Now you've edited it back in !!!
After pretending that you knew all along that it was a French party link 😆
As I said - I linked to the wrong one, easy when you've got a couple of tabs open.
Now, hows about that commie plot to put fluoride in the water?
Nope, moved it about because I linked to the wrong onethe one I meant to link to was here:
http://old.sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/xarchive/downloads/masts.pdf
*SARCASM ON* Best....literature review....ever *SARCASM OFF*
It reads like the rant of someone on abovetopsecret.com.... next up.....Chemtrails!
I don't see what they're so bothered about though, lots of greens want more people to die so we have less people on this planet. Why do they care about radiation? Are they anti-technology or would they just prefer it if *sarcasm on* slitty eyed people and darkies died off instead of them?
Seriously mate, I can't handle this - you're now editing your edits !!!
Calm down and slow down mate ...... I think you're starting to get hysterical 😀
What is incorrect about their summary
It is incomplete and seeks to suggest providing any form of flexibility would be wrong, which is somewhat surprising as the next sentance in the judgement they quote is as follows:
There are well known legislative formulae for conferring complete flexibility of decision making on a Minister.
and in the previous paragraph he said
Furthermore, like Pill LJ, I recognise that there are considerable advantages in there being a large measure of flexibility in designing and administering a statutory scheme.
So it is a clearly partisan commentary or perhaps you would prefer the use of the word "spin". You can read the judgement [url= http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/reilly-wilson-v-secretary-state.pdf ]here if you are so inclined.[/url]
Now back to the action.
Seriously mate, I can't handle this - you're now editing your edits !!!Calm down and slow down mate ...... I think you're starting to get hysterical
Just admit that you got internet bitch slapped big time?
Slapped any harder, and he'd end up looking like [s]Zelda from Terrahawks[/s] Jenny Jones
[img] http://southwark.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/local_parties/southwark/people/jenny_jones_drop_shadow.jp g" target="_blank">
http://southwark.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/local_parties/southwark/people/jenny_jones_drop_shadow.jp g"/> [/img]
Ooh, a personal and puerile attack on Jenny Jones's physical attractiveness. Classy.
mefty - Member
"What is incorrect about their summary"
It is incomplete and seeks to suggest providing any form of flexibility would be wrong, which is somewhat surprising as the next sentance in the judgement they quote is as follows
To me it says that the government used flexibility as an excuse to bypass the correct process, when:
There are well known legislative formulae for conferring complete flexibility of decision on a Minister
I don't read it as saying flexibility is wrong at all, the quote doesn't contradict them.
It has become pretty semantic - the points have been made.
Funny all this slating of the greens for a lack of evidence based policy etc - yes it's not ideal, but then if they were in power they probably wouldn't start any illegal wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, or demonise the poor when the economy is failing.
I believe doctors in Germany can prescribe homeopathic medicine btw, and we all know how awful life is for most people there.
Funny all this slating of the greens for a lack of evidence based policy etc - yes it's not ideal, but then if they were in power they probably wouldn't start any illegal wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, or demonise the poor when the economy is failing.
Yeah your right but judging by their manifesto they'd probably end up helping to create the conditions right for WW3 to kick off by destabilizing the world economy even further.
Or we might not have invaded Iraq and hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's may have perished in "Iran-Iraq fight to the death with chemical weapons - part 2".
My point being I'm not going to vote for them just because they mightt not have started a war and may or may not have theoretically saved lives. BTW I've worked with a lot of Iraqi's, all them are happy as **** Saddam went - even the ones who had children killed by Nato bombs.
I believe doctors in Germany can prescribe homeopathic medicine
Which makes them tools.
yes it's not ideal
Yes it's far from ideal, they'd be the first ones bleating and pointing to studies if another party came in proclaiming global warming didn't exist. But ****, if you use science against them? Your part of the machine man! This is called confirmation bias.
Lack of evidence based policy is what's gotten this country into the mess it's in, I don't want to vote for another party that is even less inclined to listen to evidence.
I believe doctors in Germany can prescribe homeopathic medicine
Be that as it may, there appears to be no evidence that the Greens support prescribing homeopathic medicine. Even the Guardian link which Z-11 provided in his blundering and hysterical haste, highlights their claim : [i]"Our policy is that any medicine or treatment available on the NHS should be backed up by scientific evidence[/i]." And goes on to comment : [i]"the Greens are excellent on drugs policy, and it is refreshing to see a party highlighting the issue of managing Britain's water supplies"[/i]
But the issue here was never whether or not the Greens supported homeopathic medicine, it was whether they were loonies. Bwaarp appears to be under the impression that those who disagree with him must by definition be loonies. He, by his own admission, has an extremely low opinion of the overwhelming majority of humanity.
There is much of the Green Party's policies which I disagree with, some of it quite fundamental, but I don't automatically dismiss people as loonies simply because they have a different opinion to mine.
Indeed at the last election faced with the depressing sight of three indistinguishable neoliberal parties on my ballot paper, none of which deserved my support, I was forced to vote for the only party on the ballot paper which was actually standing on a social-democratic keynesian ticket, the Greens.
I decided that the Greens had finally grown up and become a serious multi-issue party. And that their policies on the economy, Trident, peace, welfare, transport, etc, deserved to be supported. It is only by supporting alternatives that change occurs. You don't change anything by doing the same thing over and over again.
Yeah they just altered their wording to make themselves seem less loony in their 2010 manifesto
Complementary therapy works, kind of.Make available on the NHS complementary
medicines that are cost-effective and have been proven to work
The next anti scientific bit is
Support GM-free zones and continue to
work for a complete ban on genetically
modified food in Europe
There is no reasonable evidence that supports GMO crops being so wildly dangerous it warrants a total ban. They're as safe as any other crop.
Then
Immediately ban causing harm to
animals(including but not only primates)
in research, testing and education, and invest
in the development of alternatives to animal
experiments.
Bye bye medical science in the UK, bye bye billions and billions of pounds worth of research, jobs and infrastructure in Oxfordshire etc
• Protect biodiversity and human and
animal health. We will always adopt the
‘precautionary principle’ with regard to
any alleged benefits of new technologies
such as genetic modification, cloning,
xenotransplantation and nanotechnology
Uhhhh so does science, what that means is that they won't support them at all.
• Reduce dramatically the use of pesticides
and introduce measures such as ‘buffer zones’
around sprayed fields to protect humans as
well as wildlife.
Just think, if the whole world did this we'd have to use more land to produce food or starve. Guess we can make our land nicer and have the wogs grow us more crops though.
It destroys infant industries in poorer
countries, which are forced to open their
markets to imports from more developed
countries, and undermines efforts to
become more self-reliant in both North
and South
My economist girlfriend from the Philippines laughed so hard at this one.
The liberalisation of trade in goods and
services has rendered the world economy
increasingly unstable because economic
contagion spreads more quickly
Yeah all that trade actually tends to decrease wars and increase stability. It's a total fallacy that the world is less Geo-politically stable right now.
It produces increased international trade,
which makes a signi?cant contribution
to the rise in transport-related carbon
emissions.
Oh no. Those brown people are going to improve their living conditions!
Our international policies should everywhere seek to reduce the economic, political
and environmental factors that force people
to migrate. E
Yeah you do that by increasing trade between wealthy nations and developing nations. **** tards
Promote fair trade,so that trade with
developing countries is based on decent
pay and conditions, with a fair price paid
to producers.
I'll refer them to this gem....."A report published by Adam Smith Institute claims that “Fair Trade”methods actually sustain uncompetitive farming practices rather than encourage the development of modern techniques or industrialization. In addition, payment structures put in place by the Fair-trade Foundation “unintentionally encourage farms in developing countries to take on labourers only during harvest time.” Seasonal sugar plantation workers in Asia are the most exploited. They toil under harsh labour conditions with low wages, no medical benefits and housed in crowded and filthy living quarters."
Gradually increase alcohol and tobacco
taxes by about 50% to match anticipated
increases in expenditures on the NHS, raising
£1.4bn in 2010 rising to £5.6bn by 2013.
**** no, if you want to decrease NHS spending costs massively reduce the costs of booze and fags. It'll mean more people killing themselves earlier. This is where I don't get greens, they rail against medicine and international trade like they want to make sure as many people die off as possible....yet they want to ban booze andd fags. I guess it's because they're seen as corporations and we all know they are evil that must be opposed.
Levy eco-taxes on non-renewables or
pollutants, in particular pesticides, organochlorines, nitrogen and artificial fertilisers and phosphates.
= More skyrocketing food costs.
Working to live,
not living to work
I prefer living to work actually, it usually means you have an interesting job. Working to live usually means, well just that. Working to put food on your table
Our programme has to be paid for, and we
accept that the Government borrowing of
12% of GDP is unsustainable. Like the
Government, we would aim to more than
halve the deficit by 2013, and the programme
of taxation and spending in this manifesto is
designed to achieve that.
Massive LOL!
Invest in the green economy now –
and if, in certain vital sectors such as energy
generation, the private sector is acting too
slowly and on an insufficient scale, then the
Government must take the lead.
What, like nuclear? Or Fusion? Or just hundreds of giant ****ing solar panels on every hillside?
Looking at the policies I posted on the previous page as a whole they're whole manifesto seems to revolve around - if it comes from a corporation it must be bad.
* GMO's = Evil and unhealthy
* Pesticides = Evil and unhealthy
* Medical research = Evil
* Alcohol/Cigarettes = Kills lots of people but opposed because they're produced by big faceless corporations.
Many of these policies seem to clash with
* We want to make the world a better place for all the poor people in terms of food security and living standards.
So what do they really want?
Reading between the lines, what their policy amounts to is "anything that is produced locally/small numbers is good. Even if that means lots of people die in the process of attaining that dream." See what I mean, they're still hippies that are opposed to anything produced by "da big man" even if they are better than the alternatives.
You've expended a lot of energy on a party you obviously see as a joke. That's quite pathetic.
mefty - Member
It has become pretty semantic - the points have been made.
Yes you were wrong. 😉
You've expended a lot of energy on a party you obviously see as a joke. That's quite pathetic.
I quite like politics and critiquing a party is what you should do in a democracy, - it allows you to develop a sense of who you shouldn't be voting for 😉 Know thy enemy, plus having a gander at the manifesto allows me to wind up any greens at the next dinner party I go to in Oxford.
And seeing as they take exception to my line of work, I'll take a heavy interest in them thanks.
Can't wait to see you 'critique' of other party's manifestos.
This is a forum, If I had time I could write several dissertations on why they are wrong on medicine, wrong on agriculture and wrong on trade....all backed up with good data.
I dislike all the parties - but most of all UKIP, the BNP and the Greens.
Three consecutive ranting posts, endlessly rambling on without any input from anyone else, calm down bwaarp. Otherwise people might start thinking you're bit of a looney.
And you wouldn't want that now would you ? 🙂
HAHA oh ****ing god David Icke was in the Green Party.
google didnt work this morning - surely that the signal for the end of democracy and indeed civilisation?
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/darker-shades-of-green/
Secondly, in contrast with the Malthusians are groups with neo-Nazi pedigree who claim to advocate 'social justice' and decentralization. In the 1980s, the National Front's Joe Pearce described 'Social Justice, Ecology and Racial Purity' as the three pillars of 'nationalism'. Ruralism, spiritual values, social credit and even animal rights are themes that both appeal to greens but are also given a far-right spin by these groups. Social Credit is a 1930s theory devised by anti-semite Major Douglas, which advocates community take-over of banks, that places the blame for ecological destruction on the banking system rather than capitalism/industrialism. And from here it is a short step to the NF's shrilling about a global Jewish banking conspiracy and 'Alien Bankers Destroying British Countryside' (see Nationalism Today, March 1980). Their espousal of animal rights focuses on ritual slaughter, with the right forgetting that kosher and halal practices are intended to reduce the suffering of animals.
David Icke was in the Green Party.
He was also a BBC Sport presenter. I suggest you boycott the BBC in response.
It was another Green Party btw.
Whoops
It was another Green Party btw.
The other one being the prior version they had before they split it to cover England Scotland and Wales as seperate entities.
So what if he was a sports presenter. The point is.... considering his views....he was attracted to the green party. I wonder why?
What did the greens do to you bwaarp?
You're in a safe place, you can tell us.
What did the greens do to you bwaarp?
Existed,
I jest.... I just don't like what they stand for in their manifesto, who they are and the ideological undercurrents associated with the movement.
bwaarp the greens exist because someone in politics has to represent the ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits who have no voice of their own. Bless
bwaarp the greens exist because someone in politics has to represent the ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits who have no voice of their own. Bless
Lol, I disagree. They exist because they are as I suspect, closeted or confused far righters that need to wrap their racism in something more middle class.
I'll do a psychology study to prove it one day.
he was attracted to the green party
Another party with different policies, different members, and different structures. Perhaps you should be asking why he's not in the Green Party we are talking about ?
Btw I believe that David Icke likes to wear purple, consequently, do you think people should avoid wearing purple ?
So what do you think of this article then Ernie considering the party and movements past
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/darker-shades-of-green/
It seems rather coincidental that much of what is in the manifesto ties in with the accusations made in that article.
binners - Membersomeone in politics has to represent the ickle fwuffy bunny wabbits who have no voice of their own.
Interestingly, their increased support in recent years appears to be precisely because they have moved beyond that.
Maybe you hadn't noticed binners ?
I have to confess Ernie that I'm not overly familiar with their manifesto. Could you summarise for me please? Its basically saving kittens, talking to fair trade plants and installing wind turbines on everyone's head isn't it?
I have to confess Ernie that I'm not overly familiar with their manifesto. Could you summarise for me please? Its basically saving kittens, talking to fair trade plants and installing wind turbines on everyone's head isn't it?
And destroying the world economy and agricultural system whilst on the other hand saying they want to help all the poor people.
It's fascism for the Womens Institute and Friends of the Earth.
Well I'm struggling to believe that you lack the necessary google skills binners, but have a look at this :
http://greenparty.org.uk/policies.html
I quite like a lot of the stuff in that. Although undoubtedly it will send bwaarp into a raging rant.
Having a quick read, that sounds dangerously like what the labour party [i]should[/i] be doing if it hadn't become the impotent, irrelevant (relatively) moderate wing of the Tories
I have to confess Ernie that I'm not overly familiar with their manifesto. Could you summarise for me please? Its basically saving kittens, talking to fair trade plants and installing wind turbines on everyone's head isn't it?
Yes, it's basically saving kittens. Whilst fundamentally misunderstanding why we need both an efficient and productive agricultural system.
Listen to greenies and you'll end up with a vastly more productive agricultural system yet one that's so expensive and inefficient in man hours everyone, and I mean everyone will have to work on the land.
The views of your average Eco warrior on GM crops are also heavily based in the land of idiocy. GM is ok, so long as it was done in ye olde ways and you don't have a white coat on when you do it seems to be the jist. There are issues with GM, but it has more to do with the application. And especially who controls the supply.
Bwaaaarps deranged ranting however, is bloody good fun. Keep up the good work Bwaarpy, have you considered representing the 0.5% in the right by setting up a political party?
Was ruining food supply and trade part of Old Labors manifesto? I think not.
Keep the proper Labour policies, cut out everything else and call them Old Labour....then I'll vote for them.
Food and agriculture
The Green Party will pursue a resilient local and global food supply to ensure everyone has access to a sufficient diet of nutritious, safe and affordable food. We will support farming and local growing practices that protect the land and wider environment, support decent jobs, provide healthy food and respect animal welfare. We will support a European ban on genetically modified food.
This is quite different to the ramblings I heard from the Green Rep I last spoke to.
This is quite different to the ramblings I heard from the Green Rep I last spoke to.
What, the reps rantings were even worse? How do they expect to meet that pledge when they want to do away with modern farming practices as evidenced by their 2010 election manifesto?
What they state on the website looks considerably watered down in comparison.
Back to the actual topic though. Half the reason or voting for minor parties is to create influence over main stream decision making. The current system relies on people believing that a protest vote is a wasted vote. When really it isn't, it's a protest. There is the mechanism in place to effect change (flawed admittedly) but it does require people to make it happen.
Tory decision making has been affected by UKIP. What would labour policies looked like if 1 million of there supporters switches to SWP?
Yes, I know. Loonies everywhere.
