sarahbell

Members
  • Content Count

    5,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to Democorruptcy in 500 homeless have died this year   
    More blood on the hands of the Bank of England. Perversely their solution would be to let them borrow more.
    On a similar subject, yesterday MPs were debating Fuel Poverty. I haven't read it but suspect they didn't point the finger at the real perp. The Bank of England, who have kept rates low to boost the assets of the wealthy. Trashed Sterling as a result and as oil is priced in dollars, greatly increased our energy costs.
  2. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Letter from Owen Paterson and the VOTE IS ON!!!!
    Dear Sir Graham,
    I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the prime minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum - the largest in British history - were not delivered, yet the prime minister's proposed "deal" is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
    These broken promises typify more than two years of poor government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
    It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
    It was a mistake to create a new Brexit department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing.
    Trying to bounce cabinet ministers into supporting her white paper on the future relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully - as the prime minister did at Chequers - is simply an intolerable way for a prime minister to govern.
    It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We are a key NATO member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
    We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: "Why were we so negative about our future?"
    These mistakes have eroded trust in the government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the prime minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement's "single customs territory" sees us locked into it in all but name.
    She has repeatedly said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
    The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement's principle of consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39bn for the privilege.
    European customs experts regard the withdrawal agreement's customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
    Eleventh-hour "reassurances" on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the withdrawal agreement unacceptable.
    No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in parliament for this deal. The government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
    That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk's offer is still on the table.
    Throughout this process, I have sought to support the government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the prime minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of parliament.
    I, therefore, have no confidence in Treason May as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
  3. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Letter from Owen Paterson and the VOTE IS ON!!!!
    Dear Sir Graham,
    I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the prime minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum - the largest in British history - were not delivered, yet the prime minister's proposed "deal" is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
    These broken promises typify more than two years of poor government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
    It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
    It was a mistake to create a new Brexit department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing.
    Trying to bounce cabinet ministers into supporting her white paper on the future relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully - as the prime minister did at Chequers - is simply an intolerable way for a prime minister to govern.
    It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We are a key NATO member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
    We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: "Why were we so negative about our future?"
    These mistakes have eroded trust in the government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the prime minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement's "single customs territory" sees us locked into it in all but name.
    She has repeatedly said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
    The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement's principle of consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39bn for the privilege.
    European customs experts regard the withdrawal agreement's customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
    Eleventh-hour "reassurances" on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the withdrawal agreement unacceptable.
    No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in parliament for this deal. The government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
    That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk's offer is still on the table.
    Throughout this process, I have sought to support the government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the prime minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of parliament.
    I, therefore, have no confidence in Treason May as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
  4. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Letter from Owen Paterson and the VOTE IS ON!!!!
    Dear Sir Graham,
    I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the prime minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum - the largest in British history - were not delivered, yet the prime minister's proposed "deal" is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
    These broken promises typify more than two years of poor government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
    It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
    It was a mistake to create a new Brexit department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing.
    Trying to bounce cabinet ministers into supporting her white paper on the future relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully - as the prime minister did at Chequers - is simply an intolerable way for a prime minister to govern.
    It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We are a key NATO member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
    We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: "Why were we so negative about our future?"
    These mistakes have eroded trust in the government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the prime minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement's "single customs territory" sees us locked into it in all but name.
    She has repeatedly said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
    The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement's principle of consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39bn for the privilege.
    European customs experts regard the withdrawal agreement's customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
    Eleventh-hour "reassurances" on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the withdrawal agreement unacceptable.
    No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in parliament for this deal. The government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
    That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk's offer is still on the table.
    Throughout this process, I have sought to support the government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the prime minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of parliament.
    I, therefore, have no confidence in Treason May as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
  5. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Letter from Owen Paterson and the VOTE IS ON!!!!
    Dear Sir Graham,
    I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the prime minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum - the largest in British history - were not delivered, yet the prime minister's proposed "deal" is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
    These broken promises typify more than two years of poor government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
    It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
    It was a mistake to create a new Brexit department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing.
    Trying to bounce cabinet ministers into supporting her white paper on the future relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully - as the prime minister did at Chequers - is simply an intolerable way for a prime minister to govern.
    It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We are a key NATO member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
    We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: "Why were we so negative about our future?"
    These mistakes have eroded trust in the government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the prime minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement's "single customs territory" sees us locked into it in all but name.
    She has repeatedly said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
    The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement's principle of consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39bn for the privilege.
    European customs experts regard the withdrawal agreement's customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
    Eleventh-hour "reassurances" on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the withdrawal agreement unacceptable.
    No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in parliament for this deal. The government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
    That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk's offer is still on the table.
    Throughout this process, I have sought to support the government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the prime minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of parliament.
    I, therefore, have no confidence in Treason May as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
  6. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Letter from Owen Paterson and the VOTE IS ON!!!!
    Dear Sir Graham,
    I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the prime minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum - the largest in British history - were not delivered, yet the prime minister's proposed "deal" is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
    These broken promises typify more than two years of poor government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
    It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
    It was a mistake to create a new Brexit department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing.
    Trying to bounce cabinet ministers into supporting her white paper on the future relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully - as the prime minister did at Chequers - is simply an intolerable way for a prime minister to govern.
    It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We are a key NATO member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
    We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: "Why were we so negative about our future?"
    These mistakes have eroded trust in the government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the prime minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement's "single customs territory" sees us locked into it in all but name.
    She has repeatedly said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
    The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement's principle of consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39bn for the privilege.
    European customs experts regard the withdrawal agreement's customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
    Eleventh-hour "reassurances" on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the withdrawal agreement unacceptable.
    No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in parliament for this deal. The government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
    That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk's offer is still on the table.
    Throughout this process, I have sought to support the government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the prime minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of parliament.
    I, therefore, have no confidence in Treason May as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
  7. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from Chewing Grass in Bye bye Treason May?   
    You can't negotiate with the crock of shite that is the EU if you're leaving.
     
  8. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from Chewing Grass in Bye bye Treason May?   
    You can't negotiate with the crock of shite that is the EU if you're leaving.
     
  9. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from Chewing Grass in Bye bye Treason May?   
    You can't negotiate with the crock of shite that is the EU if you're leaving.
     
  10. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to spygirl in 500 homeless have died this year   
    Get rid of the dog.
    Speaking to someone who tries and magaed this, 80% of the day time beggars are housed. If the police pulled their fingers out and started enforcing vaganracy hen theyd go.
    The other factors is there are a number of inbetween housed who would have previously lived in cheap plaes.
    However the cheap rentals have been swamped by ~7M EE tax creditors.
    Bring the 30k earning limit in.
    Deny all but JSA to any non Brit - poof! ~3m cheap housing units appear
     
  11. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to Bkkandrew in Starting your own business   
    Yes, this is hugely the case. I set up two companies in the U.K. back when bank managers knew you personally and the purpose of the bank was to provide capital to businesses. Both were a success as that capital was employed in a way that Adam Smith would have recognised.
    Nowadays banks seem to lend for the purposes of personal loans, particularly for property and consumer goods. This means they no longer provide capital for businesses. Essentially this is where Western Capitalism has failed in the past 40 years.
    Over here my philosophy has been:
    1. To never incur debt, even by way of trade credit, unless essential and hypothecated;
    2. To make the outcome of every deal/contract a physical asset, for example a crane, a truck or an excavator for my construction company, or a Bain Marie set, a display chiller or 400 new plates as a result of a lathe conference;
    3. To avoid renting (hire companies typically have a 10-week payback on capital cost!!), thereby achieving (2) in the same process;
    4. To personally live a frugal lifestyle (with some naughty exceptions!);
    5. To treat companies, suppliers and staff fairly, humanely, but with exacting standards and expectations. Nobody wants a bankrupt supplier, a resentful employee or an angry, reluctant customer.
  12. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Letter from Owen Paterson and the VOTE IS ON!!!!
    Dear Sir Graham,
    I write to inform you that I no longer have confidence in the prime minister. It would be a travesty if the democratic verdict of the 2016 referendum - the largest in British history - were not delivered, yet the prime minister's proposed "deal" is so bad that it cannot be considered anything other than a betrayal of clear manifesto promises.
    These broken promises typify more than two years of poor government decision-making. It was a mistake not to begin intense preparations for leaving on WTO terms the moment the result was delivered, approaching the negotiations with a stronger hand, positioned to walk away without a deal and consequently much more likely to secure a good one.
    It was a mistake for our EU negotiations to be led by a career civil servant with no business experience when the government had on hand a vastly experienced international trade negotiator, Crawford Falconer.
    It was a mistake to create a new Brexit department only to keep two secretaries of state so in the dark that they had to resign over a policy one would have thought they were overseeing.
    Trying to bounce cabinet ministers into supporting her white paper on the future relationship before they had a chance to consider it fully - as the prime minister did at Chequers - is simply an intolerable way for a prime minister to govern.
    It was a mistake to treat Brexit miserably as a problem to be solved rather than an exciting opportunity to be grasped. The UK is the world's fifth largest economy. We are a key NATO member, a permanent UN Security Council member, a Commonwealth realm, a nuclear power.
    We are the source of the English language, the common law and occupy the ideal time-zone for global trade. Yet from the outset we have approached these negotiations as a feeble and unworthy supplicant. As Falconer said, future historians will ask in exasperation: "Why were we so negative about our future?"
    These mistakes have eroded trust in the government, to the point where I and many others can no longer take the prime minister at her word. Almost two dozen times, she has ruled out membership of the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement's "single customs territory" sees us locked into it in all but name.
    She has repeatedly said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but it is clear her objective was to secure a deal at any cost.
    The backstop would see the whole UK remain in a customs union with the EU, with Northern Ireland in the customs union and single market. This could see new internal UK borders in breach of the Belfast Agreement's principle of consent and the requirement to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It breaches the Acts of Union 1800. The UK would not have the unilateral right to end the arrangement. We could be locked into it indefinitely as a permanent rule-taker while paying £39bn for the privilege.
    European customs experts regard the withdrawal agreement's customs arrangements as woefully out of date, proposing physical stamps and paper systems not used for nearly 20 years. They are so vague that it would be impossible to put them into practice.
    Eleventh-hour "reassurances" on this issue are mere warm words if the legal text is unchanged. In any case, there is much more besides the backstop making the withdrawal agreement unacceptable.
    No amount of tinkering will yield a majority in parliament for this deal. The government needs to consider more boldly the possible alternatives which might command that support. President Tusk offered just such an alternative in March: a wide-ranging, zero-tariff free trade agreement.
    That deal foundered on the question of the Northern Ireland border, but existing techniques and processes can resolve this. From my October meeting with Michel Barnier, I know that a willingness exists on the EU side to explore these possibilities more fully. The meeting also confirmed that Tusk's offer is still on the table.
    Throughout this process, I have sought to support the government. The conclusion is now inescapable that the prime minister is the blockage to the wide-ranging free trade agreement offered by Tusk which would be in the best interests of the country and command the support of parliament.
    I, therefore, have no confidence in Treason May as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party and ask that you hold a vote of no confidence.
  13. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to SpectrumFX in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Not long now...
     
  14. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to Bedrag Justesen in 500 homeless have died this year   
    Where are the homeless Muslims ?
    Maybe the question should be where are the obviously Muslim homeless ?
    I'm mainly seeing young (ish) white and black males and females, with or without a dog.
    I'm not seeing any obviously Muslim homeless.
    Yes, I know there are many (mainly Romanian ?) beggars, flower sellers, in city centres, around train stations, bus terminals, taxi ranks etc. Yes I know they wear scarves which can look like hijabs but they are mostly Catholic.
    Either we as a society are prioritising help for homeless Muslims or Muslims themselves are much kinder and better at looking after their own people ? What role do mosques play in comparison with churches for instance ? 
    I have never seen so many homeless people on the streets as I have this year.
    I know there are initiatives such as the groups in Manchester led by Mayor Andy Burnham but fuck me they are everywhere.
    I spoke to a young girl today, she sleeps in a doorway, in a sleeping bag, with a duvet, and a small pop-up tent. She can't use the hostel because they won't let her dog stay with her(don't know what to say tbh, can see their point, kind of, but still...). She can't use food banks because most of the food needs cooking (?), ready meals, tins, packets, vegetables.
    What's happening to us as a country ?
     
     
  15. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from Harley in 500 homeless have died this year   
    Look up your council's homeless reporting number and add it to your phone. 
  16. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from JFK in Ban windows from trains? Death from head stuck out of window.   
    Do they ever have the Young ones on telly these days?
  17. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Macron - how long before wheels fall off   
    Do they have ebay?

  18. Agree
    sarahbell got a reaction from The Masked Tulip in Macron - how long before wheels fall off   
    Do they have ebay?

  19. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to Harley in No Deal Brexit Hoarding   
    Call me old fashioned but as part of my current refurb I included a larder.  Like the old days.  Full of lovely stuff.  I had to dig my way into the house last winter, that bad.  What I needed most was red wine and chocolate (and alas now medication for that combo!)
  20. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to satch in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Here are the Ballot Paper options for the January Second Referendum

     
    □ Remain – Happy Joyful Lives

    □ Remain – Treason May’s Deal Boo Hiss

    □ Leave – Become scum hated by everyone and live horrid rotten lives and die an early death

  21. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to One percent in Macron - how long before wheels fall off   
    Did they not realise that the key reason that the yellow jacket was chosen is that everyone who drives has to have one by law?
    Clearly not... 
  22. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to JFK in Ban windows from trains? Death from head stuck out of window.   
    As previously on this thread,  another brainwashed idiot, went to an ex poly years ago probably for some useless degree,  working for a charideee that aids gimmigrants here to leach off my taxes and is a communist too. 
    Good fucking riddance.  I won't shed a tear, she's a brainwashed idiot and one less fucked up moron actively working against the future of our country.
     
    This is precisely the first image that went through my mind
  23. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to Funn3r in Ban windows from trains? Death from head stuck out of window.   
    I've done this. Used to work in an office next to a train station. Train just leaving station and I saw a mate in the car park so without thinking leaned out and waved. Then realised what I just did and almost shat myself. 
  24. Agree
    sarahbell reacted to Hopeful in Bye bye Treason May?   
    Perhaps May will return from the EU and say
    I've tried my best, the EU won't budge, I now recommend we ditch the Withdrawal Agreement and I recommend to the country a No Deal
  25. Agree