/brit/

its almost too quintessentially

w-why are they all close?

mental how she thinks her female bpd is schizophrenia
attention seeking slag

Legitimately schizophrenic people don't talk about it all day do they? Like Tim for example, wouldn't even accept he has it

mummy tell you to get a job again?

Why does she say 2 instead of to whilst having correct grammar for the rest of the sentence?

Attached: EddhvjfXsAYkNVf.jpg (960x639, 73.64K)

BUT WHAT ABOUT ME

I've Been To Every Office
I'm Never Gonna Stop
Printing, Emails, Meetings
I've Done The Fucking Lot
Powerpoints And Spreadsheets And Hiding In The Loo
I'm A Wageslave Bastard, And It's On The Morrow Too
Toileh Toileh Toily
Toileh Toileh Toily

Attached: brendan (2).jpg (978x550, 35.05K)

Lads
I'm outta time and all I got is fo' minutes
Fricki fricki
Fo' minutes ay

Attached: word to your mum.jpg (376x490, 49.64K)

why do women pride themselves on having mental illnesses

she's been like this for a year, totally changed. at points she just stares at one point for 10 seconds completely cut off from the outside world. at one point for weeks she'' be manic, has quit her job cause she feels people can read her mind, doesn't feel comfortable outside cause she feels people are reading her mind. felt a kpop band she used to watch was reading her mind as well

she's my best mate, don't know what I'd do if I lost her

Attached: brenny.jpg (760x546, 73.7K)

WOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
youtube.com/watch?v=aT-MnTRQGeI

Incoming British prime minister Boris Johnson’s first address to the House of Commons on July 25 coincided with the arrival of a heat wave so devastating it sparked talk of a global-warming apocalypse. Steam rose out of the Thames, overhead electrical wires melted on the London-Luton train line, and the Cambridge University Botanic Garden registered the highest temperature (102° F) in the history of the British isles. Naturally there was joking among political pundits about “hot air” and a government “meltdown,” but there were darker grumblings, too. This was a descent into “populism,” one could read in the pages of the Guardian, the Independent, and papers from the European continent. That the Conservative Johnson had moved into the prime ministerial townhouse at 10 Downing Street meant that Britain was now under the control of a “clown,” a “saboteur,” or, worse, the British equivalent of U.S. president Donald Trump.

Whether one backed the antic, mop-haired Johnson or not, it was obvious at a glance that he exhibited none of the traits that the adjective “populist” is usually meant to evoke. Eton- and Oxford-educated, he has been a foreign correspondent, the editor of the venerable weekly the Spectator, the mayor of London, and, until his resignation in 2018, foreign secretary. The real grounds for elite hostility toward him lay elsewhere: Johnson came to office promising—“do or die,” as he put it—that the government would honor its commitment to withdraw the United Kingdom from the 28-nation European Union on October 31. In a long-sought 2016 referendum, British voters had approved this British exit, or “Brexit.” At a time when British politicians of all establishment parties had stood against Brexit in almost unbroken solidarity, Johnson had made himself its most prominent backer.

adultwork in birmingham is too expensive now unless you get some proper munter

character limits on twitter maybe
tad presumptious
it is a valid point.

Not sure. If character count was an issue, that whole preamble could've been dropped

LOOOOOOL

no, since people with schizo are paranoid already regardless of contact tracing, and it is a form of spying knowing where you have been and who you have been with, what schizo do is imply what the government will do with that info and that is not something the app can answer or anyone for that matter, so it is not needed to consider their take on the app since appeasing a schizo delusion is a losing proposition

Thats not me being fuckey. That's a rather common sentiment.

thought the market would be saturated with new girls

Johnson’s Conservative predecessor, Theresa May, found the job of implementing the referendum’s mandate either beyond her powers or not to her tastes. More than three years later Britain remains stuck in the E.U. Johnson has taken a different tack—he has burned his ships. He nominated Dominic Cummings, an architect of the referendum campaign, to mastermind the implementation of Brexit, and filled his cabinet with convinced Brexiteers, purging every last “gloomster,” to use his vocabulary. He solemnly told a divided Parliament that “under no circumstances” would he appoint a new U.K. commissioner to the European Union. And he announced that, should Britain’s European neighbors prove unwilling to let the country go its own way, he would leave the E.U. without agreeing to a deal—a course Theresa May considered too fraught with danger to undertake.

One of them—either May or Johnson—is going to be vindicated in the eyes of history. To figure out who, we need to figure out why Brexit didn’t happen—why Britain’s government has thus far not declared its independence from the E.U. despite an explicit promise to its people that it would do so. Perhaps, in an interdependent world, national sovereignty is as unrealistic an indulgence as the E.U.’s champions always claimed. Or perhaps the E.U.’s ability to evade democratic accountability has proved even more robust and tenacious than the champions of Brexit had feared.

sounds rough. if you tell her to go to a doctor she might get some feedback from the NHS by january

isn't she a schizo?

Women literally cannot be unhappy they have life handed to them

at least its friday tomorrow. toilers gets their mandated 1/half day mandated rest (half day sunday because of the dread of going back in on monday). hurrah!

Attached: CKDQb7GWUAA2lYG.jpg (525x700, 96.61K)

hello myself vijay kumar from bihar
re any white grils here who want to give me number so we can whatsapp call for hot sex

hello sara

The (large-c) Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron assented to the 2016 referendum in order to silence a rebellion of his (small-c) conservative colleagues. He did so reluctantly, and put himself at the head of the pro-E.U. “Remain” forces. Although experts doubted voters would want to pull out of the E.U., Cameron well understood that those experts were complacent. That is why he turned the 2016 campaign into “Project Fear,” to use an expression one of his own campaigners had coined for a different referendum two years earlier. He enlisted British businessmen to describe Brexit’s dire consequences for employment. He commissioned studies from the Treasury to illustrate the deadly impact of Brexit on the British economy, and used government funds to have these studies printed in brochures that were distributed to every household in the country. (Those projections have turned out to be spectacularly off-target.) He invited leaders from around the world to warn Britons of the contempt in which the international ruling class would hold the United Kingdom if they favored London over Brussels. United States President Barack Obama went so far as to tell British voters that if they chose to leave the E.U. they would find themselves at “the back of the queue” in their dealings with the United States.

These elaborately manufactured and precision-timed bombshells were lobbed at the rate of one per news cycle throughout the spring of 2016. Shortly before the vote, Cameron even gathered veterans of World War II to his side as he warned that, should his listeners be rash enough to exit the E.U., the United Kingdom might soon reacquaint itself with what he called the “serried rows of white headstones in lovingly tended Commonwealth war cemeteries.”

Attached: 1593803234387.png (647x689, 681.36K)

So here I am, growing older all the time,
Looking older all the time,
Feeling younger in my mind
So here I am, doing everything I can
Holding on to what I have
Pretending I'm a superman

Attached: Steve 0 and Tony Hawk.jpg (1209x877, 339.32K)

How do we know mentally ill people aren't just attention seeking?

Attached: 1582643594957.png (894x773, 48.03K)

wtf he kill that cat?

Adding an entry to my blog

hello sir...

I honestly believe if Emmett and I came to blows, I would knock his ass out cold. I know he’d never try me though, so it doesn’t need any further discussion.

It was, in short, a thoroughly unfair campaign. But because the side against which the deck had been stacked won, the referendum seemed to have a calming effect. Turnout for the election had been massive, and the 52% to 48% victory extraordinary. The 17.4 million people who voted to leave the E.U. were the largest number of Britons who had ever voted for anything. Only the 1975 EEC referendum came close. No political party had ever come within 3 million votes of it.

Independence Ignored

It was reasonable to assume that in Britain’s heart of hearts, absent peer pressure and government scare tactics, sentiments were even more pro-Brexit than the impressive majority at the ballot box could convey, and that the change of regime would be almost self-enacting. “The Government will implement what you decide,” leaflets distributed during the referendum had promised. So the Brexit forces disbanded. The beery wiseacre Nigel Farage, whose U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) had focused single-mindedly on discontent with the E.U., retired from politics. The Tories returned to business as usual. Upon Cameron’s resignation, members chose as his successor the former home secretary Theresa May, who had not even backed Brexit herself. That seemed not to matter. “Brexit means Brexit,” May dutifully intoned. It was government policy. Brexit would be a bureaucratic sideshow to the real business of her premiership, which May laid out when she devoted her first major speech to “Seven Burning Injustices,” most of them involving race, class, and gender. On March 29, 2017, Parliament activated Article 50, which fixed the date for Britain’s departure from the E.U. exactly two years later. Now Brexit seemed locked in beyond the shadow of a doubt. May then called (and was nearly ousted in) a general election, on which the Brexit question had hardly any effect, because her Labour foes treated the matter as settled. And then, two years later…

youtube.com/watch?v=vfuoKFhO528

Attached: 6524536B-0884-4C6A-9FBD-E6B16F90D36D.jpg (390x204, 16.05K)

*shorts blogspot*
*buys 'chon stock*

um im not her

Proper choon this

If you can put up with the kinda B.S. that work entails then good for you, but I can't lmao.

[cringe post]

Rancid narcissist

Attached: Wild Roastie 3.webm (640x352, 1.62M)

No Brexit. It has been postponed. Yes, Britain will regain its independence on October 31, if Brexit’s adversaries do not find a way to block it. But those adversaries include almost the whole of Britain’s political, economic, and journalistic elite, and they have been ingenious in finding ways to block it thus far. The largest and highest-stakes exercise in democracy that the country ever engaged in—the culmination of decades of soul-searching, in which the country insisted on its independence, its national identity, and the primacy of its constitutional system—is at risk of simply being ignored.

May left office in disgrace and in tears, burbling about “race disparity audits” and “gender pay reporting” and fair treatment for gays. Perfectly legitimate subjects for another time, but not for a moment when the country’s sovereignty hung in the balance. Her inability to understand the stakes of her three-year premiership made her the country’s most significant political failure since Neville Chamberlain. What does this mean for Boris Johnson? To the alarm of all Remainers (many of whom despise him), and even a good number of Brexiteers (many of whom envy him), it places him in the most Churchillian situation of any incoming premier since Margaret Thatcher after the strike-ridden “Winter of Discontent” in 1979, or possibly since Churchill himself in 1940.

The press mostly sees Britain’s current impasse as the result of some oversight or mistake, whether May’s or the voting public’s. “Parliament has bungled Brexit,” wrote a correspondent in the conservative Telegraph. A “national haemorrhage of shared purpose and belief began in earnest in June 2016,” according to the progressive Observer, “when Britain voted to leave the E.U.”

those that seek validation are usually npd or bpd or something

there are those that keep quiet about their mental illnesses, but you basically never know until they either top themselves or talk about it years after the fact

I will vote for that man

so thats why he kicked her.
she'd just uploaded her try on haul

Attached: 2356894754.png (584x611, 433.92K)

5 weeks till i go away not like im counting
anyone have any berlin recommendations??

Attached: Berlin_Hauptbahnhof_pano_06.jpg (4085x1294, 2.2M)

feel like I should reach out to her for advice strangely enough

my sis is reading self help books by prosperity preachers hoping for a miracle. I just don't trust them. I've tried their slick and didn't find much substance. maybe as a fellow christian she could offer advice... I dunno just at lost ends

I've tried, sat with her through a couple calls and she'd fluke it at the last moment or not tell the whole story cause she doesn't trust them. In the past she's told me she heard voices, noises and felt touch

think that is violence against a trans person mate.

embarrassing way to try and make money

also you should have sex

should have taken business so I could get a job scoping out youtubers to sponsor

>STUDENTS in Scotland have been ordered not to return home to visit their families as they are now a “separate household” and legally off-limits.
absolute lunacy

yeah you are, don't pretend otherwise
I'm onto you

Attached: 1600004979936.png (128x110, 18.92K)

Over decades, British citizens have cloven into two parties of roughly equal strength. The Brexiteers are the party of the unwritten British constitution as it existed from the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 until Britain’s accession to the E.U. in 1973. This is the tradition of “parliamentary supremacy,” as John Locke called it, or “parliamentary sovereignty,” as it more often came to be called. It can be a confusing doctrine. In a constitutional context, “Parliament” means the House of Commons, plus the Lords, plus the Queen. “The Queen in Parliament” is the ultimate law-making, and constitution-making, authority. The House of Commons legislates and so (to a lesser extent) does the House of Lords; the cabinet exercises executive prerogatives in the name of the Queen. Courts can’t “overturn” anything, though traditionally there was a role for the Lords as legal interpreters of last resort. Important parts of this arrangement have been scuppered, and if you favor that scuppering you’re probably a Remainer.

Remainers are the party of the European Union’s constitutional tradition, the tradition of human rights and judicial review. And, to make things more confusing, of referenda. The 1973 vote to enter the EEC was the first the United Kingdom ever had. The Brexit referendum of 2016, paradoxically, used an E.U.-era innovation to put an end to the E.U. era.

Most seriously mentally ill people don't talk about their mental health diagnosis all the time because they are too preoccupied with the mad things they think about.

they are. mental illness is a form of communication, a signal to the tribe.

hello dear beautiful
are you white sexy hot girl
give me number for whatsapp sex call

Operation soybeard commences in six days. Shan't be shaving until the new year.

it looms

need furlough toil back on the menu ASAP lads

Attached: 1554192373225.jpg (749x694, 58.96K)

/g/ culture stagnated like 7 years ago and now it's just teenagers posting about graphics cards and smartphones while being only a little bit aware of old gimmicks like le templeOS and le gentoo and those are the only two gimmicks that still get posted on that whole board

autism i think

know a girl who tells everyone she meets she has BPD
(self diagnosed)

Went to a dodgy paki barber today. Don't like the professional and normal barbers. Love the wierd clandestine side of life. They were very odd and played proper grime music the whole time. Haircut was pretty poor tbqh but it was cheap. The place was a shit hole too. Great place to run a criminal operation from too. Some drug dealing or something.

Only once the process of Britain’s secession got underway was it possible to understand fully the conflict between these two constitutional traditions. Federal Europe had penetrated British constitutional life much more thoroughly than Brexiteers could face or Remainers admit. E.U. law had become “entrenched,” to use a British legal term. As Brexit began dis-entrenching that law, it threatened to dis-entrench along with it the privileges of a whole class of people at the top of society. In response, that class coalesced with a mighty solidarity. Just after the Brexit vote, the London Review of Books essayist James Meek wrote of a gentle, cosmopolitan liberal friend who had asked him: “What about all these powerful backroom interests in the City that are supposed to have the government in their pocket? Why aren’t they stepping in behind the scenes to stop this?”

Britain’s politics was coming to resemble something Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon had said in a different context in February of 2017: “If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.”

The Constitution and the Courts

Many statesmen warned from the outset that British ideas of liberty would not survive a merger with the E.U. The most eloquent early diagnoses came from the Labour Party, not the Tories. That is because the fundamental disposition of the E.U. is to favor technocratic expertise over representative government, and the Tories have not generally been the British party that placed the highest priority on the passions of the masses. In 1962, as Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was eying EEC membership, Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell warned, “[I]t does mean the end of Britain as an independent nation state…. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say ‘Let it end’ but, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.”

becoming a bit of a winny the pooh like charater i am

I'M STILL IN A DREEEEEEAAAAAMMM
SSSNNNNAAAAAAAKE EATERRRRRRRRRR

blog on

Attached: 1586872282873.jpg (1280x1140, 236.14K)

well hallucinations are dire, quite dire, hopefully she'll be lucid and able to get medication, but it's quite hard to tell a doctor you think you're insane

Wagecuckin' it.

mad how normies don't like those cherries you get on cherry bakewells now

Just assume that anyone constantly posting about their “mental illness” on faceberg is an attention seeking mong

bizzare post this

Gaitskell was right, but it is only in recent years that people have begun to see exactly why he was right. It was always understood that joining the EEC in 1973 compromised Britain’s national sovereignty. All countries that joined had to acknowledge the supremacy of E.U. law over their own. This was a deadly serious thing if you reasoned the consequences to the end. For one thing, it deprived Britain’s monarchy of its (already somewhat vestigial) logic. Monarchs are not underlings: in joining the EEC, Britain could be said to have deposed its queen. Pro-E.U. politicians assured their voters that it wasn’t as serious as that. Britain, they said, had to give a little bit of its sovereignty up in order to receive the benefits of cooperation, the way it did in, say, NATO. Other European countries had done so without wrecking their systems.

But this was a false analogy, as the political scientist Vernon Bogdanor explains persuasively in his recent book, Beyond Brexit. NATO was a treaty. The EEC was a merger. What is more, the EEC that Britain joined had been designed by the major countries of continental Europe in line with their own traditions and interests. It was not in line with Britain’s. Britain had no institutions like the European Commission, an unelected body that could (and still does) initiate legislation. Britain’s politicians didn’t understand the rules intuitively and were less able to work the system. British political institutions were unsuitable as a “farm system” for training E.U. politicians.

>people complaining about being furloughed

try toilingevery single day for the last 6 months as though nothing has changed lol

shut up worthless mong

for me it's those cherries you get in tangfastics

correlation does not equal causation

Hello, Allison, I wanna hold your hand
I haven't been the same man
Since I saw you comin' in
Let's have a toast to the girl in aisle ten

Hello, Allison, I wanna hold your hand
I haven't been the same man
Since I saw you comin' in
Let's have a toast to the girl in aisle ten

Attached: tunes.gif (498x401, 293.6K)

Have worked with a few people with BPD as a support worker and none of them mentioned it ever they were too busy just fighting with everyone and trying to manipulate people

*surreptitiously googles causation*

causation isn't a valid concept.

if scotland could turn against the SNP that would be great

And there was an even larger problem than the loss of national sovereignty, Bogdanor shows. The E.U. destroyed the system of parliamentary sovereignty at the heart of Britain’s constitution. For all its royalist trappings, Britain has traditionally been a much purer representative democracy than the United States, because it excludes courts from reviewing legislation on any grounds. British politicians tried to calm the public with assurances that, where British law and E.U. law clashed, British law would prevail. But the acknowledgement of E.U. legal supremacy in the treaties meant that E.U. law was British law. In the 1980s, British judges began finding that parliamentary laws had been invalidated by later British laws—a normal and time-honored process, except that these new “British” laws had been imported into British statute books not by legislation but by Britain’s commitment to accept laws made on the continent. Bogdanor, who is a Remainer and a defender of human rights, does not necessarily condemn this development. But it meant that, through the back door, judicial review was being introduced into a constitutional culture that had never had it.

Quangos and foundations began designing cases—concerning migrants’ rights, gay rights, search-and-seizure—that unraveled the centuries-old fabric woven from the rights and duties of British citizenship. A new fabric began to be woven, based (as are all such systems in Europe) on post-Civil Rights Act American law and on the litigative ethos of the American bar.

Poor judge of character or she's a slut.

they've always been shite
indicative of a low-end, synthetic bakewell. Icing shite too... a decent bakewell just has flaked almonds on top

Lmao literally drop white women, lads
They're worthless at this point

Attached: cute_chink.jpg (720x720, 85.55K)

24/7 petrol station opposite has been closing at 10pm lately
What if I want another bottle of wine bros? It's not fair

Been doing this for the last 6 months, get with the times pleb.

Attached: chet_sml.jpg (800x533, 197.74K)

causation?
you want to talk about the cosmological argument's proof of god's existence?

didn't read lol

10k in savings
400 quid universal credit every month
no rent
no real outgoings apart from minor alcohol and food
basically can go away everyone 3 months and not really spend anything

Corrrrr

tell me more

Attached: 1481369677613.png (504x131, 42.12K)

fucking staffer on the other end scoffed when my sis mentioned she felt people were reading her mind, staffer was pretty much a receptionist but put my sis right off

going to splatter your brain across the concrete if you keep posting like this

>a support worker
sounds fun

yes it does

shut up freak

In 1998, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair passed the Human Rights Act, which swept into British law the European Convention on Human Rights (a pre-E.U. document dating from 1953). It also bound Britain to abide by decisions reached by the European Court of Human Rights, which sits in the French city of Strasbourg. Article 8.1 of the Convention (“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”) was supposed to protect people from the prying eyes of the state, as our Fourth Amendment does. But as the judge and scholar Jonathan (Lord) Sumption noted in a series of lectures this summer, it quickly became the “functional equivalent” of the due process clause of the American 14th Amendment—grounds for all kinds of judicial adventurism. British judges discovered that Article 8:

potentially covers anything that intrudes upon a person’s autonomy unless the Court considers it to be justified…the legal status of illegitimate children, immigration and deportation, extradition, criminal sentencing, the recording of crime, abortion, artificial insemination, homosexuality and same sex unions, child abduction, the policing of public demonstrations, employment and social security rights, environmental and planning law, noise abatement, eviction for non-payment of rent and a great deal else besides.

In the late 1990s, Blair began a reform of the House of Lords, depriving all but a few dozen hereditary peers of their right to sit. He replaced those ousted with a body that was meant to be more meritocratic but wound up less diverse and arguably more class-bound—a collection of activist foundation heads, “rights barristers” (as legal agitators are called), think-tank directors and in-the-tank journalists, and political henchmen. Judicial functions that the House of Lords once carried out were calved off into an actual Supreme Court, which took over as the high court of the land.

off to bed lads, night

Attached: beddington.jpg (327x154, 12.27K)