Is there anyone on here who doesn't have left wing views

Easy . People who arrive here without a valid visa . People who also arrive here who aren’t refugees but also pretend to be because they’ve been told what to say by their traffickers

Awaits typical progressive jargon of “there are no borders , only ones humans made”

Not a massive problem in the UK then as the vast majority of people who arrive ARE asylum seekers and once processed are granted leave to remain.
 
This sounds like textbook Mandela effect


Looney Tunes vs. Looney Toons logo

Many people think the logo for the Warner Brothers’ cartoons was spelled “Looney Toons.” Actually, it’s “Looney Tunes.”

This is easy to explain, its all because of Tiny Toons and its all their own fault.
 
Not a massive problem in the UK then as the vast majority of people who arrive ARE asylum seekers and once processed are granted leave to remain.

Yes, of course they are. Much like they are in Europe too

I’ve said my piece anyway , you can believe they are as much as you want . I don’t , and I believe quite a few people in this country and in Europe believe they aren’t either
 
“ We will never allow you to rule!’ May to Corbyn at a PMQ’s
I distinctly remember this because that answer, together with the look on her face, was very menacing and filled with hatred. Not seen that before or since. So I thought I would look it up and check the YouTube of the exchange. It’s not there…but the most sinister thing is it doesn’t appear in Hansard according to an historian who went looking too, although a lot of other people seem to remember the exact words said.
This sounds like textbook Mandela effect
It did happen. The 'historian' that went looking searched for a different wording and then gave up - zero effort, must try harder...

1696240582354.png

1696240660724.png

The above in Hansard
 
True it isn't free. But if you ask people if they want to increase 5p tax on the anyone earning over 150k to provide a better NHS, most people will say yes

If you ask people if they want to reduce utility prices by taking public ownership, most people will say yes

Value is more important than cost.
Yeah, they're loaded questions, 99.9% of people won't earn 150k, and all of them will use the NHS at some point.

A loaded question doesn't mean the question is the right thing to be asking though, and certainly doesn't meant the answer is the best solution, not on complex subjects.

Like the 5p tax on 150k, seems a good idea, but I would rather they taxed wealth instead. We need to be taxing people inheriting millions and billions or those already with millions and billions, they're much more of a problem to me, as the money doesn't get spent and taxed again, it just gets hoarded. The only money which is "spent" is effectively equity gains from stocks and assets etc.

Most people who earn 150k probably aren't that "rich", not unless they've been earning that for a decade or so, or if they've also inherited a load, or if they've got no kids and their partner is on decent money too (i.e. that one person isn't the breadwinner for 4 people and two dogs).

I don't think I want us to take over ownership of utilities, as from working in that sector it seems like a bad idea as anything we do publicly own in that sector is currently ran terribly. I was up for us creating our own, but having seen the mess we're making of Hinkley point C and HS2 I've completely changed my mind. Public ownership won't work, not until we change the regulation from the already public entities, until we've proven we can do that, there is no proof we could run things better, or cheaper.

Value is more important than cost, but some things can bring more value than others.
 
It did happen. The 'historian' that went looking searched for a different wording and then gave up - zero effort, must try harder...

View attachment 64548

View attachment 64549

The above in Hansard
Am I missing something here?

That highlighted box is a completely different quote to what has been quoted above and on that historians link (which also has comments on it saying they remembered it the same.

That variation appears to be the Mandela effect - that's why the historian couldnt find it, nor ziggy or the peope in the comments - it's a false memory just like the example in my link of people quoting Vader as "Luke, I am your father" and another common one is people quoting "beam me up Scotty" from Kirk, which he never said during star treks run. Similar things were said but never that.
 
True it isn't free. But if you ask people if they want to increase 5p tax on the anyone earning over 150k to provide a better NHS, most people will say yes

If you ask anyone they'll say the highest earners should pay more. That's fair, for sure, and it's justifiable. But Britain is already in a situation where - of 30 million tax payers - 3% pay 30% of all the income tax paid. 10% pay 50% of all the income tax paid. People on high incomes already pay 45% on their earnings over £125K, and another 2% of National Insurance contributions for incomes over £50K a year.

I don't think it's fair to tax people who earn over (say) £150K an extra 5%, and I'm pretty sure I'm in a huge majority about that.

As AndyW said, there needs to be a way to tax wealth, rather than just income. Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Stamp Duty on second and subsequent homes, there must be ways to increase the tax take without hammering the highest earners even more.
 
Not left wing me self like
No disrespect to those that are
No disrespect to the apolitical on here
or the ordinary conservatives (like Erimus and Nobby maybe)
We’re all here living us lives
Feeding the kids etc
& enjoying Carrick & kru building a dynasty
of superb footy UTB
 
Yes, of course they are. Much like they are in Europe too

I’ve said my piece anyway , you can believe they are as much as you want . I don’t , and I believe quite a few people in this country and in Europe believe they aren’t either

I’m just going off the figures from Government. They are approving nearly 80% of applications.

You can ignore the truth if you wish, if that suits your narrative, but your opinion is wrong. Opinions are not facts.
 
Am I missing something here?

That highlighted box is a completely different quote to what has been quoted above and on that historians link (which also has comments on it saying they remembered it the same.

That variation appears to be the Mandela effect - that's why the historian couldnt find it, nor ziggy or the peope in the comments - it's a false memory just like the example in my link of people quoting Vader as "Luke, I am your father" and another common one is people quoting "beam me up Scotty" from Kirk, which he never said during star treks run. Similar things were said but never that.
The exchange happened. It's just that the historian is using a third party 'quotation' of what was said and people remember there being something like that.

The actual exchange wasn't as vicious from a language perspective, but it's the look in May's eyes when she delivers it:

The Mandela Effect is people remembering things that never happened rather than misquoting things that did. The historian didn't remember hearing the quote he searched for and the quote he searched for turned up no results because of this. Other people remembered there being an exchange but the actual quote was different.

It's at about the seven and a half minute mark in the following (assuming this is the one everyone thinks they remember):

 
People who choose not to vote shouldn't really be written off as having no right to comment.
Hasn't abstaining from a vote been previously argued on this forum as a valid strategy?
 
People who choose not to vote shouldn't really be written off as having no right to comment.
Hasn't abstaining from a vote been previously argued on this forum as a valid strategy?
Not voting is not not abstaining though as no such vote is recorded

It’s not participating in a democratic process

If you really want to abstain spoil your ballot as that way at least your vote or non vote is recorded.

Personally I’d make voting compulsory but include the option to record a non vote.
 
The exchange happened. It's just that the historian is using a third party 'quotation' of what was said and people remember there being something like that.

The actual exchange wasn't as vicious from a language perspective, but it's the look in May's eyes when she delivers it:

The Mandela Effect is people remembering things that never happened rather than misquoting things that did. The historian didn't remember hearing the quote he searched for and the quote he searched for turned up no results because of this. Other people remembered there being an exchange but the actual quote was different.

It's at about the seven and a half minute mark in the following (assuming this is the one everyone thinks they remember):

No, the Mandela effect is people remembering things differently to what actually happened - I.e a false memory - that can either be something happening completely differently or just being a change to what actually got said or what something was called.

There are countless examples of that happening, and in each case the thing happened, just differently - Mandela was in jail but didn't die, Kirk said many ways to get beamed up but never said beam me up, Scotty, many people say Snow White says mirror mirror on the wall but she says magic mirror etc

Ziggys exact quote was

"I distinctly remember this because that answer, together with the look on her face, was very menacing and filled with hatred. Not seen that before or since. So I thought I would look it up and check the YouTube of the exchange. It’s not there…but the most sinister thing is it doesn’t appear in Hansard according to an historian who went looking too, although a lot of other people seem to remember the exact words said."

That's multiple people remembering something that she didn't say. Yes, the exchange happened between May and corbyn, but look at that quote above; especially this bit;

"with the look on her face, was very menacing and filled with hatred. Not seen that before or since."

Ziggy, like the others, is sure she said that but also sure about this look of menacing hatred. You've just posted the video and sure enough at 7 & a half minutes in, she says something different (but similar, same with all the other Mandela examples), but not only that I don't think she has menace or hatred in her face, it's just standard PMQ stuff, and despite being a full old hag of a witch, she is even holding back a smile as she said it

It's completely different to how it has been remembered, unless you're the most die hard labour supporter I suppose. It's certainly an interpretation, anyway and you could say the same about most PMQ. But either way, multiple people have remembered this being said differently
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course they are. Much like they are in Europe too

I’ve said my piece anyway , you can believe they are as much as you want . I don’t , and I believe quite a few people in this country and in Europe believe they aren’t either
Your belief is irrelevant, the facts are that the vast majority of asylum seekers are valid and you don’t get to make your own facts
 
Back
Top