It is in Leeds.

What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/

What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/

Like I said, if we get Dave Titan, we get Dave Titan.

Quote ="Dally"What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/'" 22% - I am from Gipton though so that's pretty low. I see nothing wrong with own brand beans or shopping at Co-op - in fact I proposed to my wife outside the Co-op. I have never had a pot noodle though.

Quote ="Dally"What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/'" 22% - I am from Gipton though so that's pretty low. I see nothing wrong with own brand beans or shopping at Co-op - in fact I proposed to my wife outside the Co-op. I have never had a pot noodle though.

I got 26% - Had a couple of Pot Noodles once and have been to the Co-op!

So having a state education is a sign of chaviness?

What utter snob-based rubbish. Still, one we had posted on here previously also included going on a P&O ferry, FFS.

You are joking, right?

I personally don't think the current setup is as bad as some would make out, and, contrary to what some people might believe, I think the Bishops are very much out of place in such a chamber.

There is no doubting that we would not create the House of Lords if given the chance to create a second chamber from scratch in the 21st century. It's basically the privileged who have only won their place at the top table through centuries of unequal opportunity.

That said, I fail to see the benefits of a radical overhaul. IMO such reform is only being pursued in the name of purifying our democracy further, whatever that means. Clegg's tried arguing that people are disengaged from politics and that legitimising the upper chamber would help restore faith in the political system, but I disagree strongly with that. People have always been turned off by politics. Just let the people moan and concentrate on sorting the country out.

What was the last major Bill to be totally screwed by the HoL?

How do you come to this conclusion? What purpose do you think the HoL serves and what examples can you supply to prove this claim?



Really? Who do you think pushed for universal suffrage, an end to slavery, the ten and then eight hour working day, an end to child labour, the right to collective bargaining, consumer rights, health and safety at work, tobacco restrictions, environmental protection etc?

Are you completely unaware of the rich and varied history of popular political struggle throughout the country right up to WWII which ultimately resulted in the creations of the NHS - or do you think that was solely the work of benevolent politicians?

Do you know how many political newspapers and pamphlets were sold and distributed throughout the NW alone around the turn of the 20th century?

The Parliament act tends to obviate that.
Also, the fact that PMs can stuff the Lords with nominees tends to obviate it too.

If it was made too simple to understand half the lawyers would be out of work as we wouldn't need as many to charge us the earth to explain it to us

I think it's the other way round, the statutes are so simply phrased that they aren't really specific enough ... and that's why judges have to interpret them, and then thereafter lawyers can quote prior case law.

At least, I think that's how it works.

Dunno what HoL is like at the moment but there are currently about eight MPs in the HoC, discussing the Scrap Metal Bill.

Strangely enough David Heath MP (LimpDem Somerton & Frome) isn't in his usual seat. He is the portly, bearded Toby Jug who normally resides on the right of the government front bench (left as you look at your screen). I can only assume he may have got someone to remove the rivets from his ar[is[/ie that have kept him in that seat since 2010.

Not entirely.

There is an argument that if you want a population to control itself by consent then the very least that could be expected is for that population to understand what the parameters of their behaviour should be, ideally through not having to visit a solicitors office for an explanation every time they want to step outside of their normal patterns of behaviour.

Of course, it would be nice for the legal profession to have to hold everyones hand as they make their way through life, for an hourly fee of course.

Sheldon, I am a non-believer myself but acknowledge that a large number of people in the country believe the fairy stories in various religious texts. As quite a few scientists, preferably including Richard Dawkins, would be among the experts / academics co-opted into the Lords any OTT religious rubbish would soon be shot down by a barrage of facts and common sense. They (god botherers / allah agitators) then can't protest that their religious point a view wasn't listened to; it will have been noted and shown to be the nonsense it is and consigned to the bin.

But that is such a naive argument that nobody would seriously advance it. And I'm sure you don't believe it for a second.

For a start, legislation, both primary and secondary, burgeons at an astonishing rate, and the vast majority of it is mind-numbingly tedious, complicated and impenetrable. Hundreds of Acts and thousands of Statutory Instruments become law each year, and most people wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of understanding many of them. That's just how it is.

A random example:
The Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which amend the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008(1), and which you would also first need to know, to understand what the amendments do;
[urlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1139/regulation/2/made[/url
Let me cite one random provision.

To understand that, you need to understand Directive 2006/66/EC. Here it is:
[urlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:266:0001:01:EN:HTML[/url
Can you tell me what percentage of the people you know could understand this stuff?

But the main point is that the overwhelming majority of the population have NEVER read a Statute, not one, not ever. They are subject to all that law, but have no interest in it. People do understand what the parameters of their bahviour should be, by and large, but it is nonsense to suggest that their understanding is in any way gleaned from reading Acts of Parliament or SIs!


I concur