Britain outside the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not about political belief or baiting, it's about encouraging good discussion in which controversial statements presented as facts should be linked to evidence.

OB encourages discussion. This is not a Court of Law where proof is essential. Controversial statements can nevertheless be fact even where there is no proof positive.

I don't share OB's view on my party - perhaps I'm more down to earth. But you lot piling in on him is nothing more than baiting under the pretence of seeking proof.

That the CS is leftie is beyond dispute. If Sue Gray, then why not a whole load more, especially those with whom she could have a laugh with at the Tories.

I'm also convinced that Ministers have been stitched up with bullying allegations. The CS lot are laughing up their sleeves at their take-down success rate.

Controversial statements can nevertheless be fact even where there is no proof positive.

Without proof, it is an opinion, not a fact.

A fact refers to the something true or real, which is backed by evidence and documentation. An opinion is what a person believes or thinks about something.

For instance, using your logic, can the controversial statement that John Redwood is a cross-dressing secret Labour supporter nevertheless be fact even where there is no proof positive?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Without proof, it is an opinion, not a fact.

A fact refers to the something true or real, which is backed by evidence and documentation. An opinion is what a person believes or thinks about something.

For instance, using your logic, can the controversial statement that John Redwood is a cross-dressing secret Labour supporter nevertheless be fact even where there is no proof positive?

You are wrong. A fact is a fact in it’s own right.

Convincing picadors and lefties of a fact, which, without proof that can be put on a forum, is a significant challenge.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

OB encourages discussion. This is not a Court of Law where proof is essential. Controversial statements can nevertheless be fact even where there is no proof positive.

I don't share OB's view on my party - perhaps I'm more down to earth. But you lot piling in on him is nothing more than baiting under the pretence of seeking proof.

That the CS is leftie is beyond dispute. If Sue Gray, then why not a whole load more, especially those with whom she could have a laugh with at the Tories.

I'm also convinced that Ministers have been stitched up with bullying allegations. The CS lot are laughing up their sleeves at their take-down success rate.

Controversial posts without sources face challenges from left, right and centre. It's a lower quality debate as posters can misremember or misunderstand the original statement their post is based upon.

After 13 years of Conservative rule, that the CS is righty is beyond dispute. If David Frost, then why not a whole load more?

The best way for ministers to avoid being found guilty of bullying is not to do it in the first place.

[OLD BOY]

[B][/B]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You lot pile in on OB just for the fun of it.


I don't rate you, Andrew, as a Leftie. But you do seem to like being part of the OB baiting crew.

They certainly do. It’s a sport to them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You may try to deny the truth to suit your own political agenda
and attempt to rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by ttying to humiliate them,
but people aren't stupid - they see what you are doing.

"may try" ? Thanks for the permission, I didnt need it though.

"deny the truth" ? Really ... so what truth exactly am I denying ?

You made a statement. I simply asked if you had any evidence [you didnt].

Originally Posted by Paul

I find this hard to believe, I presume you have evidence to back this up.

"suit your own political agenda" So as well as the above "truth", what political agenda exactly am I suiting ?

"rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by tying to humiliate them"
The only rubbish is being spouted by you, in your replies, somthing you seem to do a lot.
I didnt mention anything about agreeing or otherwise, I asked if you had evidence to back up a claim you made.
I dont need to "humiliate" you, the clear stupidity and nonsense in your response is doing that just fine all on its own.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This 'proof' fallback position is lazy.

Asking for proof is lazy ?
Best hope you never get accused of a crime then.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The Courts have nothing to do with opinion in this forum.

The courts have everything to do with providing proof/evidence.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

As I've said, everyone knows about the Brexit pushback from the Civil Service.

Wrong. They dont. [ Evidence: Well me for a start ].

So I can say you are a total clown, and according to you I dont need to provide proof to support that ? Just state "everyone knows it".
And of course, you cant ask for evidence, as that would just be "Lazy" on your part, after all, a fact is a fact apparently, even if its not.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You lot pile in on OB just for the fun of it.

Wrong again. I asked a simple question, and he responded with an attack full of bullshit and nonsense.
I dont "pile in on OB" for the fun of it, I'm responding to his (and your) nonsense. Attacking me for no reason is not a smart move.

---------- Post added at 00:29 ---------- Previous post was at 00:29 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They certainly do. It’s a sport to them.

More utter nonsense, you get responses you bring upon yourself.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

You made a statement. I simply asked if you had any evidence [you didnt].

I gave an example. Post #5753. As usual, when you guys try to discredit me (or anyone else whose views you don’t like) you don’t even bother to read the links that I do provide.

If you are challenging a comment I’ve made, maybe you should provide a link to prove you have a right to be sceptical.

Challenging people to provide a link to justify everything they say on a discussion forum is not necessary and simply designed to shut people down.

All par for the course.

[jfman]

The slur that civil servants are essentially dishonest isn’t one to be made lightly. Hence it’s only made by disgraced former Ministers, right wing tabloids throwing their toys out the pram or internet crackpots.

I can find people who think the earth is flat. The fact some sincerely hold the belief has no bearing on whether it’s actually true.

[Sephiroth]

I hold the belief that the EU is a hegemonist institution that would prefer the UK to be inside their tent with our Parliament subservient to theirs.

Fact: The EU is a hegemonist institution.

Proof: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres...speech_19_4230

:
Honourable Members,

As a Defence Minister, I have been many times in this war-torn neighbourhood. I will never forget the words of former President of Iraq Masoum, who said: We want to see more Europe here. The world is calling for more Europe. The world needs more Europe.

I believe Europe should have a stronger and more united voice in the world – and it needs to act fast. That is why we must have the courage to take foreign policy decisions by qualified majority. And to stand united behind them.
:

In here inaugural address, VDL said right at the start:

Honourable Members,

The cradle of our European civilisation is Greek philosophy and Roman Law. And our European continent went through its darkest period when we were ruled by dictators and Rule of Law was banished. For centuries, Europeans fought so hard for their liberty and independence.

The Rule of Law is our best tool to defend these freedoms and to protect the most vulnerable in our Union. This is why there can be no compromise when it comes to respecting the Rule of Law. There never will be. I will ensure that we use our full and comprehensive toolbox at European level. In addition, I fully support an EU-wide Rule of Law Mechanism. To be clear: the new instrument is not an alternative to the existing instruments, but an additional one.

And here you have it. Roman Law is a codified system. British Common Law is a flexible legal system that is adaptable (through the courts) When/if the VDL/Juncker/Delors dream comes true, inside the EU tent, we would lose that flexibility.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I gave an example. Post #5753. As usual, when you guys try to discredit me (or anyone else whose views you don’t like) you don’t even bother to read the links that I do provide.

Clearly I need to repeat my post yet again, as your reading powers seem to be lacking.

You made a statement. I simply asked if you had any evidence

So where exactly did this "discredit" you ?
Yes, I read the link, you just assumed otherwise [No Surprise].

The link did/does not provide any evidence of your actual claim.
Perhaps you have forgotton what you even said, lets recap for you ...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Many Conservative ministers are frustrated by the deliberate stalling and pushback on policy issues by civil servants who are opposed to them. The government then has to take the brunt of these failures and it makes them look bad.

Moving on ....

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If you are challenging a comment I’ve made, maybe you should provide a link to prove you have a right to be sceptical.

A link to be sceptical ? Are you on drugs ?
You dont need "links" to be sceptical of something.
Anyone can be sceptical, you dont need permission.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Challenging people to provide a link to justify everything they say on a discussion forum is not necessary and simply designed to shut people down.

"Everything they say" ? I asked you if you can back up ONE statement, are you paranoid ?
That said, if you keep making statements you cannot backup, then you deserve to be shut down.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

All par for the course.

Ok, paranoid it is then.

Oh, and you skipped answering my questions with your latest deflection attempts

so what truth exactly am I denying ?

as well as the above "truth", what political agenda exactly am I suiting ?

and in case you miss it, then above

Where exactly did this "discredit" you ?

If your not going answer your accusations then perhaps I need to live up to your last one, and shut you down from this topic.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I hold the belief that the EU is a hegemonist institution that would prefer the UK to be inside their tent with our Parliament subservient to theirs.

Fact: The EU is a hegemonist institution.

Proof: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres...speech_19_4230

In here inaugural address, VDL said right at the start:

And here you have it. Roman Law is a codified system. British Common Law is a flexible legal system that is adaptable (through the courts) When/if the VDL/Juncker/Delors dream comes true, inside the EU tent, we would lose that flexibility.

The Treaty of Rome (1958) as subsequently amended would have told you all that.

But we are out now and can buy 568ml bottles of wine if it’s economically viable to produce them.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

"Everything they say" ? I asked you if you can back up ONE statement, are you paranoid ?
That said, if you keep making statements you cannot backup, then you deserve to be shut down.



If your not going answer your accusations then perhaps I need to live up to your last one, and shut you down from this topic.

My link did confirm my statement. I said that:

‘Many Conservative ministers are frustrated by the deliberate stalling and pushback on policy issues by civil servants who are opposed to them. The government then has to take the brunt of these failures and it makes them look bad.’

The link was to a Guardian article which demonstrated this. Other articles are available.

If I might say so, your response to my post was well over the top, and no, it’s not me who’s on drugs.

I’ll park it there. It doesn’t matter what I say to people on here who don’t want to listen.

The link repeated what you said - it didn’t confirm it with evidence…

[Pierre]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...20five%20years.

Originally Posted by Pierre

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...20five%20years.

Behind paywall…

This might be what it’s based on

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn02784/