Lord Duckhunter

I've got 4 children 2 of which went to the local Grammar schools & 2 didn't, and there is no comparison between the education they received. I can only comment on the Grammars mine went to ( one boy, one girl) , but I don't recognise this picture of them being some sort of middle class enclave. Yes there are kids there that were tutored and some that went to private schools before doing the entrance exam, but the exams are quite sophisticated in trying to measure intelligence rather than knowledge ( particularly the boys one) nowadays. My 2 certainly had no tutoring or special education prior to the exam. There are immigrant kids, working class kids as well as wealthy ones from Sandbanks & Lilliput. Had the local comps been better I'd have sent them there, as I'd rather they had a mixed education. Of course I'm going to be in favour of Grammar schools having seen ours close up. Once you allow " choice" you are admitting failure of the comprehensive system. People gerrymander the non grammar selection anyway. My mate attended church for months on end to get his into the catholic school, with the priest even joking with the congregation " its that time of year again " as he gazed out at the packed church. By allowing parental choice governments of both colours are saying some schools are better for your kids than others . To have selection based on religion but not intelligence seems weird, and don't get me started on " free" schools . Poole's grammar schools are certainly moire diverse , more socially mixed than the Catholic one. British eduction had a problem with the secondary moderns , not the grammar schools. What sort of equality is it when you drag down the best, rather than pull up the worst. I'm lucky it that we still have this " old fashioned " choice ( and it is a choice ) and think that every child should have this opportunity if the parents feel that this is best for them .

One of my pet hates is ****ing Terry ( I wore a headband covered in blood ) Buthcher . The bloke is a complete plum , he's Arry Redknapp with a blood soaked headband . Bloke slagged Sven and other managers whilst failing at every club he's been at and his bitterness at Maradonas handball is embarrassing . Two words that sum up England's shortcomings the past 20 years are Terry & Butcher . Although he is a "terrific skipper "

The people banging on about the uk pre the Union and the benefits that came with joining back in '73 miss one fundamental point , it was a vastly different community then . There were no basket cases like Greece. , No Spain , no Portugal , no Eastern European ex iron curtain countries . The economies of the members when we joined were pretty equalised . The free movement of people wasn't really an issue as the economies , standard of living and wages were pretty much the same . Our influence was also more because there were less countries to influence . It was actually Mrs T and the Tories biggest mistake that they pushed for expansion . They thought by expanding they would dilute the Franco German domination , but of course if you throw money at people they go native .

That's because he's nowhere near good enough.

Why would we have to ? If other countries accept it as part of " their agreement " why on earth does this mean we must . Does Russia or Turkey

You said that we would have to give up control of our borders to trade with the EU, and you cited Norway and Switzerland as examples . The logical conclusion from that is that trade and immigration are linked . I merely commented that to follow your nonsense to its conclusion then the USA must lose control of its borers to trade with the EU . You've now cleared this up by saying that it doesn't , so where does this statement leave your assertion that we need to give control of our borders to the EU to trade with them . It can only be one of 3 things . You believe that the EU will make us accept free movement but not other countries , you lied to try and re- enforce your point, or you were so busy tapping away and foaming at the mouth at us "Little Englanders " that you lost all sense of reason and perspective and made a mistake . So to clear it up once and for all , do you believe that if we leave the EU we will have to accept the free movement of EU citizens to be able to trade with them ?

Nonsense , you wrote " still have open doors to EU citizens so no control over immigration but without a vote or influence. " . If that's not linking immigration to trade I don't know what is . Perhaps you could explain what you meant if I've " misunderstood"

We are not Switzerland and we are not Norway, why do people try and claim that by leaving we will be? We can have our own bespoke trade agreement with the EU . In one post you claim that to be out of the EU but trade with them we will have no control on immigration , and then go on to add a piece about trade with America . If this nonsense about immigration and trade is true, then this must mean to trade with the EU the USA have " no control over immigration " . This is clearly nonsense , the USA will trade with the EU , without giving up its immigration control, without accepting free movement of EU citizens and without giving up some if it sovereignty. Are you seriously trying to claim that Australia, Canada, USA, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand have all given up control of their immigration to the EU ?If they can trade with the EU and remain out of it, I'm damn sure we can. We can do a separate trade deal with the USA without having Merkal holding our hands .

I was in cyprus recently and it is full of Russians , in Malaga during the summer I met Turks , Australians and even a south African all working and living there legally . The suggestion that EU countries would close their doors to UK citizens is just a scare story , do you really think the Germans & Spain will allow Americans , Swiss nationals,and Turks to live there but not Brits . That Cyprus will chuck its Brits out , whilst leaving the Russians , its nonsense.

Beer is important .

Wasn't it a dock town prior to joining the common market , therefore it can be reasonably assumed that it can remain one out of the eu . Clearly Europe and the EU are not the same thing . I've yet to see any " anti Europe sentiment " . Acceptance of immigrants from the entire world is exactly what I and many other "leave" supporters want . I want Chinese , Indian , Canadian & Jamaican immigrants treated the same as German , Dutch & Bulgarian immigrants . It is your side of the argument that divide and judge people by their nationality .

You either believe in the death penalty or you don't . I wish the state had burst into Ian Huntley's gaff and put a dozen bullets in him. People critising Corbyn over this can't believe in the death penalty for some and not others , at least corbyns opinion is coherent

I will amazed if I vote any other way but " leave" . It's about 95% to 5%. However, the 5% will be seeing what Cameron brings back from his " renegotiation " . I doubt if he'll bring anything back and doubt if he even wants to , he's an establishment man through and through. IF he returns with a " common market" which was endorsed by the British people 40 years ago , I maybe persuaded . The problem with the europhile establishment is not what the EU is now , but what it will become . They used Harold Wilsons con trick to ram through treaties , laws and changes that were never on the table . This will never be settled if the establishment do the same again . The vote is to " leave " or remain on the terms Cameron negotiated , not remain and agree to all future changes . The sovereignty case is unarguably won by leave . The immigration case again is cut and dried . The debate will hinge on the ecomonomic argument , with the establishment fully deployed by the " remain" side . IF and it's a big if , the " leave" side can present a case that gives a positive message about the opportunities with the rest of the world , we maybe able to overcome . Add to that a natural hatred of The Tories that many have and a fractured " remain " side with Corbyn making a halfhearted effort and the unions following in the footsteps of bob crow and tony benn , and it could happen . The best thing about that outcome will be seeing the Ken Clarkes , Mandledons , Cleggys and Polly Toynbees of the world the next day and the look of absolute horror on their faces .

Exactly , Corbyn is no different , despite all his pony about principles and a new politics .

I heard this last night whilst watching the game. He needs something different rather than that pathetic " Steve Davis/Kelvin one.

I read today that Watson had refused to sign a letter from MPs which called for the DPP to rethink their decision that Lord Janner is unfit for trial. Maybe its just Tory and lib dem peados that Watson wants hounded.

Rubbish , look at all the positions he's rowing back from. Won't sing the national anthem, now he will. The principled position is " I'm a Republican I won't sing god save the queen ( as I won't myself) , corbyns position is to not sing it until he gets negative reaction and then he will sing it. Instead of saying he won't kiss the queens hand in this pathetic PC ceremony because he's a Republican he pretends to be " busy" . He's been anti EU all his life, but has backed down, he campaigned on unilateral nuclear disarmament but is now kicking trident into the long grass. The man is fraud who has spent his whole life as a student activist and has now suddenly woken up in the real world. Just like the lib dumbs and their hopeless tuition fees gimmick , he's now found out the difference between opposing things and having a coherent electable strategy .

The IMF have got plenty of things wrong in the past , plenty . You can't start legislating and lecturing the media about what to report . Again , you're blaming the " thick " voters & media rather than addressing the basic fact that the country , many of which are far more intelligent than you give them credit for, voted for the Tories . The biggest lie that labour have run and run with for years and years is that the nhs is not safe in Tory hands . The voters should decide if this is pony, not the courts. Why do lefties always want to control everything , thank god they never get any power. We'd be such a boring and righteous country , as well as being skint.

Made up for Steve , fantastic pro . Great story , as someone who remembers Spain 82 & Mexico 86 it's brilliant they're back in a major tournament , and with a saint leading them .

But it's clearly not the same thing . Labour & The Unions claimed the jobless figures would go up by millions under GO. It didn't happen , they didn't lie they were just wrong . It is already a criminal offence to lie about a political opponent , I believe the police are investigation George Galloway for this at present . There are libel laws if you print lies . It's nonsense to suggest you cant take someone's policies or beliefs and reach a conclusion .

As they did with black weds & the ERM .

Lol indeed . Lol at what constitutes "The Telegraph ". Telegraph view ? no that said May was right . What you should have put was "James Kirkup in The Telegraph called her speech ect ect ", otherwise people might think you were telling lies or trying to mislead people .

And I'm sure if my mummy let me I could be like Little Owen Jones and find the infiltration of charities , quangos and the bbc by Leftie " outriders" .

Owen jones quoted in a discussion about right wing bias . Lol. Next up Keith Richards on how to lead a sober life

But what's decent and true . Opinions and politics are basically more nuanced than simple right or wrong . Why is saying Corbyn hates Britain any different than saying Cameron hates the poor . Surely saying the NHS is not safe under the Tory government is either true or untrue depending on your politics , rather than any actual facts . There are already laws against lies but quite rightly there are no laws against opinions or your conclusions you gain from studying others views . If you believe that Corbyn or Milliband snrs policies mean that in your opinion he hates Britain , that's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to reach .,it is for the electorate or consumers to judge that opinion , not the law. Just as a court or law can not rule on whether the Tories are " balancing the books on the back of the poor " , or selling the nhs to their " mates in the city "