Lineker out-wokes Lily Allen

[don'tbesilly]

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

Why would someone need to find out what the complications are in housing the homeless when you appear to know what the complications are?

If as you suggest they're complicated why don't you educate people as to what those complications are as opposed to dismissing them with the 'wave of a hand' suggesting they find out, when you apparently know what the complications are.

What are the various agencies you write about? What are the specific complications?

Regarding homelessness, I have commented about it many times on here, please feel free to take a moment to find my posts about it if that is what you desire.

However, the wonderful people that deal with homelessness and its associated issues on a day to day basis are much better at explaining the issues that effect homeless. These people and the agencies they work for are real experts and they will be able to explain things much better than I ever could. Maybe you could try St Mungo's, Crisis, A.A, D.A, Centrepoint, MIND and the N.H.S but to name a few.

As I said, it's a very complicated issue and not one that should be used to score cheap internet points.

Cracking deflection Piha, you've done exactly what you did previously and pushed the issue away because you aren't capable of explaining what's been asked of you, despite suggesting you had a real knowledge of the issue.

[Unknown_User]

don'tbesilly said:

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

Why would someone need to find out what the complications are in housing the homeless when you appear to know what the complications are?

If as you suggest they're complicated why don't you educate people as to what those complications are as opposed to dismissing them with the 'wave of a hand' suggesting they find out, when you apparently know what the complications are.

What are the various agencies you write about? What are the specific complications?

Regarding homelessness, I have commented about it many times on here, please feel free to take a moment to find my posts about it if that is what you desire.

However, the wonderful people that deal with homelessness and its associated issues on a day to day basis are much better at explaining the issues that effect homeless. These people and the agencies they work for are real experts and they will be able to explain things much better than I ever could. Maybe you could try St Mungo's, Crisis, A.A, D.A, Centrepoint, MIND and the N.H.S but to name a few.

As I said, it's a very complicated issue and not one that should be used to score cheap internet points.

Cracking deflection Piha, you've done exactly what you did previously and pushed the issue away because you aren't capable of explaining what's been asked of you, despite suggesting you had a real knowledge of the issue.

I can only assume you didn't read and actually understand what I said. Sadly, I'm unsurprised by this revelation.

[don'tbesilly]

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

Why would someone need to find out what the complications are in housing the homeless when you appear to know what the complications are?

If as you suggest they're complicated why don't you educate people as to what those complications are as opposed to dismissing them with the 'wave of a hand' suggesting they find out, when you apparently know what the complications are.

What are the various agencies you write about? What are the specific complications?

Regarding homelessness, I have commented about it many times on here, please feel free to take a moment to find my posts about it if that is what you desire.

However, the wonderful people that deal with homelessness and its associated issues on a day to day basis are much better at explaining the issues that effect homeless. These people and the agencies they work for are real experts and they will be able to explain things much better than I ever could. Maybe you could try St Mungo's, Crisis, A.A, D.A, Centrepoint, MIND and the N.H.S but to name a few.

As I said, it's a very complicated issue and not one that should be used to score cheap internet points.

Cracking deflection Piha, you've done exactly what you did previously and pushed the issue away because you aren't capable of explaining what's been asked of you, despite suggesting you had a real knowledge of the issue.

I can only assume you didn't read and actually understand what I said. Sadly, I'm unsurprised by this revelation.

I read it and your response is the same as your previous waffle it's just deflection, which based on your posting history is not unexpected.

Anyone can google the names of agencies/charities involved with the homeless, which is precisely what you have done, no surprises there then.

[Dont Panic]

768 said:

0ddball said:

Jesus, immigration will go mental now. Come to England and live in a celebrity mansion.

If I can paddle my Kayak to the US border, I wonder if Jennifer Lawrence will make me a bed up at her place

I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat but only on the condition there's no risk I'm going to be deported and housed with Gary Lineker.

Cruel and unusual punishment, wont happen.

[Rollin]

Genuine Barn Find said:

Frank7 said:

Brads67 said:

What's a Gammon ?

Answers on a postcard to “Living under a rock”, please.

Gammon
latin name - dailymailus outragedus

Red Faced, White Haired, Late Middle Aged Gentlemen. Passive Aggressive by nature, they are generally hard line brexit voters who would rather torpedo immigrant boats in the channel than assist with their repatriation in the UK. Latterly, they can be found refusing to wear face masks in Morrisons because “it’s just a sniffle”.
Their transport of choice is referred to as the ‘brexit mobile’; dependent on net worth this will typically range from a Jaguar X Type saloon, through to later Jaguar models and, in certain areas.... old Lexus. Although resident across the UK, they prefer suburban habitats with a particular liking for 1970/80’s modern build detached houses.

Although once common in the UK, the last few weeks has witnessed a huge decline in gammon population levels - this being triggered by mass head explosions after the revelation that there will be a same sex couple dancing on Strictly this year.

What's your derogatory term for the POC equivalent?

[Unknown_User]

don'tbesilly said:

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

Why would someone need to find out what the complications are in housing the homeless when you appear to know what the complications are?

If as you suggest they're complicated why don't you educate people as to what those complications are as opposed to dismissing them with the 'wave of a hand' suggesting they find out, when you apparently know what the complications are.

What are the various agencies you write about? What are the specific complications?

Regarding homelessness, I have commented about it many times on here, please feel free to take a moment to find my posts about it if that is what you desire.

However, the wonderful people that deal with homelessness and its associated issues on a day to day basis are much better at explaining the issues that effect homeless. These people and the agencies they work for are real experts and they will be able to explain things much better than I ever could. Maybe you could try St Mungo's, Crisis, A.A, D.A, Centrepoint, MIND and the N.H.S but to name a few.

As I said, it's a very complicated issue and not one that should be used to score cheap internet points.

Cracking deflection Piha, you've done exactly what you did previously and pushed the issue away because you aren't capable of explaining what's been asked of you, despite suggesting you had a real knowledge of the issue.

I can only assume you didn't read and actually understand what I said. Sadly, I'm unsurprised by this revelation.

I read it and your response is the same as your previous waffle it's just deflection, which based on your posting history is not unexpected.

Anyone can google the names of agencies/charities involved with the homeless, which is precisely what you have done, no surprises there then.

If this is what you want to believe then I will not try to alter your deeply entrenched mindset.

[A Winner Is You]

Rollin said:

Genuine Barn Find said:

Frank7 said:

Brads67 said:

What's a Gammon ?

Answers on a postcard to “Living under a rock”, please.

Gammon
latin name - dailymailus outragedus

Red Faced, White Haired, Late Middle Aged Gentlemen. Passive Aggressive by nature, they are generally hard line brexit voters who would rather torpedo immigrant boats in the channel than assist with their repatriation in the UK. Latterly, they can be found refusing to wear face masks in Morrisons because “it’s just a sniffle”.
Their transport of choice is referred to as the ‘brexit mobile’; dependent on net worth this will typically range from a Jaguar X Type saloon, through to later Jaguar models and, in certain areas.... old Lexus. Although resident across the UK, they prefer suburban habitats with a particular liking for 1970/80’s modern build detached houses.

Although once common in the UK, the last few weeks has witnessed a huge decline in gammon population levels - this being triggered by mass head explosions after the revelation that there will be a same sex couple dancing on Strictly this year.

What's your derogatory term for the POC equivalent?

It would be "choc ice" or "coconut", but I can guarantee the people who gladly throw around the gammon insult would be outraged and scream racism if that happened.

[Genuine Barn Find]

Rollin said:

What's your derogatory term for the POC equivalent?

It wasn’t intended as derogatory or otherwise... The poster wanted to know what a Gammon was. I explained providing some context.

[turbobloke]

Genuine Barn Find said:

Rollin said:

What's your derogatory term for the POC equivalent?

It wasn’t intended as derogatory or otherwise... The poster wanted to know what a Gammon was. I explained providing some context.

The context of its author being a left-illiberal remainer-loser? It was funny all the same, in a Mash way, which is hardly surprising given that the hyperbole labels it for comedy use only.

[R Mutt]

Unknown_User said:

R Mutt said:

I can't see this issue with a system prioritising those who are already here and have served the country as a means of addressing existing homelessness first. Seems to be more organised and efficient if nothing else e.g. fair. Although Lineker performed this deed in response to government inaction and the government did not create the problem

Let me know when you've taken a migrant in and I will.

You seem to think homelessness is a problem that is solved by simply giving someone a house. The issue of homelessness is a very complicated one, that requires the help and support of various agencies. So unless you're bringing up homelessness just to score cheap political internet points, go and spend some time with the homeless and find out exactly what is involved with the issue.

Indeed. People prefer to be on the streets to beg. Although I was also led to believe lack of address was the main obstacle to employment

[Genuine Barn Find]

turbobloke said:

The context of its author being a left-illiberal remainer-loser? It was funny all the same, in a Mash way, which is hardly surprising given that the hyperbole labels it for comedy use only.

Quite the opposite actually, but your comments were funny all the same.....

[CaptainSlow]

crankedup said:

The incoming BBC Director general has apparently decreed that presenters that are not involved in political presentation or debate whilst performing for the BBC. These people are entitled to express their political pov as they wish, but not whilst presenting for the BBC. This includes Lineker.
Why is it then that an employee elsewhere can be sacked for the same ‘crime’ ?

Because, whilst the socialist presenters like to preach their woke agendas to others, they tend to not like being employees of the BBC as paying income tax is for the masses.

[crankedup]

CaptainSlow said:

crankedup said:

The incoming BBC Director general has apparently decreed that presenters that are not involved in political presentation or debate whilst performing for the BBC. These people are entitled to express their political pov as they wish, but not whilst presenting for the BBC. This includes Lineker.
Why is it then that an employee elsewhere can be sacked for the same ‘crime’ ?

Because, whilst the socialist presenters like to preach their woke agendas to others, they tend to not like being employees of the BBC as paying income tax is for the masses.

Hypocrites! surely not
See where you are coming from, and it’s true, although the regular BBC presenters were caught out by the tax man.They now are required to conform to employee status IIRC?

[Brads67]

Genuine Barn Find said:

It wasn’t intended as derogatory or otherwise... The poster wanted to know what a Gammon was. I explained providing some context.

I now exactly what it means, I just wanted the racist definition as a reply.

[anonymous-user]

Unknown_User said:

R Mutt said:

I can't see this issue with a system prioritising those who are already here and have served the country as a means of addressing existing homelessness first. Seems to be more organised and efficient if nothing else e.g. fair. Although Lineker performed this deed in response to government inaction and the government did not create the problem

Let me know when you've taken a migrant in and I will.

You seem to think homelessness is a problem that is solved by simply giving someone a house. The issue of homelessness is a very complicated one, that requires the help and support of various agencies as frankly I have no idea on the subject myself. So unless you're bringing up homelessness just to score cheap political internet points, go and spend some time with the homeless and find out exactly what is involved with the issue.

Fixed your post for you based on your later posts.

[Unknown_User]

MikeStroud said:

Unknown_User said:

R Mutt said:

I can't see this issue with a system prioritising those who are already here and have served the country as a means of addressing existing homelessness first. Seems to be more organised and efficient if nothing else e.g. fair. Although Lineker performed this deed in response to government inaction and the government did not create the problem

Let me know when you've taken a migrant in and I will.

You seem to think homelessness is a problem that is solved by simply giving someone a house. The issue of homelessness is a very complicated one, that requires the help and support of various agencies as frankly I have no idea on the subject myself. So unless you're bringing up homelessness just to score cheap political internet points, go and spend some time with the homeless and find out exactly what is involved with the issue.

Fixed your post for you based on your later posts.

Two things.
1/ you have no idea regarding my history and experience around homelessness and It’s associated issues.
2/ Editing other people’s comments is not acceptable.

I suggest you give your head a vigorous and prolonged wobble and you might just get some sense out of it. Maybe.

[Countdown]

Brads67 said:

Genuine Barn Find said:

It wasn’t intended as derogatory or otherwise... The poster wanted to know what a Gammon was. I explained providing some context.

I now exactly what it means, I just wanted the racist definition as a reply.

Is calling somebody "woke" racist" as well?

[Rollin]

Countdown said:

Is calling somebody "woke" racist" as well?

Probably

[oyster]

crankedup said:

The incoming BBC Director general has apparently decreed that presenters that are not involved in political presentation or debate whilst performing for the BBC. These people are entitled to express their political pov as they wish, but not whilst presenting for the BBC. This includes Lineker.
Why is it then that an employee elsewhere can be sacked for the same ‘crime’ ?

Can you be sacked for expressing political points of view away from your workplace?

[SpeckledJim]

oyster said:

crankedup said:

The incoming BBC Director general has apparently decreed that presenters that are not involved in political presentation or debate whilst performing for the BBC. These people are entitled to express their political pov as they wish, but not whilst presenting for the BBC. This includes Lineker.
Why is it then that an employee elsewhere can be sacked for the same ‘crime’ ?

Can you be sacked for expressing political points of view away from your workplace?

In a wider sense, yes, if they're so outlandish they're either illegal, or bring your employer into disrepute.

Lineker's points aren't at all controversial (annoying perhaps, but not controversial) but I expect he's a contractor to the BBC, rather than an employee, so serves very much at the pleasure of the DG?