Ban both Fox Hunting and Football

[Gavin Yates]

There is a clear distiction between Government and Party.

As I said I work for the government - a lib/lab coalition in Scotland. I am not permitted to brief on Labour Party policy only government policy - these are often different.

You constant misrepresentation of the facts - whipped vote you said - no it isn't - hare coursing not included you said - yes it is. Are there any facts in your argument or are you just insulting people for fun?

Stop misleading people when you are so clearly losing the argument and maybe the plot.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Gavin Yates

There is a clear distiction between Government and Party.

As I said I work for the government - a lib/lab coalition in Scotland. I am not permitted to brief on Labour Party policy only government policy - these are often different.

You constant misrepresentation of the facts - whipped vote you said - no it isn't - hare coursing not included you said - yes it is. Are there any facts in your argument or are you just insulting people for fun?

Stop misleading people when you are so clearly losing the argument and maybe the plot.

Gav, petulance is a not a character trait which befits your office or sits well with you.

Misleading people is your job mate - you, ahem "work for the government" (what ever that might mean). I have merely used your own quotes about your 'job spec' - if these have 'misled' people, then whose fault is that? Healer: heal thyself.

We covered the whips issues earlier in the thread (strange you should only choose to reprise the issue now that you're on the ropes) and I was corrected (and said so at the time) on the hare-coursing issue - and you don't even know what this argument is about as you haven't even bothered to read the thread (as witnessed by your last out-burst).

Alas I can't accuse you of 'losing the plot': that would presuppose you had it to lose in the first place.

[John N]

Originally Posted by And

Ah
In my opinion it does infringe on civil liberties, it does restrict one's personal freedoms, and it impacts what we choose to do in our free time. Once this topic has passed there are others in the same vein such as ID cards, further HSE restrictions and legislation regarding public events, never mind the bans on smoking and such.
Andy

Of course it restricts personal freedoms - the laws of our society provide a contract between us all to restrict certain things we might like to do, in return for the prevention of other things that we don't want to happen.

If, for instance I fancied a nice bit of heroin, should I be allowed it?

There are many views on what should and shouldn't be legislated for. Anything from anarchy to a totalitarian state - I guess you are of the 'less government' persuasion and that you vote accordingly.

We are however in a (perhaps flawed) democracy and this law was clearly promised before an election.
If you don't like it, then get involved in politics and try and change it.

[Gavin Yates]

I have explained - you have misrepresented.

I have been completely open about who I work for. What about you?

I have also read the thread from start to finish and still cannot see how you can be so outlandishly rude to people and think you can get away with it.

Oh I forgot - you just threaten people don't you.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Gavin Yates

I have explained - you have misrepresented.

I have been completely open about who I work for. What about you?

I have also read the thread from start to finish and still cannot see how you can be so outlandishly rude to people and think you can get away with it.

Oh I forgot - you just threaten people don't you.

Gav,

It's a pity that you've chosen to take such a bitter line here mate; albeit on a potentially emotive issue.

Simply writting: "I have explained - you have misrepresented." is hardly a slaying or persuassive argument and sadly replete with just as much detail and qualifying info as your previous submissions of "I work for the government" - when we've already established what an opened-ended and wholly ambiguous statement that is and what it might mean; which is hardly being 'completely open', now, is it?

This isn't about me. I opened a debate/thread on governmental priorities, as I see them, and you've obviously (perhaps coz you 'work for' them?) taken umbrage to that. But instead of addressing the debate you've been evassive (until promtped) and then have the brass neck to say I've been 'outlandishly rude' when accusing me of being misleading and "losing the plot"? Yeah, OK, I can see how that might work, not.

And with respect, if you had, genuinely, read the whole thread, you'd know what the content is about and how it has developed - a number of your posts lead me to believe that you've not read the entire thing and are making snap and emotive responses to certain posts which have patently raised your ire. Others haven't made that obvious mistake.

And where once did I threaten anyone?

[Helen F H]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

evassive

HA! Pedants r' us at your service.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Porg

HA! Pedants r' us at your service.

Well picked-up! Green in-coming!

[Helen F H]

- Its a bit pot, kettle and black mind you......

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by John Nortcliff

...
If, for instance I fancied a nice bit of heroin, should I be allowed it?

Ah - only if you pay the VAT mind.....

Chris

[John N]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

... writting ..............persuassive.........promtped....