on it. And pot calling kettle black Feisty! Lost count of the number of times you rip into FunFella, Johnny and previously Fabtastic. Glass houses and all that. When you are squeaky clean then perhaps you can lecture me
How high is that horse? Your head is a little hazy
Just saying it as it is. I can be an arse sometimes but the reality is there is really only one person I fall out with on here and it is 99% down to their posting style and condescension. It triggers me
Other people, well take NotMe as an example. He and I see eye-to-eye on some things and do not agree on some things. However, we have never had a falling out. Just politely but robustly discussed.
Me and you sometimes have a superficial falling out but generally it is a bit tongue in cheek banter proliferated with and so I have never taken offence and i know you are a grown up adult so rarely take offence.
In both cases we never get personal or dismissive or condescend or patronise.
Did you just put me into a pigeon hole of 'grown up'?
Seriously though, I know I can be a dickhead at times. I also know everybody else in here can be. Well some a lot of the time.
You got shitty before when you called out a 'pile on', just the same as I get shitty when people attack without actually adding any opinion. Hence, me appearing to stick up for Morley today.
Probably best to leave me and Morley to it though ay?
Why? You're allowed to defend people but no one is allowed to defend someone against you?
That's how it comes across..
At last you are getting it. Bow down and worship at my feet underling
You could have questioned me and asked what I meant by “common denominator” but you didn’t. You didn’t query or quote me at all. You referenced me “attacking” Morley in a post(s) to someone else. I’d say that’s different.
I didn't query or question you because it was clear to me what you meant... unless you're saying you didn't mean that?
I could through it back at you and say you didn't question Morley, you made a standalone post.
We really could go back and forth but what's the point.
As I said before, some things trigger you and some things trigger me.
Are you looking for me to agree or apologise?"Neither. I don’t need affirmation or contrition. I have said what I believe and how it is evidenced by multiple threads and posts and the behaviours of various posters. I stand by it and do not agree it was an “attack” on Morley, it was IMO a fair observation based on repeated behaviours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? " no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. " I pay for my own gym. I don't need a charity to pay for it to stay in shape. As I said anything can be considered a mental health problem if you are simply judging it by creating happiness for an individual You just proved this with the hip hop studios point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult?" . Sorry but no it simply did not. Feel free to go back all the way to last year. Should you wish to. Where you first interacted with me regarding asylum seekers youw ere absolutely adamant none could get into the country legally. You were adamant there wasn't a UN route. You said inwas making it up. You asked me to show you and I did.you then never apologised. You simply turned round and stated " these routes aren't open to everyone" Had you had a modicum of respect you'd have apologised. You don't though. So every time you and others got something completely wrong on this forum. I decided I was going to correct you. Your problem came because you simply didn't like that some 1 took time to read articles you quoted or headlines and I did. You then began the mocking about twitter, dilip, Catherine, Tufton street resident economist. Because you couldn't put together a coherent rebuttal when I challenged your assumptions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all." I have bo qualms being tbe denominator. Birldn however needs to look in the mirror I happily admit I reply in the manner woth which I am addressed. And when people post false information and don't apologise. I'll treat them with the respect they deserve. If you lie and your caught out and don't apologise. And you lie again. I'll keep calling you out. This seems to be what people have the problem with. They were happy having a predominantly remain forum for years. Then as brexit has turned a corner and the bad news warned. They've become bitter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it! And that was between Morley and Fabio. As I said, Notsofunfella jumped in with nothing to add. " Nothing to add? Excuuuse me? I think it’s valid to point out that calling people liars is Morley’s MO, along with refusing to apologise when proven wrong, of course | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the other thread... Morley says... What foresight Is this going to be another big claim you can't back up like when you said the Tesla was the most sold sib pr whatever it was in the usa and when I delved into the sales figures it was bollocks and you didn't reply? The poster Morley is replying to had not attacked him or condescended him but Morley starts doing so. Be could have quite easily opted for a polite rebuttal but instead patronises and condescends first. Then cries foul when people have a dig at him! See where Notsofunfella jumps in. Maybe you chose to ignore him? Hadn’t scrolled that far but I see Morley then call Fabio a liar. Then accuse people on this forum of being liars before FunFella replies to Fabio. If you dish it out be prepared to take it! And that was between Morley and Fabio. As I said, Notsofunfella jumped in with nothing to add. Nothing to add? Excuuuse me? I think it’s valid to point out that calling people liars is Morley’s MO, along with refusing to apologise when proven wrong, of course "That's what I said. Here's your only contribution to said thread... "S’alright. No matter what evidence you produce, Morley will call you a liar." So nothing to add, you jumped on to make a personal dig and retreated again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult?. Sorry but no it simply did not. Feel free to go back all the way to last year. Should you wish to. Where you first interacted with me regarding asylum seekers youw ere absolutely adamant none could get into the country legally. You were adamant there wasn't a UN route. You said inwas making it up. You asked me to show you and I did.you then never apologised. You simply turned round and stated " these routes aren't open to everyone" Had you had a modicum of respect you'd have apologised. You don't though. So every time you and others got something completely wrong on this forum. I decided I was going to correct you. Your problem came because you simply didn't like that some 1 took time to read articles you quoted or headlines and I did. You then began the mocking about twitter, dilip, Catherine, Tufton street resident economist. Because you couldn't put together a coherent rebuttal when I challenged your assumptions. " Sorry Morley but you are either continuing to rewrite or conflating me with other posters. Last point first...many months ago I mocked you over the whole “twitter followers = credibility” discussion. When you started to act like it was actually offending you I did apologise. Twice in fact. But you ignored it and carried on. This was remarked upon by several regulars in DMs to me. You could have just accepted the apology and we move on. Since then, while I have indeed made comments ir argued points with you, I do not think I have ever mocked you since then? I have never called you a Tufton St stooge. That is your words not mine. You ARE influenced by them but because you agree with them then why would you consider that an insult? Just own it and wear the badge!? Now on the Asylum thing. I was always making the point that any safe/legal routes were not available to all. They aren’t. Your statement was “there are safe and legal routes” which is conditionally true but not the entire picture. When I later posted the info on the UN you took that as “I am right all of the rest of you are wrong” but I think we were arguing slightly different things. Are there safe and legal routes. Yes but only open for some. So the whole discussion b/w you and me needed qualifying. I am not commenting on discussions you were having with others at the time, that’s for them and you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult?. Sorry but no it simply did not. Feel free to go back all the way to last year. Should you wish to. Where you first interacted with me regarding asylum seekers youw ere absolutely adamant none could get into the country legally. You were adamant there wasn't a UN route. You said inwas making it up. You asked me to show you and I did.you then never apologised. You simply turned round and stated " these routes aren't open to everyone" Had you had a modicum of respect you'd have apologised. You don't though. So every time you and others got something completely wrong on this forum. I decided I was going to correct you. Your problem came because you simply didn't like that some 1 took time to read articles you quoted or headlines and I did. You then began the mocking about twitter, dilip, Catherine, Tufton street resident economist. Because you couldn't put together a coherent rebuttal when I challenged your assumptions. Sorry Morley but you are either continuing to rewrite or conflating me with other posters. Last point first...many months ago I mocked you over the whole “twitter followers = credibility” discussion. When you started to act like it was actually offending you I did apologise. Twice in fact. But you ignored it and carried on. This was remarked upon by several regulars in DMs to me. You could have just accepted the apology and we move on. Since then, while I have indeed made comments ir argued points with you, I do not think I have ever mocked you since then? I have never called you a Tufton St stooge. That is your words not mine. You ARE influenced by them but because you agree with them then why would you consider that an insult? Just own it and wear the badge!? Now on the Asylum thing. I was always making the point that any safe/legal routes were not available to all. They aren’t. Your statement was “there are safe and legal routes” which is conditionally true but not the entire picture. When I later posted the info on the UN you took that as “I am right all of the rest of you are wrong” but I think we were arguing slightly different things. Are there safe and legal routes. Yes but only open for some. So the whole discussion b/w you and me needed qualifying. I am not commenting on discussions you were having with others at the time, that’s for them and you." .no the omly pne that gets confused I am afraid is yourself. I happily admit when I get confused and wrong. I've just done it in another thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I have bo qualms being tbe denominator. Birldn however needs to look in the mirror I happily admit I reply in the manner woth which I am addressed. And when people post false information and don't apologise. I'll treat them with the respect they deserve. If you lie and your caught out and don't apologise. And you lie again. I'll keep calling you out. This seems to be what people have the problem with. They were happy having a predominantly remain forum for years. Then as brexit has turned a corner and the bad news warned. They've become bitter." Why do I need to look in the mirror? Please explain? The ONLY person I regularly fall out with is you. As you say, the style in which you post illicits the same type of response. You on the other hand regularly fall out with multiple posters, long term regulars and newbies. All the time! Then look at the last statement you just made. A sweeping statement, full of assumptions, totally reflective of your “I am superior to all of you” style. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Blimey I got through three bags of popcorn reading this thread. Now Morley... I wish we could pull up threads from when you started posting because I am sorry but the condescending tone started with you. Then several/many people reacted to it and in some cases continue to be triggered by it. Saying you post that way because they post to you like that is hypocritical because you really did start all of this. The proof of this can also be seen when new people start posting in this forum. I regularly see you arguing with them too. You are only interested in winning not discussing. You clearly do not read what others have posted and just blast on with your own points demanding everyone answers your questions but refusing to answer theirs. Multiple people have said this to you over the year(s). So when I say... I see Morley is busy making friends again. Hmmm “common denominator” springs to mind! That is a statement of fact. Feisty saying that is an “attack” is utter nonsense and way off the mark. If I attacked you’d know about it! How about proving your point that everyone attacks you by, from this point forward, being the bigger man, being, in your words, the adult in the room, and changing your posting style. Stop being dismissive and condescending and just stick to facts and sharing of info you think is pertinent. Then if someone actually attacks you it will be readily apparent you have tried to change. Whenever you post it has the tone of “this is fact” rather than ever being “this is opinion”. You post with the attitude that you are always right, on everything. If you always stick your head above the parapet, then don’t be surprised people take pot shots at it. The only other person who has ever been so polarising as you on here (that I can recall) seems to no longer post but they had the same style and you and he regularly/always had arguments. If one poster regularly puts the backs up of multiple posters and regularly gets into arguments with multiple posters, I tend to think the problem lies with the one poster not everyone else. Also stop rewriting history. Nobody ever accused you of “being a Tufton St stooge” they said you were clearly heavily influenced by them. And you are! You do agree with most/all that comes from those orgs. If you strongly believe in those things, then how can being aligned with Tufton St be seen as an insult? "Hmmm 'common denominator' springs to mind" cannot possibly be fact, it's opinion. You wrote a whole post there about the tone of Morleys post being 'fact' rather than 'opinion' and yet there you are doing the exact same thing as you say he does. The fact is, you nor the other poster I wrote about have written about Morley, about nothing other than him. You also regularly do it to Eva and your wheelchair comments. And Pat about his views. Yes, you do also get involved in debate but it doesn't take away the fact that you often just take pot shots off the cuff. Maybe there is a 'common denominator' after all. I have bo qualms being tbe denominator. Birldn however needs to look in the mirror I happily admit I reply in the manner woth which I am addressed. And when people post false information and don't apologise. I'll treat them with the respect they deserve. If you lie and your caught out and don't apologise. And you lie again. I'll keep calling you out. This seems to be what people have the problem with. They were happy having a predominantly remain forum for years. Then as brexit has turned a corner and the bad news warned. They've become bitter. Why do I need to look in the mirror? Please explain? The ONLY person I regularly fall out with is you. As you say, the style in which you post illicits the same type of response. You on the other hand regularly fall out with multiple posters, long term regulars and newbies. All the time! Then look at the last statement you just made. A sweeping statement, full of assumptions, totally reflective of your “I am superior to all of you” style." Please see my post about our first interaction. And how you come across. The history is there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. I pay for my own gym. I don't need a charity to pay for it to stay in shape. As I said anything can be considered a mental health problem if you are simply judging it by creating happiness for an individual You just proved this with the hip hop studios point. " why do you believe the hip hop is a deemed to be a MH charity rather than a physical health charity ? All I know is it's a charity that the health lottery donated to. I don't see the relevance of you not needing a charity to pay for your gym as why this can't be covered by a charity. And anyway, wouldn't that be as much a physical health need ? Also, the definition didn't mention "creating happiness". Mental health refers to the state of well being in which an individual can realise their potential, cope with everyday stressors, and contribute to the community. Happiness is a subjective feeling of positive emotions and satisfaction with ones life. The later is subjective well being, the former psychological. But both form part of overall health, which is a state of physical mental and social well being, and not just the absence of disease. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems certain types of people in this forum happily indulge others being insulting as long as it fits their views. And are ehaply to engage negatively themselves in the replies. I think the main problem people have is when some one gives back in the same mannerisms and challenges their beliefs. " First of all you are not Seb. Secondly you are missing any offensive or unsubstantiated posts he had made across various threads. Third you are being selective with posts you are quoting... +++ Seb said...No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up?" And I then said...But issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). +++ All rather polite to my eyes. But again...not you? Will keep reading that thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems certain types of people in this forum happily indulge others being insulting as long as it fits their views. And are ehaply to engage negatively themselves in the replies. I think the main problem people have is when some one gives back in the same mannerisms and challenges their beliefs. First of all you are not Seb. Secondly you are missing any offensive or unsubstantiated posts he had made across various threads. Third you are being selective with posts you are quoting... +++ Seb said...No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up?" And I then said...But issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). +++ All rather polite to my eyes. But again...not you? Will keep reading that thread." Firstly . I didn't say I was seb. Secondly. You metnip3nd a common denominator in terms of how people reply etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems certain types of people in this forum happily indulge others being insulting as long as it fits their views. And are ehaply to engage negatively themselves in the replies. I think the main problem people have is when some one gives back in the same mannerisms and challenges their beliefs. First of all you are not Seb. Secondly you are missing any offensive or unsubstantiated posts he had made across various threads. Third you are being selective with posts you are quoting... +++ Seb said...No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up?" And I then said...But issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). +++ All rather polite to my eyes. But again...not you? Will keep reading that thread." Tbf I think your post was fair, asking for quantifiable stats is more than reasonable for a discussion to take place. The others not so... I think that's what Morley is getting at, all of us at times see that kinda thing and ignore it because we perceive those posters to be on 'our side'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems certain types of people in this forum happily indulge others being insulting as long as it fits their views. And are ehaply to engage negatively themselves in the replies. I think the main problem people have is when some one gives back in the same mannerisms and challenges their beliefs. First of all you are not Seb. Secondly you are missing any offensive or unsubstantiated posts he had made across various threads. Third you are being selective with posts you are quoting... +++ Seb said...No stats or facts required. I have simply stated my thoughts on different aspects of immigration. I have posted on a couple of recent news reports. Do you think I simply make this stuff up?" And I then said...But issues require quantification to understand actual impact versus perceived impact. I am strongly of the opinion that while immigration, and illegal immigration, has/is caused issues in the UK (and plenty of other countries), it has been overstated and weaponised to deflect from the quantifiably bigger negative issues facing citizens of the UK. So while nobody in their right mind supports uncontrolled migration or illegal immigration, the quantifiable impact is undoubtedly less then many other issues facing us today. So it is used as a dead cat distraction. Personally I think we should assign priority according to impact. Right now the cost of living crisis and financial black hole (massively exacerbated by Truss/Kwartang and impact of Brexit) is far more concerning than anything related to illegal immigrants. People being unable to afford their gas/electric, food, rent/mortgage or the admission by BoE that their base rate increases WILL result in far higher unemployment (making the former affordability points worse and increasing the benefits costs for UK) are all far bigger issues to discuss than immigrants (legal or illegal, genuine asylum seeker or not). Very few of the main issues facing the UK are the cause of immigrants. But they remain a highly emotive easy target for distraction (wonder who else figured out something similar - ie identify a bogeyman and blame them for everything). +++ All rather polite to my eyes. But again...not you? Will keep reading that thread. Firstly . I didn't say I was seb. Secondly. You metnip3nd a common denominator in terms of how people reply etc. " But then immediately following the post I pasted a totally different poster quoted that post saying “I agree with this post completely and admire the tolerance you always show in articulating your point of view I only wish I had as much patience (and good humour) as you” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. I pay for my own gym. I don't need a charity to pay for it to stay in shape. As I said anything can be considered a mental health problem if you are simply judging it by creating happiness for an individual You just proved this with the hip hop studios point. why do you believe the hip hop is a deemed to be a MH charity rather than a physical health charity ? All I know is it's a charity that the health lottery donated to. I don't see the relevance of you not needing a charity to pay for your gym as why this can't be covered by a charity. And anyway, wouldn't that be as much a physical health need ? Also, the definition didn't mention "creating happiness". Mental health refers to the state of well being in which an individual can realise their potential, cope with everyday stressors, and contribute to the community. Happiness is a subjective feeling of positive emotions and satisfaction with ones life. The later is subjective well being, the former psychological. But both form part of overall health, which is a state of physical mental and social well being, and not just the absence of disease. " Absolutely, health is the alignment of biopsychosocial factors. The detriment of one is to the detriment of the others and hip hop covers all three. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. I pay for my own gym. I don't need a charity to pay for it to stay in shape. As I said anything can be considered a mental health problem if you are simply judging it by creating happiness for an individual You just proved this with the hip hop studios point. why do you believe the hip hop is a deemed to be a MH charity rather than a physical health charity ? All I know is it's a charity that the health lottery donated to. I don't see the relevance of you not needing a charity to pay for your gym as why this can't be covered by a charity. And anyway, wouldn't that be as much a physical health need ? Also, the definition didn't mention "creating happiness". Mental health refers to the state of well being in which an individual can realise their potential, cope with everyday stressors, and contribute to the community. Happiness is a subjective feeling of positive emotions and satisfaction with ones life. The later is subjective well being, the former psychological. But both form part of overall health, which is a state of physical mental and social well being, and not just the absence of disease. " It shouldn't come under any health charity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fact is. Peopl can go and read that thread. They can see for themselves the dismissive nature of the superior remain it ellect3d and derogatory comments. And my initial responses vs the replies I received. Treat me with respect and reply to me with respect and you'll get it back. I have disagreed with Mr Discretion on here and I haven't had a problem with how he's spoken to me. I have disagreed with ni two I have disagreed with hovis and found him respectful before the nigel farage debacle. " I don't remember you having a 'fall out' with Hovis over Farage but I will say that guy is probably the most respectful person on this political forum so if you fell out with him, I guarantee he doesn't hold it against you or use it against you down the line. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. " You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... "The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!"" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. I pay for my own gym. I don't need a charity to pay for it to stay in shape. As I said anything can be considered a mental health problem if you are simply judging it by creating happiness for an individual You just proved this with the hip hop studios point. why do you believe the hip hop is a deemed to be a MH charity rather than a physical health charity ? All I know is it's a charity that the health lottery donated to. I don't see the relevance of you not needing a charity to pay for your gym as why this can't be covered by a charity. And anyway, wouldn't that be as much a physical health need ? Also, the definition didn't mention "creating happiness". Mental health refers to the state of well being in which an individual can realise their potential, cope with everyday stressors, and contribute to the community. Happiness is a subjective feeling of positive emotions and satisfaction with ones life. The later is subjective well being, the former psychological. But both form part of overall health, which is a state of physical mental and social well being, and not just the absence of disease. It shouldn't come under any health charity." fair enough. But then this is a wider point than mental health, it's what is the definition of overall health, and with that definition in hand, what parts are reasonable to be covered by charities. To me that's an entirely reasonable position and one that different people will have different views on. I suspect the reaction of some on this thread was because it looked like you were singling out MH as having this risk of spurious spending. I suspect many want MH to be as treated as seriously as physical health. Comments like the Aston Martin one, or spending to simply create happiness somewhat undermine a cause that many hold closer to their heart than you seem to. Which again, is fine. We can disagree while having empathy for the others views. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fact is. Peopl can go and read that thread. They can see for themselves the dismissive nature of the superior remain it ellect3d and derogatory comments. And my initial responses vs the replies I received. Treat me with respect and reply to me with respect and you'll get it back. I have disagreed with Mr Discretion on here and I haven't had a problem with how he's spoken to me. I have disagreed with ni two I have disagreed with hovis and found him respectful before the nigel farage debacle. I don't remember you having a 'fall out' with Hovis over Farage but I will say that guy is probably the most respectful person on this political forum so if you fell out with him, I guarantee he doesn't hold it against you or use it against you down the line. " thanks. I'm not sure what the farage dabacle was. It certainly hasn't registered in a way that means it's had any affect me. But if I was disrespectful than I'm happy to apologise Morley. I'm afraid though you will have to remind me what for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I simply asked amelia what would fall under der mental health( still no declaration) The reply I got "Perhaps read posts properly (and review yours before posting, your typos are consistently awful) " But, I am the problem apparently. I think you need a very clear mirrorto be clear Do you want a definition of what falls under mental health. Or mental health charitable spending. As they feel like different questions. It may not be your intention, but the way MH gets minimised by some is similar to * sniffles are part of life * sniffles fall under "physical health" * because some people may take advantage of calling sniffles a "physical health issue" * we should be cynical of any physical health claims And in this thread * should we donate to a cancer charity because someone can claim physical health for almost anything and set up a charity to support people with sniffles. Imo it would help with the discussion if we could understand why a definition of MH/MH charities is needed. Are you saying cancer charities provide aid to people not suffering cancer?No. Not sure how you read that onto what I was saying tbh. Charities have a well defined public benefit. As such they tend to have a specific MH aspect they focus on rather than a complete blank canvas approach. In the same way there tend to be specific cancer charities not generic "health". And these charities give within thei remit. Again, I dont fully understand why you nee this definition and how it will further the conversation for you. What's the underlying question or point you are seeking to clarify? If a MH definition covers "a bit sad" the same way I'd include sniffles under "physical health" then so what ? What's the implication of using this definition? Look. It's simple. Give me a definition of what falls under mental health spending and we can have a sensible chat. If you can't define what mental health is...then this discussion can go no further. And my point will be correct that it can't be defined and any spending can fall under this. What Is Mental Health? Mental health refers to our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. We all have mental health. Our mental health affects how we think, feel, and act. It also impacts on how we cope, interact and form relationships with others, as well as our daily functioning. Our mental health can vary and be dependent on a number of factors which may include; The number of demands and stressors we have Our physical health Significant life events How much sleep we get Relationships with other people Our diet/ nutritional intake Environmental, societal and cultural factors How much we engage in leisure activities, hobbies and interests. Taken from a NHS website. I suspect spending is focussed on mental illness in the same way as physical health/physical illness. But I accept that it may also include improving potential health. In the same way as some charities focus on improving physical health than addressing illnesses. So then is it fair to say any charity wishing to pay for people's hobbies, social lives, items would be considered mental health expenditure? no more or less than considering paying for hobbies as improving physical health. Maybe you have similar concerns here? That's valid .. after all the health lottery have given money to hip hop studios. That's a hobby. But then that's a wider point than the mental health angle you have focussed on. I'm supportive of improving health, as I believe poor health can lead to illness. But would totally respect a view that says that's not where money should be spent. Focus on the illnesses not the health. I pay for my own gym. I don't need a charity to pay for it to stay in shape. As I said anything can be considered a mental health problem if you are simply judging it by creating happiness for an individual You just proved this with the hip hop studios point. why do you believe the hip hop is a deemed to be a MH charity rather than a physical health charity ? All I know is it's a charity that the health lottery donated to. I don't see the relevance of you not needing a charity to pay for your gym as why this can't be covered by a charity. And anyway, wouldn't that be as much a physical health need ? Also, the definition didn't mention "creating happiness". Mental health refers to the state of well being in which an individual can realise their potential, cope with everyday stressors, and contribute to the community. Happiness is a subjective feeling of positive emotions and satisfaction with ones life. The later is subjective well being, the former psychological. But both form part of overall health, which is a state of physical mental and social well being, and not just the absence of disease. It shouldn't come under any health charity.fair enough. But then this is a wider point than mental health, it's what is the definition of overall health, and with that definition in hand, what parts are reasonable to be covered by charities. To me that's an entirely reasonable position and one that different people will have different views on. I suspect the reaction of some on this thread was because it looked like you were singling out MH as having this risk of spurious spending. I suspect many want MH to be as treated as seriously as physical health. Comments like the Aston Martin one, or spending to simply create happiness somewhat undermine a cause that many hold closer to their heart than you seem to. Which again, is fine. We can disagree while having empathy for the others views. " I know nothing about the workings of a charity, but surely it is up them to have a philosophy regarding who they donate to and why. It's then up to individuals whether they want to donate/partake. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know nothing about the workings of a charity, but surely it is up them to have a philosophy regarding who they donate to and why. It's then up to individuals whether they want to donate/partake." Charities are overseen by the Charities Commission, which makes sure that they do what they are supposed to. So if you set up a charity to do mental health work, but spend all the money on paragliding holidays for the founder and her family, then you can find yourself in trouble. But you generally have quite a bit of latitude. If you can connect an activity with what the stated aims of the charity are, you'll be OK. Look at Kids Company, a charity that was set up to "provide care to children whose lives have been disrupted by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence". They ended up running a shadow benefits system where they handed out cash to children who weren't asked to identify themselves, and the charity was accused of fuelling alcohol and drug abuse in those children. But since most of their funding went on children, the investigation found that there were no breaches of charity law. What I'm trying to say is that a charity has to state what its aims are, and it has to stick to those things. They can't just spend money however they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the charity's philosophy and rationale are mandatory." Mr Discretion is correct. Charities have what are officially called “Objects” and these have to be registered with the Charity Commission. There is an official process a charity has to go through to change their Objects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So I kept reading that thread and it feels like (when it comes to Morley and me exchanging posts) you are being rather selective... ++++ Me = How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. Morley = They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes. (So first patronising shot fired by Morley) Me = What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq? Morley = So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them (Patronising shot number 2 fired by Morley) There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk. Gateway protection program Vcrs Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries) Calais protocol These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs ACRS exists for Afghans. Me= You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like. ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria? Different poster = Do we know how many people have used this scheme ? " Me = I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation! (My first shot) Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS... Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics. If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way. There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan. ++++ So ANYWAY... How about drawing a line and just politely discussing going forward and drop the condescension and stop being patronising?" Nothing selective I made my point. I pointed out how you reply to other posters continually. And how you replied to me with am immediate air of superiority. You get what you give. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back." The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. " We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So I kept reading that thread and it feels like (when it comes to Morley and me exchanging posts) you are being rather selective... ++++ Me = How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. Morley = They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes. (So first patronising shot fired by Morley) Me = What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq? Morley = So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them (Patronising shot number 2 fired by Morley) There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk. Gateway protection program Vcrs Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries) Calais protocol These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs ACRS exists for Afghans. Me= You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like. ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria? Different poster = Do we know how many people have used this scheme ? " Me = I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation! (My first shot) Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS... Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics. If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way. There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan. ++++ So ANYWAY... How about drawing a line and just politely discussing going forward and drop the condescension and stop being patronising? Nothing selective I made my point. I pointed out how you reply to other posters continually. And how you replied to me with am immediate air of superiority. You get what you give." It was selective as there was more conversation. But having again offered an olive branch you refuse. Sorry Morley but you always bang on about being an adult, this was your chance to prove it and draw a line but again another dig. You really cannot help yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. " Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fact is. Peopl can go and read that thread. They can see for themselves the dismissive nature of the superior remain it ellect3d and derogatory comments. And my initial responses vs the replies I received. Treat me with respect and reply to me with respect and you'll get it back. I have disagreed with Mr Discretion on here and I haven't had a problem with how he's spoken to me. I have disagreed with ni two I have disagreed with hovis and found him respectful before the nigel farage debacle. I don't remember you having a 'fall out' with Hovis over Farage but I will say that guy is probably the most respectful person on this political forum so if you fell out with him, I guarantee he doesn't hold it against you or use it against you down the line. thanks. I'm not sure what the farage dabacle was. It certainly hasn't registered in a way that means it's had any affect me. But if I was disrespectful than I'm happy to apologise Morley. I'm afraid though you will have to remind me what for. " My proble. Came with how you mocked farage. We discussed econo.ic contribution a d how your .is interpreting it. When finally the full documents were released instead of an apology. You disappeared and changed your name. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So I kept reading that thread and it feels like (when it comes to Morley and me exchanging posts) you are being rather selective... ++++ Me = How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country. Morley = They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes. (So first patronising shot fired by Morley) Me = What are the legal routes to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan and Iraq? Morley = So I'll answer this but the fact you don't know about the legal routes is troubling. You are commenting on a subject of which you show no comprehension of. S you should know them (Patronising shot number 2 fired by Morley) There have been several routes over the years to claim asylum in the uk. Gateway protection program Vcrs Vprs(originally fkr Syrias but rolled out to other countries) Calais protocol These were rolled into one scheme called tbe ukrs ACRS exists for Afghans. Me= You understand the concept of rhetorical questions and checking another person’s understanding right? As this is s forum I can and will ask any question I like. ACRS has strict criteria designed only (but rightly) provide a channel for those who were in some form working with the British before they left. What about those who do not fit the criteria? Different poster = Do we know how many people have used this scheme ? " Me = I’m sure the chap from Morley will have an explanation! (My first shot) Here’s a nice little factoid about ACRS... Entry clearance for the UK will only be granted after your biometrics, normally your facial image and fingerprints, have been enrolled at a Visa Application Centre (VAC). Relocating to the UK may take some time, and will depend on your ability to travel to a third country to provide biometrics. If you are outside Afghanistan and able to get to a Visa Application Centre in a neighbouring country, you will be able to provide biometrics in this way. There are no Visa Application Centres in Afghanistan. If you are still in Afghanistan, the UK government is working with international partners, including non-governmental organisations and other countries to secure safe routes out of Afghanistan. ++++ So ANYWAY... How about drawing a line and just politely discussing going forward and drop the condescension and stop being patronising? Nothing selective I made my point. I pointed out how you reply to other posters continually. And how you replied to me with am immediate air of superiority. You get what you give. It was selective as there was more conversation. But having again offered an olive branch you refuse. Sorry Morley but you always bang on about being an adult, this was your chance to prove it and draw a line but again another dig. You really cannot help yourself." You attempt at an an olive branch is writing a 20 paragraph post and saying let's draw a line under it I a sad little attempt to have a last word. And it won't fly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted." Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me!" "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." The smell of incorrect arrogance is quite in your face | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me! "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." The smell of incorrect arrogance is quite in your face" So are you saying international law does not state that anyone can claim asylum in any country? Not sure how that can be construed as arrogance but then as I say, we won’t agree. But let’s talk about arrogance and superiority shall we (see next post)... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I usually just type pretty quick because I only dip in and out of this forum to sadly have to correct people who don't read the articles they share or understand the subjects they talk about." And... "Not here to make friends. Just here to cut through the bullshit posts many like to make." And... "If you lie and your caught out and don't apologise. And you lie again. I'll keep calling you out. This seems to be what people have the problem with. They were happy having a predominantly remain forum for years. Then as brexit has turned a corner and the bad news warned. They've become bitter." How often have you accused other posters of being liars? Lost count! Or indeed whole groups on the forum of being liars. It’s on you Morley. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me! "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." The smell of incorrect arrogance is quite in your face So are you saying international law does not state that anyone can claim asylum in any country? Not sure how that can be construed as arrogance but then as I say, we won’t agree. But let’s talk about arrogance and superiority shall we (see next post)..." I have previously corrected you on this In the other thread highlighted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me! "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." The smell of incorrect arrogance is quite in your face So are you saying international law does not state that anyone can claim asylum in any country? Not sure how that can be construed as arrogance but then as I say, we won’t agree. But let’s talk about arrogance and superiority shall we (see next post)... I have previously corrected you on this In the other thread highlighted " So I read that thread again over lunch and I cannot see where you corrected me. I can see discussion on safe/legal routes but not on international law and claiming asylum in any country. Can you copy n paste where you did? You do later in the thread reply to someone else stating... “Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries. So not sure what it was you think you were correcting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries." Don't start misquoting me from other threads. The law on claiming asylum says that any person can claim asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and (if they have a valid claim) that country must accept them. International law does not say that a person has a right to choose which country they apply in, and it does not say that any country has an obligation to allow someone entry in order to make a claim or to accept a claim made from another country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries. Don't start misquoting me from other threads. The law on claiming asylum says that any person can claim asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and (if they have a valid claim) that country must accept them. International law does not say that a person has a right to choose which country they apply in, and it does not say that any country has an obligation to allow someone entry in order to make a claim or to accept a claim made from another country." I hadn’t realised I had? Here is exact quote... I said = "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." You said = “Only those countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention. But that does mean most countries, I agree.” Not sure if you posted anything more thereafter? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries." "Don't start misquoting me from other threads. The law on claiming asylum says that any person can claim asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and (if they have a valid claim) that country must accept them. International law does not say that a person has a right to choose which country they apply in, and it does not say that any country has an obligation to allow someone entry in order to make a claim or to accept a claim made from another country." "I hadn’t realised I had? Here is exact quote... I said = "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." You said = “Only those countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention. But that does mean most countries, I agree.” Not sure if you posted anything more thereafter?" In this thread you are defending yourself saying "international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country". That's a very vague statement which is taken by many people to mean "asylum seekers have a right to apply where they want". Then you quoted me being in support of that statement. I'm not. When I talk about refugees and their rights, I like to make it very clear that there's a difference between what they *can* do, and what they *have a right* to do. More importantly, this isn't about asylum seekers, it's about you arguing with Morley over which one of you is more wrong. Don't try to claim I'm supporting your side. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries. Don't start misquoting me from other threads. The law on claiming asylum says that any person can claim asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and (if they have a valid claim) that country must accept them. International law does not say that a person has a right to choose which country they apply in, and it does not say that any country has an obligation to allow someone entry in order to make a claim or to accept a claim made from another country. I hadn’t realised I had? Here is exact quote... I said = "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." You said = “Only those countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention. But that does mean most countries, I agree.” Not sure if you posted anything more thereafter? In this thread you are defending yourself saying "international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country". That's a very vague statement which is taken by many people to mean "asylum seekers have a right to apply where they want". Then you quoted me being in support of that statement. I'm not. When I talk about refugees and their rights, I like to make it very clear that there's a difference between what they *can* do, and what they *have a right* to do. More importantly, this isn't about asylum seekers, it's about you arguing with Morley over which one of you is more wrong. Don't try to claim I'm supporting your side." Hmmm rightyho. For avoidance of doubt I only mentioned you originally in response to Morley saying he had corrected me. However, I can see how you might come to think I was saying you supported me on that point. That wasn’t my intent but I didn’t think it needed a load of caveats. We are now clear I think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me! "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." The smell of incorrect arrogance is quite in your face So are you saying international law does not state that anyone can claim asylum in any country? Not sure how that can be construed as arrogance but then as I say, we won’t agree. But let’s talk about arrogance and superiority shall we (see next post)... I have previously corrected you on this In the other thread highlighted So I read that thread again over lunch and I cannot see where you corrected me. I can see discussion on safe/legal routes but not on international law and claiming asylum in any country. Can you copy n paste where you did? You do later in the thread reply to someone else stating... “Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries. So not sure what it was you think you were correcting?" See bit on burden of proof fleeing persecution. Otherwise any one could come to the uk and claim asylum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first reply by twonotes "You appear to have gone full Oswald Mosley." The first reply by just int ime "This is hilarious disinformation again….so labour are responsible for Brexit and mass invasions of Eastern Europeans….that’s the funniest load of rubbish I’ve read in 12 years of Tory rule" The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" The reply form fabtastic "Poor Seb, I decided a wouldn’t engage with him on here until he gets help, since then we have had the news that a 66 year old radicalised pensioner called Andrew Leak attacked an asylum centre then killed himself. I hope history isn’t repeating itself " My first comment "What makes you say that? The memorandum of understanding hasn't been removed from uk gov website" With regards to fabtastic saying Rwanda was finished. You see I need to thank you now for proving my point. I am only responsible for my own posts and as you quoted... The first reply by _irldn "Seb, before you can illicit a sensible discussion you need to support all the claims you made above with verified stats. These require the source to be clear. Otherwise everything you say is unverifiable hearsay and opinion!" What is remotely wrong with that? I only see a polite but robust challenge to Seb. No rudeness? Sorry Morley but I think you are conflating me with others. You have only got it from me as a reflection to your style and as per my last post above, you, a new poster, immediately began patronising me and have done ever since. So you get it back. The poin was. If you read the thread I am originally polite and try to engage respectfully. Those first 3 replies from rmeainers are not respectful which you seem to demand from others. My point was made. You demand people reply to you and other rmeainers respectfully. You don't honour that system yourself. We were talking about our interaction and as demonstrated you went straight into condescension and patronisation mode with me not the other way around. The example you give above regarding me proves I was being polite to Seb. You cannot say the same. Om the thread I was quite polite to begin with. I went into condescension when you incorrectly quoted" that's international law" in your smug superiority. Even though you were completely wrong. Your honestly completely oblivious even though the historical thread has been posted. Hmmm so you think me saying... “How does someone from Afghanistan or Iraq claim asylum legally in the UK? BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country.” Was smug superiority? I don’t see it. It seems calm and measured to me and asks a question. Also what was wrong with that statement? Your reply was... “They can do so via legal routes. I would hope any one commenting on such a sensitive matter would know these routes.” Is clearly patronising. However, we won’t agree but that is all history now and I have offered an olive branch. You do not seem to want to take it. If that is the case it says all we need to know about you and me! "BTW like it or not, international law states that anyone can claim asylum in any country." The smell of incorrect arrogance is quite in your face So are you saying international law does not state that anyone can claim asylum in any country? Not sure how that can be construed as arrogance but then as I say, we won’t agree. But let’s talk about arrogance and superiority shall we (see next post)... I have previously corrected you on this In the other thread highlighted So I read that thread again over lunch and I cannot see where you corrected me. I can see discussion on safe/legal routes but not on international law and claiming asylum in any country. Can you copy n paste where you did? You do later in the thread reply to someone else stating... “Agreed people can claim asylum where they want.” So that means my point was correct? Mr Discretion pointed out that it only applies to countries that signed the 1951 convention but agrees that is most countries. So not sure what it was you think you were correcting? See bit on burden of proof fleeing persecution. Otherwise any one could come to the uk and claim asylum." Ah ok but I read that as additional information not proving what I had said was wrong. I do not see how the two statements are mutually exclusive? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
