kent_white

Yeah, but that's splitting hairs between law and philosophy. Local councils were already running multicultural curriculums in the 80s as actual philosophy, not just following anti-discrimination rules. Blair turned it into national policy, but he didn't invent the thinking. I think we're probably on agreement hee btw - just defining things a bit differently.

Respectfully, I'm not sure I agree with that. It's been around as an idea since the 1960's. And certainly after the Brixton Riots. Blair governments ran with it, and expanded it. But the race relation acts were decades before New Labour.

It all depends what type of meds they are Traf. If it's something like ADHD meds for example - a lot of GPs won't touch it - even with a diagnosis from a specialist clinic. If you feel comfortable PMing me the details - I'll ask some of my pharmacy friends next week for you. Hope she gets sorted......!

Rupert Lowe. On the toilet! 🤣

To quite George Bush Jr. I think you misunderestimate how patriotic some of us 'lefties' are! 😁

Country is safe with me Bolty! 😁👍💪

Am totally and 100% with you this one. I hate thinking that we're a second of third rate world power. I'd be investing heavily into our military at the expense of other services.

See I think that your worldview is sensationalist BS peddled by those unable to accept that the world is too small to keep 8 billion odd people culturally and racially hemogeonised and in a world of climate change and over population - conflicts of interest are going to happen at an ever increasing rate, and we need to get better at accepting that the realities of yesteryear are no longer appropriate.

That was my point. I don't agree with his decision. But I can understand why someone might decide not to do 12 additional days a months if they're only going to take home and extra £100 for the effort.

Which is also true. I've another friend who has just gone back into employment after being laid off. But he's only looking for 2 days a week because any more than that and he'll have his UC taken off him. Needs to keep his earnings under £1000 a month. He could do the other 3 days but financially he'd only be in a slightly better position. So much as I think he's taking the piss - I can understand why he might make that decision from a pragmatic perspective. It's something that needs addressing somehow - but it's not an easy fix.

I've got some sympathy though mate - and it is a useful safety net for a lot of people who otherwise would go under. I've got a friend down in Kent for example. Single mum whose fella left her and her son. She's a really hard worker, a counsellor and also picks up whatever work she can working as a receptionist at a golf club. The way house prices are down there - she'd be destitute if it wasn't for UC. And she still has to deal with the 'if you can't afford kids then you shouldn't have them' brigade. I get that there are some people taking the piss. But that always happens to some extent whenever you offer a state benefit. But it also does a lot of good. It's a difficult balance to get right I suppose.

It's not perfect - I'll give you that. But this is small fry to what I think we can expect under Reform. I think there will be riots and social unrest all over the shop. Let's see how it unfolds.

I think I misheard it mate. Quick scan and I can't see anything like that. There are some decent measures in there at first glance for me. But the devil is in the detail I suppose. Overall - if it tips the balance in favour of first time buyers at the expense of private landlords (especially the massive conglomerates) - then I'd be broadly in favour. I'm sure this will be what they're aiming to do. But time will tell if the approach works. Are you a landlord?

I'll do a bit of reading - I was only half listening on LBC

Maybe. I wondered if it was a similar set up to when Maggie sold off the council stock?