Quote: fopdoodle @ 6th May 2016, 9:59 AM BSTAn anagram of David Cameron is:
Random Advice
An anagram of David Cameron is:
Pigs arsehole
But then I am dyslexic, so that's approximate. 
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,815
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 6th May 2016, 2:43 PM BSTAn anagram of David Cameron is:
Pigs arsehole
But then I am dyslexic, so that's approximate.
Wouldn't that be sweeter if it was Pig's facehole. 
Quote: keewik @ 5th May 2016, 8:52 PM BSTAre you sure you want that image in your mind?
Having no "minds-Eye" has some advantages for me then... 
Love the way how "a modern politician" is now the favoured euphemism for being the political muslim son of a bus driver or a political Scottish gay woman. Expect UKIP when they get fed up with Farage to opt for an asexual buddhist navvy from Copenhagen to take them in media terms, quote, "truly into the 22nd Century". That is, even though as is the case with all the others any actual policies are as antiquated as they have always been.
Anyhow, in Scotland the Greens got 6 MSPs on 0.6% of the vote while the LDs got 5 MSPs on 8% of the vote. Didn't they do well. Thank God we live in a democracy unlike having to reside in that dreadful EU where you are just told who is representing you. At least here you can have a vote and then delightfully get the total opposite.
Not exactly today's news, but from some months ago, and not funny; here is the report of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on the implications of Brexit.
I've found it but not read all of it yet.
[blue]Note that it was supposed to guide the voters; yet its existence has not really been publicised at all. [/blue]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/545/545.pdf
And their conclusion:
The referendum on membership of the EU offers the UK a once-in-a-generation opportunity to assess critically its role in the world today, and to decide what kind of foreign policy actor it seeks to become in future. Inevitably, given the number and complexity of variables involved, predictions about the long-term impact of remaining or withdrawing from the EU must involve a degree of informed guesswork. Based on the evidence we gathered and on current regional and global trends, we have attempted to identify and outline the key potential risks and opportunities associated with both remaining and leaving. Our analysis aims to assist voters to reach a decision. This decision will be informed by the weight and probability they give to those risks and opportunities.
Collectively, as a Committee, we do not agree on the decision and therefore do not endorse either a "remain" or a "leave" vote. Whatever the outcome, there will be a clearer path for the United Kingdom to follow.
So basically even they could not make up their minds.
I think the report as a whole addresses most of the questions that we have expressed and is well worth reading, but it is hard going and inconclusive.
Quote: keewik @ 5th May 2016, 10:59 PM BSTI don't understand the need for mayors (cue Larry the Lamb bleating) but then I don't live in England.
Me neither. It's a relatively new post. So what exactly does the Lord Mayor of London do?
Lord Mayor of London is not the same post as Mayor of London.
So we have two...
ww.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/db31d56f-e5ff-4402-9492-903d76e4c473
Quote: billwill @ 7th May 2016, 8:04 PM BSTLord Mayor of London is not the same post as Mayor of London.
So we have two...
ww.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/db31d56f-e5ff-4402-9492-903d76e4c473
I know it's not the same. That's what I want to know. What is the point?
One, two, three - whatever - and who knows why or what the hell is going on, all I know is Katie Hopkins has promised to run naked down Oxford Street with a sausage up her arse just the once . . . and my interest only goes as far as it would have to be one hell of a sausage to stay up there.
I really don't think she's thought this through as I can't imagine any type of sausage that wouldn't get completely macerated . . . unless of course she's not COMPLETELY naked - and has it taped to her person somehow. Come on Katie - if only your brain wasn't always so far behind your mouth - maybe you could have chosen something with a bit of purchase, such as a dragon fruit. 
Quote: Chappers @ 7th May 2016, 8:20 PM BSTI know it's not the same. That's what I want to know. What is the point?
Too many egos in Politic, they need more posts to make more of those little fellows feel like big cheeses. Otherwise they'll seep onto reality TV. Galloway's cat must never happen again.
Split in the Labour party, split in the Conservative party- with some luck both will collapse and die, good riddance
Am I missing something?
Muslim community furious about the use of words "Allahu Akbar" at Trafford Centre exercise but I don't really understand why as it's basically a quote.
Wasn't it just authentic as some terrorists are arabic and have used these words? And if not this, what should they have shouted? If he'd shouted it in English, would that have offended Christians?
Not sure what words would have been acceptable - maybe "I have a hamster named Kevin" would have been offensive to hamsters and anyone named Kevin.
They should be offended by random nutters that spread indiscriminate horror and misery around the world, not a few words uttered in an exercise designed to minimise the potential carnage.
Or am I missing something?
The Muslim community doesn't want to be associated with ISIS or terrorism, it builds hate and helps ISIS, not Britain. So ironically, it's in the best interest of all British people, to keep pointing out there is no connection between the nutters (ISIS), as you correctly point out, and any religion.
I would agree from an operational point, it was trying to be authentic, but my guess is they may have engineered this complaint to make the point. It's good the British Muslim community talk out against ISIS, isn't it ?
I totally get the whole association thing - but nobody can ignore fact - and it's awful that some people view muslims negatively as a result (I like to think these people have brain cell counts similar to those who attack paediatricians because they are too stupid to know that paedophiles and paediatricians are not the same so probably can't even spell their own name).
But If someone needs to be sacked for audibly quoting someone else in context, then shouldn't this also apply to print? It wasn't even mocking like hebdo - it was fiction based on fact and not actually real - so what next? We can't start dressing fictional terrorists up in attire that is considered 'non muslim-like' just to cover all the bases of possible offence.