Your remarks about ignoring my comments and 'should not be encouraged' was personal and uncalled for. You should not confuse your debating with your new job as a mod. You cannot censor comments which you just do not agree with.
You misunderstand. It is my job as mod to make sure people on the forum debate properly. I have not censored anything - I have stated clearly that a good way of making sure we all debate fairly is to adhere to certain "etiquette" - which you supported. Part of what I have suggested is that instead of using the ignore button as a group did against you we should individually simply ignore posts we do not like. I did not like a couple of your posts so stated I was ignoring them. I only mentioned that as I want to encourage more people - including you - to ignore comments they dislike. Do you not think that preferable to all out war? My way we contain posts that offend us. I have shown over the last few days I am very pleased to debate with you - even though we disagree. What I will not do is answer posts I consider are against the spirit of our forum. You lumped a load of lords together in a discriminatory way and then you dissed the posters on here who are remainers. Previously Ithink that would have caused some to insult you - I do not want that and prefer we ignore comments like that. If you disagree explain why to me - I made no personal comments about you - but about your posts; I did not confuse my debates with the mod job and I censored nothing. Take this in the spirit I have tried to engender these last few days.
It is perfectly normal to doubt the integrity of politicians, in this case members of the Lords. I'm sure you would have not had a problem if Farage had been disparaged. I look forward to the moderation being fair and unbiased.
Please stop accusing me of bias and guessing what I would do. I try to be fair to all. Farage is one person - I dislike the lumping of people - lords / remainers together. Anyway enough on that. Do you agree I have the right to not respond to a post if I dislike it and to encourage you and all other posters to adopt that as a way of discouraging posts we dislike? I have taken zero action as a mod since becoming a mod. I have only expressed personal opinions. As a mod I could edit / delete / remove / ban etc. I have never once used any such action and hope I never shall. I will let you know when I take action as a mod - until then my actions are exactly the same as yours - a personal opinion.
I thought we were trying to keep personalities out of our debates. There was no reason for you to recommend others to ignore because you did not agree with some of my posts. Please ensure it is clear which hat you are wearing. We also have one or two posters throwing themselves on the floor, Forestieri style, looking for an imaginary foul. The pantomime season has passed hopefully. This is meant to be a rough and tumble political thread, there is no need to target the poster just the views expressed.
My last post on this discussion then we move on. The only hat I wear is as an ordinary poster. I tell nobody what to do and I do not wear my mod hat at all. If forced by something I may have to find it but assume unless I say I am doing something as a mod that I am just an ordinary poster. All of us have a duty to try to make this board friendly. I will say it one last time - in the rules on etiquette I suggested that ignoring posts is better than putting a poster on ignore. Agree or disagree - your choice. I highlighted on the two posts of yours that I was doing this as I though it good to demonstrate that it works. I encouraged others to do the same -as I encourage you also. The alternative I fear is that people will go back to retorting with abuse. Keeping personalities out of debate is what I am doing - I am not ignoring a post because of the person who posted it - but because I do not like the post. You are free to do the same. This discussion has been held without insults even though we clearly do not agree on each others position - I would suggest that it has been a more adult way to disagree.
Simple solution - follow my example - ignore the posts - if you feel the need in your next post make reference to the fact that you are not responding to them . If we all do that it will help. This board has to be self-policing. The mods are not going to get involved with adults. Mods will only appear if posts break the not606 rules or if total childishness breaks out.
Hopefully these are just teething problems in our bright new world. Anybody attacking individuals and not the opposing views will not encourage past posters to return or encourage new posters. There is an imbalance of political, and dare I say, Brexit views that hopefully can be rectified.
Just an observation here. I have an aversion to whipping. This is something normally associated with slave drivers - or with certain women on the Reeperbahn. Does it really belong in the House of Commons ? Yet, apparently, they are all at it - apart from Caroline Lucas (who is not into self flagellation). I expect my MPs to vote based on their consciences, and based on representing their constituencies - but will it happen ? In reality there is as much chance of a vote against the activation of Article 50 as there is of Luton playing in the Prem. within the next few years - I would love to see them being brave enough, but it won't happen. Brexit is like a boil on the nose. It has to take its course and, one day, it will be over. When I see a rampant bull I do not jump on it and try to wrestle it to the ground - much better is to jump on it, ride it, and wait till it is exhausted. At the moment our 'rampant bull' is fuelled by 30 years of continuous lying by the press, so it will take some time. Give it 2 years of fruitless negotiations (I can't predict these, because they have no precedent), 2 years of seeing how Trump can **** up the rosy idea of what the rest of the World looks like, and then we will have a completely different World. Let the people have a glimpse of this 'promised land'. It involves the idea that Britain can be a pioneer of free trade in the World. That it can open up to the rest of the World (in order to be raped ?). The rest of the World means - the USA. with a kind of mini TTIP, which would be a bigger threat to British sovereignty than anything else. China ? Yes, flood the UK. with Chinese products, cheap steel etc. and place British workers in direct competition with Chinese workers. India ? We've seen a glimpse of this already - they wnat free movement of people as well. Free trade, and free movement with a country which still has periodic bouts of Cholera. The rest of the Commonwealth ? Australia, Canada and New Zealand have a combined population less than that of Italy. There are others of course, Russia, Saudi Arabia........ In contrast to these other countries, those which have infrastructures most similar to our own are all in Europe. Those with most similarities regarding human rights, workers rights, environmental laws etc. are all European. Those partners who are on eye to eye level with us are also in Europe. There is no other country in the World which is more, on a par with Britain, than France is, and Germany is not much different. They are our natural partners. They are also the partners which represent the least threat to our sovereignty - because of their parity. All a bit of a no brainer really.
100% agree. Teething troubles yep and worth a little debate to try to clarify. I would like to see a board much more balance. You are our only brexiter - which is not helpful for debate. You are also about the only person who consistently defends some of the more right wing positions taken. A few of us do agree with you on some of these and I loathe the constant stream of videos drawn from momentum style sites that are supposed to stand in for reasoned discussion.
After HSBC Citibank next to move offices https://www.ft.com/content/e902033f-004a-3130-b043-5362ece5ab8a As feared/predicted.... and given that something like 20% of our GDP comes through the financial sector people are worried....
The beauty of the English language is its mutlifarious connotations for verbage. Whipping is not al about slaves. In a democracy that relies on party politics - which ours does, whipping has a place. The other road is chaos. A small amount of conscience voting is tolerable but for the electorate to vote in a party - which is what happens (we often do not even know who our MP is) you need them to be able to do what they say.
By the way SH you have singularly failed EVERY invitation to answer with the financial benefits of BREXIT Come on convince me....
Please take this as no criticism on others. Obviously our varying political views are shaped by our life experiences, background etc but when talking about Brexit are some professions more likely to vote remain or leave.? My confidence for Brexit, often criticised on here, is based on changes and opportunities which I have experienced by not always taking the safe option. There are of course always failures amongst the successes but I generally feel the UK is well placed to compete internationally. I try to imagine if I had a career as a teacher, nurse etc would I have had the experience of dealmaking and finance or would my priorities favour a safety first attitude. I'm not knocking anybody just trying to understand why others are unable be as optimistic as I am.
Actually, no they don't. Their combined populations are about six million more than that of Italy. The pedant in me forced me to respond...
It would not matter if George Soros spelt out the potential financial benefits of Brexit. You, like most people, are firmly fixed in your views. In view of this, I'm out.
Always assuming that what they say is part of the manifesto that persuaded the electorate to vote them in in the first place. In this instance, it quite clearly wasn't - the Tory manifesto pledged to "safeguard British interests in the single market". Pulling out of the single market is a singularly odd way of honouring that pledge, but unsurprising given the way they have 'forgotten' many a manifesto pledge since 2010.
I agree - but we have to admit that the Tories lost the referendum which changes everything. For right or wrong they are now hostages to the implementation of a policy they disagreed with - but are committed to honouring "brexit" - and in that definition lies the rub. Labour and Conservatives say they have to abide by the referendum result. The problem is the referendum did not spell out what brexit meant.
