RIGHT to SILENCE
abelard
right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
europe upholds the right of the individual against the
state once more....
britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
the sleaze machine must go...
h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
european state as the only manner of protecting
our civil rights....
only labour is offering citizens rights....
only labour will give us anything approaching a
free choice in negotiating with europe...
for civil rights must take precedence over all other
issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...
get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
your freedom depends upon it.
it is not the economy....
regards.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian White
abelard (abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
:>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
:>
:>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
:> state once more....
:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
:>only labour is offering citizens rights....
They seem to be offering everything to everyone. Do you really expect them
to deliver it?
:>only labour will give us anything approaching a
:> free choice in negotiating with europe...
Such as?.....
:>get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
:> your freedom depends upon it.
Hear, hear. I'm fed up with the European courts.
:>it is not the economy....
It is for me.
:> abelard
--
Julian White. u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
A...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk
abelard wrote:
> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
> european state as the only manner of protecting
> our civil rights....
> free choice in negotiating with europe...
> issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...
> your freedom depends upon it.
No doubt John Major's Swagger of Abused Spivs he calls a cabinet, would
be the first to praise the benefits of a democratic society and the
importance of a fair judicial system. Unfortunately, Tories believe they
are above the law and above the rules.
They can't play any game fairly. They have to twist, they have to cheat,
they have to lie, they have to deceive, they have to tamper, they have to
pretend, they have to mislead.....and when they're found out, they always
claim the judgement was wrong.
It's the New English Bible Of The Supreme Conservative Administration.
They have to go - Britain is crying out for truth. OK Labour or Lib Dem
MAY give us bigger bills. It's a small price to pay for people who won't
be quite as crooked.
Andy J.
Andy Groves
In article <596gp6$6...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:
> abelard (abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> :>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> :> state once more....
> :>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
> Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
>
Julian, when you find yourself in a hole......
Julian White
Andy Groves (gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu) wrote:
:>> :>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
:>> :> state once more....
:>> :>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
:>>
:>> Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
:>>
:>
:>Julian, when you find yourself in a hole......
I make a tunnel.
M.S. Robb
In article <596gp6$6...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>,
Julian White <u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk> wrote:
>:>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>:> state once more....
>:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
It's not 'them'. We signed the damn thing. We've failed to uphold the
Convention. It's 'us'.
>:>get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
>:> your freedom depends upon it.
>
>Hear, hear. I'm fed up with the European courts.
It'd be British Courts doing the same thing if we had any such safeguards
here. It's nothing to do with 'Europe'.
--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS
http://emedia.commerceasia.com/greeting http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
What is the sound of one hand clapping? "Mu"
David Stockley
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
>Robert Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>>> state once more....
>>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>>
>>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>>counted?
>
>I welcome the decision.
I welcome the restatement of principle.
>I still think he was extraordinarily fortunate to be >cured of Alzheimers.
If I were him I'd sue my doctor in negligence for
failing to diagnose me properly. Furthermore a direct
consequence of any such misdiagnosis would be that
people would think less of me and view me unfairly with
the contempt that a manipulating and meretricious person
would deserve. Obviously Ernest has been put through
enough and does not deserve such spite raining down on
him.
Regards
David
David Stockley
>
>Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing Howard on this one.
It's one of those odd cases where you hope that
something unpleasant happens to both parties (like
one coming down with an incurable degenerative
disorder) so that you needn't support either. Other
examples include: Lewis v Howard; Mellor v
Goldsmith; Archer v Hereditary Peers....
A specialist called in by the 5pm news on R4 pointed
out that Saunders would probably have been convicted
anyway and that the procedure used by the DTI in the
Guinness case is no longer used in the SFO's
investigations. In the meantime I am happy to say
(as was the News reader) that Ernest Saunders is a
convicted criminal who was shown to have abused his
position as a senior executive.
>:>only labour is offering citizens rights....
>
>They seem to be offering everything to everyone. Do you really expect them
>to deliver it?
Well it'd be a nice change to have someone different
not give us something they promised.
>:>it is not the economy....
>
>It is for me.
As it also is for Michael Hesseltine. He was in his
element last night; shouting about the economy,
shouting about the economy, denying all knowledge of
the seedy machinations of the whips' office,
declining to condemn alleged abusers, shouting about
the economy.
It all struck me as rather hollow. They haven't
taken responsibility for economic decline in the
past so I don't see why they should now take the
responsibility for recovery. By prattling on about
how Labour and the Lib Dems were threatening the
economy by stopping ministers leaving the UK when a
"Big Vote" might arise, he inadvertantly
demonstrated his contempt for justice and liberal
democracy. For Hesseltine, the possibility that oily
ministers might be able to go abroad and secure
contracts with oily dictators seemed to justify the
abuse of Parliament and fraud on the electorate.
To warm to abelard's them; the time has come, their
contempt and cynicism run too deep, they must go.
Regards and best wishes
David
Andrew Finlay
In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>, abelard
<abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> writes
<Snip...Oft repeated demented drivel... binned>
>it is not the economy....
I bet you wish it was?
--
Andrew Finlay
Robert Macmillan
> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)
>
> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>
> state once more....
If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
counted?
Robert Macmillan ------------------------------------
"About as solid as a blancmange"
Ken Livingstone on Labour's policy programme.
abelard
On 17 Dec 1996 16:12:22 GMT, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk (Julian White)
typed:
>:>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>:>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>:>
>:>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>:> state once more....
>:>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>Have we? Oh sod them. I'm backing H***** on this one.
hi jewels...(obscenity removed)
one is interested to ascertain the why...
>:>only labour is offering citizens rights....
>
>They seem to be offering everything to everyone. Do you really expect them
>to deliver it?
on this...i am becoming quite confident....
>:>only labour will give us anything approaching a
>:> free choice in negotiating with europe...
>
>Such as?.....
putting us in a position where we may oppose european
statism, without voting for an attack on civil rights.
>:>get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
>:> your freedom depends upon it.
>
>Hear, hear. I'm fed up with the European courts.
unthought out, methinks...
>:>it is not the economy....
>
>It is for me.
not if you are a christian surely...
M.S. Robb
>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>> state once more....
>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>counted?
I welcome the decision.
I still think he was extraordinarily fortunate to be cured of Alzheimers.
--
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>counted?
My position remains that there should be a right to silence when
someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
contempt.
--
*** Zakalwe ***
David Toube
rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Robert Macmillan") wrote:
:> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)
:>
:> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
:> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
:>
:> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
:> state once more....
:> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
:
:If this is Ernest Saunders, I wonder how many of the usual right to
:silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
:counted?
:
I will. It is up to the prosecution, who brings the case, to
prove the case. It is not the function of the defendant to help
them to do so. Whether or not Mr Saunders is a slippery
character, or even a wealthy man, does not alter this basic
premise of procedural fairness. Neither does it - in general
terms - reverse the general imbalance of resources between the
crown and the defendant.
----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
M.S. Robb
In article <598vif$5...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
David Stockley <mllx...@fs1.ec.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>If I were him I'd sue my doctor in negligence for
>failing to diagnose me properly. Furthermore a direct
>consequence of any such misdiagnosis would be that
>people would think less of me and view me unfairly with
>the contempt that a manipulating and meretricious person
>would deserve. Obviously Ernest has been put through
>enough and does not deserve such spite raining down on
>him.
Oh, manifestly.
--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS
http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk
abelard
On 17 Dec 1996 19:36:18 GMT, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk (Julian White)
typed:
>:>Julian, when you find yourself in a hole......
>
>I make a tunnel.
coo eeeeee jewels....i can still see you!
spin
In article <32B73F...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk>, A...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk
says...
>
>
>No doubt John Major's Swagger of Abused Spivs he calls a cabinet, would
>be the first to praise the benefits of a democratic society and the
>importance of a fair judicial system. Unfortunately, Tories believe they
>are above the law and above the rules.
It's worse than that. They *make* the rules and laws, and when they
don't suit they change them. Currently they have almost limitless
freedom to create whatever rules they fancy.
When was the last time the Gov't consulted you on a new law?
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Man's mind and spirit grow with the space in which they are
allowed to operate - Krafft A Ehricke
* Where there is no vision, the people perish - Proverbs 29:18
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.S. Robb
In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>,
abelard <abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>
>europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
>britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
Note last sunday's Observer's report on Straw's incorporation of ECHR,
allowing individuals to take govt and all govbt agencies to
court...Hopefully Straw will detail this this week.
--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS
http://emedia.commerceasia.com/greeting http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk
Nick Landau
Zzzzzz
Stephen Horgan
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:47:05 -0800, A...@voxpops.bytenet.co.uk wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
>> state once more....
>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>> the sleaze machine must go... h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
>> european state as the only manner of protecting
>> our civil rights....
>> only labour is offering citizens rights....
>> only labour will give us anything approaching a
>> free choice in negotiating with europe...
>> for civil rights must take precedence over all other
>> issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...
>> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
>> your freedom depends upon it.
>
>No doubt John Major's Swagger of Abused Spivs he calls a cabinet, would
>be the first to praise the benefits of a democratic society and the
>importance of a fair judicial system. Unfortunately, Tories believe they
>are above the law and above the rules.
Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>They can't play any game fairly. They have to twist, they have to cheat,
>they have to lie, they have to deceive, they have to tamper, they have to
>pretend, they have to mislead.....and when they're found out, they always
>claim the judgement was wrong.
Politics is not a game.
As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
fund takes some beating.
>It's the New English Bible Of The Supreme Conservative Administration.
>They have to go - Britain is crying out for truth. OK Labour or Lib Dem
>MAY give us bigger bills. It's a small price to pay for people who won't
>be quite as crooked.
>
Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
M.S. Robb
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961219121306.3490A-100000@lupin>,
Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>
>Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
>voted against Nolan's recommendations.
Details, details.
>I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
>anti-sleaze measures they opposed.
Well it would be hard to do it for measures they have proposed.
>> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>> fund takes some beating.
>
>And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
>commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
>arrangements.
Not even close. The poll is spin, almost meaningless drivel. The second
undermines due process in the Commons. Constitutinally, the pairing is
far more significant.
>And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
>"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
>intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
>eventually begin to believe it?
One guess. The smearing works. After all, most people think that members
of all parties took bribes for questions.
--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation. UK POLITICS LINKS
http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html http://www.isonomia.demon.co.uk
spin
In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>, abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>
Anyone know which articles of the convention of human rights were
found to have been breached?
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
<zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>>counted?
>
>someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
>there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
>in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
>parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
>defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
>contempt.
Disagree. As David Toube said so authoritatively and eloquently, it is
the prosecution's job to prove guilt, not the accused's.
And let's have none of the bullshit about how the innocent have nothing
to hide. That's usually, though not always true. But the more pertinent
point is that a court room and you in the dock is a very nerve-wracking
situation, even for the innocent.
I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
cases and both times, as just a damned witness. I was not only a nervous
wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it. As a writer I know all too
well how dificult it is to communicate information accurately and
correctly extemporaneously, ie in a first draft (which is why at least
one famous author has said the art of writing is simple - rewrite,
rewrite, rewrite"). In additon a trained lawyer is a terror to debate
with. He's trained to turn your words to his advantage and against you.
Most of us are not so trained.
The right of silence is a civil liberty and civil right which MUST NOT
be abandoned.
tbt
--
| Bruce Tober - octob...@reporters.net - Birmingham, England |
| pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume:http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
| For CV/Resume and Clips: http://nwsmait.intermarket.com/nmfwc/tbt.htm |
| "Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation|
| for the future." --- Benjamin Disraeli |
M.S. Robb
In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
Having been caught accepting bribes. Oh very good. Then voted against the
same report. Oh very good. Just like they set up Scott, and then shot the
report down.
Such honourable men.
>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>fund takes some beating.
Grow up child. The Poll fix is a miserable attempt at media manipulation,
but that sort of behaviour is a) not confined to Labour, b) not
significant compared with the Scott report. And the Labour Office fund is
'Commissioner approved'.
Mr A J Smith
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Stephen Horgan wrote:
> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
voted against Nolan's recommendations.
I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
anti-sleaze measures they opposed.
> Politics is not a game.
>
> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
> fund takes some beating.
And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
arrangements.
And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
eventually begin to believe it?
And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
interests is secret?
> Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
> NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.
Kind of lucky Labour will deliver the exact opposite.
AJSmith
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, Robert Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.compulink.c
o.uk> writes
>> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)
>>
>> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
>> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
>>
>> state once more....
>> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
>
>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>counted?
I will, for one.
Peter Card
ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) writes:
>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>fund takes some beating.
Easily topped by the Tory's successful attempt to fix the contest last
year. They didn't get caught either...
If you genuinely believe that getting out the vote for a radio
personality poll has some deep political significance, you are a very
sad bunny indeed. Party funding is important, I agree. Now, where
exactly _do_ the Tories get there cash from again? They seem strangely
reticent on the matter.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
email Peter...@jet.uk || 10001...@compuserve.com
Eat British Beef !! - One Million Cows Can't Be Wibble Moo Ssnnort!
===============================================================================
The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
Andrew K. Groves
In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk
(Stephen Horgan) wrote:
> their leader's secret slush
> fund takes some beating.
It wasn't secret. It was declared in the list of MPs interests. Only the
identity of the donors was secret.
Do you think it is better that the donors are secret, or are known to the
recipients of the fund?
(he asked, for the umpteenth time....)
--
Andy Groves
Division of Biology, 216-76
California Institute of Technology
abelard
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:01:29 +0000, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk>
typed:
>In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>, abelard
><abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> <Snip...Oft repeated demented drivel... binned>
not demented mr. tory psychiatrist...
and it will be repeated until the right to silence
is restored.
and not drivel to any informed educated adult.
>>it is not the economy....
>
>I bet you wish it was?
i wish........it wasn't such a mess...
borrowings equivalent to 16p on basic tax rate in this
year alone....~£16 per week per household extra
interest payments since johnny went on his borrowing
binge...you will pay it for many many years...and have
to pay it back....mr. pocket book tory....
abelard
On Wed, 18 Dec 96 22:05:37 GMT, zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk
(Cheradenine Zakalwe)
typed:
>My position remains that there should be a right to silence when
>someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
>there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
>in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
>parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
>defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
>contempt.
very strong dissent.
you are innocent until proven guilty...
you do not have to 'prove' your 'innocence'...
you *cannot* prove a negative....it is not logically possible.
your manner can cause prejudice in others....
you know well my radical views...if i am forced
to reveal those views in court in this country...i
will inevitably be found 'guilty' by prejudice....and
i will be forced to reveal those views under your
proposals.
'justice' is a weak enough plant...you would
have it weakened further...your proposals
lead directly to 'witchcraft mentality'...and
to arbitrary power.
whether you speak or no...is a fundamental right
of civilised society.
your proposals are a dictator's charter.
your proposals are an encouragement to mob rule
and superstition.
the removal of the absolute right to silence
is probably the worst legal change/error this century.
where the state insists on removal of a right to silence...
which 'should' probably be never...it must give immunity as
reciprocity.
essential reading/viewing...
a man for all seasons(1966)...itv...10:10 to 12:30...1/1/97
another version(1988)...bbc2...07:20 to 09:45...27/12/96
script(oscar win) by robert bolt.
it puts the case rather well....
Mr A J Smith
On 19 Dec 1996, M.S. Robb wrote:
> Mr A J Smith <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
> >"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
> >intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
> >eventually begin to believe it?
>
> One guess. The smearing works. After all, most people think that members
> of all parties took bribes for questions.
I would hope, that on this newsgroup at least, the smearing doesn't work.
AJSmith
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
> I was not only a nervous
>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
things that are inconsistent.
OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
--
*** Zakalwe ***
Stephen Horgan
On 19 Dec 1996 15:15:32 -0000, p...@jet.uk (Peter Card) wrote:
>ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) writes:
>>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>>fund takes some beating.
>
>Easily topped by the Tory's successful attempt to fix the contest last
>year. They didn't get caught either...
>
Except the Conservatives didn't. What's your source?
>If you genuinely believe that getting out the vote for a radio
>personality poll has some deep political significance, you are a very
>sad bunny indeed. Party funding is important, I agree. Now, where
>exactly _do_ the Tories get there cash from again? They seem strangely
>reticent on the matter.
>--
As does Blair over his own private slush fund.
Stephen Horgan
On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>>created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>
>Having been caught accepting bribes. Oh very good. Then voted against the
>same report. Oh very good. Just like they set up Scott, and then shot the
>report down.
>
The government accepted most of Nolan. As for the Scott report, it was
ambiguous to say the least and certainly did not deliver on the Labour
party's accusations.
>Such honourable men.
>
We are lucky to have them.
>>As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>>radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>>fund takes some beating.
>
>Grow up child.
Sad...
>The Poll fix is a miserable attempt at media manipulation,
So, you problem with it is that is failed not that is was amoral.
>but that sort of behaviour is a) not confined to Labour
Even if true, that would not make it right for Labour to behave in
this way, but of course it's not true.
> b) not significant compared with the Scott report.
So the Scott report makes it alright for 'new' Labour to do anything
they want?
>And the Labour Office fund is
>'Commissioner approved'.
>
But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
Stephen Horgan
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:19:46 +0000, Mr A J Smith
<ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Stephen Horgan wrote:
>
>> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>
>Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
>voted against Nolan's recommendations.
>
Most of them have been implemented.
>I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
>anti-sleaze measures they opposed.
>
Because they didn't.
>> Politics is not a game.
>>
>> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
>> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
>> fund takes some beating.
>
>And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
>commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
>arrangements.
>
Except the Tories didn't cheat. How dod Labour win their subsequent
vote if they didn't break pairing arrangements?
>And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
>"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
>intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
>eventually begin to believe it?
>
I think banging on about the need to identify political donations
while at the same time accepting huge anonymous donations just about
covers it.
>And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
>interests is secret?
>
The donors were, which does not gel with Labour attacks on the
Conservatives for the same practice.
>> Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
>> NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.
>
>Kind of lucky Labour will deliver the exact opposite.
>
Weren't you the guy who claimed that it was impossible for opposition
parties to come up with properly costed policies? By your own
arguments you can't have a clue what Labour would do.
Gulliver
In article <32b6a9e9...@news.demon.co.uk>,
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) wrote:
> right to silence upheld by european court by 14 to 1
> the right to silence is part of the right to free speech...
Good. echr I take it.
> europe upholds the right of the individual against the
> state once more....
> britain once again found guilty of breaching human rights....
echr, which is not really a part of the EU (just being my usual Eurosceptic
self.)
> the sleaze machine must go...
Indupitably.
> h***** and his protective johnny are forcing us into a
> european state as the only manner of protecting
> our civil rights....
> only labour is offering citizens rights....
The EU has little to do with the echr, aiui.
> only labour will give us anything approaching a
> free choice in negotiating with europe...
> for civil rights must take precedence over all other
> issues...the sleaze machine is driving towards dictatorship...
>
> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
> your freedom depends upon it.
>
> it is not the economy....
Julian still seems to think it is.
--
Angus Gulliver
an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk
Also at a.w.r.g...@herts.ac.uk
Question every piece of information that enters your mind...
...and it might grow bigger.
Andrew K. Groves
In article <32c3c8e8...@news.demon.co.uk>,
ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen Horgan) wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:19:46 +0000, Mr A J Smith
> <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
> >interests is secret?
> >
> The donors were, which does not gel with Labour attacks on the
> Conservatives for the same practice.
>
As far as I know, Labour reveal all donations made over 5000 quid to the
Labour Party. The Tories don't.
I would really like you to comment on the following:
1. Do you think it is better for donors to the Labour leader's fund to be
kept secret from the leader, or known to him?
2. Do you think Opposition parties should have funds to run their offices,
and if so, what should they do given that the amount of money made
available to them is falling in real terms?
3. What is your comment on the fact that John Major refused a request by
the leaders of all seven Opposition parties to refer the issue of
political funding to Nolan?
Andrew Finlay
In article <grovesa-1912...@mac1554.bio.caltech.edu>, "Andrew
K. Groves" <gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <32c42c15...@news.demon.co.uk>, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk
>(Stephen Horgan) wrote:
>
>> their leader's secret slush
>> fund takes some beating.
>
>identity of the donors was secret.
>
>Do you think it is better that the donors are secret, or are known to the
>recipients of the fund?
>
>(he asked, for the umpteenth time....)
"Tony, we have just received a loverly cheque for a million smackers.
It's from..."
"No! Wait!" "Let me cover my ears first before you tell the other
chaps".
All silly childish bollocks, jumping through invisible hoops which
demonstrates an obvious attempt at secrecy.
--
Andrew Finlay
Andrew Finlay
In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> writes
>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <E2Lu...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>> rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>>>silence advocates will welcome this decision. Who'll stand up and be
>>>counted?
>>
>>someone is being questioned by the police or DTI inspectors. However
>>there should be no reight of silence when someone is being questioned
>>in a properly constituted court or law (or similar tribunal -- eg a
>>parlaimetary select committee). If someone (even if they are a
>>defendant) refuses to testify in court, they should be charged with
>>contempt.
>
>the prosecution's job to prove guilt, not the accused's.
>
>And let's have none of the bullshit about how the innocent have nothing
>to hide. That's usually, though not always true. But the more pertinent
>point is that a court room and you in the dock is a very nerve-wracking
>situation, even for the innocent.
>
>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>well how dificult it is to communicate information accurately and
>correctly extemporaneously, ie in a first draft (which is why at least
>one famous author has said the art of writing is simple - rewrite,
>rewrite, rewrite"). In additon a trained lawyer is a terror to debate
>with. He's trained to turn your words to his advantage and against you.
>Most of us are not so trained.
>
>The right of silence is a civil liberty and civil right which MUST NOT
>be abandoned.
Sound good I'm sure. But you still haven't convinced anyone that the
court should not be informed of the exercise of the right to silence.
--
Andrew Finlay
T Bruce Tober
>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>
I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
different personalities, eh?
>
>> I was not only a nervous
>>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
>
>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>things that are inconsistent.
Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>
>OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>
Hogwash.
Nick Landau
In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>,
T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
I have been on a jury and it is the intention of the legal process to
convey the seriousness of the effect of the evidence that you give. When
you go into court you may be questioned in fine detail about the evidence
that you supply. The barrister for the opposing side has the job of tearing
your evidence into shreds. He or she wants to place the evidence of the
witness in the worst possible light.
I think that the only people who are subjected to anything like this kind
of grilling in the media are politicians.
Of course, the justification for the treatment of the witness in this way
is that the accused's liberty is at stake. The seriousness of the process
is intended.
>>
>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>
>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>different personalities, eh?
>
>>
>>> I was not only a nervous
>>>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>>>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>>>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
>>
>>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>things that are inconsistent.
Well, if ever, I am in the dock and you are called as a witness, I will
know to object. Thanks for warning me.
It is the jury's job to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused not
the witness.
I believe that perjury is regarded as a very serious crime under the law
and rightly so. By what right do you do what is the prerogative of the
jury.
>
>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>
>>
>>OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
>>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>>
Do you maintain such high standards of probity in all areas of your life.
What about the result of your evidence for the poor accused. Strikes me as
a good example of saying what suits you on any particular occasion. Does
not the word "truth" occur in your vocabulary? Clearly not.
>Hogwash.
>
>tbt
>--
Nick
Robert Macmillan
> From: zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Cheradenine Zakalwe)
>
> I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
Ooh, tell us more!
Robert Macmillan ------------------------------------
"About as solid as a blancmange"
Ken Livingstone on Labour's policy programme.
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, Nick Landau <ni...@n-landau.demon.co.uk>
writes
>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>,
>T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>
>I have been on a jury and it is the intention of the legal process to
>convey the seriousness of the effect of the evidence that you give. When
>you go into court you may be questioned in fine detail about the evidence
>that you supply. The barrister for the opposing side has the job of tearing
>your evidence into shreds. He or she wants to place the evidence of the
>witness in the worst possible light.
Yep exactly my point.
>I think that the only people who are subjected to anything like this kind
>of grilling in the media are politicians.
???
>Of course, the justification for the treatment of the witness in this way
>is that the accused's liberty is at stake. The seriousness of the process
>is intended.
As well it should be.
>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>things that are inconsistent.
>
>Well, if ever, I am in the dock and you are called as a witness, I will
>know to object. Thanks for warning me.
Yep.
Snip of comments from you with which I agree totally. Well said Nick.
Andrew K. Groves
In article <eCHKaUAe...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I see you haven't answered my question.
NF Stevens
>On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
[snip]
>>And the Labour Office fund is
>>'Commissioner approved'.
>>
>But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
his parliamentary team?
Norman.
--
"At least [the homeless] are mobile rubbish" - Andrew Finlay
Andrew Finlay
In article <grovesa-2212...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
<gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <32bdc8d5...@news.u-net.com>, nor...@arcady.u-net.com (NF
>Stevens) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:20:49 GMT, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen
>> Horgan) wrote:
>>
>> >On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>And the Labour Office fund is
>> >>'Commissioner approved'.
>> >>
>> >But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
>>
>> So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
>> his parliamentary team?
>>
>
The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
suppers etc.
--
Andrew Finlay
Andy Groves
Andy Groves
In article <vCVG6MAS...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <grovesa-2212...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
> <gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
> The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
> suppers etc.
ROTFL!!!!!!
The Conservative party managed to turn a deficit of over twenty million
into a surplus of (I believe) over 30. That's one heck of a lot of garden
parties.......
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <E2tH9...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Robert Macmillan" writes:
>> From: zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Cheradenine Zakalwe)
>> I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>
>Ooh, tell us more!
Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. They were both motoring offences. The
first time I was done for failing to stop at an accident, the second
time for speeding. I pleaded guilty on both occasions.
--
*** Zakalwe ***
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>
>
>different personalities, eh?
I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.
>>> I was not only a nervous
>>>wreck because I knew what I remembered of the incident I had to testify
>>>about, but I was so afraid of the consequences of what I had to say and
>>>that I wouldn't say it the way I meant it.
>>
>>Surely it is simple. If you want the accused to get off, bias your
>>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>things that are inconsistent.
>
>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
When doing anything in life, I find it useful to ask myself two questions:
(1) what am I trying to achieve here? (2) what's the best way to achieve
it?
>>OTOH, if you don't care what happens to the accused, just say what comes
>>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>
>Hogwash.
No, just logic. If you don't care what happens, then by definition you
don't care what happens. If you are a witness in court you can say what
you like as long as you don't insult the judge (that's contempt) or
get caught lying (that's perjury). Obviously if the accused is a mate of
yours then are going to want to help him/her.
--
*** Zakalwe ***
Andrew Finlay
In article <grovesa-2312...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
<gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <vCVG6MAS...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
><And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <grovesa-2212...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
>> <gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
>> >In article <32bdc8d5...@news.u-net.com>, nor...@arcady.u-net.com (NF
>> >Stevens) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:20:49 GMT, ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk (Stephen
>> >> Horgan) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 19 Dec 1996 11:57:01 GMT, ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >>And the Labour Office fund is
>> >> >>'Commissioner approved'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
>> >>
>> >> So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
>> >> his parliamentary team?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Don't ask either Horgan or Finlay; you will not get an answer........
>>
>> The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
>> suppers etc.
>
>
>ROTFL!!!!!!
>
>
>The Conservative party managed to turn a deficit of over twenty million
>into a surplus of (I believe) over 30. That's one heck of a lot of garden
>parties.......
Yup, constituencies have worked very hard. They have to, as their MPs
don't have the guaranteed hand outs from the trades union.
--
Andrew Finlay
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <AEE2AE9B...@n-landau.demon.co.uk>
ni...@n-landau.demon.co.uk "Nick Landau" writes:
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>evidence one way. If you want the accused to go down, bias your evidence
>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>things that are inconsistent.
>
>know to object. Thanks for warning me.
You're welcome.
>It is the jury's job to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused not
>the witness.
I am a sentient being therefore I is my job to decide whatever I want
to decide. Whether others agree with me is up to them.
>I believe that perjury is regarded as a very serious crime under the law
>and rightly so.
I haven't advocated lying. Merely changing the emphasis...
--
*** Zakalwe ***
T Bruce Tober
> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>>
>>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>>
>>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>>different personalities, eh?
>
>I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
Easier said than done when involved in a serious court case and facing a
well trained and experienced lawyer out to save his client's hide.
>Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
>matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.
Again, easier said than done, unless you're a well-trained
debater/public speaker used to thinking on your feet.
>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>things that are inconsistent.
>>
>>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>
>When doing anything in life, I find it useful to ask myself two questions:
>(1) what am I trying to achieve here? (2) what's the best way to achieve
>it?
Sorry, but perjury is not my styule. I'm not and never have been a good
and convincing liar.
>>>into your head, because it doesn't matter to you what happens.
>>
>>Hogwash.
>
>No, just logic. If you don't care what happens, then by definition you
>don't care what happens. If you are a witness in court you can say what
>you like as long as you don't insult the judge (that's contempt) or
>get caught lying (that's perjury). Obviously if the accused is a mate of
>yours then are going to want to help him/her.
Sorry, but as above.
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <5qJfFICH...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>>>
>>>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>>>
>>>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>>>different personalities, eh?
>>
>>I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
>
>Easier said than done when involved in a serious court case and facing a
>well trained and experienced lawyer out to save his client's hide.
What were the court cases about, incidently?
>>Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
>>matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.
>
>Again, easier said than done, unless you're a well-trained
>debater/public speaker used to thinking on your feet.
That does help.
>>>>the other way. Rehearse the evidence in your head, and write it down so
>>>>you appear more decisive in what you say and are less likely to say
>>>>things that are inconsistent.
>>>
>>>Fine for some, but others prefer to be honest.
>>
>>When doing anything in life, I find it useful to ask myself two questions:
>>(1) what am I trying to achieve here? (2) what's the best way to achieve
>>it?
>
>Sorry, but perjury is not my styule. I'm not and never have been a good
>and convincing liar.
Why not? You're a journalist. (Sorry, thast was a cheap one but I just
couldn't resist it).
--
*** Zakalwe ***
Andy Groves
In article <axK7GLAs...@afin.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Finlay
<And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
*yawn*
Please detail these handouts.......
zzzzzzzz........
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
<zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <5qJfFICH...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <rWhbK2Aga$uyE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>In a rather exuberant mood, Cheradenine Zakalwe
>>>><zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>In article <OS+S7lAe...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
>>>>> octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
>>>>>>I've been on tv and radio a few times in my career and was never
>>>>>>terribly nervous. On the other hand, I've been a witness in two court
>>>>>>cases and both times, as just a damned witness.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been the accused in two court cases and I wasn't that bothered.
>>>>
>>>>I take it then that you're right and I'm wrong? No accounting for
>>>>different personalities, eh?
>>>
>>>I think people should be laid back about things like court cases.
>>
>>Easier said than done when involved in a serious court case and facing a
>>well trained and experienced lawyer out to save his client's hide.
>
>What were the court cases about, incidently?
One was back in the late '60s when I was a witness in a case against
another journalist who had upset the cops during a civil rights demo
which I was also covering. I tried to keep to non-controversial matters
and fortunately got off without a hell of a lot of x-exam. the other was
something to do with the insurance payouts from the accident which
killed my first wife. I was suing the insurance comapny.
>
>>>Obviously if you are being done for something serious it is a serious
>>>matter. But if you keep calm your cognitive skills should be better.
>>
>>Again, easier said than done, unless you're a well-trained
>>debater/public speaker used to thinking on your feet.
>
>That does help.
Of course it does, but unfortunately most of us aren't.
>>
>>Sorry, but perjury is not my styule. I'm not and never have been a good
>>and convincing liar.
>
>Why not? You're a journalist. (Sorry, thast was a cheap one but I just
>couldn't resist it).
It's winter solstace, all is forgiven, you sonofabitch.
Andy Groves
In article <AEE839299...@ttym0f.powernet.co.uk>,
simon....@hack.powernet.co.uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
> Political party funding by business:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Below is a model motion for any party wishing to provide
> transparency at the point of purchase for voters and
> consumers who wish to know whether the company from
> which they are about to buy also funds any political
> party. This motion quite specifically restricts itself
> to parties with MPs in the House of Commons. If a
> company makes no party political donations, then there
> would be no need, under this proposal, for any extra
> labelling.
<snip>
Sounds good to me. Not sure if point (3) is entirely feasible, but
certainly worth considering. I wonder what Lord Nolan's thinking is?
Andrew Finlay
In article <grovesa-2612...@131.215.15.185>, Andy Groves
<gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu> writes
I'd be more interested in Simon Gardner's thinking behind point (3)?
--
Andrew Finlay
Simon Gray
In article <grovesa-2612...@131.215.15.185>
gro...@starbase1.caltech.edu "Andy Groves" writes:
~ <snip>
~
~ Sounds good to me.
The principle, m3e2, but...
~ Not sure if point (3) is entirely feasible, but
~ certainly worth considering.
...I thought that looks utterly ludicrous !
--
Ban Everything or Ban Nothing !
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ ISO 1386-C compliant .sig
All words written in the above posting are my opinions
M.S. Robb
In article <32c4ca27...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As does Blair over his own private slush fund.
Except that it's not his, it's the party's, and it covers his office
expenses in a wholly above-board manner. And approved by the
Parliamentary Commissiner Downey.
If this is all you've got against New labour, you ought to vote for them.
--
There is no excuse,there is no accusation.
http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/geoff.riley/
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
M.S. Robb
In article <eCHKaUAe...@afin.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Finlay <And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Do you think it is better that the donors are secret, or are known to the
>>recipients of the fund?
>>
>>(he asked, for the umpteenth time....)
>
>"Tony, we have just received a loverly cheque for a million smackers.
>It's from..."
>"No! Wait!" "Let me cover my ears first before you tell the other
>chaps".
>
>All silly childish bollocks, jumping through invisible hoops which
>demonstrates an obvious attempt at secrecy.
Ie you have no evidence whatsoever, and this is a childish smear.
M.S. Robb
In article <vCVG6MAS...@afin.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Finlay <And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
>>> his parliamentary team?
>
>The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
>suppers etc.
So the Tory party gets no donations? Perhaps then you can explain why
they still have Asil Nadir's stolen money.
Andrew Finlay
In article <5a8hl5$l...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, "M.S. Robb"
<ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>In article <vCVG6MAS...@afin.demon.co.uk>,
>Andrew Finlay <And...@afin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> So how is the leader of the opposition supposed to fund
>>>> his parliamentary team?
>>
>>The same way as the other parties of course. Fetes, garden parties,
>>suppers etc.
>
>So the Tory party gets no donations? Perhaps then you can explain why
>they still have Asil Nadir's stolen money.
How can it be Asil Nadir's money?
--
Andrew Finlay
M.S. Robb
In article <32c2c8b2...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
>>>created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
>>
>>Having been caught accepting bribes. Oh very good. Then voted against the
>>same report. Oh very good. Just like they set up Scott, and then shot the
>>report down.
>>
>The government accepted most of Nolan.
Except for the really important bits. Marvellous.
> As for the Scott report, it was
>ambiguous to say the least and certainly did not deliver on the Labour
>party's accusations.
The Scott report is wholly unambiguous to anyone that read it. In
context, the report is totally clear.
>>The Poll fix is a miserable attempt at media manipulation,
>
>So, you problem with it is that is failed not that is was amoral.
I have no problem in condemning it as immoral/amoral.
>> b) not significant compared with the Scott report.
>
>So the Scott report makes it alright for 'new' Labour to do anything
>they want?
No, only that your attempts to make this into a big issue are ludicrous
when we have a govt that has undermined the democratic process.
>>And the Labour Office fund is
>>'Commissioner approved'.
>>
>But now referred to the parliamentary committee.
But with not the slightest evidence that there is anything even faintly
dodgy about it, despite a sustained smear campaign to the contrary. Weird
huh?
M.S. Robb
In article <32c3c8e8...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Stephen Horgan <ste...@horgan.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
>>voted against Nolan's recommendations.
>>
>Most of them have been implemented.
Thanks to the opposition mainly.
>>I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
>>anti-sleaze measures they opposed.
>>
>Because they didn't.
Sorry? Was there an alternative reality in which Tories voted for Nolan?
>>And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
>>commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
>>arrangements.
>>
>Except the Tories didn't cheat.
Yes they did. Even Norman Tebbit said they did.
>I think banging on about the need to identify political donations
>while at the same time accepting huge anonymous donations just about
>covers it.
Your misuse of the word anonymous is the only basis for this argument.
Anonymous in the Tory sense means the Tories know, And nbody else does.
In the Labour sense, it means nobody does.
So, if in future you distinguish between these two types of anonymity,
you'll soon see why the rest of the world has left this issue as being a
red herring.
>>And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
>>interests is secret?
>>
>The donors were, which does not gel with Labour attacks on the
>Conservatives for the same practice.
Grow up. Labour objects on the grounds that the Tories know who their
donors are, and that it leads to favours. Labour doesn't know who it's
donors are, and so is not open to that charge.
As you already know this, I assume you are deliberately smearing Blair
for either your own twisted reasons or because you've got one of those
'factsheets' from CCO.
Either way it does you no credit. You can stop now.
NF Stevens
Over three years ago the tory party was asked to repay half
a million pounds of illegal donations received from companies
controlled by Asil Nadir. The money was paid through various
off-shore banks. As I understand it the liquidators of those
companies have requested repayment so that they can repay
creditors of those companies.
Norman
Mr A J Smith
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Stephen Horgan wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 12:19:46 +0000, Mr A J Smith
> <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Stephen Horgan wrote:
> >
> >> Which is, of course, why the Conservatives appointed Lord Nolan and
> >> created the new framework for parliamentary conduct (?).
> >
> >Er...the vast majority of Conservative MPs, honest John Major included,
> >voted against Nolan's recommendations.
> >
> Most of them have been implemented.
Yes, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs, John
Major included.
> >I can't believe you're actually trying to give the Tories credit for
> >anti-sleaze measures they opposed.
> >
> Because they didn't.
Don't lie to us.
They did. They voted against the Nolan recommendations. Go look it up if
you like.
> >> Politics is not a game.
> >>
> >> As for lying and cheating, I think 'New' Labour's efforts to fix the
> >> radio 4 personality of the year poll and their leader's secret slush
> >> fund takes some beating.
> >
> >And the Tories have beaten them within a matter of days, by cheating in a
> >commons vote and then falsely accusing Labour MPs of breaking pairing
> >arrangements.
> >
> Except the Tories didn't cheat.
Oh yes they did. They double paired. That's cheating.
> How dod Labour win their subsequent
> vote if they didn't break pairing arrangements?
If Channel Four news is to be believed, it was because half the Cabinet
were away at a party that night.
> >And BTW do you actually have some kind of evidence that there was any
> >"lying and cheating" regarding the "leader's secret slush fund" or are you
> >intent on repeating the same lie continually in the hope that people will
> >eventually begin to believe it?
> >
> I think banging on about the need to identify political donations
> while at the same time accepting huge anonymous donations just about
> covers it.
If Labour had condemned a blind trust to a politician's office which had
been approved by Downey then Labour would be guilty of hypocrisy. But they
didn't.
As for "lying and cheating" there is no suggestion that Labour did this.
Come to think of it, your posts on this subject started by accusing Labour
of double standards by copying Tory practice which they condemned. Are you
now saying that the Tory practice was "lying and cheating"? When did that
rather than hypocrisy become the accusation?
> >And can you explain how a fund that appears in the register of members
> >interests is secret?
> >
> The donors were, which does not gel with Labour attacks on the
> Conservatives for the same practice.
Labour haven't condemned the Conservatives for the same practice. Labour
condemned the Tories for an utterly different practice, and you know it.
> >> Increased unemployment, lower educational standards, and a sabotaged
> >> NHS are not a 'price worth paying' for a Labour government.
> >
> >Kind of lucky Labour will deliver the exact opposite.
> >
> Weren't you the guy who claimed that it was impossible for opposition
> parties to come up with properly costed policies?
No, I was the guy that pointed out that you were asking for impossible
details of the kind no party has ever been able to provide. In fact the
kind of details that even the treasury has found it impossible to get
right, even at budget time.
> By your own
> arguments you can't have a clue what Labour would do.
More clue than we have about what the Tories will do.
AJSmith
Julian White
Gulliver (an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
:>> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
:>> your freedom depends upon it.
:>>
:>> it is not the economy....
:>
:>Julian still seems to think it is.
The economy matters. It matters to people. People vote for what affects
them. People will vote depending on the strength of the economy. Major will
win because the economy is strong.
:>Angus Gulliver
--
Julian White. u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
Nick Merritt
In article <5ap129$l...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:
> The economy matters. It matters to people. People vote for what affects
> them. People will vote depending on the strength of the economy. Major will
> win because the economy is strong.
Of course, he may lose because people are not prepared to give Major
credit for the economy (because of the ERM debacle). That's why all bets
have to be off on this one.
Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
Nick
Julian White
Nick Merritt (nmer...@futurenet.co.uk) wrote:
:>In article <5ap129$l...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
:>(Julian White) wrote:
:>
:>> The economy matters. It matters to people. People vote for what affects
:>> them. People will vote depending on the strength of the economy. Major will
:>> win because the economy is strong.
:>
:>Of course, he may lose because people are not prepared to give Major
:>credit for the economy (because of the ERM debacle). That's why all bets
:>have to be off on this one.
People look at how well-off they are when they vote. If they're better off,
most people won't be in the slightest bit interested in what happened with
the ERM.
:>Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
Sorry, Major isn't going to lose the election.
:>Nick
abelard
On 5 Jan 1997 19:56:57 GMT, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk (Julian White)
typed:
>Gulliver (an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
>
>:>> get rid of these unpatriotic criminals....
>:>> your freedom depends upon it.
>:>>
>:>> it is not the economy....
>:>
>:>Julian still seems to think it is.
>
>The economy matters. It matters to people. People vote for what affects
>them. People will vote depending on the strength of the economy. Major will
>win because the economy is strong.
why do you keep posting something you is not so?
major has borrowed the equivalent of 16p on the
standard rate of income tax in this year alone...
it will have to be paid back out of taxes...and
meanwhile interest will have to be paid upon
it...again out of taxes....
major is destroying government finances....
to the long term detriment of all....
still good to see you back...
regards.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger
In article <5ardqh$5...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk "Julian White" writes:
> :>Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
>
> Sorry, Major isn't going to lose the election.
We'll want more than an apology from you if he doesn't.
--
"Damned creatures you are thoroughly evil despite my daily teaching and advice."
| Only the saintly can become good without instruction;
Roger | Only the worthy can become good after instruction;
| Only idiots will not become good even with instruction.
Nick Merritt
In article <5ardqh$5...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:
> People look at how well-off they are when they vote. If they're better off,
> most people won't be in the slightest bit interested in what happened with
> the ERM.
That's untrue Julian for one good reason. The Govt. are asking people to
believe that it was Govt. policy that has made them richer so they can be
rewarded with another term in office.
However, people may not be inclined to give the Govt. credit, feeling that
it was their own individual effort and hard work that has made them
richer. (Very Thatcherite BTW, especially in its acknowledgement that
Govts. are after all useless). So for once they'll vote on other issues.
Certainly, it's going to be hard to fear Labour when the Govt. has been so
transparently, blunderingly incompetent for 5 years.
>
> :>Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
>
> Sorry, Major isn't going to lose the election.
Put your money where your mouth is. Bet you a tenner Major is no longer PM
by the middle of May (springtime always was my favourite time of year).
Nick
Julian White
Roger (Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:>In article <5ardqh$5...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
:> u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk "Julian White" writes:
:>
:>> :>Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
:>>
:>> Sorry, Major isn't going to lose the election.
:>We'll want more than an apology from you if he doesn't.
OK, I'd admit that Major is a bad PM. As long as everyone promises to say
he's brilliant when he wins this election.
I can't wait until the day after the election. I shall be merrily posting
away, thrilled with excitement to see what Cabinet position Ann Widdecombe
has got.
:>Roger | Only the worthy can become good after instruction;
Julian White
Nick Merritt (nmer...@futurenet.co.uk) wrote:
:>In article <5ardqh$5...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
:>(Julian White) wrote:
:>
:>> People look at how well-off they are when they vote. If they're better off,
:>> most people won't be in the slightest bit interested in what happened with
:>> the ERM.
:>
:>That's untrue Julian for one good reason. The Govt. are asking people to
:>believe that it was Govt. policy that has made them richer so they can be
:>rewarded with another term in office.
The population will assume if they are badly off it is the Gvt's fault, and
if they are well-off it is through their hard work, thanks to Gvt policy. If
people get better off, they will become happier about the Gvt, IMO they will
be disinterested about why the economy has become better off. Which is
incidentally through Major's policies.
:>However, people may not be inclined to give the Govt. credit, feeling that
:>it was their own individual effort and hard work that has made them
:>richer.
I should have read down further. Yes, that is usual for people to consider
it their hard work. But they are still pleased with the Gvt. Look at 1987.
:>(Very Thatcherite BTW, especially in its acknowledgement that
:>Govts. are after all useless). So for once they'll vote on other issues.
No they won't. They never do. Unless there is a major problem in their area
with health, crime, education, etc, they will likely just vote on which
party they think will make them better off after 1997. If they think they're
well-off personally in 1997, why should they risk a Gvt which will make them
worse-off?
:>Certainly, it's going to be hard to fear Labour when the Govt. has been so
:>transparently, blunderingly incompetent for 5 years.
I don't have that perception of this Gvt any more than the 1976-1979 or
1979-1983 administrations.
:>> :>Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
:>>
:>> Sorry, Major isn't going to lose the election.
:>
:>Put your money where your mouth is. Bet you a tenner Major is no longer PM
:>by the middle of May (springtime always was my favourite time of year).
I've been asked this before. I have written to Brian Mawhinney asking if I
can lay some of the bets off onto him. I haven't got a reply yet.
:>Nick
Julian White
abelard (abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:>>:>Julian still seems to think it is.
:>>
:>>The economy matters. It matters to people. People vote for what affects
:>>them. People will vote depending on the strength of the economy. Major will
:>>win because the economy is strong.
:>
:>why do you keep posting something you is not so?
Major said it again this morning. The economy will win him the election. The
economy is indeed of crucial importance.
:>major has borrowed the equivalent of 16p on the
:> standard rate of income tax in this year alone...
Not really relevant. Major has had to fund huge amounts of spending over the
recession, especially in the social security budget. This borrowing now is
the result of that committment in the past. But Major and his crew have
knocked off 50 billion pounds of spending over three years off the expected
spending, he can't do much more to spend less.
:>it will have to be paid back out of taxes...and
:> meanwhile interest will have to be paid upon
:> it...again out of taxes....
The money borrowed is usually from the British tax-payer anyway.
:>major is destroying government finances....
:> to the long term detriment of all....
All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt. It isn't
desirable, but there are no alternatives. Major has slashed spending to try
and get the figure down, there is little else he can do.
:> abelard
John Kovacs
Julian White wrote:
> I can't wait until the day after the election. I shall be merrily posting
> away, thrilled with excitement to see what Cabinet position Ann Widdecombe
> has got.
The sad thing is that it might still happen. There I was on election day
1992, in front of the TV with some mates and some celebratory beers,
when the mood of the gathering slowly became more and more sombre.
This time, though, even if Labour do get in, I'm not sure how long any
initial feeling of elation might last.
--
John
Nick Merritt
In article <5at635$f...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:
[snip]
> Not really relevant. Major has had to fund huge amounts of spending over the
> recession, especially in the social security budget.
Govt. policy led to the recession Julian. The responsibilty is Major's for
getting us into such a mess in the first place.
[snip]
> All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt.
But none so fast or by so much... ever in peacetime.
> It isn't
> desirable, but there are no alternatives. Major has slashed spending to try
> and get the figure down, there is little else he can do.
He could admit his policies got us into this mess and resign in disgrace.
That's what he could do.
Nick
Julian White
T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
:>>I can't wait until the day after the election. I shall be merrily posting
:>>away, thrilled with excitement to see what Cabinet position Ann Widdecombe
:>>has got.
:>
:>Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
:>of AW.
No, a map of Sheringham, an 1880 map of the British Empire and a modern day
equivalent. Rather boring I'm afraid. Like me.
:>tbt
Sam J. Turner
Julian White (u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk) wrote:
: :>Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
: :>of AW.
: No, a map of Sheringham, an 1880 map of the British Empire and a modern day
: equivalent. Rather boring I'm afraid. Like me.
You mean you don't have a clock with
a Bjork face and a second hand made
out of a semi-naked dancer?
What kind of stoodent are you?
Sam.
David Toube
s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk (Sam J. Turner) wrote:
:
Don't you have that picture of the dead soldier and the caption
'Why?'?
What about the back view of that woman scratching her bum with a
tennis ball, or its contemporary equivalent, the bra advert with
the caption 'Hello Boys' featuring that Bosnia-Herzegovina woman.
What about a poster advertising a rave with a fractal background.
Surely you must have one of these?
----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, Julian White <u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk>
writes
>Roger (Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:>In article <5ardqh$5...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
>:> u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk "Julian White" writes:
>:>
>away, thrilled with excitement to see what Cabinet position Ann Widdecombe
>has got.
Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
of AW. Do you actually manage to wank successfully looking at that ugly
puss of hers? You really do have a warped sense of values and beauty,
don't you? Or don't you know how to wank yet?
tbt
--
| Bruce Tober - octob...@reporters.net - Birmingham, England |
| pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume:http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
| For CV/Resume and Clips: http://nwsmait.intermarket.com/nmfwc/tbt.htm |
| "Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation|
| for the future." --- Benjamin Disraeli |
Cheradenine Zakalwe
In article <5at635$f...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>
Major can keep saying it 'til he is blue in the face. He'll still lose.
>The economy will win him the election. The
>economy is indeed of crucial importance.
The feel-grood factor has been rising in the opinion polls for over a
year now. It has had no effect on Tory popularity. This is because
the voters think either (a) increased prosperity is not because of the
govmt's policies, or (b) they don't care, they just want the back of this
govmt.
>All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt.
Didn't Thatcher decrease it, as a proportion of GDP?
--
*** Zakalwe ***
Nick Merritt
In article <5atsvs$k...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:
[snip]
> The population will assume if they are badly off it is the Gvt's fault, and
> if they are well-off it is through their hard work, thanks to Gvt policy.
What Govt. ploicy? The policy was to keep the pound in the ERM and squeeze
everyone... until that policy failed ('if it isn't hurting, it isn't
working'... 'A price worth paying'). People are right to feel that it is
their efforts that have gotten them through the recession... *in spite* of
the Govt., not *because* of it. I see precious little evidence that anyone
is thanking the Govt for an economic recovery that was forced on it.
> If
> people get better off, they will become happier about the Gvt, IMO they will
> be disinterested about why the economy has become better off.
If this theory is true, you would expect to see some evidence of it in the
opinion polls and in attitudes to the Govt. The evidence actually supports
my line of argument more than yours.
> Which is
> incidentally through Major's policies.
>
> :>However, people may not be inclined to give the Govt. credit, feeling that
> :>it was their own individual effort and hard work that has made them
> :>richer.
>
> I should have read down further. Yes, that is usual for people to consider
> it their hard work. But they are still pleased with the Gvt. Look at 1987.
But the Govt's policy prior to 1987 was to have a floating exchange rate.
The Govt's policy now was forced on them.
>
> :>(Very Thatcherite BTW, especially in its acknowledgement that
> :>Govts. are after all useless). So for once they'll vote on other issues.
>
> No they won't. They never do. Unless there is a major problem in their area
> with health, crime, education, etc, they will likely just vote on which
> party they think will make them better off after 1997. If they think they're
> well-off personally in 1997, why should they risk a Gvt which will make them
> worse-off?
Because there's the suspicion that the Tories will be as likely to make
them worse off as Labour. And the evidence of the last 5 years supports
this. And at least Labour look competent these days.. people may conclude
(as I think they will) that Labour is a decent bet this time, that it's
'time for a change' and that it's not much riskier than voting Topry
again.
> :>Certainly, it's going to be hard to fear Labour when the Govt. has been so
> :>transparently, blunderingly incompetent for 5 years.
>
> I don't have that perception of this Gvt any more than the 1976-1979 or
> 1979-1983 administrations.
Julian... where have you been? The Govt simply has not been in control of
events for the last 5 years. It's so painfully obvious to anyone who's
been awake.
> :>> :>Only 5 months to go until the Tories are finally kicked out...
> :>>
> :>> Sorry, Major isn't going to lose the election.
> :>
> :>Put your money where your mouth is. Bet you a tenner Major is no longer PM
> :>by the middle of May (springtime always was my favourite time of year).
>
> I've been asked this before. I have written to Brian Mawhinney asking if I
> can lay some of the bets off onto him. I haven't got a reply yet.
Crikey, he'd welch (sp?) on the bet. There's no point.
Nick
Julian White
Nick Merritt (nmer...@futurenet.co.uk) wrote:
:>In article <5at635$f...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
:>(Julian White) wrote:
:>
:>[snip]
:>> Not really relevant. Major has had to fund huge amounts of spending over the
:>> recession, especially in the social security budget.
:>
:>Govt. policy led to the recession Julian. The responsibilty is Major's for
:>getting us into such a mess in the first place.
Nothing to do with Major. It's Lawson's bloody boom, which was followed by
soaring interest rates and then negative equity.
:>> All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt.
:>
:>But none so fast or by so much... ever in peacetime.
We have had a large recession, did you want people to starve? Those who
needed the money most?
:>> It isn't
:>> desirable, but there are no alternatives. Major has slashed spending to try
:>> and get the figure down, there is little else he can do.
:>
:>He could admit his policies got us into this mess and resign in disgrace.
:>That's what he could do.
Recoprd exports, low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, high
vacancies, increased output, increased in manufactured output, etc, etc,
have been achieved by John Major. The economy hasn't been in better shape
since WW2.
:>Nick
T Bruce Tober
>:>than Jules. It's his generation that will receive the full whack of
>:>having to pay it back. I'm amazed they don't realise that. Or perhaps
>:>they but fool themselves thinking they are fooling the rest of us.
>
>The money the Gvt has borrowed has been borrowed from me. They will pay it
>back to me. Where else do you think the money has come from?
Obviously you are too young and have not paid taxes yet and so don't
know how that works. The "govt" has borrowed the money from you and they
will pay it back to you? Yes to a certain warped way of looking at it.
The way they will pay it back to you is when you pay it back to them in
the form of increased taxes or fewer services. Either way, you pay.
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, Julian White <u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk>
writes
>T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
>
>:>>away, thrilled with excitement to see what Cabinet position Ann Widdecombe
>:>>has got.
>:>
>:>Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
>:>of AW.
>
>equivalent. Rather boring I'm afraid. Like me.
I take it then you're not a people person. Is there no one person you
drool over, no one person you can think of you'd love to make love to or
even just have sex with, or even just hold hands with?
You are a very sad young boy, aren't you?
Sam J. Turner
David Toube (D.S....@qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
: s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk (Sam J. Turner) wrote:
: :You mean you don't have a clock with
: :a Bjork face and a second hand made
: :out of a semi-naked dancer?
: :
: :What kind of stoodent are you?
: :
: Don't you have that picture of the dead soldier and the caption
: 'Why?'?
I think I once had one of those Trident
`what the bloody hell is it for' things.
: What about the back view of that woman scratching her bum with a
: tennis ball, or its contemporary equivalent, the bra advert with
: the caption 'Hello Boys' featuring that Bosnia-Herzegovina woman.
Sorry - give me a dumpy, child-voiced
Icelander any day.
: What about a poster advertising a rave with a fractal background.
I have a flyer with a fractal background
and `Whizz makes your willy shrink' - does
that count?
Sam.
Julian White
T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
:>>:>Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
:>>:>of AW.
:>>
:>>No, a map of Sheringham, an 1880 map of the British Empire and a modern day
:>>equivalent. Rather boring I'm afraid. Like me.
:>
:>I take it then you're not a people person. Is there no one person you
:>drool over, no one person you can think of you'd love to make love to or
:>even just have sex with, or even just hold hands with?
If I did I would do so, not shove a picture of her on the wall.
:>You are a very sad young boy, aren't you?
Yes.
:>tbt
Julian White
Nick Merritt (nmer...@futurenet.co.uk) wrote:
:>> Nothing to do with Major. It's Lawson's bloody boom, which was followed by
:>> soaring interest rates and then negative equity.
:>
:>Major took us into the ERM at a wildly overvalued rate.
That was Thatcher.
:>So I'm afraid
:>Major does bear some of the responsibility for the depth of the recession.
Not a great deal. The ERM was not a total failure, IMO it did mean that
inflation could be brought down in the longer-term.
Despite the effects of 1992, we still have low inflation. Considering the
doom and gloom we heard then that inflation would soar and we would suck in
imports, we didn't. We exported more, and inflation stayed low.
:>> :>> All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt.
:>> :>
:>> :>But none so fast or by so much... ever in peacetime.
:>>
:>> We have had a large recession, did you want people to starve? Those who
:>> needed the money most?
:>
:>That's not the point. The point is to find out why the recession was so
:>large and apportion blame, not congratulate someone for expensively fixing
:>their orginal cock-up.
The recession was worldwide, and it was hindered by Lawson's boom. Every
country in Europe suffered a recession, many of which are still going on
now.
:>> :>He could admit his policies got us into this mess and resign in disgrace.
:>> :>That's what he could do.
:>>
:>> Recoprd exports, low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, high
:>> vacancies, increased output, increased in manufactured output, etc, etc,
:>> have been achieved by John Major. The economy hasn't been in better shape
:>> since WW2.
:>
:>Blimey , you have to go back to the worst period in British history to
:>make your comparisons? :-)
:>
:>These aren't Major's acheivements. They're George Soros's.
Major has kept inflation low, he has made sure we didn't suck in imports, he
has kept the economy on track, and has developed a strong economy. Other
countries chucked out of the ERM have not all done so well.
:>Nick
T Bruce Tober
In a rather exuberant mood, "Sam J. Turner" <s...@kelvin.bham.ac.uk>
writes
>Julian White (u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: :>Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
>: :>of AW.
>
>: No, a map of Sheringham, an 1880 map of the British Empire and a modern day
>: equivalent. Rather boring I'm afraid. Like me.
>
>a Bjork face and a second hand made
>out of a semi-naked dancer?
>
>What kind of stoodent are you?
You know, it's really disgusting, the kid can't even be called a "jerk"
or a "wanker", not with any truthfullness, anyway. Could he be asexual?
David Toube
s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk (Sam J. Turner) wrote:
:
:: What about a poster advertising a rave with a fractal background.
:
:I have a flyer with a fractal background
:and `Whizz makes your willy shrink' - does
:that count?
Yes.
Andy Groves
In article <5b2pok$r...@usenet.bham.ac.uk>, s...@fourier.bham.ac.uk (Sam J.
Turner) wrote:
> I have a flyer with a fractal background
> and `Whizz makes your willy shrink'
...alas for Sam, 'twas true.........
Robert Macmillan
> From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)
> ...
> major is destroying government finances....
> to the long term detriment of all....
What's your solution, abelard? Is it higher taxes or lower spending? And
which party do you think will come closest to providing this?
Or have you still no answer to these questions?
Robert Macmillan ------------------------------------
"About as solid as a blancmange"
Ken Livingstone on Labour's policy programme.
Andy Groves
In article <E3rBx...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
rmacm...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Robert Macmillan") wrote:
> > From: abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard)
> > ...
> > major is destroying government finances....
> > to the long term detriment of all....
>
> What's your solution, abelard? Is it higher taxes or lower spending? And
> which party do you think will come closest to providing this?
>
> Or have you still no answer to these questions?
>
I have to say that, as a Labour supporter, I really have no idea how to
answer your question. I would love to be able to, but at the present time
I have no real idea of whether Labour intends to increase the tax base,
and if so, how. I assume they aren't going to bear down on public spending
even more than the Tories, as they've spent 18 years criticising the
Tories for just that.
I have no problem with them expanding the tax base, but I just wish they'd
say how they're going to do it. Unfortunately it seems they're too
paralysed with fear to speak up. Shame really. Actually, it's more than a
shame; it's pathetic.
Just out of interest, what do you think?
Julian White
T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
:>>:>"all" yes. But mostly to the detriment of kids as young as and younger
:>>:>than Jules. It's his generation that will receive the full whack of
:>>:>having to pay it back. I'm amazed they don't realise that. Or perhaps
:>>:>they but fool themselves thinking they are fooling the rest of us.
:>>
:>>The money the Gvt has borrowed has been borrowed from me. They will pay it
:>>back to me. Where else do you think the money has come from?
:>
:>Obviously you are too young and have not paid taxes yet and so don't
:>know how that works. The "govt" has borrowed the money from you and they
:>will pay it back to you? Yes to a certain warped way of looking at it.
When Governments borrow money, it isn't just borrowed from other countries,
they borrow from their own citizens. A few years ago when the Gvt was busy
borrowing money, they were offering generous interest rates to lend to them,
which I did (obviously a small amount relatively to the debt). So the payout
for me is in November.
:>tbt
Nick Merritt
In article <5b0e4n$5...@gerry.cc.keele.ac.uk>, u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk
(Julian White) wrote:
[snip]
> Nothing to do with Major. It's Lawson's bloody boom, which was followed by
> soaring interest rates and then negative equity.
Major took us into the ERM at a wildly overvalued rate. So I'm afraid
Major does bear some of the responsibility for the depth of the recession.
> :>> All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt.
> :>
> :>But none so fast or by so much... ever in peacetime.
>
> We have had a large recession, did you want people to starve? Those who
> needed the money most?
That's not the point. The point is to find out why the recession was so
large and apportion blame, not congratulate someone for expensively fixing
their orginal cock-up.
> :>> It isn't
> :>> desirable, but there are no alternatives. Major has slashed spending
to try
> :>> and get the figure down, there is little else he can do.
> :>
> :>He could admit his policies got us into this mess and resign in disgrace.
> :>That's what he could do.
>
> Recoprd exports, low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, high
> vacancies, increased output, increased in manufactured output, etc, etc,
> have been achieved by John Major. The economy hasn't been in better shape
> since WW2.
Blimey , you have to go back to the worst period in British history to
make your comparisons? :-)
These aren't Major's acheivements. They're George Soros's.
Nick
Robert Macmillan
> From: zak...@vision25.demon.co.uk (Cheradenine Zakalwe)
>
> >All recent Prime Ministers have increased the national debt.
>
Yes.
Simon Gray
~ :>> The economy matters. It matters to people. People vote for what affects
~ :>> them. People will vote depending on the strength of the economy. Major will
~ :>> win because the economy is strong.
~ :>
~ :>Of course, he may lose because people are not prepared to give Major
~ :>credit for the economy (because of the ERM debacle). That's why all bets
~ :>have to be off on this one.
~
~ People look at how well-off they are when they vote.
Well, that certainly cuts out everybody working in the education system
as potential tory voters, then, doesn't it ?
--
Change the world before somebody else changes it for you - jms
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ ISO 1386-C compliant .sig
Simon Gray
In article <UfSE4WAE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>
octob...@reporters.net "T Bruce Tober" writes:
~ >I can't wait until the day after the election. I shall be merrily posting
~ >away, thrilled with excitement to see what Cabinet position Ann Widdecombe
~ >has got.
~
~ Most kids your age have pin ups hanging in their room, I assume yours is
~ of AW.
Actually, I never had pinups in my room. Unless you count the Asterix
poster...