This is so transparently an effort to prevent a drift towards Europe by the UK. Unfortunately, our elected representatives are known neither for their integrity nor their intelligence, so it might work.

We lionise fire fighters because they’re not cops, but inevitably some are still arseholes

Can’t imagine they have too many spare units to locate there…

Punching nazis. Always acceptable, even encouraged.

Is this a trick question? The item on the left is clearly a rolled up facecloth.

Excellent. Hats off to the fire brigade also.

Nothing gets stuck in my teeth man.

Or, doesn’t get acid reflux man.

Guessing football and wrestling in high school, growth hormones in their meat, and an element of obesity. These are all guesses though, not shitting on the yanks.

The ultimate goal is equality, but it takes targeted support of women to attain that.

I’m not saying that men’s issues should remain unresolved, but the intent of the Tory MP is not to support men. It is to divide and conquer.

Think you can find digital copies at http://wint.co/

Who’s responsibility includes reducing the disparity between men and women. Having a minister for men introduces parity in this regard, which therefore does nothing to advance the interest of women in a male dominated system

This is the same difference between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. Nobody is saying that men should not be advocated for, but elevating the issue of men’s rights to ministerial level does not help resolve the larger issue of the systemic disadvantage of women in society.

It’s a disingenuous argument. The MP is from the Conservative Party, i.e., the right wing arsehole party.

You may have noticed how the Right Wing Playbook has been imported from America. Increasingly, when things aren’t going politically well, they’ll have a look at the Playbook and pick a Culture Wars trope. This is one such instance, intended only to divide.

It’s such a badly written and blatantly disingenuous article.

“Man was born free, but everywhere is in chains.” -Rousseau

I totally agree with you. What I want is pie in the sky. Without regulation, nothing will change.

You asked for an alternative and I gave you one. You just aren’t happy at the idea that massive lenders can afford to make less.

And of course I’m motivated that it benefits me, and millions of ordinary people, what sort of psychopath wouldn’t be?

Mortgages are not a scam, I’ll give you that. But I’m pretty sure that anyone with a functional moral compass would recognise that usury is immoral.

Hardly. The market still exists, and lenders can still make a profit, just maybe not as much. It’s not rocket science.

Then someone else will take that lender’s place. Mortgage lending will, at whatever percentage, produce a stable rate of return. If anything, preventing exorbitant interest rates mitigates much of the risk involved in lending.

That’s not free. That’s just a less predatory rate of return.

I would further suggest that there is a hard cap on the interest which can be charged on any borrowing.