Jol_BWFC

It sickened you? Really? This is an advertising campaign. Nobody has been offered any job. The applicants might be rubbish and get nowhere near the BTP.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

In almost all cases, no. But it may be relevant if, for example, it was a job as a waitress in a Chinese restaurant, or if it was a charity helping Syrian refugees (and experience of the role showed that they were more likely to “open up” to people from an African background).

I assume Royal White is annoyed because despite his experience in the armed forces, he got turned down for a job in the BTP (and lost out to a woman and/or black person).

What’s the job?

But that’s not what you said. See my post above. If you had said the above (rather than saying black people and women can’t do the job but would get in), I would have said that it’s quite possible that there is an element of positive discrimination. The reason / justification may be that mentioned above by Frank, which I think is valid.

I didn't imply anything. You said above "you can’t do the job but your [sic] female or black so your [sic] in.". Out of nowhere, you have assumed that the women and black people who responded to the advert can't do the job, but will get "in".

Who said they can't do their job? You've just automatically assumed women and black people can't do their job. As said above, any applicant will inevitable need to pass the necessary tests. Says a lot about your attitude / discrimination.

This is an advert / recruitment poster. It's not the "test". I'm sure that any applicants who respond will need to pass all the necessary tests before they get offered a job. If the police are underrepresented in a particular area, of course they are going to use targeted advertising. In my profession women are underrepresented at the higher level and there is a push to balance things out. However, if there are better candidates, they don't just get waived through ahead of everyone else.

What do you mean? What's your issue?

Whole boroughs in London are now 20mph zones. Imagine being behind people trying to make sure they don’t hit the speed limit... Frustrating as hell, although at rush hour you’d be lucky to hit 20mph.

You predicted that we would leave (with or without a deal) at the end of March. If there is a delay until after 29 March 2019, that prediction will be wrong. Talking about a possible extension, how long would it need to be postponed before Cheese's arse is safe?

Quite. Thankfully Parliament saw fit to take back control. Democracy in action.

Formulate options, debate them, vote on options, agree final set of terms, go to the EU with said terms, draw up a revised deal, negotiate the revised deal and (if approved by negotiatiors) vote for that new deal in Parliament and ratify that new deal in all other member states. All in 72 days? That is if May doesn’t step down / lose the no confidence vote and instigate a leadership challenge or general election. I’m not sure all this is going to happen before 29 March, as you predicted. Best bet for your prediction is that May trots of and tries to tweak the current deal.

A pat on the back to Parliament. Yet last year Brexiteers such as you were furious with Parliamentary process, because the House of Lords voted against the Brexit bill. There were also shouts of “conspiracy” when it was decided that Parliament could have a “meaningful vote” on the deal. The cries of Brexiteers then were that TM and Government should be able to do the deal without Parliament having a say and “sabotaging” the process. So, is this shifting goalposts, change of opinion, contradiction, hypocrisy...?