So lucky to be living in Australia

[hedgehog]

Again on our evening news I realize how lucky I was to have the chance
to leave Britain. British soldiers returning from the funeral of a
fallen comrade were refused entry to a cafe all they wanted was a
quite cup of tea. WHY was they refused entry?. Because they wore the
Queens uniform, the same queen that this week shook the hand of a
killer that has the blood of countless British soldiers on them. and
what are they now claiming is going to be the biggest threat to the
Olympic games. British born Muslims terrorists. You have asylum
seekers that have the blood of British soldiers on their hand
receiving benefits and housing while those that have served are
treated like dirt.

Thank fuck I had the chance and took it to get out.

[jar]

Agree with the last sentence hedgehog

Dont you read the problems that Australia have . Do you support your present PM who did a Millieband on her PM? Dont you have your own problems with terrorists?

What Britains problem is down to is the social experiments which encouraged the usual suspects to join the socialist benifits culture which once again shows that the UK has to earn its living and not rely on the nanny state

[Jonksy]

Would that be the social experiment which your lot have increased by 21% jar?

[hedgehog]

If your going to try and pin the queen shacking hands with a killer on
Labour I'll hang around for a while. Watching a prick making a
bigger prick of himself is always good for a laugh.

OK go on off you go lets have it.

[hedgehog]

When your ready jar. please feel free to post. come along tell us all
why this is all Labours fault.

[Jane]

I'll tell you Hedgehog exactly why it's all New Labour's fault - because they are such lying shite that only the indoctrinated could bear to vote for them at the last GE.  Had they been honest and decent while actually in power and showed that they could do their best for ALL sectors of British society then they'd be in Gvt now - and they're not. And I'm certainly no Cameron supporter.

[jar]

Do try and concentrate and maybe you wont sound so stupid.

Personally I dont like the idea of her shaking hands with the terrorist but I read that had she not seen the benifits of doing so she wouldnt have done so. It appears it was thought worthwhile to put her seal of approval on the IRA for getting rid of the gun and going on the route of democracy. Now I have given a sensible and serious reply would you try nto do the same?

 

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:09:54 PM UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:

[Anthonychng]

I don`t know whose idea it was to subject the Queen to the disgusting
ritual of shaking hands with a died-in-the-wool IRA terrorist but
whoever it was should be ashamed of themselves. Just because Blair
sucked up to the IRA and gave them practically everything they
demanded is no reason to demean our Her Majesty. She must have
washed her hands a dozen times after that little ceremony, and as for
Philip, I can imagine what his private feelings were. Probably very
similar to mine.

> > > > > Thank fuck I had the chance and took it to get out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[hedgehog]

Well it's clearer then ever that the UK has surrendered to the
terrorists and some of you condone it. Good luck with the future, I
think your going to need it.

[jar]

She wore gloves Anthony !! and yes Phillip did avoid it but he can afford to as he holds no position and as such can please himself. IF those that did come up with the idea are right it just might help to save a few British lives. Those involved in terrorist acts now days cannot be doing it for an all Ireland now they have such a high representation in the NI Parliament so its probable they miss being important and having to work for a living. I almost bought a small guest house on a river which was going at a cheap price in Ireland only to be warned that I would be expected to contribute to the IRA . It was all about business but they sold the gullibles the nationalist idea to get their support.

[Affa]

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:38:58 PM UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:

 

Well it's clearer then ever that the UK has surrendered to the
terrorists and some of you condone it. Good luck with the future,  I
think your going to need it.

 

We're going to need some spunk, and it's a pity we lose some of those who have it.

 

 

[Anthonychng]

We do not in the least need your "good luck" wishes hedgehog......save
them for yourself.....you may, one day, need them down under.
Whatever problems we have here, they are OUR problems, the sort of
thing we have been solving for centuries......and we are still here.
We may have far, far too many recent incomers.........but we can spare
the odd outgoers without, in the lest, missing them. Think on!

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[jar]

are you on about those that desert a sinking ship Affa because thats what the description of the UK is. Reminds me of those that went to the US in 1939.

[Jonksy]

Or like those who fucked off to jersey.

[jar]

You mean the place which the Germans occupied or didnt you know that

[jar]

Dont recall keep on posting how good it is here.

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:57:24 PM UTC+1, Jonksy wrote:

[tinman]

If you don't think we need all the fucking luck we can find then your
a bigger cunt then any of us ever could of imagined.

Really Anthonychng this one fucking post shows you should retire now
before you look even more fucking stupid then we all new you were.

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 7:53 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you don't think we need all the fucking luck we can find then your
> a bigger cunt then any of us ever could of imagined.

Anthony is 100% on the ball, poor old hedgehog, an immigrant himself
in a multicultural society whos socialist government is importing more
third world immigrants for cheap labour than old world whites

[Jonksy]

More Locky tory indoctrinated bollocks and least Hedgehog did emigrate locky which is more than you did with your bullshit about moving to the USA..

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 9:05 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> More Locky tory indoctrinated bollocks and least Hedgehog did emigrate

So did Abdul Hookhand to the UK for a better life

[Jonksy]

Yes let in and given UK citenship by your lot even after warnings about the mossie arsehole from the UK. Still good to see you admit to your bullshit for once in your life. But of course living in the multicultural shithole of MK there isn't dry much difference to the USA.

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 9:23 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes let in and given UK citenship by your lot

Which party gave all commonwealth citizens the right of abode in the
UK.?

[Jonksy]

Oh look now locky is coming up with his lame excuse which has been debunked more times than the caMoron has lied..

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 9:59 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh look now locky is coming up with his lame excuse

Excuse you thick socialist plank, its historical FACT you silly
socialists gave 800 million third world people in 1948 the right of
abode in the UK

[Jonksy]

Like I said it has been debunked more times that you have had hot dinners locky...Only an idiot like you would try and pull that one again

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 10:07 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Like I said it has been debunked

ROTFLMHO, Labours 1948 Immigration act is enshrined in historical facts

[Jonksy]

But not interpreted as you do locky of the lie..

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 10:15 pm, Jonksy <jon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> But not interpreted as you do locky of the lie..

The act gave 800.000.000. third word people the right of abode, what
other interpretation are you on about you plank.?

[Affa]

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:26:13 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

The act gave 800.000.000. third word people the right of abode, what
other interpretation are you on about you plank.?

 

 Now tell us what settlement rights did they have prior to the Act?

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 10:36 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:

>  Now tell us what settlement rights did they have prior to the Act?

Why give them the right in law if they didn't have the right
previously which they didn't.?

[jar]

You sound just like Jonsky, tinman , no content , gutter language and losing it easily.

[Affa]

On Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:40:47 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

>  Now tell us what settlement rights did they have prior to the Act?

Why give them the right in law if they didn't have the right
previously which they didn't.?

 

 You didn't give the correct answer ......... " if you could prove you were born within the British empire you could claim full nationality rights in Britain."

Prompted by Canada making a unilateral decision to declare it's own 'citizenship', and other Commonwealth countries following that lead.

Prior to the act any Commonwealth citizen was a British Citizen. The Act gave them nothing that they did not already have, and in fact introduced limitations were none previously existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Jun 30, 10:57 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:40:47 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:
>
> > >  Now tell us what settlement rights did they have prior to the Act?
>
> > Why give them the right in law if they didn't have the right
> > previously which they didn't.?
>
>  You didn't give the correct answer ........

Yes I did Affa

[Jonksy]

The only one losing it is you jar...Your usual bullshite is now nearly as old as you..

[jar]

usual crap

[Jonksy]

Usual evasion tactic..

[Briar]

Please be less rude Tinman. And dont forget your silent Ks - fellow
Xenophobes will start suspecting you of being another "E My Grunt"
otherwise!

This was not up to your usual standard, and seven minutes to eight is
a bit early to be so drunk. You are not American so using ' of '
instead of ' have ' is terrible.

Go stand in the corner with your Dunce's hat on !

On Jun 30, 7:53 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:

[Anthonychng]

You mention imagination tinman, well, that, plus a flapping mouth full
of filth when you have no proper answer are your stock in trade. As
for retiring.........did that some 12 years ago after more years work
than you will ever do. And who are these ALL when you you state that
I am even "more ****** stupid than we ALL new (note your spelling of
knew) you were?" Also note I put a row of stars in place of your
actual gutter level word because although it is quite tempting to use
graphic Anglo Saxon verbeage in reply I am too much of a gentleman .
And, if you rely on luck being sent from Australia by someone almost
as daft as you then you are indeed in a bad way. Which, of course,
according to you, you are.

On Jun 30, 7:53 pm, tinman <tinman080...@aol.com> wrote:

[Anthonychng]

Do you know Jar, those were my first thoughts on reading his latest
putrid and totally pointless bit of nonsense addressed to me. No
brain, no answer....resort to filth. Just about sums up the
shortsighted and rather thick Labourite doesn`t it?

[Jonksy]

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[Jonksy]

Here it is again a typical doris lack of imagination...Tinman is not as daft as me so he must be a labourite, Have you dried up old tories got any imagination at all...No of course you haven't that's why you vote doggedly for the tories well it didn't cut much mustard with the caMoron did it he sold you out to the left...ROFLMAO

[Tiger]

I hardly think that you are in a position to be picking up on other
posters spelling mistakes/typo's!

As for your last comment absolutely dispicable, not surprising though
to those of us who are not fooled by the 'elderly gentleman' ACT

[jar]

oh dear some really does fall on stony ground you dont seem to have understood a owrd that Ant said do you Jonsky. If you did surely you could have come up with something better than that load of rubbish.

[jar]

Lol Anthony be careful he might like your turn of phrase and repeat it back to you . They have used my words several times plus a few of their chosen adjectives of course not forgetting the room full of laughs etc telling us how clever they think their posts are. Makes you wonder what their IQ level could be.

[Jane]

Intelligence doesn't feature in these threads where you boys indulge in hissy fits and start spitting at each other, and there's no sign of any maturity beyond the infant school playground either.  You're all behaving like pitas and want your heads knocking together imho.

[MIDGE]

I feel qwite sorry for you HH    I get the feeling the Ausies do not like you very much. 

 

When in Rome etc.   I know that whichever country I am in  I have NO interest in UK. 

 

yet here you are HH.   Your perogative of course...As was your emigrating to bleedin Australia of all places,

 

Why don't you fight/argue/debate on the misfortune of the Aborigines (original Australians)?

[Jonksy]

Now prove it is rubbish Jar...You tories are all the bloody same if others are not suckered by your tory bull they are instantly branded  either labourites, lefties or socialists. And yes very much on this board falls on stony ground and you are one of the prime examples. And as for socialists you don't know the meaning of the word, but then your usual twaddle proves you know very little pm most subjects anyway..

[jar]

Yet the few that do not happen to support the left manage to keep a civil tongue in their heads . Tell me Jane do you think some others that I dont have to name would be pulled up for extreme gutter language by hosts on the AOL boards.

[Affa]

On Monday, July 2, 2012 7:18:19 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 Tell me Jane do you think some others that I dont have to name would be pulled up for extreme gutter language by hosts on the AOL boards.

 

 

In one sense name calling is more honest than when someone politely rejects another's comments by reference to, or criticism of, the person with no response to what the argument being made is.

Answering a post with "more lefty clap trap" and nothing else is worse than calling someone an indoctrinated fool attached to reasonable explanation for sayiing it evidenced with on the record facts.

 

I ignore insults when they are made with no supporting evidence ....... or, as does happen, fabricated evidence.

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

Hey Hedgehog

Hope your enjoying Labour, the way they going your going to be an
ethnic minority very soon.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CG0QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.protectionist.net%2F2011%2F12%2F03%2Fhas-the-immigration-minister-lost-the-plot%2F&ei=DhHyT9PBL4ni8QOEz_n2DA&usg=AFQjCNGqYk05epUmatGZRKiD7K_S-_d3UA&sig2=wCHbCLLqk_uTSpDtKy7rJw

[jar]

thats stretching credibility to extreme lengths . There is no need for name calling unless its in response which is a position that Ant,EWill and I find ourselves in as for some of the worse swearwords well I dont think it necvessary. They think they have found the ultimate in the Old man turn of phrase which I have said and believe tells us more about them than it does those that its directed to. In EMs Ant and I have had a good laugh at their efforts. Are you seriously suggesting nthat these posters do not indulge in exactly the same name calling as more lefty crap with their daily description about Cameron and the Tories . If not scroll back and see for yourself  and you might revise that statement. Same goes for indoctrinated etc which I really do have to laugh about when accused of such by the likes of Jonsky and tinman who seem to spend their days on finding something whereby they can come up with an insulting Tory headling. In fact I have already remaarked on it.

I am glad you ignore insults Affa but I like others who are not supporters of other partys what ever they call themselves have grown quite used to it and treat it with the contempt it deserves , I recall EMing EWill when she was subject to the usual barrage of insults for correcting some of the wilder allegations and I understand she feels the same.

 

In all seriousness I feel your criticism should be directed at the obvious culprits but we cant be seen to be doing this can we.

[ewill]

He's just as bad as the rest of them Jar , doesn't usually swear as
often as most of the rest but instead dresses up the insults aimed at
non lefties so as to try to appear less crude whilst posting
slingshots at anyone who fails to agree with his insular personal
snapshot of events .

There's no point ''re-debating'' what is standard indocrinated fare
for lefties if it's been done to death many times. If it's from a
discredited source , unevidenced or plainly erroneous any viewpoint
expressed therein has no value so it can be dismissed in a couple of
words. An example there was a posting about an alleged removal of a
tax credit from a friend of a friend in particular circumstances some
time ago , fair enough. The only problem was that such action was not
evidenced in any way whatsoever on the HMRC website which deals
specifically with that benefit. In fact the contrary was shown there.
Despite many requests for evidence to support the alleged situation
none whatsoever was forthcoming - only insults from the usual
quarters and a lefty rush with inviations to dance round the topic
with ''what ifs''. Hypothesising about imaginery what ifs is a
pointless waste of time and effort . The content of the original
posting and author can safely be dismissed as discredited ,a
deliberate falsehood and of no relevance whatsoever , there is no need
to engage with such silly lefty claptrap posted solely to fire arrows
at a coalition government which is not to their taste .There's also
links posted from time to time to Indy articles written by the
professionally discredited, now ex journo, lefty Hari as alleged
evidence of ''facts''. All such articles can be dismissed because of
the source - no ''debate'' needed. Find a reputable source for the
same views instead if one exists.

[jar]

Yes I am afraid you are right EW Affa considers anyone that doesnt support his view of politics as an enemy of the state and liars and all sorts of things. Why should anyone have to lie its self defeating as we have so often seen. What should be investigated are those that promise that their is no need for this period of austerity when we can 'borrow to invest' etc. This is quite clearly a deliberate policy to persuade people that they dont really have to face up to our financial problems. We know through numerous surveys that people will vote on their personal circumstance and be happy to overlook the consequences of what the future will bring us so its quite a clever but an obvious way to fool the public to get into power.

[Affa]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 4:22:01 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

Yes I am afraid you are right EW Affa considers anyone that doesnt support his view of politics as an enemy of the state and liars and all sorts of things. Why should anyone have to lie its self defeating as we have so often seen. --- What should be investigated are those that promise that their is no need for this period of austerity when we can 'borrow to invest' etc.

 

 

 I separate these two sentences to highlight the contradiction.

The second misrepresents the alternative when it says 'there is no need for this period of austerity'.

Nobody is saying that there is no need to cut spending and a degree of austerity.

I'll settle for "all sorts of things" in this instance ........ but accuracy is not one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

Please Affa the firtst highlight is what the left think of those that dont agree with socialism absolutely and entirely a different subject.

 

M.Hollande gives an entirely different impression by lowering the retirement age and going the same route as your golden age which we now need to pay the consequences of but try as you can you cannot link the two.

[Affa]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 6:51:29 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

.........the same route as your golden age which we now need to pay the consequences of ..........

 

 Well it could be argued that the period of sustained growth and prosperity has indeed led to the present situation ....... but it wasn't government spending that made it so!

In the decade leading up to the crisis government spending as a proportion of GDP was lower than in the ten years prior to 1997.

It is a fact that much of this growth and prosperity arose from the liberalisation of the Financial Sector during, and prior to, the fall.

Those 'flags' you frequently refer to were blown by this same freedom of action in the banking sector that has produced this lasting downturn. I ask you to dwell on that.

 

The bottom line is that it was what the bankers got up to that first gave us a false sense of wealth, and very real austerity.

I heard a lady analyst in discussion remark that "anyone who imagines that all corporate enterprise do not behave in the same way these bankers have needs to wake up" ........ I accept that suggestion, and will try to make anyone prepared to listen aware of it - are you listening?

The 'Occupy' camps have the right of it -  wealth has been grabbed by the few, and they cling on to it at everyone else's expense. Were it not so there would be no need for this austerity, no crisis except internally at the banks, and no debts we cannot afford.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

Im not surprised that you stick to that version Affa but most realise that its false . There have been many posts including my own that dispute your theory as is the general opinion which day by day Labour are having to admit to. Recall Browns affair with Prudence which was of course ciontinuing with Clarkes policies . He then started spraying money all over the place as he thought that this is the way to increase high st spending. This 'golden age ' policy is why we are having to pay off the debts that this policy gave us. Please dont try and mislead we know what the debts were in '97 and what they were in '10 and that doesnt include all the off book debts. Its what your pal Jonsky would call wriggling

[Trueblue]

On Jul 3, 9:07 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:

> In the decade leading up to the crisis government spending as a proportion
> of GDP was lower than in the ten years prior to 1997.

Odd official statistics show quite the opposite.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifs.org.uk%2Fbns%2Fbn92.pdf&ei=rmTzT5tSpcbRBbn08K8J&usg=AFQjCNF-vQ6Z_akucfOwBjwIuIF8cpEYlg&sig2=TiiQZ_d5KfLnwbGyhWLY6Q

[Affa]

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:34:18 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

> In the decade leading up to the crisis government spending as a proportion
> of GDP was lower than in the ten years prior to 1997.


Odd official statistics show quite the opposite.

 Read again what I said.

btw ........ is the Institute for Fiscal Studies an Official Government recorder?

Here is the opening Statement ........

Summary  

• Total public spending is forecast to be 48.1% of national income in 2010−11, up by 8.2% of 

national income from the 39.9% Labour inherited from the Conservatives. This would be the 

highest level of public spending as a share of national income since 1982−83.

It quotes the level of spending in 2010 - 11 predicted at 48.1% of GDP ........ THAT WAS A COALITION YEAR.

From this same site, if you look at the last full year of Labour 2008 - 09 the figure is 45%

But I said pre-crisis decade ....... which was kept below 40% .

I also said lower than for the last decade of the Tory government (not 1997) which is quoted above ......

That's from 1987 - 1997 .......... and your link confirms that too.

So thanks TB for proving me right ....... and for being the idiot you are.

[Trueblue]

On Jul 4, 12:10 am, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 10:34:18 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:
>
> > > In the decade leading up to the crisis government spending as a
> > proportion
> > > of GDP was lower than in the ten years prior to 1997.
>
> > Odd official statistics show quite the opposite.
>
>  Read again what I said.

You need read again, this from the link.

Most industrial countries have increased public spending as a share of
national income since
1997. But between 1997 and 2007 – prior to the financial crisis – the
UK had the 2nd largest
increase in spending as a share of national income out of 28
industrial countries for which we
have comparable data.

[Affa]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:15:21 AM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

> > > In the decade leading up to the crisis government spending as a
> > proportion
> > > of GDP was lower than in the ten years prior to 1997.
>
> > Odd official statistics show quite the opposite.
>
>  Read again what I said.


You need read again, this from the link.

Most industrial countries have increased public spending as a share of
national income since
1997. But between 1997 and 2007 – prior to the financial crisis – the
UK had the 2nd largest
increase in spending as a share of national income out of 28
industrial countries for which we
have comparable data.

That would be after eighteen years of Tory neglect and necessary to repair the decay of that period of austerity.

 

[Trueblue]

On Jul 4, 12:30 am, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:

> That would be after eighteen years of Tory neglect and necessary to repair

> the decay of that period of austerity.-

Do you need reminding of the state of the economy in 1979 .?

[jar]

Oh dear Affa that was pretty abject would that be the period when we tranformed the country from the sick man of Europe to the 4th best economy?

[Affa]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 10:43:17 AM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

Oh dear Affa that was pretty abject would that be the period when we tranformed the country from the sick man of Europe to the 4th best economy?

 

 

 You know that is a lie ......... but let it rest.

  The point being made is that Labour spending was necessary because of decades of neglect and low spending on the NHS, schools, police undermanned........ do you argue there was no neglect?

 

I advise that the 4th best economy in world that you claim it was ought not to criticised for failures in care and long waiting lists for hospital treatment, for poor school standards (students sharing one pc in technology classes), and police undermaning, low morale, rising crime ...... a wealthy country should lead not lag the rest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

Dont judge me by others standards Affa I do not lie, there is absolutely no need to.but whilst we are on figures did you not mention that food prices had increased by 20% since the coalition came to power. Official figures that were mentioned on TV news only today state4.6% which would need a 14.4% hike from when Cameron walked into no.10.

It appears Labours spending was less than the previous gvt until Brown fell out with Prudence and then sprayed billions on a surprised NHS with little or no necessary planning. As usual we didnt get value for our Buck.

So your excuses are a way of explaining the mess Labour made of the UK . They wont do and why you continue to expect people to believe such lame reasons plus calling people a liar if their opinion differs from your does you no credit at all.

[ewill]

<<for poor school standards (students sharing one pc in technology
classes)>>

One of the top state schools in the country (usually in top 5) near
here has hardly any computers in the premises for pupil use

[Jane]

' (students sharing one pc in technology classes),

 

I'm astonished by this comment Affa and would appreciate seeing some authentic back-up showing how many pupils share one computer - is it 2 pupils working collaboratively very occasionally or, say, all pupils in that teaching group sharing the one computer in each and every IT lesson? thanks. 

 

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:54:16 PM UTC+1, Affa wrote:

[Jane]

Hmmmm, the secondary school attended by one of my granddaughters has 2 technology suites containing a total of 70 computers + 2 in each classroom and even the primary school has upwards of 20 - are you quite sure that the school you mention has 'hardly any'?

[ewill]

Friends who have visited there have stated they were very suprised at
the ''lack'' of computer facilities

On Jul 4, 4:46 pm, Jane <RCFa...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hmmmm, the secondary school attended by one of my granddaughters has 2
> technology suites containing a total of 70 computers + 2 in each

> classroom and even the primary school has upwards of 20 - are you *quite*sure that the school you mention has 'hardly any'?

[Affa]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 4:15:57 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

 

 calling people a liar if their opinion differs from your does you no credit at all.

 

 

 Claiming that the country was the 4th richest in 1997, when it wasn't does no-one any credit! 

 

 

 

[jar]

I merely repeat from what I have often read and seen Affa. Unless you find that too a lie. Do you maintain that we were not called the sickman of Europe then . I would remind you that when G. Osbourne went to his first G20 we were back down in the bootom of the wealth table. Calling someone a liar is an easy get out. Fortunately other people who have read these facts will make their own mind up

[Affa]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 6:43:27 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

I merely repeat from what I have often read and seen Affa.

 

 

 And you are forgiven for believing those lies ....... the truth can be easily ascertained if you choose to do so.

Neither was the UK bottom of the wealth table when GO met the G20 (when was that?).

 

I know you will read statements like these in the Tory press, but you ought to know enough by now to realise that it is worthwhile checking them out before basing your opinion or political hat on them.

 

 

[jar]

Affa you seem to take what you read hear etc as gospel and whilst I dont go that far I have read and heard these statement too often and from so many different sources its hard not to believe them. Its no good going into the locky the liar mode because I am firmly of the opinion that your political stance that anything that goes against the grain has to be ignored or the messenger called a liar and thanks I dont need the forgivness from someone who does the same thing that he accuses another of doing. Are you really suggesting that debates on BBC are Tory biased but Im also a late night listener etc etc so your charge of only listening to Tory press is rejected as weak and inaccurate argument.

Sorry George Osbornes first meeting with the G20 saw him representing a country that had the greatest debt that would be 2010.

[Affa]

 

 The measure of greatest wealth (nations) normally associated with the UK attaining the ranking of fourth

is the Total GDP.

On this table the UK was in fifth place behind France in 1997. The UK is once again behind France.

 

The measure itself does not accurately represent real wealth or the living standards of those

populations. Population size and wealth distribution are not reflected. China is now number two but its people still poor, whilst Qatar is number one on the list of GDP per capita - where the majority live in relative poverty to you or I.

 

 

.

 

 

 

[jar]

Rubbishing the point is no defence Affa and my recall tells me that France overtook the UK after '97. I didnt dream up the 4th figure.

[Affa]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 4:42:26 PM UTC+1, Jane wrote:

' (students sharing one pc in technology classes),

 

I'm astonished by this comment Affa and would appreciate seeing some authentic back-up showing how many pupils share one computer - is it 2 pupils working collaboratively very occasionally or, say, all pupils in that teaching group sharing the one computer in each and every IT lesson? thanks. 

 

 

 I think you misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the low level of investment in technology in schools prior to 1997 and the Blair government.

 

 http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=107184

 

first published 1996.

 

 

[Affa]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 9:21:30 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

Rubbishing the point is no defence Affa and my recall tells me that France overtook the UK after '97. I didnt dream up the 4th figure.

 

 France did recently, and I know you didn't dream it up ....... someone else did.

 

 

[jar]

There were an awful lot of them Affa

[Trueblue]

On Jul 6, 4:40 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:

>  I think you misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the low level of
> investment in technology in schools prior to 1997 and the Blair government.

Realy, can you explain why the Bliar cut spending even further in
1998/9 then.?