Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    • 27,218Posts
    • 325,371Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 12:43 PM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 630
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 12th Nov 19, 11:47 PM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    oh god do not get me on the Jeremy Kyle show, I once spent a full weekend searching through all the shows trying to find a specific episode (work related)....I needed therapy afterwards!
    Originally posted by Sunshinemummy
    I spent some time the other day trying to find a post in which I had stated something about "WTO rules". Then, having failed to find it, I tried to post about it (and just say it's there somewhere, I can't find the original post to amend) and then this website wouldn't let me post and then lost my post. So I didn't get round to posting it but I have been meaning to make a correction and may as well do so now - in brief it should have said "WTO terms" rather than "WTO rules". It is a technical point, that I was not aware of but have become aware of since, and I was misled by a Brexiteer whose statement is heard on this album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_14v8TChuE

    It now seems to me they are inaccurate and when people are talking about "WTO rules" - I have a BBC reporter I need to correct on this same matter from earlier today - they don't know what they are talking about (although neither did I at the time of the post - but then again I am not a Brexiteer politician that ought to have looked into these facts and got them straight on the detail). Basically we already operate according to WTO rules as a member of the EU, on occasions on which the EU does not have anything that operates instead. Most countries in the world are members of the WTO, including ourselves, and therefore operate according to WTO rules. However, in the absence of any alternative - and usually better - terms agreed, the country would fall back on the WTO terms. Not WTO rules, although falling back onto WTO terms (in the absence of anything else) is part of WTO rules. It is technical point and I should be technically accurate. So if any Brexiteer says WTO rules to you, reply "WTO terms!" and I assume you can assume they know what they are talking about... (In other words, they don't because it seems to me all matters on the leave argument are emotional arguments and don't have any relation to the facts.)

    Consider my original post amended to say terms instead of rules, even though I haven't been able to find where the post is.

    Anyway, I'll get off this Brexit issue even though the Tories want to continue with it and its ongoing effects by continuing to pursue Brexit. We know there was a referendum (an extremely dodgy one in retrospect) but my argument is about pursuing something so clearly damaging and destructive regardless of whether or not that was what a small majority of voters said at one particular time (and for those who then say it was a vote once in a lifetime or a generation - the Government of that time should never have made that statement in my view and was not entitled to make it, not least because it raised unrealistic expectations). It's been mentioned somewhere else in the ether that had there been a vote in 1950s America on whether black people should be allowed to vote, a majority would probably have said no. The majority answer is not always the right answer.

    Sadly the direction of travel now does seem to be that Brexit is going to happen (so yes I am moving off my 'impossible'), because I think the public, of light viewers of politics, generally with its incomplete pieces of information, the small bits that seem to be getting out to people more generally and which are a misleading picture of the whole, will probably end up returning the worse majority government that its own interest would mean it ought not. I think if this is the case we will be leaving the EU and then without any trade deal at the end of 2020. It will be irreparable damage, that in due course, probably April to mid 2021*, will see us back in the EU, as the only way, on much much worse terms at a huge cost than ever before and Macron will have his way. We will never have again all the benefits we have as a member and which people vote against because they do not see the impacts of those benefits as they are taken for granted and largely invisible therefore, but will be absolutely experienced most negatively once they are taken away, and because, largely through negative reporting over several decades in the press, people see the EU as bureaucratic and us sending lots of money to for no seeming benefit as they don't experience what that benefit is as it has been permanently there, when the truth is the opposite: the EU is more democratic than our own country and gives us rights that will be taken away.

    To clarify as to why the benefits have been permanently there despite the fact there was a time, prior to 1973, when it didn't seem we were going (in reverse to what I suggest above) from loss of benefits to benefits, this is because the world and the systems within it has vastly changed over the decades since, so that we were still able to benefit outside of the EU prior to 1973 and then it was incremental with benefits, being a member, continuing but that now, with the world completely different in ways that matter here, we would be (probably will be, the way the direction of travel now looks) going from the state of the benefits that we now currently have, that are taken for granted as always existing and largely unseen, to no longer having the benefits and thus it is not returning to 1972 and reversing back, instead it is an ultimately unsustainable disaster of unpredictable consequence as random parts of our society that currently function impact on other random parts and then those haphazardly on other random parts that mean in precisely what way it will impact will not be predictable but basically it will all start to fail and then prove to be disastrous - and there won't be anything that can be immediately done as we couldn't then quickly rejoin the EU and put everything back. Anyway, it is no use me posting about it on here as it is a section of the public voting on the basis of "hoping" things will be fine but when they will not be and putting misplaced trust into what they are told that, unless the campaign manages to change this in now less than a month, seem to be leading the country now this way. I was a doomster and gloomster in thinking the UK, from the outset last April, would never leave at the end of October - and I got it right again.

    It is just plain and obvious to me as a pikestaff now that promises over Brexit are completely undeliverable and will make the other promises undeliverable or are not actually delivering anything anyway - the public generally, more wider, would think what they are being promised is a good thing and will be inevitably be disappointed when they find out it is not delivered and this is entirely foreseeable now and will come to be the case (if they vote how I think they probably will, given what information is managing to reach them in the end) because it is simply not deliverable. So, strap in, suffer all the bad consequences on the way (I see no positive), and watch people be surprised that things are not happening that they expected because there were never any rational bases on which to expect that to be the case but every basis on which to expect it to prove not to be, but the public generally somehow expect things that are to be completely expected not to happen and to fail and fail to expect that the things they do expect to happen will never happen, which will (if the general election outcome ends up as it probably will) prove to be the case, in which case it will be a repeat similar to the member of the public I saw on the TV after the referendum, expressing surprise at the news that David Cameron was resigning when it was completely and totally obvious that that was going to be the case(), entirely and completely foreseeable once the referendum result came through that that was going to happen, was entirely and completely foreseen by me at the time that that would be the case and would happen and did in fact then prove to go on to happen just as predictable.

    *but I am a bit vague on this because it is also foreseeable that Johnson might go back on his promise not to extend the transition period and, if that position happens, then the final no trade deal end will be pushed back accordingly.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; Yesterday at 12:53 AM.
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 13th Nov 19, 6:55 AM
    • 18,794 Posts
    • 40,279 Thanks
    Sleazy
    I spent some time the other day trying to find a post in which I had stated something about "WTO rules". Then, having failed to find it, I tried to post about it (and just say it's there somewhere, I can't find the original post to amend) and then this website wouldn't let me post and then lost my post. So I didn't get round to posting it but I have been meaning to make a correction and may as well do so now - in brief it should have said "WTO terms" rather than "WTO rules". It is a technical point, that I was not aware of but have become aware of since, and I was misled by a Brexiteer whose statement is heard on this album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_14v8TChuE

    It now seems to me they are inaccurate and when people are talking about "WTO rules" - I have a BBC reporter I need to correct on this same matter from earlier today - they don't know what they are talking about (although neither did I at the time of the post - but then again I am not a Brexiteer politician that ought to have looked into these facts and got them straight on the detail). Basically we already operate according to WTO rules as a member of the EU, on occasions on which the EU does not have anything that operates instead. Most countries in the world are members of the WTO, including ourselves, and therefore operate according to WTO rules. However, in the absence of any alternative - and usually better - terms agreed, the country would fall back on the WTO terms. Not WTO rules, although falling back onto WTO terms (in the absence of anything else) is part of WTO rules. It is technical point and I should be technically accurate. So if any Brexiteer says WTO rules to you, reply "WTO terms!" and I assume you can assume they know what they are talking about... (In other words, they don't because it seems to me all matters on the leave argument are emotional arguments and don't have any relation to the facts.)

    Consider my original post amended to say terms instead of rules, even though I haven't been able to find where the post is.

    Anyway, I'll get off this Brexit issue even though the Tories want to continue with it and its ongoing effects by continuing to pursue Brexit. We know there was a referendum (an extremely dodgy one in retrospect) but my argument is about pursuing something so clearly damaging and destructive regardless of whether or not that was what a small majority of voters said at one particular time (and for those who then say it was a vote once in a lifetime or a generation - the Government of that time should never have made that statement in my view and was not entitled to make it, not least because it raised unrealistic expectations). It's been mentioned somewhere else in the ether that had there been a vote in 1950s America on whether black people should be allowed to vote, a majority would probably have said no. The majority answer is not always the right answer.

    Sadly the direction of travel now does seem to be that Brexit is going to happen (so yes I am moving off my 'impossible'), because I think the public, of light viewers of politics, generally with its incomplete pieces of information, the small bits that seem to be getting out to people more generally and which are a misleading picture of the whole, will probably end up returning the worse majority government that its own interest would mean it ought not. I think if this is the case we will be leaving the EU and then without any trade deal at the end of 2020. It will be irreparable damage, that in due course, probably April to mid 2021*, will see us back in the EU, as the only way, on much much worse terms at a huge cost than ever before and Macron will have his way. We will never have again all the benefits we have as a member and which people vote against because they do not see the impacts of those benefits as they are taken for granted and largely invisible therefore, but will be absolutely experienced most negatively once they are taken away, and because, largely through negative reporting over several decades in the press, people see the EU as bureaucratic and us sending lots of money to for no seeming benefit as they don't experience what that benefit is as it has been permanently there, when the truth is the opposite: the EU is more democratic than our own country and gives us rights that will be taken away.

    To clarify as to why the benefits have been permanently there despite the fact there was a time, prior to 1973, when it didn't seem we were going (in reverse to what I suggest above) from loss of benefits to benefits, this is because the world and the systems within it has vastly changed over the decades since, so that we were still able to benefit outside of the EU prior to 1973 and then it was incremental with benefits, being a member, continuing but that now, with the world completely different in ways that matter here, we would be (probably will be, the way the direction of travel now looks) going from the state of the benefits that we now currently have, that are taken for granted as always existing and largely unseen, to no longer having the benefits and thus it is not returning to 1972 and reversing back, instead it is an ultimately unsustainable disaster of unpredictable consequence as random parts of our society that currently function impact on other random parts and then those haphazardly on other random parts that mean in precisely what way it will impact will not be predictable but basically it will all start to fail and then prove to be disastrous - and there won't be anything that can be immediately done as we couldn't then quickly rejoin the EU and put everything back. Anyway, it is no use me posting about it on here as it is a section of the public voting on the basis of "hoping" things will be fine but when they will not be and putting misplaced trust into what they are told that, unless the campaign manages to change this in now less than a month, seem to be leading the country now this way. I was a doomster and gloomster in thinking the UK, from the outset last April, would never leave at the end of October - and I got it right again.

    It is just plain and obvious to me as a pikestaff now that promises over Brexit are completely undeliverable and will make the other promises undeliverable or are not actually delivering anything anyway - the public generally, more wider, would think what they are being promised is a good thing and will be inevitably be disappointed when they find out it is not delivered and this is entirely foreseeable now and will come to be the case (if they vote how I think they probably will, given what information is managing to reach them in the end) because it is simply not deliverable. So, strap in, suffer all the bad consequences on the way (I see no positive), and watch people be surprised that things are not happening that they expected because there were never any rational bases on which to expect that to be the case but every basis on which to expect it to prove not to be, but the public generally somehow expect things that are to be completely expected not to happen and to fail and fail to expect that the things they do expect to happen will never happen, which will (if the general election outcome ends up as it probably will) prove to be the case, in which case it will be a repeat similar to the member of the public I saw on the TV after the referendum, expressing surprise at the news that David Cameron was resigning when it was completely and totally obvious that that was going to be the case(), entirely and completely foreseeable once the referendum result came through that that was going to happen, was entirely and completely foreseen by me at the time that that would be the case and would happen and did in fact then prove to go on to happen just as predictable.

    *but I am a bit vague on this because it is also foreseeable that Johnson might go back on his promise not to extend the transition period and, if that position happens, then the final no trade deal end will be pushed back accordingly.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Based on the parts highlighted, I am not sure whether to view this post as a fact or as a factoid!

    And if what was 'impossible' is no longer such, then actually it never really was impossible.
    Last edited by Sleazy; Yesterday at 7:04 AM.
    Weekly Distance Walked 27km / Total For Year 1271 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 13th Nov 19, 7:01 AM
    • 18,794 Posts
    • 40,279 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Good morning

    I'm both top and bottom in quiz atm

    That is a fact now but will be incorrect later!
    Weekly Distance Walked 27km / Total For Year 1271 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • tweets
    • By tweets 13th Nov 19, 7:59 AM
    • 33,988 Posts
    • 446,203 Thanks
    tweets
    Good Morning

    is served

    Its raining again lol
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 13th Nov 19, 8:03 AM
    • 33,988 Posts
    • 446,203 Thanks
    tweets
    izzy65 was yesterday's smartest player!

    44 players played

    https://www.funtrivia.com/private/main.cfm?tid=99008

    Today's Topic (Wednesday): *** FunTrivia Mixed Bag (default)

    Well done TM
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 13th Nov 19, 8:10 AM
    • 18,794 Posts
    • 40,279 Thanks
    Sleazy
    I quite like the Daily Mail and its factoids!
    I don't believe most of them either, and that's a fact ....
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    Which means you believe some of them, it must do logically - and if what you say is true, that's a fact as well.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    No it doesn't mean that at all!
    It means that I don't believe most of them.
    The others I might think about or do further research on, the same as I might do for other news sources - the Daily Mail is no different in publishing factoids as facts than any other newspaper!

    So the part that I've higjlighted above is also a factoid rather than a fact, because it is factually incorrect.
    Weekly Distance Walked 27km / Total For Year 1271 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 13th Nov 19, 8:32 AM
    • 21,967 Posts
    • 221,638 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Good morning all, lovely day here

    Thanks for the tweets
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 13th Nov 19, 4:43 PM
    • 56,761 Posts
    • 648,406 Thanks
    bubbs
    Afternoon all
    Got washing dry outside today was here to hang out about 9.45 then went hospital.........yes anther op which i knew anyway, got washing in when i came home
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 13th Nov 19, 4:51 PM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    The most crucial information is missing.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50406198
    "It is not known what flavour crisps were used to lead it away."

    It is absolutely vital that this is found out so that we know. Journalists not doing their proper investigative work again.

    (I just wish they hadn't mentioned the flavour of crisps in the article. It would never have occurred to me if they hadn't. However, now they have, I am also dying to know what flavour they were and just can't put the matter aside without wanting to know. I need to know now, absolutely. Really... leading me there and then not providing the information! Worse when I know that I don't know something, rather than not even knowing or realising about it in the first place - I guess I'd rather be one side or the other - zero knowledge or complete knowledge, black or white, no in between. And zero knowledge that literally means zero - not even giving a thought or knowledge that I haven't got the knowledge. This half-information approach instead is the worse position: the unhelpful halfway house that falls in the middle and satisfies no-one. Or at least not me. The lack of clarity, the ambiguity over what the crisps might be. I am just not satisfied with ambiguity. Really need to know what flavour of crisps they were. And probably what brand as well. Is it Walkers? Is it Golden Wonder? Tesco own brand? Asda Smartprice? Something else? The possibilities just open and open and aren't closed down for me - I need to know which it is! As I said, the flavour of crisps is absolutely vital and no other information in the article or anything else what happened now matters. The crisps are crucial. Otherwise why mention them?!)
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; Yesterday at 5:03 PM.
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 13th Nov 19, 7:54 PM
    • 18,794 Posts
    • 40,279 Thanks
    Sleazy
    The most crucial information is missing.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50406198
    "It is not known what flavour crisps were used to lead it away."

    It is absolutely vital that this is found out so that we know. Journalists not doing their proper investigative work again.

    (I just wish they hadn't mentioned the flavour of crisps in the article. It would never have occurred to me if they hadn't. However, now they have, I am also dying to know what flavour they were and just can't put the matter aside without wanting to know. I need to know now, absolutely. Really... leading me there and then not providing the information! Worse when I know that I don't know something, rather than not even knowing or realising about it in the first place - I guess I'd rather be one side or the other - zero knowledge or complete knowledge, black or white, no in between. And zero knowledge that literally means zero - not even giving a thought or knowledge that I haven't got the knowledge. This half-information approach instead is the worse position: the unhelpful halfway house that falls in the middle and satisfies no-one. Or at least not me. The lack of clarity, the ambiguity over what the crisps might be. I am just not satisfied with ambiguity. Really need to know what flavour of crisps they were. And probably what brand as well. Is it Walkers? Is it Golden Wonder? Tesco own brand? Asda Smartprice? Something else? The possibilities just open and open and aren't closed down for me - I need to know which it is! As I said, the flavour of crisps is absolutely vital and no other information in the article or anything else what happened now matters. The crisps are crucial. Otherwise why mention them?!)
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer

    I believe it was these:



    However, please view as a factoid and not a fact ....

    Brilliant post btw Savvy, so

    And i have dared to press the button as well ....
    Weekly Distance Walked 27km / Total For Year 1271 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • tweets
    • By tweets 14th Nov 19, 8:07 AM
    • 33,988 Posts
    • 446,203 Thanks
    tweets
    Good Morning

    is served

    Its fine at the moment but -2 so very cold but I can wrap up warm
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 14th Nov 19, 8:09 AM
    • 33,988 Posts
    • 446,203 Thanks
    tweets
    lesliejack was yesterday's smartest player!
    45 players played

    https://www.funtrivia.com/private/main.cfm?tid=99008

    Today's Topic (Thursday): *** FunTrivia Mixed Bag (default)
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 14th Nov 19, 8:20 AM
    • 21,967 Posts
    • 221,638 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Good morning all, fine now after a very wet night.

    Thanks for the tweets
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

417Posts Today

5,557Users online

Martin's Twitter