I'm Curious as to Whether the Average European Has a Keen Grasp of Something

[Frederick Shelton]

Would you say most Europeans have a solid understanding of the difference in economic policies of the two American Political parties?
When I lived over there, most knew who the president was and had an idea of his foreign policy (i.e. imperialism in the guise of defense) but just like people here, the average citizen had no real clue of another country's political party stances.

[Trueblue]

On Sunday, 28 October 2012 22:44:18 UTC, Frederick Shelton wrote:

Would you say most Europeans have a solid understanding of the difference in economic policies of the two American Political parties?

 

I counter that by asking do most Americans have an understanding of european economic policies, my own peronal view is American politicians like most european ones haven't a clue, they look short term and are more interested in their own financial gains.

 

Both side of the pond we have PROFESSIONAL politicians who have no clue, especially here in the left wing parties, none have ever worked in the private sector and you poor sods have the Ultra right wing, Romney who objects to paying taxes who hasn't a clue what a days work is.

[Affa]

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC, Frederick Shelton wrote:

 

Would you say most Europeans have a solid understanding of the difference in economic policies of the two American Political parties?

 

 

No I wouldn't. Most that show any interest will compare the Republicans to our Conservative party, and the Democrats as Liberals. Some others

will imagine the Democrats as having similarities to our Labour party - a tax and spend party (not that this is true of either).

imo (and I admit to being less informed than I would be if I had more interest) none of these comparisons hold firm under scrutiny. 

What does intrigue me, and disappoints me, is how American voters (all shades) still subscribe to the 'Business first' ideolgical stance that

permits corporations to do very much as they please. I guess they imagine that the wealth created will filter down. I'm under the impression that it did thirty years ago, but that has changed. Salaries have not kept pace with corporate gains - Americans are very slow to recognise the shift.

What's more both political contenders have been instrumental in this occurring.

 

I have an opinion on what caused this change ....... technological advances have done away with the asset value of workers. Coupled with globalisation, people are needed less, worth less, and their real worth is more as users than producers - they have Market value as consumers, but less as wealth creators. The Services sector employs far more people than does manufacturing industry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Briar]

Hi Freddy ! Good to see you here again !

This is not just me, as I have asked 7 other people living in the UK,
and 6 of them including me felt that they were both essentially the
same as each other, just that the Republicans are more right wing, the
Democrats less right wing, a bit like our current Conservative Party.
Of the other two, one compared the Reps to our conservatives and the
Dems to our once socialist party (it has since long given up any taint
of socialism). The other one was me - who thinks the main difference
is one wants Obama re-elected and the other wants that Mormon idiot
whose name I dont even want to remember and hope I will not hear of
after the current election game ends.

To me, the only good thing about the US Political system, another
travesty of pretended democracy, is that we Brits can gaze at it from
afar and realise that after all we dont have the very worst model of
pretence democracy in the world!

To win an election in the USA, it is necessary to spend more money on
the campain than the other lot do.

I think having a Queen as Head of State is a lot more economical and
safer than making a mere Polit into one. I am sure Her Majesty would
let you all back into the Commonwealth if you asked her nicely ! :)



On Oct 28, 10:44 pm, Frederick Shelton <frederickshel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Trueblue]

 

 

Fred, you might find this gives you an Idea, its an indepth report from a British foreign correspondant who reports from the USA

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-american-road-trip-obamas-story/4od#3433761

[Sandman]

Why don't you tell us what you think is the difference is, the way I see it,

is like here, the voters are fcuked whatever party they vote for, both sides

are in it for their own gain, after spreading their seeds to lure voters in. 

 

On Sunday, 28 October 2012 22:44:18 UTC, Frederick Shelton wrote:

[jar]

There are varying factors FS the shining eyes of the black voters would support O'Bama despite what his Socialist agenda has done to ruin the American dream and ambition to personal ambition which has made them the great example of Capitalism and success. Didn't they see what happened here with the nanny state with people opting for the benefit culture?
This mass ignorant vote cannot see that it's a fools paradise and is passing on debts to future generations?
There was an excellent Tv programme that some from the left couldn't bring themselves to watch that laid out the true situation. It's not a popular picky but we must invest in the future and it will take more time than any gvts. Term is allowed.

[jar]

I'd agree with that Sandman and it comes down to the lesser of two evils if one is realistic.
I just couldn't bring myself to support Labour until party funding has been sorted out.Surely it is obvious by now that the militants in the Unions have far too much influence on Labour party policy

[Jane]

I think most have only a very vague awareness of the differing economic policies of your two Parties, and speaking for myself I'm not convinced that, regardless of the pre-election hype, in practice there is any significant difference.  Your lot, like ours, are in thrall to multinationals and it's they who pay the piper and call the tune.

Where Europeans are more aware of US economic policies lays in areas which affect our people, for example your trade tariffs, your 'most favoured country' list, your military spending, your cuts in welfare and health spending on poor and low income people (which our Gvts copy) etc.

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC, Frederick Shelton wrote:

[jar]

According to Conrad Black it's lawyers that are responsible for much of the costs from what the US earns but as you say there are bound to be similarities.did you read about Madam Lagardes accusation about how much Greek politicians have siphoned of aid monies into their private accounts?

[Jane]

I dunno if this is a reply to me Jar, but according to Conrad Black he was innocent, so that's the tattered remains of his credibility gone.

As for Greek politicians, hey, they're politicians so quelle surprise. :)

[jar]

He CoNrad Black Jane can be innoCent oR guilty, he can be wrong in most of what he says as far as I am concerned but I do think he might have a point about the influence and cost to the US of the legal profession we have only to look at what happens here in the UK. I know I don't have to give you examples.

[Trueblue]

On Monday, 29 October 2012 22:32:31 UTC, jar wrote:

He CoNrad Black Jane can be innoCent oR guilty, he can be wrong in most of what he says as far as I am concerned but I do think he might have a point about the influence and cost to the US of the legal profession we have only to look at what happens here in the UK. I know I don't have to give you examples.

 

Its off Freds topic but the Yanks like to sing about their justice system, personally I think its as corrupt as some of the worst third world countrys, money and influence clearly buys your aquittal

[Briar]

Their main problem is, with every twelth American being an "Attorney
at Law", there just aint enough work for them, so they have taken to
making suing one another about anything and everything as a sort of
National Hobby.

They ought to put a set limit on the number of people studying law -
there are far more subjects they could study that are more useful to
society, but hat would wreck their favorite hobby so it is unlikely to
happen.

[tinman]

Another of TB's spin blown out of the water.

Mother who killed 14-month-old daughter and 10-week-old son while in
grip of postnatal depression will not face prison... as banker husband
stands by her

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225207/Felicia-Boots-Postnatally-depressed-mother-killed-14-month-old-daughter-10-week-old-son-face-prison.html

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 22:11:09 UTC, tinman wrote:

Another of TB's spin blown out of the water.

Mother who killed 14-month-old daughter and 10-week-old son while in
grip of postnatal depression will not face prison...

 

 

Have you been drinking.?

[tinman]

Your the one post the US system was corrupt. What would you call
this then.

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 22:28:16 UTC, tinman wrote:

Your the one post the US system was corrupt.   What would you call
this then.

 

Can you post a link to where I've said our system is perfect.?

[tinman]

LOL. Well you must rate it over the US one.

[tinman]

Any way I'm not going to swap pointless posts with you now I'm of out
for the day.

[Trueblue]

On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 22:37:14 UTC, tinman wrote:

LOL.   Well you must rate it over the US one.

 

So your struggling to justify you childish pointless post, quell surprise.

[jar]

Interesting fact coming out of America is that approx 60pc of those employed work for small to medium firms. What seems to have started to assist our employment problem seems to come from the same sector. Heseltine seems to be arguing for more support for these companies so we should know what needs to be done

[jar]

He always gets fed up when he realises he losing the argument Tb about the same as Jonskys wriggling accusations. These two are sooooo predictable

[Jonksy]

The only one losing the argument is your bum chum OLD man...And what exactly have you contributed to the thread apart from cumming all over your little chums leg?

[Affa]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:16:42 PM UTC, jar wrote:

 

Interesting fact coming out of America is that approx 60pc of those employed work for small to medium firms. What seems to have started to assist our employment problem seems to come from the same sector. Heseltine seems to be arguing for more support for these companies so we should know what needs to be done

 

 

The figure (from memory) in the UK is 90%+ of those employed in the Private sector are employees of SMEs.

 

Large corporations make huge profits, avoid paying taxes, and employ very few (relatively) people - So why do our governments

play footsie with these guys?

answer....... because they lobby and 'persuade' both politicians and Civil Servants to favour them.

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

It has been explained affa as living in the global world where companies are given the oppounity of basing themselves where they pay least tax. But you know that don't you. To overcome this problem it would need global agreement as no one country would take the risk of going it alone but again this has been in the public knowledge for some considerable time.
Last time it was these companies that helped us out of the mess and if they can access finance on a commercial basis they can do it again

[jar]

You show yourself to be the dregs of humanity Jonsky

[Jane]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:05:07 PM UTC, Affa wrote:

 

 

The figure (from memory) in the UK is 90%+ of those employed in the Private sector are employees of SMEs.

 

Large corporations make huge profits, avoid paying taxes, and employ very few (relatively) people - So why do our governments

play footsie with these guys?

answer....... because they lobby and 'persuade' both politicians and Civil Servants to favour them.

No, it's because those multinationals make huge political donations.

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

I call that 'persuasion' Jane .........  the most persuasive.

 

 

 

 

[jar]

Of course they do and so do Unions and it seems much of that money is supplied by the taxpayer and given to the Unions for "training purposes" then we musnt forget how much is paid to so many that are on Union business instead of doing what they were employed to do. As someone said a perfect example of money laundering

[Affa]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:47:00 PM UTC, jar wrote:

 

Of course they do and so do Unions and it seems much of that money is supplied by the taxpayer and given to the Unions for "training purposes" then we musnt forget how much is paid to so many that are on Union business instead of doing what they were employed to do. As someone said a perfect example of money laundering

 

 

I must take you to task on the repetition of this silly 'money for training' the Unions get.

I have proven that it is spent on 'training', the LAW ensures it. However, the tax payer is fleeced of times more money that is granted to BUSINESS where there are no LAWs to ensure that this money is used to provide training. Business gets much more government funding that is directed to the Unions.

I also asked you to look at what the TU Congress says its political aims and to say what is wrong with them ......... you decline, but still try to

insist they are destructive, when in actuallity they are productive. Their aims are to enhance business opportunity, for more manufacturing, for Growth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:02:41 PM UTC, Affa wrote:

I must take you to task on the repetition of this silly 'money for training' the Unions get.

I have proven that it is spent on 'training', the LAW ensures it. 

 

 

Union funds should pay for training, the fact Labour bunged them taxpayers money leaves them free to donate what they would have spent on training back to Labour

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:19:43 PM UTC, Trueblue wrote:

 

Union funds should pay for training, the fact Labour bunged them taxpayers money leaves them free to donate what they would have spent on training back to Labour

 

 

No it does not ........ categorically!

Only money that members opt to donate towards the 'Political fund' can be used as political donations ........ a Union could win the Euromillions jackpot and it could not give a penny of it to Labour. It could double its membership and unless these new members opt to donate subscriptions it can't increase donations - that money is specific, put into a separate fund, and is regulated by the government itself. That is the LAW, Thatcher's law.

 

There is no law, no regulationary body established to monitor how business spend government money given for training - and the government give more to business than they do to the Unions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:29:39 PM UTC, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:19:43 PM UTC, Trueblue wrote:

 

Union funds should pay for training, the fact Labour bunged them taxpayers money leaves them free to donate what they would have spent on training back to Labour

 

 

No it does not ........ categorically!

 

Hey Comrade we have £1000 and we need to spent that on indoctrinating the gullibles so we can't give any money to the Party, No problem Karkov, the party are going to pay for the indoctrination so we can now give money to the party.

[Affa]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:52:16 PM UTC, Trueblue wrote:

 

No it does not ........ categorically!

 

Hey Comrade we have £1000 and we need to spent that on indoctrinating the gullibles so we can't give any money to the Party, No problem Karkov, the party are going to pay for the indoctrination so we can now give money to the party.

 

 

What a warped, twisted, useless prick you are!

One that worships Maggie Thatcher, praises her for putting the Unions in their proper place, .......... and then denies that her actions are any good.

 To repeat, only political donations agreed to with individual members can be used as political funding. It goes into a separtate account, and only that account can be used for donations ......... it doesn't matter how much or how little the funding is for other projects - political funds are separate from them, and the government watchdog ensures the accounts are monitored. Maggie made sure of it .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

Proven to your satisfaction AFFA but not to some members of parliament that coined the phrase about money laundering. You are very loyal even to the point of believing anything that those that you support tell you . What you suggest is proven would just as easy for me to say the same . Their was certainly no rebuttal of the charge but then you are a Union man are you not

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:02:41 PM UTC, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:47:00 PM UTC, jar wrote:

 

Of course they do and so do Unions and it seems much of that money is supplied by the taxpayer and given to the Unions for "training purposes" then we musnt forget how much is paid to so many that are on Union business instead of doing what they were employed to do. As someone said a perfect example of money laundering.

Yes we saw how much the business got under Blair but are you telling me that this money is given and not loaned for isnt that that the main cricism of this gvt that they are not helping businesses?

You are describing the German Unions Affa. Growth is not obtained through general strikes and to try to suggest that the communists McClusky and his moron transport chief  are pro growth is an insult to anyones intelligence

I wont bother to look at what these people say for public consumption AFFA Im more interested in their actions and you might ask yourself about the influence they have over the PLP now you arnt surely going to deny that. That means they will have achieved by using an undemocratic path they will trump what the majority of the electorate vote for.

You fail to acknowledge that people like McClusky & Crow have elbowed their way into positions of power and that strikes occur due to a small majority of militants with the silent majority keeping their heads down. 

You call this situation enhancing business and growth Ill restrain myself by just saying you have to be kidding 

[Affa]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:20:49 PM UTC, jar wrote:

 

Proven to your satisfaction AFFA but not to some members of parliament that coined the phrase about money laundering.

 

Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever ........ the gov't appoint a Certification Oficer to oversee the accounts Trade Unions.

 

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS

4. Under the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (as amended) (“the Act”) a trade union may not apply any part of its unds in the furtherance of the political objects set out at Section 72 of the Act unless it has established a political fund.

The Act also requires that the union must adopt rules providing that all expenditure on the political objects is to be made out of a separately constituted political fund.

The Act also requires that the union must adopt rules providing that all expenditure on the political objects is to be made out of a separately constituted political fund and that every member of the union is to have the right to claim exemption from contributing to this political fund.

These allegations of laundering are completely untrue, and are made for the same reasons you repeat them. And as with you, the politicians that make these claims are equally aware that they cannot be true.

 

 

 

[Jonksy]

You are wasting your time Affa you can't educate tory indoctrinated pork..

[jar]

Youve said that too often on other matters and its lost its impact. I dont believe it and I have told you why I dont. You doubt what others say and whilst I dont doubt your integrity I point out to you that this is what should happen but it doesnt in practice and as I mentioned its been brought up in parliament and has not been rebutted. As TB said at the very least the money handed over saves them spending their own resources

[Jonksy]

And you show yourself up as a thick tory trolling twat...Oh dear did you favourite wankers get a bloody nose....?....LOL

[jar]

Do you think it matters what you think Jonsky?

[Jonksy]

Well no one gives a flying fuck what you think OLD man even your acid tongued old twat has deserted you...

[jar]

Not me He doesnt care to be in the same room as a filthy sub human and has found a civilised room where they debate as opposed to insult.

[Jonksy]

I wouldn't want the acid tongued OLD twat in the same room as me..I wouldn't want to catch anything..Still now I know why you aint gone with him and he wont last long either if that's the criteria because just like you that's all the old twat ever does..

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 1 November 2012 14:23:01 UTC, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:52:16 PM UTC, Trueblue wrote:

 

No it does not ........ categorically!

 

Hey Comrade we have £1000 and we need to spent that on indoctrinating the gullibles so we can't give any money to the Party, No problem Karkov, the party are going to pay for the indoctrination so we can now give money to the party.

 

 

What a warped, twisted, useless prick you are!

One that worships Maggie Thatcher, praises her for putting the Unions in their proper place, .......... and then denies that her actions are any good.

 

 

Are you realy as thick as Plonksy, you would have us believe Labour feeding its paymasters with tens of millions of taxpayers money under the guise of training doesn't free other union money for political donations, get real Affa, your making an old fool of yourself

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 6:34:29 PM UTC, jar wrote:

. As TB said at the very least the money handed over saves them spending their own resources

 I do not doubt that government support to trade Unions does alleviate financial pressures on those Unions. What I say is that this money cannot be re-directed back to the Labour party, or any political organisation.

The coalition gov't has praised the efforts of TUs to improve training and qualifications to adult members, are are continuing with the financial support.

They would not do this if they 'believed' it was a laundering exercise!

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 1 November 2012 21:59:23 UTC, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 6:34:29 PM UTC, jar wrote:

. As TB said at the very least the money handed over saves them spending their own resources

 I do not doubt that government support to trade Unions does alleviate financial pressures on those Unions. What I say is that this money cannot be re-directed back to the Labour party,

 

 

Oh yes it can and it has.

[jar]

Don't think he would want to share a room with someone who has unhealthy sexual obsessions about having organisms on someone's leg Jonsky.
If I went I'd certainly miss some of your hilarious posts. Anyhow I'm retired but you seem to spend as much time when you are supposed to be working as an aircraft fitter.
I suppose you look forward to the tube journey with your leg obsessions

[jar]

Then it would come as a surprise to you that it was members of the coalition that likened it to money laundering
They are now looking into the millions they spend on paying union members to carry out union duties whilst on the public payroll. Shouldn't the unions be funding union work?

[jar]

They also employ quite a lot of people but it would be nice if every country could agree that they should pay the tax earned per country. Then the accountants are showing losses to avoid that
Regrettably the upshot of them paying their share of the tax would be passed on to joe public

[ewill]

the LAW ensures it>>

rubbish (as I've previously demonstrated many times

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it any more true

[Affa]

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:37:57 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

the LAW ensures it>>

rubbish (as I've previously demonstrated many times

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it any more true

 

 

Of course it's true. The Certification officer's job is to ensure it.

Political funds are subject to a ten year 'license', the authorisation required to create a political fund given by gov't.

 

I would ask on what grounds you detrmine that these controls do not prevent money laundering?

I also again draw attention to the fact that the coaltion has maintained the support to TUs training assist. They applaude the success of Unions delivering skills business needs.. They would not be giving this money if there was any evidence that the law has been or can be broken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 12:23:39 AM UTC, Affa wrote:

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it any more true

 

 

 By the way; on the subject of 'saying' things.

My eldest flew to New Jersey today, and I have spent some time monitoring the situation re hurricane Sandy.

My searches lead me to Skytrax, an internationally recognised airport rating organisation. It rates LHR in the top three, the highest in Europe.

This prompted me look at passenger ratings for airports, and surprise surprise LHR  again comes out favourably compared to those you have mentioned as far superior.

'Saying' can be misleading - especially when what is mentioned is said for political reasons that are served best with a negative opinion that is not reflected by the majority opinion.

 

 

 

[Jonksy]

He wouldn't have the opportunity to share a room with me...Do you think I would want to share a room with that chick with dicks lover?...Oh yes the aircraft fitter is your sad attempt at an insult LOL just proving how little you know on the subject like everything else you try and stick your oar in ......I do 4 days on and have 4 days off unlike you and your bum chum who are on here 24/7..And no I don't do tube journeys I either fly FOC first class or drive.So enjoy your retirement you OLD fart at least I can afford a bloody laptop and don't have to come on here and ask others how to put the keys back onto my 50p boot sale special or state about the non finer points of a bloody Ipad which a 5 year old can master in 10 seconds flat..So troll on... You give the rest of us a bloody good laugh..

[Trueblue]

On Friday, 2 November 2012 00:23:39 UTC, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:37:57 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

the LAW ensures it>>

rubbish (as I've previously demonstrated many times

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it any more true

 

 

Of course it's true. The Certification officer's job is to ensure it.

Political funds are subject to a ten year 'license', the authorisation required to create a political fund given by gov't.

 

If their funds are boosted by the taxpayer freeing them from other financial commitments it leaves them money to donate back to their political wing

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Briar]

This thread has wandered an awful long way away from the original
subject !

[ewill]

Previously dealt with at length when you made your thoroughly
misleading claims on an earlier thread - I have absolutely no
intention of wasting my time on this yet again

The legislation does NOT prevent political donations and you do not
understand the function of the office of certification officer

[ewill]

Skytrax is simply a private research organisation which operates from
London - it was set up circa 30 years ago and is similar to
TripAdvisor in parts

I flew out of T5 Heathrow 10 days ago and security (Fast Track line-
the ''plebs'' queue was worse ) took 1.30 to clear - they were quite
obviously working to rule and pulling every third bag - all the staff
were standing around chatting and watching whilst one painstakingly
took every item out of the bag before swabbing it then waiting for the
passenger to restow then they moved onto the next bag-the aircrew said
they've been working at slower than snails' pace for a few weeks.
I see there are similar experiences reviewed on skytrax

<<London Heathrow Airport customer review : 28 October 2012 by xxx
(USA)
Rating : 0/10

Queuing

Cleanliness

Facilities

Recommended

Arrived T3 and had an outbound at T5. While going through T5
security, they were picking out every 3rd or 4th persons bags for
screening, stood there for 30 minutes until they got to our bag,
unloaded every item, one by one, at a glacial pace. Then went over to
do the swab, talked with their buddy and finally returned. 10 people
were waiting for bags to be gone through at least, and then he leaves,
leaving all of us standing there, with no replacement. We will go
around London next time.






London Heathrow Airport customer review : 26 October 2012 by xxxx
(Scotland)
Rating : 3/10

Queuing

Cleanliness

Facilities

Recommended

Came through the fast track and had my bag set aside for a search. I
waited 10 whilst the staff stood and had a conversation. They then put
my bag back through the scanner but then decided they wanted to search
it anyway. My bag was then taken to the other end of the security hall
and put through another scanner whilst the staff member stood and
chatted to his colleagues. He then brought my bag back and painfully
slowly emptied every single compartment. He opened the pouch that had
all the cables for my laptop in and zipped it back up without even
looking in it. After the bag was completely emptied he asked would I
like him to re-pack my bag. I packed it myself to save time. He made a
mockery of the security at T1.






London Heathrow Airport customer review : 10 October 2012 by xxxx
(USA)
Rating : 6/10

Queuing

Cleanliness

Facilities

Recommended

I recently arrived at LHR Terminal 4 and departed Terminal 3. I had
Fast Track both ways. My United flight arrived 40 minutes early at
Terminal 4 and I was expecting a breeze in the Fast Track line.
Unfortunately, the line was long in the Fast Track line and took over
an hour. I departed from Terminal 3 and there was nobody in the Fast
Track line. However, my bag that went through the X-Ray screener
required a personnel to search it. I had to wait over 20 minutes till
the security agent got to my bag. They explained that they are very
short staffed. I think this is unexcusable for the busiest airport in
the Europe that just had the Olympics there. Terminal 3 itself is nice
and had a lot of restuarants and shops. >>>>>>>

[ewill]

I'm out of LGW on Sunday evening -I'll let you know if that's any
better :-)

> > reflected by the majority opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ewill]

<< It rates LHR in the top three, the highest in Europe>>

You don't count Amsterdam, Munich and Zurich (all rated above LHR on
Skytrax) as being in Europe?

Why is that?


<<2012
2011

1
Incheon International Airport
3


2
Singapore Changi Airport
2

3
Hong Kong International Airport
1

4
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport
6

5
Beijing Capital International Airport
5

6
Munich Airport
4

7
Zurich Airport
7

8
Kuala Lumpur International Airport
9

9
Vancouver International Airport
12

10
Central Japan International Airport
11

11
London Heathrow Airport
16>>

On 2 Nov, 00:35, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:

[jar]

You seem to take enough notice to copy pretty well every phrase I post.Think of the fun you are missing as someone obsessed with legs and bums on a crowded tube train. Which computer are you refering to the lap top Ipad or the desk top. They are adequate for my needs why spend money uneccessary unless like you you are out to impress as people like you have a need to.

Ive flown 1st mostly on South African Airways FOC and a world trip on BA and I would object if I had to share with filth like you

[Jonksy]

LOL don't kid yourself you OLD fart   You only use second hand phrases so why would I want to copy those...And as for the rest of your post who gives a shit where you have been...What a fucking pity you cam back...

[tinman]

LOL. Is he still claiming to be original.

[Jonksy]

He has never been original in his life mate...

[tinman]

I think he's accused all 3 of us of nicking his posts now. If I
didn't know better I'd say he's starting to become paranoid.

[Jonksy]

LOL we would all really want to post his bullshit wouldn't we...What he doesn't like is the FACT that he supports a bunch of lying wankers and that he cannot come on here and list one single achievement from them...Still if he had the balls he could post how we now have record borrowing, record immigration, a record loss of growth a flat-lined economy in double dip recession record number of peeps now working in part time shite jobs along with record amounts being given away to the nogs and a spiralling PFI bill and welfare bill with a record amount of A&E depts being closed and a record number of NHS trusts in the red...So you have to hand it to them who else but the tits up tories could achieve that in just 2 and a half years and still fool idiots like the tory faithful to boot?

[jar]

more stuff for the five year olds. Is this really the best you can do? 

[Jane]

Oh do grow UP and stop this.  Is it any wonder that Frederick hasn't revisited this thread, or that there's not been a new poster within living memory?

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 9:29:14 AM UTC, Trueblue wrote:

On Friday, 2 November 2012 00:23:39 UTC, Affa wrote:

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:37:57 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

the LAW ensures it>> 

 

Of course it's true. The Certification officer's job is to ensure it.

Political funds are subject to a ten year 'license', the authorisation required to create a political fund given by gov't.

 

If their funds are boosted by the taxpayer freeing them from other financial commitments it leaves them money to donate back to their political wing

 

 

 Which is precisely what is prevented.

It is WHY the law was made so.

Only political donations, made voluntarily by Union members, can be used for political objectives - including Conference.

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 10:27:32 AM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

The legislation does NOT prevent political donations and you do not
understand the function of the office of certification officer

 

 I understand it better than you understand my comments - I have not said that TUs cannot make political donations.

In fact they cannot unless certified by government, and must obey a number of rules and satisfy several criteria before they can.

Once given certification the Union must set up a seperate account (political fund) and deposits to that account are restricted to voluntary donations (members). Any political lobbying, donations, activity, must be funded from this account.

The Certification Officer monitors such accounts to ensure the law is obeyed.

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:42:26 PM UTC, Jane wrote:

 

Oh do grow UP and stop this.  Is it any wonder that Frederick hasn't revisited this thread, or that there's not been a new poster within living memory?

 

Fred had two days to respond - I do not blame the diversion on his absence.

 

 

 

[jar]

Ew I am pleased to read agrees with previous posts of mine and TBs as in the real world what is said and what is done are usually two different things altogether.
Those that are actually in parliament would have a better idea of what is going on as opposed to those that are not and one would have to include interested parties who would obviously want to deny the facts.
For MPs to accuse Labour and the Unions of basically money laundering cannot be so easily denied or dismissed

[ewill]

It's revisited but once a decade

ie they can do what they like inbetween times

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:10:34 PM UTC, jar wrote:

 

For MPs to accuse Labour and the Unions of basically money laundering cannot be so easily denied or dismissed

 

 

 

MPs lie every day ......... nothing new in that.

I used to wonder why Michael Howard was never challenged over his "I cut crime by 18%" claim (oft repeated). 

I've heard him repeat it in Parliament, and in TV interviews, and not once was he taken to task for what was and is a blatent lie.

These people rarely expose such lies ........... a bit like footballers who dive or feign injury ......... they all do it to some extent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:17:26 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

It's revisited but once a decade

ie they can do what they like inbetween times

 

 

A completely false assertion!

The 'Certificate' has a ten year expiry date ....... the CO has powers to be thorough, and constant.

 

Certification Officer

Responsibilities of the Certification Officer

 

• Maintaining a list of trade unions and employers' associations.
• Receiving, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and keeping available for public inspection annual returns from trade unions and employers' associations.
• Determining complaints concerning trade union elections, certain other ballots and certain breaches of trade union rules.
• Ensuring observance of statutory requirements governing mergers between trade unions & between employers' associations.
• Overseeing the political funds and the finances of trade unions and employers associations.
• Certifying the independence of trade unions.

 

 

[ewill]

you really have no idea of the function of the office of certification
officer

On 2 Nov, 20:26, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:17:26 PM UTC, ewill wrote:
> > It's revisited but once a decade
>
> > ie they can do what they like inbetween times
>
> A completely false assertion!
> The 'Certificate' has a ten year expiry date ....... the CO has powers to
> be thorough, and constant.
>
> Certification Officer
> Responsibilities of the Certification Officer
>
> Maintaining a list of trade unions and employers' associations.

> Receiving, *ensuring *compliance with statutory requirements and keeping

> available for public inspection annual returns from trade unions and
> employers' associations.

> *Determining complaints* concerning trade union elections, certain other

> ballots and certain breaches of trade union rules.

> *Ensuring* observance of statutory requirements governing mergers between

> trade unions & between employers' associations.

> *Overseeing* the political funds and the finances of trade unions and

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:37:27 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

you really have no idea of the function of the office of certification
officer

 

 

You certainly do not ........... so read.

 

 http://www.certoffice.org/

 

 

 

[ewill]

No-you read and learn something

There is absolutely no requirement for trades unions to be listed with
the office of Certification officer and even of those listed there
have been a mere 10 applications for hearing over the past 15 years
over political funding issues - many of which were not adjudicated due
to claimed lack of jurisdiction and many were withdrawn during process

[Jonksy]

Of course you old tory types agree you ain't got anything else have you...Or are you going to tell us all what a fine job your infestation are doing....LOL

[jar]

Yes they do or massage the figures but don't assume that they lie when it suits you and tell the truth when it does not. It's an ask too far

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:49:36 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

No-you read and learn something

There is absolutely no requirement for trades unions to be listed with
the office of Certification officer

 

There is if that Union wishes to actively support a Political Party. More; the requires that if a union wishes to actively engage

in deterring voters from supporting a political (BNP eg) it must do so from a political fund.

 

A Political Fund is the requirement needed for any financed political interventions. In Law!

 

You began by saying there was no law - there is.

Then you said the law was unenforceable - it is, the Certification Office, Dept of Business Innovation & Skills.

Then you argue it isn't enforced - which begs the question, why have an officer, why have a law, if there is no active enforcement of it?

Of course there is little need to enforce the law, when the law itself is enough to deter laundering of the sort being claimed, yet you try to use this compliance as a reason for the law being pointless ........... and all because "it is claimed" to be happening.

Claimed by politically biased people with a motive to discredit political opponents. People who are careful not to be specific and name names, but only suggest it occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

<<You began by saying there was no law - there is. >>

Nope- never stated that -that's your invention

<<Then you said the law was unenforceable - it is, the Certification
Office,
Dept of Business Innovation & Skills. >>

Nope
Never mentioned enforceability-that's your invention

<<Then you argue it isn't enforced - which begs the question, why have
an
officer, why have a law, if there is no active enforcement of it? >>

Nope-you don't understand the Act or the role of the office

<<Of course there is little need to enforce the law, when the law
itself is
enough to deter laundering of the sort being claimed, yet you try to
use
this compliance as a reason for the law being pointless ...........
and all
because "it is claimed" to be happening. >>

Nope , never stated any of that --that's your invention







You're floundering and trying to imply I've said things I haven't

Give it up

[Affa]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 11:12:57 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

<<You began by saying there was no law - there is. >>

Nope- never stated that -that's your invention

 

 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w5ZCs/e64Ik2GKFeQJ

 

<<Then you said the law was unenforceable - it is, the Certification
Office,
Dept of Business Innovation & Skills. >>

Nope
Never mentioned enforceability-that's your invention

 

 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w5ZCs/88C7OMFE12gJ

<<Then you argue it isn't enforced - which begs the question, why have
an
officer, why have a law, if there is no active enforcement of it? >>

Nope-you don't understand the Act or the role of the office

 

 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w5ZCs/NUV98WbiF5QJ

 

 

<<Of course there is little need to enforce the law, when the law
itself is
enough to deter laundering of the sort being claimed, yet you try to
use
this compliance as a reason for the law being pointless ...........
and all
because "it is claimed" to be happening. >>

Nope , never stated any of that --that's your invention







You're floundering  and trying to imply I've said things I haven't

Give it up

 

Will do ......... you persist in denying the facts, which only serves to annoy and results in wasted effort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

<<> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w...>>

That simply states that the legislation doesn't work in the way you
claim it does

As I stated - your invention

<<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/
oweWs6w... >>

Kindly show the precise wording where I have mentioned the
enforceability of legislation

As I stated - your invention

<<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/
oweWs6w... >>

Quite clearly you don't even begin to comprehend the function of the
Office

<<you persist in denying the facts, which only serves to
annoy and results in wasted effort>>

You persist in accusing others of doing the very thing which
underlines a vast number of any posts you've made on this board.

On 3 Nov, 02:36, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 11:12:57 PM UTC, ewill wrote:
> > <<You began by saying there was no law - there is. >>
>
> > Nope- never stated that -that's your invention
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w...

>
>
>
> > <<Then you said the law was unenforceable - it is, the Certification
> > Office,
> > Dept of Business Innovation & Skills. >>
>
> > Nope
> > Never mentioned enforceability-that's your invention
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w...

>
>
>
> > <<Then you argue it isn't enforced - which begs the question, why have
> > an
> > officer, why have a law, if there is no active enforcement of it? >>
>
> > Nope-you don't understand the Act or the role of the office
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <<Of course there is little need to enforce the law, when the law
> > itself is
> > enough to deter laundering of the sort being claimed, yet you try to
> > use
> > this compliance as a reason for the law being pointless ...........
> > and all
> > because "it is claimed" to be happening. >>
>
> > Nope , never stated any of that --that's your invention
>
> > You're floundering  and trying to imply I've said things I haven't
>
> > Give it up
>
> Will do ......... you persist in denying the facts, which only serves to

> annoy and results in wasted effort.- Hide quoted text -

[Affa]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 9:00:11 AM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

<<> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w...>>

That simply states that the legislation doesn't work in the way you
claim it does

 

It exists to prevent TUs from doing what is alleged is being done!

By saying that this 'laundering' occurs you claim it is not functioning, that the reforms introduced by Mrs T are useless, and

the provisions laid down in the Act unenforced.

 

 

As I stated - your invention

 

The allegation is the only 'invention' being made , and that is given false credence by your determination to

understate the role of CO. 

I'd be ashamed to be involved in such dirty tricks politicking as this laundering accusation is.

 You obviously have no such integrity.

 

 

 

[ewill]

Kindly show exactly where I've used the word 'laundering' - It's a
complete fabrication on your behalf to state that I have

And as for any lack of integrity on this board - that's 100% firmly
in your corner - no-one else comes close

[Affa]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 11:38:21 AM UTC, ewill wrote:

 

Kindly show exactly where I've used the word 'laundering' - It's a
complete fabrication on your behalf to state that I have

 

 

 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w5ZCs/WD-xy5q1SNgJ

 

You posted several pages of text to support the allegation of money 'laundering' (a term expressed by those making the accusation of TU/Labour party misuse of public funds).

These are the allegations being refuted ......... You have come along way towards recognising that these allegations are baseless.

 

One final step, an admission that you were wrong to believe there was ever any truth in them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

twas I that gave info on Labour being involved in money laundering and that was a quote from MPs in the HOC. TB picked up that it saved the Unions from spending the money from their own funds

[Affa]

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 6:15:43 PM UTC, jar wrote:

 

twas I that gave info on Labour being involved in money laundering and that was a quote from MPs in the HOC. TB picked up that it saved the Unions from spending the money from their own funds

 

It was mud slinging, politicking. there's a lot of it about - it goes on!

I mentioned before that Francis Maud was careful enough to say "it does look like money laundering", careful not to say 'it is money laundering'.

Of cause some journalists, and minor MPs need not be so cautious ........ al la Frank Skinner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

I've never mentioned money laundering - despite your repeated attempts
to pretend I did

Stop telling whoppers

(you still don't understand the legislation anyway)

On 3 Nov, 13:28, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2012 11:38:21 AM UTC, ewill wrote:
> > Kindly show exactly where I've used the word 'laundering' - It's a
> > complete fabrication on your behalf to state that I have
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gpn-general-politics-and-news/oweWs6w...

[jar]

MPs as we know can say things under parliamentary privilege but I this case were not rebutted. Newspapers have no such protection so when is the case planned to go to court
As I say I understand your habit of going to extremes to defend those tha you support but surely you don't expect us to automatically accept it as fact
It's little different to the versions of a defence lawyer and aprosecuting one,
I believe that th truth comes out sooner than later and I suppose you do