Did Labour hack the BBC?
halcombe
be told....
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,773038,00.html
No 10 'hacked into BBC news computer'
Michael White, political editor
Monday August 12, 2002
The Guardian
The Conservatives last night challenged Gavyn Davies, the
Labour-appointed chairman of the BBC, to get to the bottom of
suspicions reported by John Simpson that Downing Street staff hacked
into the corporation's computer network in their efforts to influence
news coverage.
David Davis, temporarily in charge of the opposition during Iain
Duncan Smith's holiday break, cited claims in the veteran foreign
correspondent's new book that several colleagues were "morally
certain" their computers had been targeted in the months after the
1997 general election.
Promoting the book, News from No Man's Land, Mr Simpson said that
colleagues were lobbied from Downing Street on points they were making
in scripts - before the scripts had been broadcast. "This didn't just
happen once or twice," recalled Mr Simpson, a former BBC political
editor, albeit briefly. He does not appear to have considered the
possibility that someone at the BBC could have been trading
information informally with a political contact.
Downing Street rejected any suggestion of impropriety as "utter
drivel", though virtually no survivors of the early days of Alastair
Campbell's media operations remain at No 10.
Mr Davis noted that there had been an internal inquiry at the BBC,
centred on the possibility that a former staff member, familiar with
the system, may have used a password to access it.
Demanding details of the inquiry, Mr Davis, now shadowing John
Prescott, wrote to Mr Davies: "The public needs to be reassured that
the BBC has done all it can to ascertain whether any improper conduct
has taken place."
Last night the BBC replied: "No formal investigation took place.
Although we do not discuss issues of security, if there was any abuse
we would put a stop to it. There are a number of ways that people
could be aware of stories we were working on: eg, talking to potential
contributors.
"At all times our reporting remains impartial."
Guardian Unlimited Š Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
Aztech
news:d7fa3848.02081...@posting.google.com...
> Or is this just more of John Simpson's witterings? I think we should
> be told....
It's not like John Simpson to be sensationalist, wasn't he too busy liberating
some country or something? According to Correspondent, Saddam would have been
toppled if it wasn't for him staying put in some hotel in Baghdad thus
preventing the USAF from bombing some third rate military target, err right.
Az.
Gareth Owen
> [Simpson]'s new book [says] several colleagues were "morally certain"
"Morally certain"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
How does it differ from "believe"?
How does it differ from "are certain"?
How does it differ from "have a shred of evidence to show"?
I think we should be told
--
Gareth Owen
A plug-in for the mime-type text/plain has not been found.
Tzupert
Why do people always wait til they write a book to tell us this stuff?
And impartial reporting of events doesnt exist. A 14 year old media
student can tell you about representation and persepective.
Fox Tzulander
--
http://www.tzupidity.co.uk
Cooler than a cryogenically frozen fonzy
Richard Caley
writes:
go> "Morally certain"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
When a journo is `certain' that means they think the purported fact
will sell newspapers or play well with the couch spuds or hatever is
apropriate to their job.
`Morally certain' is opposed to `immorally certain' and indicates that
only slightly unethical methods were used to create the paper-selling
text.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Joseph Hutcheon
<use...@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>halc...@subdimension.com (halcombe) writes:
>
>> [Simpson]'s new book [says] several colleagues were "morally certain"
>
>"Morally certain"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
>
>How does it differ from "believe"?
>How does it differ from "are certain"?
>How does it differ from "have a shred of evidence to show"?
I think they key phrase here is 'don't quote our names'.
X201
wrote:
>Demanding details of the inquiry, Mr Davis, now shadowing John
>Prescott,
Now that's fat.
Richard Caley
x> On 12 Aug 2002 07:20:28 -0700, halc...@subdimension.com (halcombe)
x> wrote:
>> Demanding details of the inquiry, Mr Davis, now shadowing John
>> Prescott,
x> Now that's fat.
I thought it was romantic. Or maybe a bit creepy.
mick
"X201" <use...@gornal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:35lflu0q2bobuobk4...@4ax.com...
Doesn`t big JP have a history of punching village idiots in the head. Hope
he hasn`t given it up.
mick
Aztech
news:aj8qp5$19qpth$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
No, he has a habit of viciously attacking the electorate without warning. Other
outlandish pastimes include promising to fix the railways the end of his first
term :/
Az.
mick
"Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message
news:2tS59.19313$uu6.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Thought that was the job of the companies that owned them.
mick
Aztech
<
> > No, he has a habit of viciously attacking the electorate without warning.
> Other
> > outlandish pastimes include promising to fix the railways the end of his
> first
> > term :/
>
> Thought that was the job of the companies that owned them.
Yeah... but generally you don't keep handing out money hand over fist, without
commitment, to companies that fail to meet the basic of expectations.
Az.
mick
I agree if you`re going to have privately run services then they should get
absolutely no public money. I may be wrong, but wasn`t the subsidy part of
the deal at the time of privatisation? In which case it`s hardly Prescots
fault is it.
mick
Alun Jones
>
>"Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message
>news:2tS59.19313$uu6.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>Other
>> outlandish pastimes include promising to fix the railways the end of his
>first
>> term :/
>
>Thought that was the job of the companies that owned them.
Yeesh. I need to stop skip-reading posts. I thought you were saying that
viciously attacking the electorate without warning was the job of the
companies that owned them :-)
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)258-9858 | read details of WFTPD Pro for XP/2000/NT.
Aztech
<
> > Yeah... but generally you don't keep handing out money hand over fist,
> without
> > commitment, to companies that fail to meet the basic of expectations.
>
> I agree if you`re going to have privately run services then they should get
> absolutely no public money. I may be wrong, but wasn`t the subsidy part of
> the deal at the time of privatisation? In which case it`s hardly Prescots
> fault is it.
Prescott should have known better not to have made fatuous promises he knew had
no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted with a short memory.
Quite obviously it was privatised in the most arse about face fashion, it was
rushed through in 1996, the Tory's pretty much knew they were fscked so it was
the last hurrah, that's why it's no coincidence when people like Steve Norris
turn up on the Jarvis board, Railtrack was also full of them, Torys' that is,
not heartless bastards.
Az.
Arthur Willoughby Barton
Nothing surprises me about that shithouse bliar.
New Labour - New dishonesty.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002
Farmer Alfalfa
My memory is that whichever franchise could provide the requisite level of
service for the lowest government subsidy got the gig in each case.
So yes, public money was always part of the equation.
F A
Richard Caley
>> No, he has a habit of viciously attacking the electorate without
>> warning. Other outlandish pastimes include promising to fix the
>> railways the end of his first term :/
m> Thought that was the job of the companies that owned them.
You are confusing `ownership' with `having a right to any profits
without any responsibility for operation, let alone losses'.
Richard Caley
m> I agree if you`re going to have privately run services then they should get
m> absolutely no public money. I may be wrong, but wasn`t the subsidy part of
m> the deal at the time of privatisation?
Indeed, which is why the bloody shareholder shouldn't get a penny, let
alone the huge payoff Blair and chums have decided to give them.
mick
"Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1lz7...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <aj90rg$19anjt$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de>, mick (m) writes:
>
> m> I agree if you`re going to have privately run services then they should
get
> m> absolutely no public money. I may be wrong, but wasn`t the subsidy part
of
> m> the deal at the time of privatisation?
>
> Indeed, which is why the bloody shareholder shouldn't get a penny, let
> alone the huge payoff Blair and chums have decided to give them.
That may be because they found they were legally obliged to. If they hadn`t
then they would have been up in court. They would probably have lost, and
the cost may well have exceeded what they payed out in the first place. It`s
simply a judgement call. They may have in fact saved us money.
Having said that, I do agree that the shareholders should take their `hit`
after all, they didn`t whinge when they were raking in the profits.
Reminds me a bit of all those Lloyds names who suddenly found they were
responsible for losses and were not on a one way gravy train to guarenteed
profit.
Where they ever compensated?
mick
mick
mick
> "mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aj90rg$19anjt$1@ID-
> <
> > > Yeah... but generally you don't keep handing out money hand over fist,
> > without
> > > commitment, to companies that fail to meet the basic of expectations.
> >
> > I agree if you`re going to have privately run services then they should
get
> > absolutely no public money. I may be wrong, but wasn`t the subsidy part
of
> > the deal at the time of privatisation? In which case it`s hardly
Prescots
> > fault is it.
>
> Prescott should have known better not to have made fatuous promises he
knew had
> no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted with a short
memory.
Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems within 5 years? If he
did then not only was he stupid but the public was equally stupid for
believing him. They way I remember it is that they have always clearly said
that the problems with public services are deep rooted and would take a long
time to get right and would need long term investment.
I know it`s not a fashionable thing to say, but I think that we, `the
public` ought to take our responsibilities for the state of these services
as well. IMO the cost of improving these services should go straight onto
income tax so that it is fairly spread across incomes. But can you tell me
the last government that was elected on a ticket
increased income tax for increased public spending? The hypocricy of
politicians merely reflects the hypocricy of us.
I think one of the problems that politicians face is that the public like
the sound of 'long term investment in transport/public services' but they
don`t like or won`t face up to the realities of what it means. Remember a
few years back, after that train derailment, when they found that there were
cracks in the track and big chunks of it would have to be replaced? The
public showed understanding for all of a fortnight (if that) then they went
back to complaining about rail delays. How do you re-lay track without
causing delays?
I think it`s about time that we all gave our heads a shake, grew up, and
started facing up to the realities of what needs to be done. Although, I
admit, demonising and blaming politicians or `the people in charge` is often
far easier and much more satisfying:-)
> Quite obviously it was privatised in the most arse about face fashion, it
was
> rushed through in 1996, the Tory's pretty much knew they were fscked so it
was
> the last hurrah, that's why it's no coincidence when people like Steve
Norris
> turn up on the Jarvis board, Railtrack was also full of them, Torys' that
is,
> not heartless bastards.
Correct. I always got the impression that they intentionally did as much
damage to the railways knowing they wouldn`t be there to sort it all out.
mick
Aztech
>
> "Richard Caley" <MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:87u1lz7...@bast.r.caley.org.uk...
> > In article <aj90rg$19anjt$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de>, mick (m) writes:
> >
> > m> I agree if you`re going to have privately run services then they should
> get
> > m> absolutely no public money. I may be wrong, but wasn`t the subsidy part
> of
> > m> the deal at the time of privatisation?
> >
> > Indeed, which is why the bloody shareholder shouldn't get a penny, let
> > alone the huge payoff Blair and chums have decided to give them.
>
> That may be because they found they were legally obliged to. If they hadn`t
> then they would have been up in court. They would probably have lost, and
> the cost may well have exceeded what they payed out in the first place. It`s
> simply a judgement call. They may have in fact saved us money.
You're priceless Mick, they simply saved us a costly court case if anything.
> Having said that, I do agree that the shareholders should take their `hit`
> after all, they didn`t whinge when they were raking in the profits.
Yes... they didn't seem to complain when their shares were over £12 each, and
they didn't moan much when they pocketed a healthy dividend every quarter, which
was nothing more than laundered public money.
Az.
Richard Caley
>> Indeed, which is why the bloody shareholder shouldn't get a penny, let
>> alone the huge payoff Blair and chums have decided to give them.
m> That may be because they found they were legally obliged to. If they hadn`t
m> then they would have been up in court.
If they can bollock up normal real world rules to pay the company
shedloads of my money, they shoul dbe able to find a way to take back
the pittance that they hadn't managed to hand out to their chums yet.
m> Having said that, I do agree that the shareholders should take their `hit`
m> after all, they didn`t whinge when they were raking in the
m> profits.
Worse, when there were no profits, but a huge los and they still raked
it in as if there was a profit because Major and then Blair was
handing out free dosh.
Richard Caley
m> Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems within 5
m> years?
He did, he bought another car.
He never specified _which_ problems did he?
anton
mick wrote in message ...
>
>> Prescott should have known better not to have made
>> fatuous promises he knew had
>> no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted
>> with a short memory.
>
>Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems
> within 5 years?
http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20020606000126.html
On 6th June 1997 John Prescott said 的 will have failed if in five years
time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer
journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it"
He failed miserably on both counts.
>If he did then not only was he stupid
no argument there.
>but the public was equally stupid for believing him.
What makes you think that the public believed him?
>They way I remember it is that they have always clearly said
>that the problems with public services are deep rooted and would take a
long
>time to get right and would need long term investment.
Wrt to the roads, they spent less in the first few years
than Major's average spend per year. As Major's spending
was necessarily constrained by the aftermath of the ERM
debacle, that is a very poor record by Labour.
As Liar Byers had now fscked any chance of private
investment on the rail on decent terms; Brown has vetoed
much public investment in rail to make up for it; and the
Labour party and its London breakaway group have spent
years wrangling about any spending on the Tube, then
it's goodbye and goodnight to any chance of any decent
transport system of any sort within the UK for a decade.
>I know it`s not a fashionable thing to say, but I think that we, `the
>public` ought to take our responsibilities for the state of these >services
as well.
I agree with you. Labour voters that elected this excuse for
a government should stand up and say 'mea culpa' 83 times
before breakfast every day.
> IMO the cost of improving these services should go
>straight onto income tax so that it is fairly spread across
>incomes.
Then do tell Gordon to stop taxing the arse off booze, fags
and car-users, won't you?
>But can you tell me the last government that was elected
>on a ticket increased income tax for increased public
>spending?
This one was elected on a ticket of no increase in income tax,
and they turned around and did it within a year. Oh sorry, they
changed the label and called it National Insurance instead.
This was predictable from Blair's decision to increase spending
on the NHS, but he conveniently only did the sums after the election.
>The hypocricy of politicians merely reflects the hypocricy of us.
Not me, mate.
>I think one of the problems that politicians face is that the
> public like the sound of 'long term investment in
> transport/public services' but they don`t like or won`t face up
> to the realities of what it means.
A problem that "politicians face"? You are mad.
>Remember a few years back, after that train derailment,
> when they found that there were cracks in the track and
>big chunks of it would have to be replaced?
Yes. Prescott and the other tossers went all hysterical,
as they had after the previous accident, and decided that
safety was the highest priority. Actually, safety is never the
highest priority in anything, otherwise nothing gets done.
The Labour govt just wanted to pretend that they were doing
something, when all they were doing was having a fit of the vapours and
wallying about muttering 'fatcats'.
>The public showed understanding for all of a fortnight (if
> that) then they went back to complaining about rail delays.
Of course. Under the circs, Railtrack had to take note of the
govt's agenda, and raised safety in this respect very high, as
safety in another respect had been raised very (excessively?)
high after the previous disaster. The govt has now decided that train
safety systems of the sort insisted on under privatisation
are too expensive to contemplate for a nationalised Railtrack.
Oh gosh let's all be surprised.
>How do you re-lay track without causing delays?
By spending money. There's less of that about now, because
we're not paying 'fatcats'. We're paying 'necessary' bureaucrats
receivers, and friends of the Labour party instead, and they cost
more than the fatcats did & they do less.
>I think it`s about time that we all gave our heads a shake,
>grew up, and started facing up to the realities of what needs
> to be done.
I agree- vote out these tossers.
>Although, I admit, demonising and blaming politicians or
>`the people in charge` is often far easier and much more
>satisfying:-)
Which word of "private capital for investment in rail is now
more expensive since Byers attempted confiscation" are
you having difficulty with?
>> Quite obviously it was privatised in the most arse about
>> face fashion,
..but it was successful, in a way that hadn't happened in 4
decades, in getting more people & more goods onto the
railways. Do you think the current expensive receivers
or the postulated not-for-profit joke will increase the
number of passengers above the peak?
snip
--
Anton
Aztech
news:3d59f312...@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:58:05 GMT, "Aztech" <a...@tech.com> sprachen:
>
> >Yeah... but generally you don't keep handing out money hand over fist,
without
> >commitment, to companies that fail to meet the basic of expectations.
>
>
> Since a government can't be held accountable to their predecessors'
> promises,
They can if they follow through on their promises and renew contracts without
question, after five years it's no longer a valid excuse I'm afraid, however
most of the operators contracts are going to expire after seven years, 1996 + 7,
do the maths ;)
Az.
Gareth Owen
> It's amazing the Victorians managed to run it all privately and
> actually make a profit.
Yeah, that is amazing. Until you realise they had absolutely no competition
from any other form of mechanised transport.
--
Gareth Owen
Aztech
news:3d5af419...@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:46:51 +0100, "Farmer Alfalfa"
> <Alf...@bighouse.net> sprachen:
>
> >My memory is that whichever franchise could provide the requisite level of
> >service for the lowest government subsidy got the gig in each case.
> >
> >So yes, public money was always part of the equation.
>
> actually make a profit.
Didn't they all initially go bankrupt? Anyway, they had huge monolithic networks
not hacked up into little franchises, so they were large enough to balance it
out.
Az.
anton
gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk wrote in message
<3d59f312...@news.btopenworld.com>...
>predecessors' promises,
No, but they are bound by their predecessors' contracts.
>if they could accept really pissing people off for a
>fortnight, why not just drop the subsidy?
Byers tried 'really pissing people off' by confiscating
Railtrack from its owners. Once a grown-up, Brown,
realised what Byers had done, the confiscation had to be
unravelled, as the subsequent payouts by various means
to Railtrack shareholders have proved. Out there in the
big bad world, actions have consequences, as you'll find
out when you grow up.
>Let British Rail-or-whatever go bankrupt under their
> own steam, let the Receiver come in, and buy
>it back for 50p or whatever.
But somebody else would bid billions for Railtrack to
redevelop their land. Grow up. Waddya gonna do?
Pass a law that says only the govt can buy Railtrack?
For 50p? That's confiscation, (again), sonny.
>Re-nationalisation and the people who bought shares
>in something they already owned in the first place, would
> only have themselves to blame.
So you want to go back to the grand old days of nationalised
British Rail. Look up the figures for successive declines &
closures, fewer passengers & less freight, more delays and
more dirt. Socialist twattery rools UK.
--
Anton
Aztech
news:r5ilm7a...@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk...
That's not true, there was plenty of competition, why do you think there's two
different routes leading into all the major cities, lots of different backbones,
and two different train stations often found opposite each other. Your judgement
seems to be clouded by the single BR, the original network certainly wasn't like
that, or even today's, but it may be :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2188086.stm
Its gone full circle.
Az.
Alun Jones
>It's amazing the Victorians managed to run it all privately and
>actually make a profit.
I wonder if it had anything to do with the rather shocking disparity in
Victorian times between them as had, and them as hadn't. Stuffing
ten-year-olds up chimneys to clean them, etc.
peter
Jones <al...@texis.com> stated: -
>In article <3d5af419...@news.btopenworld.com>,
>gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>It's amazing the Victorians managed to run it all privately and
>>actually make a profit.
>
>I wonder if it had anything to do with the rather shocking disparity in
>Victorian times between them as had, and them as hadn't. Stuffing
>ten-year-olds up chimneys to clean them, etc.
>
>Alun.
>~~~~
>
>[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
--
peter
c3b3rus
says...
> "Gareth Owen" <use...@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:r5ilm7a...@gill.maths.keele.ac.uk...
> > gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk writes:
> >
> > > It's amazing the Victorians managed to run it all privately and
> > > actually make a profit.
> >
> > Yeah, that is amazing. Until you realise they had absolutely no competition
> > from any other form of mechanised transport.
>
> That's not true, there was plenty of competition, why do you think there's two
> different routes leading into all the major cities,
wrong
> lots of different backbones,
> and two different train stations often found opposite each other.
Different operators yes - but usually going to - or certainly via different
places
c3b3rus
says...
>
> mick wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Prescott should have known better not to have made
> >> fatuous promises he knew had
> >> no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted
> >> with a short memory.
> >
> >Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems
> > within 5 years?
>
> http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20020606000126.html
> On 6th June 1997 John Prescott said 的 will have failed if in five years
> time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer
> journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it"
>
> He failed miserably on both counts.
He has obviously failed on the car front, but I thought one of the reasons that
rail privatisation was such a success (or so it has been argued on here) is that
passenger numbers have gone up? Similarly air travel has gone sky high. I don't
have any numbers to hand on buses.
>
> >> Quite obviously it was privatised in the most arse about
> >> face fashion,
>
> ..but it was successful, in a way that hadn't happened in 4
> decades, in getting more people & more goods onto the
> railways. Do you think the current expensive receivers
> or the postulated not-for-profit joke will increase the
> number of passengers above the peak?
Are you contradicting yourself and saying passenger numbers on the trains are
lower now than in 1997?
Richard Caley
a> Byers tried 'really pissing people off' by confiscating
a> Railtrack from its owners.
I have never met anyone who was pissed off by what Byers did. No doubt
this is because I don't know people who would buy shares in a bankrupt
company surviving on government handouts.
Gareth Owen
> That's not true, there was plenty of competition, why do you think there's
> two different routes leading into all the major cities,
Because they come from different directions.
If I wanted to go from (say) Manchester to London it was LMS or walk.
Thats not competition, anymore than South West Trains and Wales&West are
competing right now.
--
Gareth Owen
In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero,
Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.
mick
"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ajc0bk$s1s$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> mick wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Prescott should have known better not to have made
> >> fatuous promises he knew had
> >> no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted
> >> with a short memory.
> >
> >Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems
> > within 5 years?
>
> http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20020606000126.html
> time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer
> journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it"
>
> He failed miserably on both counts.
Wrong. Read what it says not what you think it says.
From your own source -
More people are using public transport now than five years ago, but road
traffic levels have also risen substantially.
Rail: number of journeys up 25% [2]
Light rail: number of journeys up 36% [3]
Bus: number of journeys unchanged [4]
Roads: volume of car traffic up 7% [5]
> >If he did then not only was he stupid
> no argument there.
> >but the public was equally stupid for believing him.
> What makes you think that the public believed him?
Well they believed him more than they believed your lot.
> >They way I remember it is that they have always clearly said
> >that the problems with public services are deep rooted and would take a
> long
> >time to get right and would need long term investment.
>
>
> Wrt to the roads, they spent less in the first few years
> than Major's average spend per year. As Major's spending
> was necessarily constrained by the aftermath of the ERM
> debacle, that is a very poor record by Labour.
The reason they spent less in the first couple of years is because they
decided to stick to the `Tory spending plans` and to reduce debts left by
that great party. This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
interest in susequent years. The benefit of this will, by the very nature,
be seen in later years.
> As Liar Byers had now fscked any chance of private
> investment on the rail on decent terms; Brown has vetoed
> much public investment in rail to make up for it; and the
> Labour party and its London breakaway group have spent
> years wrangling about any spending on the Tube, then
> it's goodbye and goodnight to any chance of any decent
> transport system of any sort within the UK for a decade.
> >I know it`s not a fashionable thing to say, but I think that we, `the
> >public` ought to take our responsibilities for the state of these
services
> as well.
> I agree with you. Labour voters that elected this excuse for
> a government should stand up and say 'mea culpa' 83 times
> before breakfast every day.
Everyone should face up to their responsibilities (yes even the people who
showed they were quite prepared to sell their souls for a tax cut in the
80`s and 90`s).
> > IMO the cost of improving these services should go
> >straight onto income tax so that it is fairly spread across
> >incomes.
> Then do tell Gordon to stop taxing the arse off booze, fags
> and car-users, won't you?
Is he any different from any other Chancellor from any other party?
Aren`t Friends of the Earth, your above source, in favour of taxing car
users more?
> >But can you tell me the last government that was elected
> >on a ticket increased income tax for increased public
> >spending?
>
> This one was elected on a ticket of no increase in income tax,
> and they turned around and did it within a year. Oh sorry, they
> changed the label and called it National Insurance instead.
Nope. It was always called Natianal Insurance. You may say it was cynical,
but it was no more cynical than the Tories denying the accusation (in the
early 80`s) that they were going to double the rate of V.A.T. only then to
increase it to a smidgeon under double.
> >The hypocricy of politicians merely reflects the hypocricy of us.
>
> Not me, mate.
Oh. A paragon of virtue. I`ve never met a real one before.
> >I think one of the problems that politicians face is that the
> > public like the sound of 'long term investment in
> > transport/public services' but they don`t like or won`t face up
> > to the realities of what it means.
>
> A problem that "politicians face"? You are mad.
I don`t think so. I just try to look at things with a more open mind than
some people are prepared to. I don`t start from the point of 'I hate this
particular person/group of people so I am going to slag off everything they
do'.
> >Remember a few years back, after that train derailment,
> > when they found that there were cracks in the track and
> >big chunks of it would have to be replaced?
>
> Yes. Prescott and the other tossers went all hysterical,
> as they had after the previous accident, and decided that
> safety was the highest priority. Actually, safety is never the
> highest priority in anything, otherwise nothing gets done.
How many Tories said safety wasn`t the highest priority after that accident?
What would you say was the priority? If you had discovered that tracks had
cracks in them would you have turned a blind eye and thought of profits?
> The Labour govt just wanted to pretend that they were doing
> something, when all they were doing was having a fit of the vapours and
> wallying about muttering 'fatcats'.
If only the companies whose responsibility it was for track safety had even
pretented they were doing something. They consequence of putting profit
before safety is always more people die.
> >The public showed understanding for all of a fortnight (if
> > that) then they went back to complaining about rail delays.
>
> >How do you re-lay track without causing delays?
>
> By spending money.
What!?! Using government (tax payers) money to help private companies do
what it is their responsibility to do in the first place? What would
Thatcher and Tebbit say:-)
> >I think it`s about time that we all gave our heads a shake,
> >grew up, and started facing up to the realities of what needs
> > to be done.
>
> I agree- vote out these tossers.
And replace them with whom?
> >Although, I admit, demonising and blaming politicians or
> >`the people in charge` is often far easier and much more
> >satisfying:-)
>
> Which word of "private capital for investment in rail is now
> more expensive since Byers attempted confiscation" are
> you having difficulty with?
Which word of "Privatisation split the UK railway system into over 100
companies. The result has been chaos." are you having difficulty with?
mick.
anton
c3b3rus wrote in message ...
>In article <ajc0bk$s1s$1...@helle.btinternet.com>,
anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com
>says...
>>
>> mick wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> Prescott should have known better not to have made
>> >> fatuous promises he knew had
>> >> no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted
>> >> with a short memory.
>> >
>> >Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems
>> > within 5 years?
>>
>> http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20020606000126.html
>> On 6th June 1997 John Prescott said 的 will have failed if in five years
>> time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer
>> journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it"
>>
>> He failed miserably on both counts.
>
>He has obviously failed on the car front, but I thought one of the reasons
that
>rail privatisation was such a success (or so it has been argued on here) is
that
>passenger numbers have gone up?
Passenger- kilometres went up for 2-3 years, then fell back.
As Prescott did nothing which allows him to claim responsibility
for the initial rise, but did things which were partially responsible
for the subsequent drop, then I think a 'fail' on the railway front
is perfectly fair.
>Similarly air travel has gone sky high. I don't
>have any numbers to hand on buses.
>
>
>>
>> >> Quite obviously it was privatised in the most arse about
>> >> face fashion,
>>
>> ..but it was successful, in a way that hadn't happened in 4
>> decades, in getting more people & more goods onto the
>> railways. Do you think the current expensive receivers
>> or the postulated not-for-profit joke will increase the
>> number of passengers above the peak?
>
>Are you contradicting yourself and saying passenger
> numbers on the trains are lower now than in 1997?
No, they're lower than the peak which was about 3 years ago.
Pay attention.
--
Anton
Aztech
> In article <ajc1do$b6$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, anton (a) writes:
>
> a> Byers tried 'really pissing people off' by confiscating
> a> Railtrack from its owners.
>
> I have never met anyone who was pissed off by what Byers did. No doubt
> this is because I don't know people who would buy shares in a bankrupt
> company surviving on government handouts.
Somebody will mention the US defence industry in a minute ;)
Az.
anton
mick wrote in message ...
>
>"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:ajc0bk$s1s$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>>
>> mick wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> Prescott should have known better not to have made
>> >> fatuous promises he knew had
>> >> no chance of being fulfilled, unfortunately I'm not gifted
>> >> with a short memory.
>> >
>> >Did he actualy promise to solve the trasport problems
>> > within 5 years?
>>
>> http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20020606000126.html
>> On 6th June 1997 John Prescott said “I will have failed if in five years
>> time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer
>> journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it"
>>
>> He failed miserably on both counts.
>
>Wrong. Read what it says not what you think it says.
>From your own source -
>
>More people are using public transport now than five years ago, but road
>traffic levels have also risen substantially.
>
>Rail: number of journeys up 25% [2]
>Light rail: number of journeys up 36% [3]
>Bus: number of journeys unchanged [4]
>Roads: volume of car traffic up 7% [5]
Fair enough- I was wrong on one count. The rise in passenger
-km, a slightly different measure, happened in the first 2-3
years after privatisation, and since then passenger-km
decreased. I wonder what the measure used by FoE has
done since these not-very-recent figures?
>> >If he did then not only was he stupid
>> no argument there.
>> >but the public was equally stupid for believing him.
>> What makes you think that the public believed him?
>
>Well they believed him more than they believed your lot.
My lot?
>> >They way I remember it is that they have always clearly said
>> >that the problems with public services are deep rooted and would take a
>> long
>> >time to get right and would need long term investment.
>>
>>
>> Wrt to the roads, they spent less in the first few years
>> than Major's average spend per year. As Major's spending
>> was necessarily constrained by the aftermath of the ERM
>> debacle, that is a very poor record by Labour.
>
>The reason they spent less in the first couple of years is because they
>decided to stick to the `Tory spending plans` and to reduce debts left by
>that great party.
Bollocks. They kicked all road schemes into a new long review
process, and underspent on roads by miles. Short memory you have.
Further the 'debts' in 1997 were 50-odd percent of gdp,
which compared reasonably with most of our neighbours.
At that point there was no urgent need to repay them.
>This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
>interest in susequent years.
This of course, you socialist ninny, has taken money out of the
pockets of people and companies in Britain, some of whom
need it quite badly, and all of whom can spend or invest
it better and more wisely than tosser Brown.
>The benefit of this will, by the very nature,
>be seen in later years.
And the lower growth from lack of investment by individuals
and companies will also be "seen in later years".
>> As Liar Byers had now fscked any chance of private
>> investment on the rail on decent terms; Brown has vetoed
>> much public investment in rail to make up for it; and the
>> Labour party and its London breakaway group have spent
>> years wrangling about any spending on the Tube, then
>> it's goodbye and goodnight to any chance of any decent
>> transport system of any sort within the UK for a decade.
>
>> >I know it`s not a fashionable thing to say, but I think that we, `the
>> >public` ought to take our responsibilities for the state of these
>services
>> as well.
>
>> I agree with you. Labour voters that elected this excuse for
>> a government should stand up and say 'mea culpa' 83 times
>> before breakfast every day.
>
>Everyone should face up to their responsibilities (yes even
>the people who showed they were quite prepared to sell their
>souls for a tax cut in the 80`s and 90`s).
I've finally found one- a pratt who wants to defend tax rates
of 83 & 98%. Tell me how wonderful that was, and how corrupt
it made lots of people, some of whom have been Labour MPs.
>> > IMO the cost of improving these services should go
>> >straight onto income tax so that it is fairly spread across
>> >incomes.
>
>> Then do tell Gordon to stop taxing the arse off booze, fags
>> and car-users, won't you?
>
>Is he any different from any other Chancellor from any other
>party?
Well, the total take on petrol rose a level never seen before.
I suppose you've heard of the final straw, have you?
>Aren`t Friends of the Earth, your above source, in favour
>of taxing car users more?
No doubt they are. What has that to do with me?
>> >But can you tell me the last government that was elected
>> >on a ticket increased income tax for increased public
>> >spending?
>>
>> This one was elected on a ticket of no increase in income tax,
>> and they turned around and did it within a year. Oh sorry, they
>> changed the label and called it National Insurance instead.
>
>Nope. It was always called Natianal Insurance.
Limited at about £30k, yes it was NI. Zooming above that limit,
it's income tax by another name.
>You may say it was cynical, but it was no more cynical than the Tories
denying the accusation (in the
>early 80`s) that they were going to double the rate of V.A.T. only then to
>increase it to a smidgeon under double.
But this lot were going to be 'whiter than white'- remember?
>> >The hypocricy of politicians merely reflects the hypocricy
>> > of us.
>>
>> Not me, mate.
>
>Oh. A paragon of virtue. I`ve never met a real one before.
You're mixing with the wrong crowd. Try non-socialists if
you want to meet a few non-hypocrites.
>> >I think one of the problems that politicians face is that the
>> > public like the sound of 'long term investment in
>> > transport/public services' but they don`t like or won`t face up
>> > to the realities of what it means.
>>
>> A problem that "politicians face"? You are mad.
>
>I don`t think so.
Labour are hoist with their own petard, many times over.
They made a big noise about the odd bit of bonking by the
Tories, and now find that Labour sleaze is in the news. They
wasted too much money, and spent their authority on vague
attacks on the forces of conservatism to find that part-way
through their second term, they have 'delivered' very little, and they are
running out of time. The bothered the teachers and
teh health staff and the coppers with bullshit directives, and now find that
less teaching/healthcare/ crime detection is happening.
And now people expect them to have doen something, and spent
wisely, and this is "a problem that politicians face"? You
are mad.
>I just try to look at things with a more open mind than
>some people are prepared to.
You mean, you want Labour to wriggle off the hook.
large snip- no time
--
Anton
anton
Richard Caley wrote in message <877kit2...@bast.r.caley.org.uk>...
>In article <ajc1do$b6$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, anton (a) writes:
>
>a> Byers tried 'really pissing people off' by confiscating
>a> Railtrack from its owners.
>
>I have never met anyone who was pissed off by what Byers did. No doubt
>this is because I don't know people who would buy shares in a bankrupt
>company surviving on government handouts.
Then you're a hermit. Loadsa pension schemes owned shares
in Railtrack.
--
Anton
Gareth Owen
> >This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
> >interest in susequent years.
>
> This of course, you socialist ninny, has taken money out of the
> pockets of people and companies in Britain
Lowering public spending and debt repayment rather than increased borrowing
now constitutes socialism? Are you sure?
--
Gareth Owen
I don't want to play golf.
When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.
Richard Caley
>> I have never met anyone who was pissed off by what Byers did. No doubt
>> this is because I don't know people who would buy shares in a bankrupt
>> company surviving on government handouts.
a> Then you're a hermit. Loadsa pension schemes owned shares
a> in Railtrack.
Good for them. Still don't know anyone upset at waht Byers did,
bedause people whose only interst in railtrack was via a fund will
have seen that as just the extremely risky bit of the fund. The people
who are uspet and crying in the newspapers are the ones who put their
money into Railtrack as an attampt to syphon some tax payer's money
into their pockets directly and found there scam (finally) blocked.
Farmer Alfalfa
"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
Probably only those operating tracker funds - lazy bastards!
F A
Bob Spowart
Alun Jones wrote in message ...
>
>I wonder if it had anything to do with the rather shocking disparity in
>Victorian times between them as had, and them as hadn't. Stuffing
>ten-year-olds up chimneys to clean them, etc.
>
introducing the Mines Act, Factories Act and other social advances?
mick
"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> mick wrote in message ...
> >
> >"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:ajc0bk$s1s$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >> mick wrote in message ...
> >> no argument there.
> >> >but the public was equally stupid for believing him.
> >> What makes you think that the public believed him?
> >
> >Well they believed him more than they believed your lot.
>
> My lot?
Yes.
> >> >They way I remember it is that they have always clearly said
> >> >that the problems with public services are deep rooted and would take
a
> >> long
> >> >time to get right and would need long term investment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Wrt to the roads, they spent less in the first few years
> >> than Major's average spend per year. As Major's spending
> >> was necessarily constrained by the aftermath of the ERM
> >> debacle, that is a very poor record by Labour.
> >
> >The reason they spent less in the first couple of years is because they
> >decided to stick to the `Tory spending plans` and to reduce debts left by
> >that great party.
>
> Bollocks. They kicked all road schemes into a new long review
> process, and underspent on roads by miles. Short memory you have.
Crossed purposes. I was still talking about Public services in general.
> Further the 'debts' in 1997 were 50-odd percent of gdp,
> which compared reasonably with most of our neighbours.
> At that point there was no urgent need to repay them.
Well as long as they where only 50% then that`s alright then.
> >This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
> >interest in susequent years.
>
> This of course, you socialist ninny,
Tut Tut.
> >> I agree with you. Labour voters that elected this excuse for
> >> a government should stand up and say 'mea culpa' 83 times
> >> before breakfast every day.
> >
> >Everyone should face up to their responsibilities (yes even
> >the people who showed they were quite prepared to sell their
> >souls for a tax cut in the 80`s and 90`s).
>
> I've finally found one- a pratt who wants to defend tax rates
> of 83 & 98%.
Where? Where? The pratt bit was a little unnecessary.
> >> > IMO the cost of improving these services should go
> >> >straight onto income tax so that it is fairly spread across
> >> >incomes.
> >
> >> Then do tell Gordon to stop taxing the arse off booze, fags
> >> and car-users, won't you?
> >
> >Is he any different from any other Chancellor from any other
> >party?
>
> Well, the total take on petrol rose a level never seen before.
> I suppose you've heard of the final straw, have you?
Yes. It`s a cliche isn`t it?
If duty goes up every year then their is going to be a pretty good chance
that the total take will reach a level never seen before. It`s a crap
argument.
> >Aren`t Friends of the Earth, your above source, in favour
> >of taxing car users more?
>
> No doubt they are. What has that to do with me?
Well you did use them as part of your 'evidence'. I thought you must have
held their views in high regard. Or is that only when it`s convenient?
> >Nope. It was always called Natianal Insurance.
>
> Limited at about £30k, yes it was NI. Zooming above that limit,
> it's income tax by another name.
You can`t whinge about lack of goverment spending and then complain when
they raise the money to invest.
> >You may say it was cynical, but it was no more cynical than the Tories
> denying the accusation (in the
> >early 80`s) that they were going to double the rate of V.A.T. only then
to
> >increase it to a smidgeon under double.
>
> But this lot were going to be 'whiter than white'- remember?
Raising NI isn`t corrupt.
If the polls were anything to go by then most people seemed to agree with
what he did.
> >> >The hypocricy of politicians merely reflects the hypocricy
> >> > of us.
> >>
> >> Not me, mate.
> >Oh. A paragon of virtue. I`ve never met a real one before.
> You're mixing with the wrong crowd. Try non-socialists if
> you want to meet a few non-hypocrites.
Are the non-hypocrites the ones that go around wielding their "sword of
truth and trusty shield of fair play"?
I don`t categories people into groups with little labels that I can spit out
whenever it`s convenient to do so. I leave that to intolerant and blinkered
bigots.
I mix with a cross section of people and no 'type' are any more or less
virtious than anyone else.
> Labour are hoist with their own petard, many times over.
> They made a big noise about the odd bit of bonking by the
> Tories, and now find that Labour sleaze is in the news.
No they didn`t. I think you`ll find it was the press who went after the
"bonking" stories. The other parties didn`t need to 'make a big noise'. The
sleaze that helped destroyed the tories was that of personal corruption. Now
who`s got a short memory?
> They wasted too much money, and spent their authority on vague
> attacks on the forces of conservatism to find that part-way
> through their second term, they have 'delivered' very little, and they are
> running out of time.
When in your lifetime has
employment been higher
unemployment lower
inflation lower
interest rates lower
> The bothered the teachers and
> teh health staff and the coppers with bullshit directives, and now find
that
> less teaching/healthcare/ crime detection is happening.
Really? Makes you wonder why so many people want to get into these
professions now doesn`t it. I don`t think anyone has ever claimed the
problems of the PS`s are solved.
> >I just try to look at things with a more open mind than
> >some people are prepared to.
>
> You mean, you want Labour to wriggle off the hook.
It makes no odds to me. I`ll criticise Labs, Libs, Tories or anyone. I`m not
a member of any party and certainly have the one-eyed view of the world you
seem to have.
> large snip- no time
Oh dear! And I would have so liked to have read your responces. Oh well,
never mind.
mick
> --
> Anton
>
>
Aztech
news:aje0jf$g3p$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Boo... you're only allowed to disparage the past to make today's insufferable
world at least look acceptable, nothing good ever happened years ago, not a
single thing, boo ;)
Az.
Aztech
> In article <ajdscd$f9k$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, anton (a) writes:
>
> >> I have never met anyone who was pissed off by what Byers did. No doubt
> >> this is because I don't know people who would buy shares in a bankrupt
> >> company surviving on government handouts.
>
> a> Then you're a hermit. Loadsa pension schemes owned shares
> a> in Railtrack.
>
> Good for them. Still don't know anyone upset at waht Byers did,
> bedause people whose only interst in railtrack was via a fund will
> have seen that as just the extremely risky bit of the fund.
Would you vacate your property by midnight please, we're coming to take it over,
and no, you have no choice and you wont get a penny, you have six hours notice,
good day to you :/
Az.
Richard Caley
a> Would you vacate your property by midnight please, we're coming to take it over,
a> and no, you have no choice and you wont get a penny, you have six hours notice,
a> good day to you :/
My property has not been getting government subsidies of a size which
would more than hav bought it by now, as is the case for railtrack.
It's not that the shareholders weren't being given anything, it's that
they weren't being given any _more_ money they objected to. They had
already been given loadsamoney.
Aztech
> would more than hav bought it by now, as is the case for railtrack.
>
> It's not that the shareholders weren't being given anything, it's that
> they weren't being given any _more_ money they objected to.
Originally they were going to get sod all until they realised what affect it had
on the City, raising any money for future projects will be extremely expensive
from now on, if you currently think companies already get plush deals then wait
until the next batch of contracts are drawn up.
Railtrack was a joke, the subsidies and dividends were a joke, but that didn't
suddenly give them the right to requisition the company without warning.
> They had
> already been given loadsamoney.
Because they were daft enough to fulfil and renew the contracts. Hrm... you
earned enough last year, you don't really need that property, hand it over,
you've had enough already.
Az.
anton
Gareth Owen wrote in message ...
>"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> writes:
>
>> >This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
>> >interest in susequent years.
>>
>> This of course, you socialist ninny, has taken money out of the
>> pockets of people and companies in Britain
>
>Lowering public spending and debt repayment rather than increased borrowing
>now constitutes socialism? Are you sure?
'Lowering public spending'- don't be daft. Increasing taxes,
including windfall taxes, stealth taxes; non indexaton of allowances etc has
been the key to repayment of debt.
--
Anton
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
how marvellous it would be to be a werewolf when Aztech said:
>"halcombe" <halc...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
>news:d7fa3848.02081...@posting.google.com...
>> Or is this just more of John Simpson's witterings? I think we should
>> be told....
>
>It's not like John Simpson to be sensationalist, wasn't he too busy liberating
>some country or something? According to Correspondent, Saddam would have been
>toppled if it wasn't for him staying put in some hotel in Baghdad thus
>preventing the USAF from bombing some third rate military target, err right.
>
That's only because Simpson was standing outside at the time and blocked
the view of the hotel from incoming F16's , the fat bastard.
--
Izo
I went into a sweet shop the other day
I said I want some Cadburys chocolate
Some crispy cereal,some chewy nougat,
up there.
And a Persian rug.
He said gerrout you, gerrout me sweet shop!
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
>Or is this just more of John Simpson's witterings? I think we should
>be told....
>
>
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,773038,00.html
>
>
>No 10 'hacked into BBC news computer'
>Michael White, political editor
>Monday August 12, 2002
>The Guardian
>
>The Conservatives last night challenged Gavyn Davies, the
>Labour-appointed chairman of the BBC, to get to the bottom of
>suspicions reported by John Simpson that Downing Street staff hacked
>into the corporation's computer network in their efforts to influence
>news coverage.
>
>David Davis, temporarily in charge of the opposition during Iain
>Duncan Smith's holiday break, cited claims in the veteran foreign
>correspondent's new book that several colleagues were "morally
>certain" their computers had been targeted in the months after the
>1997 general election.
>
If I was David Davis I would've sacked IDS for being utterly useless
while he was on holiday.
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
>"mick" <mick...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aj8qp5$19qpth$1...@ID-154089.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "X201" <use...@gornal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:35lflu0q2bobuobk4...@4ax.com...
>> > On 12 Aug 2002 07:20:28 -0700, halc...@subdimension.com (halcombe)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Demanding details of the inquiry, Mr Davis, now shadowing John
>> > >Prescott,
>> >
>> > Now that's fat.
>>
>> Doesn`t big JP have a history of punching village idiots in the head. Hope
>> he hasn`t given it up.
>
>No, he has a habit of viciously attacking the electorate without warning. Other
>outlandish pastimes include promising to fix the railways the end of his first
>term :/
Without warning? So you'd just stand there and get egged by some hick
would you?
Aztech
news:QCUNlmbb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
<
> Without warning? So you'd just stand there and get egged by some hick
> would you?
You would and they do, Major often got tomatoes thrown at him while he was on
his soapbox, Maggie had all sorts of things thrown at her, Blair had rotten eggs
thrown at him, it's not nice and it's not acceptable however if you're a
politician then it goes with the territory in contrast to the numerous benefits.
If Prescott was just some fat bloke in a pub then it would have been a
predictable response, but he isn't (is he?)
Az.
anton
mick wrote in message ...
>
>"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:ajdsas$est$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>>
>> mick wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ajc0bk$s1s$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>> >>
>> >> mick wrote in message ...
>> >> >If he did then not only was he stupid
>> >> no argument there.
>> >> >but the public was equally stupid for believing him.
>> >> What makes you think that the public believed him?
>> >
>> >Well they believed him more than they believed your lot.
>>
>> My lot?
>
>Yes.
No, there isn't a 'my lot'. Tories bad, Labour miles worse
are my views in a nutshell.
>> >> >They way I remember it is that they have always clearly said
>> >> >that the problems with public services are deep rooted >> >> >and
would take a long
>> >> >time to get right and would need long term investment.
>> >>
>> >> Wrt to the roads, they spent less in the first few years
>> >> than Major's average spend per year. As Major's spending
>> >> was necessarily constrained by the aftermath of the ERM
>> >> debacle, that is a very poor record by Labour.
>> >
>> >The reason they spent less in the first couple of years is because they
>> >decided to stick to the `Tory spending plans` and to reduce debts left
by
>> >that great party.
>>
>> Bollocks. They kicked all road schemes into a new long review
>> process, and underspent on roads by miles. Short memory you have.
>
>Crossed purposes. I was still talking about Public services in >general.
Fair enough but- now we've disposed of transport as a total
pigs ear by Labour- let's move on. Less was spent, and less
was invested, by the NHS under Labour as a %age of gdp
by Labour for its first few years. So if we believe that
"the problems with public services are deep rooted and
would take a long time to get right and would need long
term investment" then the first few years of Labour were completely wasted
then.
>> Further the 'debts' in 1997 were 50-odd percent of gdp,
>> which compared reasonably with most of our neighbours.
>> At that point there was no urgent need to repay them.
>
>Well as long as they where only 50% then that`s alright then.
The Maastricht criteria was <60%. Yes, that was alright then.
>> >This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
>> >interest in susequent years.
>>
>> This of course, you socialist ninny,
>
>Tut Tut.
The rest of my para, which you've snipped, justifies the
adjective and the noun.
>> >> I agree with you. Labour voters that elected this excuse for
>> >> a government should stand up and say 'mea culpa' 83 times
>> >> before breakfast every day.
>> >
>> >Everyone should face up to their responsibilities (yes even
>> >the people who showed they were quite prepared to sell their
>> >souls for a tax cut in the 80`s and 90`s).
>>
>> I've finally found one- a pratt who wants to defend tax rates
>> of 83 & 98%.
>
>Where? Where? The pratt bit was a little unnecessary.
The tax rates in 1979 were state extortion. You appear to
believe that wishing/ arguing./ voting for tax cuts in the 1980s
involved selling one's soul. The politest description of someone
with those beliefs is 'pratt'. If I have misunderstood your beliefs then
please retract your statement above.
>> >> > IMO the cost of improving these services should go
>> >> >straight onto income tax so that it is fairly spread across
>> >> >incomes.
>> >
>> >> Then do tell Gordon to stop taxing the arse off booze, fags
>> >> and car-users, won't you?
>> >
>> >Is he any different from any other Chancellor from any other
>> >party?
>>
>> Well, the total take on petrol rose a level never seen before.
>> I suppose you've heard of the final straw, have you?
>
>Yes. It`s a cliche isn`t it?
Not for people carrying heavy burdens.
>If duty goes up every year then their is going to be a pretty
>good chance that the total take will reach a level never seen >before.
Agreed. And?
>It`s a crap argument.
Wrong.
>> >Aren`t Friends of the Earth, your above source, in favour
>> >of taxing car users more?
>>
>> No doubt they are. What has that to do with me?
>
>Well you did use them as part of your 'evidence'.
I used their statement of the facts about what John Prescott
said.
>I thought you must have held their views in high regard.
Nope.
>Or is that only when it`s convenient?
I used their facts but not their views.
Labour sympathisers often fail to distinguish between 'facts'
and 'views', but don't normally carry this lack of understanding through
several posts. Now, are you clear on the difference?
>> >Nope. It was always called Natianal Insurance.
>>
>> Limited at about £30k, yes it was NI. Zooming above that
>>limit, it's income tax by another name.
>
>You can`t whinge about lack of goverment spending and
> then complain when they raise the money to invest.
Sloppy thinking on your part again. Labour haven't spent
on the roads, but they've wasted money on, for instance,
electioneering and making the Foot & Mouth outbreak larger than necessary.
The Labour failure to distinguish between
spending on the NHS and investment is exactly what Worldcom
directors are being locked up for.
>> >You may say it was cynical, but it was no more cynical than the Tories
>> denying the accusation (in the
>> >early 80`s) that they were going to double the rate of V.A.T. only then
>to
>> >increase it to a smidgeon under double.
>>
>> But this lot were going to be 'whiter than white'- remember?
>
>Raising NI isn`t corrupt.
True. Unlike some other ministerial activities, it's just plain
misleading to the point of lying. Other activities were corrupt.
>If the polls were anything to go by then most people seemed
> to agree with what he did.
Yes- but the bills haven't come in yet, have they?
>> >> >The hypocricy of politicians merely reflects the hypocricy
>> >> > of us.
>> >>
>> >> Not me, mate.
>
>> >Oh. A paragon of virtue. I`ve never met a real one before.
>
>> You're mixing with the wrong crowd. Try non-socialists if
>> you want to meet a few non-hypocrites.
>
>Are the non-hypocrites the ones that go around wielding
> their "sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play"?
No- that was the guy that was kept out of office by Maggie
but installed by the wally Major, iirc.
>I don`t categories people into groups with little labels that I
>can spit out whenever it`s convenient to do so. I leave that
>to intolerant and blinkered bigots.
Really? I find that socialist multi-millionaires seem to have
more than their fair share of corruption & hypocrisy.
>I mix with a cross section of people and no 'type' are
>any more or less virtious than anyone else.
>> Labour are hoist with their own petard, many times over.
>> They made a big noise about the odd bit of bonking by the
>> Tories, and now find that Labour sleaze is in the news.
>
>No they didn`t. I think you`ll find it was the press who went
>after the "bonking" stories. The other parties didn`t need to
>'make a big noise'. The sleaze that helped destroyed the
>tories was that of personal corruption.
A few thousand quid to two back-benchers, a free weekend
in Paris and a plane ride from a relative of a Palestinian
bigwig was the score. Have I missed any? Pretty small
potatoes besides Ecclestone/ Vaz/ Mandelson pt1/
Robinson/ Reid./ Doncaster/ Mittal/ Hindujas/ Mandelson
Part 2/ Powderject/ Sainsbury in 6 years, huh?
>Now who`s got a short memory?
Let me know.
>> They wasted too much money, and spent their authority on vague
>> attacks on the forces of conservatism to find that part-way
>> through their second term, they have 'delivered' very little, and they
are
>> running out of time.
>
>When in your lifetime has
> employment been higher
> unemployment lower
Pre-1979
> inflation lower
dunno- early 60s maybe?
> interest rates lower
ditto?
Who produced this?- the measures passed in the 1980s.
>> The bothered the teachers and
>> teh health staff and the coppers with bullshit directives, and now find
>that
>> less teaching/healthcare/ crime detection is happening.
>
>Really? Makes you wonder why so many people want to get into these
>professions now doesn`t it.
Seen the early retirement rates?
>I don`t think anyone has ever claimed the
>problems of the PS`s are solved.
No- but at various periods, they have got better. This lot
have almost uniformly made things worse.
>> >I just try to look at things with a more open mind than
>> >some people are prepared to.
>>
>> You mean, you want Labour to wriggle off the hook.
>
>It makes no odds to me. I`ll criticise Labs, Libs, Tories or anyone. I`m
not
>a member of any party and certainly have the one-eyed view of the world you
>seem to have.
I don't believe you. The attitude that wanting a tax cut in the
1980s was 'Selling one's soul' is a pretty defining test of
a Guardian-reading pillock.
--
Anton
anton
Richard Caley wrote in message <87lm79s...@bast.r.caley.org.uk>...
You clearly don't meet anyone employed by Railtrack (most
of whom had shares) either.
--
Anton
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
how marvellous it would be to be a werewolf when Aztech said:
>"Izo Mezzo" <Iz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:QCUNlmbb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
><
>> Without warning? So you'd just stand there and get egged by some hick
>> would you?
>
>You would and they do, Major often got tomatoes thrown at him while he was on
>his soapbox, Maggie had all sorts of things thrown at her, Blair had
>rotten eggs
>thrown at him, it's not nice and it's not acceptable however if you're a
>politician then it goes with the territory in contrast to the numerous
>benefits.
>
Yeah I know, it was out of order, but, er, he used to be a boxer so
that's ok...Seriously though, in his defence he did say he thought the
yolk was blood and that he'd been seriously injured. I suspect it was
just a reaction. Let's face it Prescott isn't the most calm and relaxed
member of the cabinet is he?
>If Prescott was just some fat bloke in a pub then it would have been a
>predictable response, but he isn't (is he?)
>
No he's some fat bloke in Parliament...when he's not in a Westminster
pub that is.
James Follett
<Iz...@hotmail.com> writes
>If I was David Davis I would've sacked IDS for being utterly useless
>while he was on holiday.
The question of IDS's (those initials make him sound like some sort of
contraceptive device) uselessness on holiday is a something that only
IDS's wife can answer. Plus any mistresses/masters he may have.
On a personal note, summers in Spain tend to increase my usefulness.
--
James Follett Novelist (Callsign G1LXP) http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
>In article <FiJI99at...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Izo Mezzo
><Iz...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>If I was David Davis I would've sacked IDS for being utterly useless
>>while he was on holiday.
>
>The question of IDS's (those initials make him sound like some sort of
>contraceptive device)
He *is* a contraceptive device.
c3b3rus
Interestingly when the Queen's car got "egged last week (I think?) the person
who threw the egg was apparently arrested by the police. Prescott turned round
and swiped at the guy grinning at him after throwing an egg and apparently we're
supposed to feel sympathy for the bloke who threw the egg.
Tamas Gyursanszky
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,773038,00.html
>
>
> No 10 'hacked into BBC news computer'
> Michael White, political editor
> Monday August 12, 2002
> The Guardian
>
> The Conservatives last night challenged Gavyn Davies, the
> Labour-appointed chairman of the BBC, to get to the bottom of
> suspicions reported by John Simpson that Downing Street staff hacked
> into the corporation's computer network in their efforts to influence
> news coverage.
section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990...
" s.1 A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function
with intent to secure access to any program or
data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to
perform the function that that is the case.
Summary trial, unless section 3 offence.
> Promoting the book
In the "Review" section of the Sunday Telegraph (not online)..
, News from No Man's Land, Mr Simpson said that
> colleagues were lobbied from Downing Street on points they were making
> in scripts - before the scripts had been broadcast. "This didn't just
> happen once or twice," recalled Mr Simpson, a former BBC political
> editor
>
> Mr Davis noted that there had been an internal inquiry at the BBC,
> centred on the possibility that a former staff member, familiar with
> the system, may have used a password to access it.
>
> Demanding details of the inquiry, Mr Davis, now shadowing John
> Prescott, wrote to Mr Davies: "The public needs to be reassured that
> the BBC has done all it can to ascertain whether any improper conduct
> has taken place."
>
> Last night the BBC replied: "No formal investigation took place.
> Although we do not discuss issues of security, if there was any abuse
> we would put a stop to it. There are a number of ways that people
> could be aware of stories we were working on: eg, talking to potential
> contributors.
>
> "At all times our reporting remains impartial."
>
>
> Guardian Unlimited Š Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
David Freeman
>
> I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
> how marvellous it would be to be a werewolf when James Follett said:
>
>
> >In article <FiJI99at...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Izo Mezzo
> ><Iz...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >>If I was David Davis I would've sacked IDS for being utterly useless
> >>while he was on holiday.
> >
> >The question of IDS's (those initials make him sound like some sort
of
> >contraceptive device)
>
> He *is* a contraceptive device.
If you think I'm using Ian Duncan Smith as a condom, you've got another
thing coming.
Dave
David Freeman
"c3b3rus" <donts...@dont.spa> wrote in message
news:MPG.17c513c71...@news.btinternet.com...
>
> Interestingly when the Queen's car got "egged last week (I think?) the
person
> who threw the egg was apparently arrested by the police. Prescott
turned round
> and swiped at the guy grinning at him after throwing an egg and
apparently we're
> supposed to feel sympathy for the bloke who threw the egg.
It's not a matter of feeling sympathy for him, it's concern at
Prescott's dealing out his instant 'justice' as well as having him
arrested by the police.
Dave
Gareth Owen
> 'Lowering public spending'- don't be daft. Increasing taxes, including
> windfall taxes, stealth taxes; non indexaton of allowances etc has been the
> key to repayment of debt.
Do you even read what you write?
Here is the full exchange to which I was referring...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The reason they spent less in the first couple of years is because they
>decided to stick to the `Tory spending plans` and to reduce debts left by
>that great party.
Bollocks. They kicked all road schemes into a new long review
process, and underspent on roads by miles. Short memory you have.
Further the 'debts' in 1997 were 50-odd percent of gdp,
which compared reasonably with most of our neighbours.
At that point there was no urgent need to repay them.
>This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
>interest in susequent years.
This of course, you socialist ninny, has taken money out of the
pockets of people and companies in Britain, some of whom
need it quite badly, and all of whom can spend or invest
it better and more wisely than tosser Brown.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I don't know what you intended it to mean, but this seems to be about
keeping public spending at Tory levels to repay debt, and you describe it as
socialism. Hence my point. (*sheesh*)
--
Gareth Owen
A plug-in for the mime-type text/plain has not been found.
Richard Caley
a> You clearly don't meet anyone employed by Railtrack (most
a> of whom had shares) either.
Did railtrack have any real employees? I thought it was all managers
and subcontractors-).
If they were given shares, then they have nothing to complain about,
they were given a worthless freebie and shockingly it turns out to be
worth nothing. If they bought shares, they were operating the scam
like the other shareholders,
Richard Caley
a> Originally they were going to get sod all until they realised what affect it had
a> on the City,
And the government should have had some spine and kept it that
way. Indeed they should have demanded the shareholder pay back all the
subsidies on an unlimited liability Lloyds name basis.
a> raising any money for future projects will be extremely expensive
a> from now on, if you currently think companies already get plush
a> deals then wait until the next batch of contracts are drawn up.
It was already very expensive, they just renamed some of the cost of
the borrowing as `subsidy'. The money went out the same in either
case.
If they want to borrow money for a clearly dieing company they should
pay the market rate for such a loan, which will be high, not get a
cheaper headline rate by bribing the lender.
a> Railtrack was a joke, the subsidies and dividends were a joke, but that didn't
a> suddenly give them the right to requisition the company without
a> warning.
It was a fraud set up between the previous government and some
unscrupulous friends. It should have not only been shut down without
repayment, but investigated by the authorities too.
>> They had already been given loadsamoney.
a> Because they were daft enough to fulfil and renew the contracts.
Because they agreed to keep quiet about the fruad.
A company making an astronomical loss year after year with no
possibility of a change should not have a non-zero share price or give
a dividend unless someone is acting outside the borders of normal
business practice. Indeed they were, money was being taken from the
tax payer and handed to the shareholders of railtrack as pretended
dividend.
Aztech
> In article <Zyx69.332$kb1.3...@news-text.cableinet.net>, Aztech (a)
writes:
>
> a> Originally they were going to get sod all until they realised what affect
it had
> a> on the City,
>
> And the government should have had some spine and kept it that
> way. Indeed they should have demanded the shareholder pay back all the
> subsidies on an unlimited liability Lloyds name basis.
You're naive, for starters the company doesn't exist in any substantial form
anymore because they shut them down, so where is the money meant to come from,
let's see, the personal responsibility of the shareholders you say? They bought
shares in a limited liability company, its a concept that's only existed for a
few centuries now.
<
> If they want to borrow money for a clearly dieing company they should
> pay the market rate for such a loan, which will be high, not get a
> cheaper headline rate by bribing the lender.
Think of it the other way around, the government wants to build new schools,
hospitals etc, etc, do you think that money is going to just drop out the sky,
or the government is somehow capable of managing the introduction of all these
new facilities without the single involvement of the private sector?
Companies will demand very strict (uneconomical) contracts from now on because
they know when Government next throws its toys out of the pram it will mostly
likely do another nationalisation by stealth, but even that's flattery, at least
"nationalisation" inferred the previous owners got compensated.
<
> Because they agreed to keep quiet about the fruad.
John "I'll fix it" Prescott was quite happy to continue on with this fraud for
nearly four years, who else can they blame, hrm, no one.
Az.
Aztech
Maybe they were just hard working blokes trying to put some savings aside, there
again I wouldn't expect you to look past the handful of fat cats that dominate
your perceptions.
Az.
Aztech
news:MPG.17c513c71...@news.btinternet.com...
<
> who threw the egg was apparently arrested by the police. Prescott turned round
> and swiped at the guy grinning at him after throwing an egg and apparently
we're
> supposed to feel sympathy for the bloke who threw the egg.
He was arrested, Prescott wasn't.
Besides, if the Queen or old Phil turned around and took a swipe at the person
then I'm sure people would feel enraged at their gutter behaviour.
Az.
Richard Caley
a> Maybe they were just hard working blokes trying to put some savings
a> aside,
Those that were no doubt put their savings into some wide based
savings vehicle. If they put a significant proportion of their savings
into one share they don't need a giovernment handout as they will be
extracting compensation and punative damages from their financial
advisor for gross incompitence. If they didn't seek advice, or ignored
it,then it is hard to have sympathy.
Aztech
For a lot of employees they may have been the only shares they owned, part of
their compensation package included a share ownership scheme and they
unfortunately believed they had a little bit of money put aside, not an
unreasonable assumption, of course the company was then unlawfully requisitioned
out of the blue.
You seem to think "shareholders" = "fatcats", I guess that whole "private" thing
clouds your thinking. You somehow forget a good deal of normal working people
are impacted.
Anyway, have you vacated that property yet, I mean, it's not "really" yours is
it? If you were daft enough to only purchase a single property that could be
unlawfully requisitioned at any time then you deserve what you get, we have no
sympathy.
Az.
Richard Caley
>> And the government should have had some spine and kept it that
>> way. Indeed they should have demanded the shareholder pay back all the
>> subsidies on an unlimited liability Lloyds name basis.
a> You're naive
I didn't say it was likely with the current spineless crooks in power,
I just made a point about what should have happened.
a> for starters the company doesn't exist in any substantial form
a> anymore because they shut them down, so where is the money meant to
a> come from,
The shareholders should be liable for being part of a scam.
a> let's see, the personal responsibility of the shareholders you say? They bought
a> shares in a limited liability company, its a concept that's only existed for a
a> few centuries now.
I don't think it is bizzare to say that a supposed limited liability
company set up to perpetrate a scam should void it's supposed limited
status. Otherwise any fruadster could set up a front, sign up some
stupid or non existant directors, and be bulletproof.
>> If they want to borrow money for a clearly dieing company they should
>> pay the market rate for such a loan, which will be high, not get a
>> cheaper headline rate by bribing the lender.
a> Think of it the other way around, the government wants to build new
a> schools, hospitals etc, etc, do you think that money is going to
a> just drop out the sky, or the government is somehow capable of
a> managing the introduction of all these new facilities without the
a> single involvement of the private sector?
This is why the government is allowed to borrow money and/or put out
bonds. There is no need to set up scams like railtrack.
I have no objection to private involvement, I object to the pretense
that Railtrack was a private company making a profit to pay dividends
when it was by all reasonable measures a government front with the
supposed shareholders beign payed off from taxation to pretend it was
a company.
a> John "I'll fix it" Prescott was quite happy to continue on with this fraud for
a> nearly four years, who else can they blame, hrm, no one.
Do you somehow imagine I don't think the current lot are almost as
reposonsible as the people who set it up and the people who took part?
Aztech
> bonds. There is no need to set up scams like railtrack.
So they consume tax revenues maintaining Gilts? Say they can raise the money
quickly through public funds, what's to say it will be spent and managed
properly? You'll find it's more difficult to get rid of a large group of
anonymous, inept, civil servants than your lovely "fatcats", they have to
perform or they're out on their arse, usually with a nice payoff (just like the
public sector).
Hrm, let's see, companies are getting shaky over PFI :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_at_one/2195411.stm
> I have no objection to private involvement, I object to the pretense
> that Railtrack was a private company making a profit to pay dividends
> when it was by all reasonable measures a government front with the
> supposed shareholders beign payed off from taxation to pretend it was
> a company.
It was a joke of a company, but there's also many places around the country that
are a joke of a town, but that doesn't give me the right to just go and take it
over without notice or compensation.
> a> John "I'll fix it" Prescott was quite happy to continue on with this fraud
for
> a> nearly four years, who else can they blame, hrm, no one.
>
> Do you somehow imagine I don't think the current lot are almost as
> reposonsible as the people who set it up and the people who took part?
Byers was bright enough to realise he was pumping money into a bottomless pit
without any form of commitments in return (his predecessor never quite worked it
out), he just went about the wrong way of solving that problem. The government
ended up compensating shareholders at above market rates in the end, they could
have acquired shares/control on the market.
Az.
Richard Caley
a> For a lot of employees they may have been the only shares they owned, part of
a> their compensation package included a share ownership scheme
I said, freebies are nice but when they don't pan out as worth
anything, only a fool would cry.
a> You seem to think "shareholders" = "fatcats", I guess that whole "private" thing
a> clouds your thinking. You somehow forget a good deal of normal working people
a> are impacted.
I am a shareholder (direct and via a pension), also a company
director. I have no problem with `this private thing' I just know a
scam when I see one, and a company which is permanently making huge
operating losses and yet paying out dividends has `scam' written right
across it in neon letters. Look closer and lo-and-behold the
`dividend' money is just coming diretcly from the taxpayer and had
nothing to do with the operations of the company.
a> Anyway, have you vacated that property yet, I mean, it's not "really" yours is
a> it?
About 30% of it belongs to the Hallifax.
a> If you were daft enough to only purchase a single property that
a> could be unlawfully requisitioned at any time then you deserve what
a> you get, we have no sympathy.
When you can point me to the millions of pounds I have recieved from
the government for doing them the favour of pretending to own this
flat, your analogy might hold water.
Richard Caley
>> This is why the government is allowed to borrow money and/or put out
>> bonds. There is no need to set up scams like railtrack.
a> So they consume tax revenues maintaining Gilts?
Yes, that is how borrowing works in the non-scam world. You borrow
capital and pay back out of revenue.
a> Say they can raise the money quickly through public funds, what's
a> to say it will be spent and managed properly?
Nothing. This is not relevent I have no problem with private compnies.
I have only made negative comments about one particular scam.
a> Hrm, let's see, companies are getting shaky over PFI :-
Good. PFI is the ultimate combination of government bad management
and our money with private bad management and unwillingness to take
commercial risk.
I work in IT. Government PFI style IT projects are the biggest running
joke in the industry. Conside the `new' CSA system. Not yet in sight,
massively over budget, and done on a contract where the private
contractor takes no responsibility so is happy to drag it out and keep
the cost (ie their income) rising.
a> It was a joke of a company, but there's also many places around the country that
a> are a joke of a town, but that doesn't give me the right to just go and take it
a> over without notice or compensation.
It does if you payed for it all.
If the government(s) had demanded equity for every pound of money
handed over, as any normal investor would have, they would have owned
such a high proportion of railtrack by end of last year that they
could pay off the other shareholders from 2-jags prescott's lunch
alowance for a week when he was on a diet.
Richard Caley
>> He *is* a contraceptive device.
df> If you think I'm using Ian Duncan Smith as a condom, you've got another
df> thing coming.
Don't be silly, just look at him. It's obvious he is a complete and
utter pill.
Aztech
<
> I work in IT. Government PFI style IT projects are the biggest running
> joke in the industry. Conside the `new' CSA system. Not yet in sight,
> massively over budget, and done on a contract where the private
> contractor takes no responsibility so is happy to drag it out and keep
> the cost (ie their income) rising.
I don't think that can be directly blamed on PFI, Government and IT has been a
longrunning joke for well over a decade, has any system actually succeeded yet?
It just seems like failure after failure, plus countless delays that go way over
budget, then finally obsolescence and abandonment, ad nauseum.
<
> a> It was a joke of a company, but there's also many places around the country
that
> a> are a joke of a town, but that doesn't give me the right to just go and
take it
> a> over without notice or compensation.
>
> It does if you payed for it all.
It would if I demanded ownership before hand, but say I paid for it all but
never demanded anything in return, it may be morally mine but not according to
the agreements.
> If the government(s) had demanded equity for every pound of money
> handed over, as any normal investor would have, they would have owned
> such a high proportion of railtrack by end of last year that they
> could pay off the other shareholders from 2-jags prescott's lunch
> alowance for a week when he was on a diet.
Yes, "if" but they didn't sign anything like that.
Az.
Aztech
> a> could be unlawfully requisitioned at any time then you deserve what
> a> you get, we have no sympathy.
>
> When you can point me to the millions of pounds I have recieved from
> the government for doing them the favour of pretending to own this
> flat, your analogy might hold water.
The thing is, the government wasn't clever enough to bind the ownership of the
flat to the millions in subsidy you lost on that materialistic orgy.
Az.
Richard Caley
a> I don't think that can be directly blamed on PFI, Government and IT has been a
a> longrunning joke for well over a decade, has any system actually
a> succeeded yet?
But PFI in _theory_ should sidestep that. It doesn't because PFI as it
is actually used doesn't put the risk on the private contractor, where
it should be if it is not to be just another government project.
a> Yes, "if" but they didn't sign anything like [a sane agreement].
ISTM that if two parties set up an agreement to defraud a third, then
the governemnt should have the powere to void the agreement, punish
and demand reparations. Even if one of the parties was the previous
government.
Aztech
> In article <xuO69.1517$Jq4.9...@news-text.cableinet.net>, Aztech (a)
writes:
>
> a> I don't think that can be directly blamed on PFI, Government and IT has
been a
> a> longrunning joke for well over a decade, has any system actually
> a> succeeded yet?
>
> But PFI in _theory_ should sidestep that. It doesn't because PFI as it
> is actually used doesn't put the risk on the private contractor, where
> it should be if it is not to be just another government project.
It simply moves upfront and longterm capital costs outside the public sector,
it's not some panacea against blatant incompetence perfected over countless
decades.
<
> a> Yes, "if" but they didn't sign anything like [a sane agreement].
>
> ISTM that if two parties set up an agreement to defraud a third, then
> the governemnt should have the powere to void the agreement, punish
> and demand reparations. Even if one of the parties was the previous
> government.
Unfortunately Popeye had no problems continuing with said agreements, if they
had so many reservations about Railtrack as defined by the previous Government
then why wasn't it dissolved in an orderly manner in 1997?
Az.
Richard Caley
>> But PFI in _theory_ should sidestep that. It doesn't because PFI as it
>> is actually used doesn't put the risk on the private contractor, where
>> it should be if it is not to be just another government project.
a> It simply moves upfront and longterm capital costs outside the public sector,
a> it's not some panacea against blatant incompetence perfected over countless
a> decades.
It _could_ be used to make the project work. That it isn't is an
argument that it shouldn't be done at all. May as well not do the
project or have it fail without paying extra profits to an outside
contractor if it is going to fail anyway.
>> ISTM that if two parties set up an agreement to defraud a third, then
>> the governemnt should have the powere to void the agreement, punish
>> and demand reparations. Even if one of the parties was the previous
>> government.
a> Unfortunately Popeye had no problems continuing with said agreements, if they
a> had so many reservations about Railtrack as defined by the previous Government
a> then why wasn't it dissolved in an orderly manner in 1997?
You seem to be working under the missaprehension that the government
chnaged in 1997. It didn't there was just a cabinet reshuffle and
business as before. Byers only moved at all when it became
advantageous to actually do something which could be sold as sane in
the hope that the cheers would help cover up the stink of all his
other messes.
So, yes, they should have confiscated Railtrack from the scammers in
1997 and demanded the subsidy money back, but nu Tories, like old
Tories have no spine and no interest in actually running anything
properly.
Aztech
they
> a> had so many reservations about Railtrack as defined by the previous
Government
> a> then why wasn't it dissolved in an orderly manner in 1997?
>
> You seem to be working under the missaprehension that the government
> chnaged in 1997. It didn't there was just a cabinet reshuffle and
> business as before.
Lol... you got me.
Az.
anton
Gareth Owen wrote in message ...
>"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> writes:
>
>> 'Lowering public spending'- don't be daft. Increasing taxes, including
>> windfall taxes, stealth taxes; non indexaton of allowances etc has been
the
>> key to repayment of debt.
>
>Do you even read what you write?
Yes, sometimes. More to the point, do you understand it?
>Here is the full exchange to which I was referring...
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>>The reason they spent less in the first couple of years is because they
>>decided to stick to the `Tory spending plans` and to reduce debts left by
>>that great party.
>
>Bollocks. They kicked all road schemes into a new long review
>process, and underspent on roads by miles. Short memory you have.
>
>Further the 'debts' in 1997 were 50-odd percent of gdp,
>which compared reasonably with most of our neighbours.
>At that point there was no urgent need to repay them.
>
>>This of course reduces the amount that is wasted in
>>interest in susequent years.
>
>This of course, you socialist ninny, has taken money out of the
>pockets of people and companies in Britain, some of whom
>need it quite badly, and all of whom can spend or invest
>it better and more wisely than tosser Brown.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>Now I don't know what you intended it to mean, but this seems to be about
>keeping public spending at Tory levels to repay debt, and you describe it
as
>socialism. Hence my point. (*sheesh*)
Your inability to think straight is very tedious, and your ability
to regurgitate semi-digested Labour propaganda is even
more tedious.
Here's a Noddy-like summary:
ON ROADS: Labour did not stick to Tory spending plans,
they cancelled/postponed/reviewed road schemes and hence
spent less than the Tories budgetted for. We are now paying
the price in increased congestion.
ON THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE
Labour increased tax rates, introduced the windfall tax, increased taxation
on pension schemes, under-indexed allowances, etc- the net effect being that
taxation rose
fast. As this was not matched by increased spending,
some of the national debt was repaid.
alles klar?
--
Anton
anton
Richard Caley wrote in message <87d6skm...@bast.r.caley.org.uk>...
You are clearly under a misapprehension- there was no scam.
There was a sudden imposition on a private company by the
govt of a safety requirement which was not imposed on its
state-owned predecessor. This was a heavy burden to carry-
and the lifting of this burden from the state-owned "not-for-
profit" company shows that the Labour trash manipulated
all this to end up with a state-controlled system.
Now, what's your ninny nonsense about a scam?
--
Anton
Richard Caley
a> You are clearly under a misapprehension- there was no scam.
a> There was a sudden imposition on a private company by the
a> govt of a safety requirement which was not imposed on its
a> state-owned predecessor.
That's what they got shedloads of cash for.
a> Now, what's your ninny nonsense about a scam?
A company who makes losses and yet pays dividends is running a
scam. That money is coming from somewhere, in this case my pocket and
yours.
James Follett
>> >
>> >>If I was David Davis I would've sacked IDS for being utterly useless
>> >>while he was on holiday.
>> >
>> >The question of IDS's (those initials make him sound like some sort
>of
>> >contraceptive device)
>>
>> He *is* a contraceptive device.
>
>If you think I'm using Ian Duncan Smith as a condom, you've got another
>thing coming.
I'd love to think of this as an intentional pun.
Anyway, it's Cherie Blair who is suffering as a result of Downing Street
leaks.
--
James Follett Novelist (Callsign G1LXP) http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
I was thinking more of a fancying a shag, then seeing IDS on the
Telly....put you right off that would.
Oh and was that an unintentional pun btw?
--
Izo
I went into a sweet shop the other day
I said I want some Cadburys chocolate
Some crispy cereal,some chewy nougat,
up there.
And a Persian rug.
He said gerrout you, gerrout me sweet shop!
Izo Mezzo
I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
how marvellous it would be to be a werewolf when James Follett said:
>In article <3d5b67d9$0$12857$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>, David Freeman
><dfre...@REMOVETOREPLYwoodhill.co.uk> writes
>>> >
>>> >>If I was David Davis I would've sacked IDS for being utterly useless
>>> >>while he was on holiday.
>>> >
>>> >The question of IDS's (those initials make him sound like some sort
>>of
>>> >contraceptive device)
>>>
>>> He *is* a contraceptive device.
>>
>>If you think I'm using Ian Duncan Smith as a condom, you've got another
>>thing coming.
> ^^^^^
>I'd love to think of this as an intentional pun.
>
>Anyway, it's Cherie Blair who is suffering as a result of Downing Street
>leaks.
>
Boom Boom!
anton
Richard Caley wrote in message <878z38f...@bast.r.caley.org.uk>...
>In article <ajglko$h8n$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, anton (a) writes:
>
>a> You are clearly under a misapprehension- there was no scam.
>a> There was a sudden imposition on a private company by the
>a> govt of a safety requirement which was not imposed on its
>a> state-owned predecessor.
>
>That's what they got shedloads of cash for.
Nonsense. Railtrack got paid in accordance with the contracts
signed when it was privatised. [A feature of those contracts,
btw, is that payments for increased use of lines by the TOx
were small, despite the increased costs of e.g. maintaining the
lines in smaller time windows]. I'm not aware of any increased
payments for the extra safety standards imposed hysterically under Labour.
Now you've demonstrated that you know
nothing about these payments, you can retract your previous
statements.
>a> Now, what's your ninny nonsense about a scam?
>
>A company who makes losses and yet pays dividends is
>running a scam. That money is coming from somewhere,
>in this case my pocket and yours.
Dividends can only be paid from accumulated profits,
didn't you know? Company law isn't your long suit either.
--
Anton
Richard Caley
a> Dividends can only be paid from accumulated profits,
a> didn't you know? Company law isn't your long suit either.
Indeed, that is the point. Since railtrack was clearly not making a
profit in any normal sense, where was that cash coming from?
David Freeman
>
> I was sitting in my big leather arm chair, watching telly and thinking
> how marvellous it would be to be a werewolf when David Freeman said:
>
>
> >
> >"Izo Mezzo" <Iz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:AHbZUhXn...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If you think I'm using Ian Duncan Smith as a condom, you've got
another
> >thing coming.
> >
>
> I was thinking more of a fancying a shag, then seeing IDS on the
> Telly....put you right off that would.
>
> Oh and was that an unintentional pun btw?
Oh no, that was completely intentional. Just like the newspapers, the
quality of my output reaches rock bottom in August.
Dave
anton
gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk wrote in message
<3d5fa8e8...@news.btopenworld.com>...
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:45:13 GMT, "Aztech" <a...@tech.com> sprachen:
>
>>Railtrack was a joke, the subsidies and dividends were a joke, but that
didn't
>>suddenly give them the right to requisition the company without warning.
>
>Yes it did. And if it means nobody will ever trust the government to
>flog off national property again, good, we'll be stuck with it.
i.e. stuck with an underinvested dirty late inadequate train
service.
>I didn't personally get 10 pence from whatever they did with the money
>from selling British Rail. I'm sure my ancestors had some part in
>building it, somewhere down the line. Therefore I was robbed.
You twerp. The railways were built by private companies.
They were nationalised post-war having been worn out during
the war.
>I'm trying really hard to squeeze out a tear for rich
>speculators losing money on one of their bets, really I am,
>but I must be all cried out or something. Compassion fatigue. >It's a
terrible thing.
The govt changed the rules of the game after the bets were
placed, and Blyers attempted to nationalise Railtrack without
compensation. The govt are now paying compensation to stay
out of court, as the court case would have been so horrendously
embarrassing to this bunch of liars. They are either not
suffering from compassion fatigue, or (more likely) are using
taxpayers money to cover their errors- not for the first time.
--
Anton
anton
Richard Caley wrote in message <87fzxfe...@bast.r.caley.org.uk>...
>In article <ajh9fv$l7k$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, anton (a) writes:
>
>a> Dividends can only be paid from accumulated profits,
>a> didn't you know? Company law isn't your long suit either.
>
>Indeed, that is the point. Since railtrack was clearly not
> making a profit in any normal sense, where was that cash
>coming from?
Which syllable of 'accumulated' makes it too hard for you
to understand?
--
Anton
Gareth Owen
> ON ROADS: Labour did not stick to Tory spending plans, they
> cancelled/postponed/reviewed road schemes and hence spent less than the
> Tories budgetted for. We are now paying the price in increased congestion.
So less public expenditure. Not what most people would call "socialism".
> ON THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE
> Labour increased tax rates, introduced the windfall tax, increased taxation
> on pension schemes, under-indexed allowances, etc- the net effect being that
> taxation rose fast. As this was not matched by increased spending,
> some of the national debt was repaid.
Yes I know. Now *you* described one of those two policies as "socialism."
Which did you have in mind, given that there was a net decrease in public
spending, why do you consider it "socialism."
The only thing I ever questioned was your description of this as socialism.
--
Gareth Owen
The Johnny Walker wisdom's running high
Richard Caley
>> Indeed, that is the point. Since railtrack was clearly not
>> making a profit in any normal sense, where was that cash
>> coming from?
a> Which syllable of 'accumulated' makes it too hard for you
a> to understand?
Which concept of `money went from the treasury into sharehoders
pockets' makes it too hard for you to understand?
--
Greg Hennessy
<anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>They were nationalised post-war having been worn out during
>the war.
Worse than that, worn out by war time service that was *NOT* paid for by
the state. Promises to settle up when it was all over that turned out to be
rather hollow.
Railway owners and shareholders were rewarded for their patriotic duty of
keeping staff paid and services running by having their assets seized with
derisory compensation that nowhere reflected the value of the network on
31/08/39. Laughable 'compensation' which included govt paper later inflated
away.
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#NOSPAM\.##;
'Let there be guitar', and there was guitar.....
'Let there be ROCK'
mick
"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ajecva$an9$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> mick wrote in message ...
> >
> >"anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:ajdsas$est$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >> mick wrote in message ...
> >> >Well they believed him more than they believed your lot.
> >>
> >> My lot?
> >
> >Yes.
> No, there isn't a 'my lot'. Tories bad, Labour miles worse
> are my views in a nutshell.
And I`m not a socialist. I just think the Tories are far worse.
> >Crossed purposes. I was still talking about Public services in general.
>
> Fair enough but- now we've disposed of transport as a total
> pigs ear by Labour- let's move on.
Aren`t you going to praise JP for keeping half his promise then?
> Less was spent, and less
> was invested, by the NHS under Labour as a %age of gdp
> by Labour for its first few years. So if we believe that
> "the problems with public services are deep rooted and
> would take a long time to get right and would need long
> term investment" then the first few years of Labour were completely
wasted
> then.
It depends whether you want to pay high amounts of interest on a massive
debt over a longer period of time or reduce the debt, thus reducing interest
payments, which can be then used for investment over the longer term. It of
course leaves them open to the argument you make about the 'early years'.
However as the years go by that argument inevitably becomes weaker and
weaker.
> >> Further the 'debts' in 1997 were 50-odd percent of gdp,
> >> which compared reasonably with most of our neighbours.
> >> At that point there was no urgent need to repay them.
> >
> >Well as long as they where only 50% then that`s alright then.
>
> The Maastricht criteria was 60%. Yes, that was alright then.
Are you honestly saying that given axcactly the same circumstances but with
a different government you would still be viewing this with such rose tinted
glasses?
> >> This of course, you socialist ninny,
> >
> >Tut Tut.
> The rest of my para, which you've snipped, justifies the
> adjective and the noun.
Dissagreement is fine. Name calling is a little bit silly though isn`t it?
> >> I've finally found one- a pratt who wants to defend tax rates
> >> of 83 & 98%.
> >
> >Where? Where? The pratt bit was a little unnecessary.
>
> The tax rates in 1979 were state extortion.
The higher rates of tax were indeed rediculous. I wonder how many people
actually paid them though.
> You appear to believe that wishing/ arguing./ voting for tax cuts in the
1980s
> involved selling one's soul. The politest description of someone
> with those beliefs is 'pratt'. If I have misunderstood your beliefs then
> please retract your statement above.
The sort of people I am refering to are the sort who would sell anyone or
anything down the river for a penny off income tax. The sort who would
complain publicly about the state of PSs but would privately put tax cuts
first. The sort who sat idly by and watched the reintroduction of mass
unemployment to this country. The sort who allowed pensioners to die of
hypothermia because they would rather have a tax cut than pay the elderly
enough to heat there homes. The sort who never felt any shame when one of
their own ministers put forward the solution of 'knit yourself a cardigan'
to keep warm. The sort of people who condemned others to work under terms
and conditions they would never dream of working under themselves. The sort
of people who turned a blind eye to the communities that were destroyed by
the policies that they themselves where benefiting by. Those are the sort of
people I am talking about. Clear now?
> >> >> > IMO the cost of improving these services should go
> >> >> >straight onto income tax so that it is fairly spread across
> >> >> >incomes.
> >> >
> >> >> Then do tell Gordon to stop taxing the arse off booze, fags
> >> >> and car-users, won't you?
> >> >
> >> >Is he any different from any other Chancellor from any other
> >> >party?
> >>
> >> Well, the total take on petrol rose a level never seen before.
> >> I suppose you've heard of the final straw, have you?
> >
> >Yes. It`s a cliche isn`t it?
>
> Not for people carrying heavy burdens.
Weren`t people carrying heavy burdens when LeMonte/Major/Clarke were in the
same job?
> >If duty goes up every year then their is going to be a pretty
> >good chance that the total take will reach a level never seen before.
>
> Agreed. And?
It`s an accusation that can be aimed at any sitting Chancellor from any
party at any moment in time. That`s what makes it a crap argument.
> >> >Aren`t Friends of the Earth, your above source, in favour
> >> >of taxing car users more?
> >>
> >> No doubt they are. What has that to do with me?
> >
> >Well you did use them as part of your 'evidence'.
>
> I used their statement of the facts about what John Prescott
> said.
>
> >I thought you must have held their views in high regard.
>
> Nope.
>
> >Or is that only when it`s convenient?
>
> I used their facts but not their views.
> Labour sympathisers often fail to distinguish between 'facts'
> and 'views', but don't normally carry this lack of understanding through
> several posts. Now, are you clear on the difference?
It`s a bit of a shame you hadn`t read their 'facts' before you used them to
back up your incorrect 'views' then isn`t it?
> >> >Nope. It was always called Natianal Insurance.
> >>
> >> Limited at about £30k, yes it was NI. Zooming above that
> >>limit, it's income tax by another name.
> >
> >You can`t whinge about lack of goverment spending and
> > then complain when they raise the money to invest.
>
> Sloppy thinking on your part again. Labour haven't spent
> on the roads, but they've wasted money on, for instance,
> electioneering and making the Foot & Mouth outbreak larger than necessary.
And don`t forget subsidising and compensating all of those Tory farmers.
Did you have a simpler solution to the foot and mouth problem then? Was it
as good as the Mad Cow Desease solution from the Tory party. Yes hindsight
is a lovely thing isn`t it?
> >> >You may say it was cynical, but it was no more cynical than the Tories
> >> denying the accusation (in the
> >> >early 80`s) that they were going to double the rate of V.A.T. only
then
> >to
> >> >increase it to a smidgeon under double.
> >>
> >> But this lot were going to be 'whiter than white'- remember?
> >
> >Raising NI isn`t corrupt.
>
> True. Unlike some other ministerial activities, it's just plain
> misleading to the point of lying.
It was either lying or it wasn`t. Now who`s being sloppy in their thinking?
> >If the polls were anything to go by then most people seemed
> > to agree with what he did.
>
> Yes- but the bills haven't come in yet, have they?
If people don`t like what they have to pay then they can decide to vote for
someone else at the next election. That`s exactly how it should be. We`ll
have to wait and see won`t we.
> >> >> >The hypocricy of politicians merely reflects the hypocricy
> >> >> > of us.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not me, mate.
> >
> >> >Oh. A paragon of virtue. I`ve never met a real one before.
> >
> >> You're mixing with the wrong crowd. Try non-socialists if
> >> you want to meet a few non-hypocrites.
> >
> >Are the non-hypocrites the ones that go around wielding
> > their "sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play"?
>
> No- that was the guy that was kept out of office by Maggie
> but installed by the wally Major, iirc.
Are you suggesting she knew he was corrupt and that was the reason she
didn`t appoint him? If so why didn`t she kick him out of the party?
Are you suggesting it was good judgement on her part?
In which case it`s a bit of a shame she didn`t use the same judgement when
choosing Jeffrey Archer as party chairman (even after she`d been warned by
Willie Whitelaw).
I thought she turned against Aitken only after he ditched her daughter.
Speaking of Maggies offspring, care to remind us how her own son made his
millions? Did he ever repay the tax payer the money it cost to search for
him when he got himself lost in the desert?
> >I don`t categories people into groups with little labels that I
> >can spit out whenever it`s convenient to do so. I leave that
> >to intolerant and blinkered bigots.
>
> Really? I find that socialist multi-millionaires seem to have
> more than their fair share of corruption & hypocrisy.
You prefer corrupt and hypocritcal Tory millionaires then?
As I said last time...
> > no 'type' are any more or less virtious than anyone else.
>> The sleaze that helped destroyed the tories was that of personal
corruption.
>
> A few thousand quid to two back-benchers,
Two? Behave.
> a free weekend in Paris and a plane ride from a relative of a Palestinian
> bigwig was the score. Have I missed any?
Yes.
Shirley Porter - found guilty in court (has she paid the money back yet
or is she still hiding abroad)?
Jonothan Aitken - found guilty in court and jailed.
Jeffery Archer - found guilty in court and jailed.
> Pretty small potatoes besides Ecclestone/ Vaz/ Mandelson pt1/
> Robinson/ Reid./ Doncaster/ Mittal/ Hindujas/ Mandelson
> Part 2/ Powderject/ Sainsbury in 6 years, huh?
How many of the above have been successfuly prosecuted for corruption?
If your definition of guilt is suspicion and accusation then-
All those tory MPs who ended up on the boards of companies that they helped
privatise.
All those businessmen who were payrolling the Tories during the 80`s/90`s.
We of course don`t know most of their names because the tories won`t release
them, just like they won`t release the the money given to the party by that
fugitive from justice Asil Nadir.
> >Now who`s got a short memory?
>
> Let me know.
You it seems.
> >> They wasted too much money, and spent their authority on vague
> >> attacks on the forces of conservatism to find that part-way
> >> through their second term, they have 'delivered' very little, and they
> are
> >> running out of time.
> >
> >When in your lifetime has
> > employment been higher
> > unemployment lower
>
> Pre-1979
Employment has never been higher.
Unemployment is at`s lowest since the Labour government of the 70`s
> > inflation lower
>
> dunno- early 60s maybe?
>
> > interest rates lower
> ditto?
>
> Who produced this?- the measures passed in the 1980s.
Some of the measures of the 80`s did indeed contribute (they certainly
didn`t produce this)-
the stamping down on trade unions that thought they should be running the
country and that public services where their for the soul benefit of their
workers rather than the public. Something previous Labour and Tory
governments set out to do but didn`t have the bollocks to follow through.
Finally getting through to people that if you wanted money to spend on
either higher
wages or higher public spending/investment then you had to generate that
money in the first place.
They encouragement of private enterprise.
> >> The bothered the teachers and
> >> teh health staff and the coppers with bullshit directives, and now find
> >that
> >> less teaching/healthcare/ crime detection is happening.
> >
> >Really? Makes you wonder why so many people want to get into these
> >professions now doesn`t it.
>
> Seen the early retirement rates?
So? If people want to retire, for whatever reason, let them.
> >I don`t think anyone has ever claimed the
> >problems of the PS`s are solved.
>
> No- but at various periods, they have got better. This lot
> have almost uniformly made things worse.
"At various periods" Now there`s a catch-all phrase if ever their was one.
This lot have only just started on the problems left by the last lot. If you
can`t solve these problems in 18 years then you can hardly criticise people
for not solving them in 5.
After all the Tories have been in opposition for the last five years and
they haven`t even been able to cobble together any policies at all, and it`s
not as if they`ve had much else to do is it?
> >> >I just try to look at things with a more open mind than
> >> >some people are prepared to.
> >>
> >> You mean, you want Labour to wriggle off the hook.
> >
> >It makes no odds to me. I`ll criticise Labs, Libs, Tories or anyone. I`m
> not
> >a member of any party and certainly have the one-eyed view of the world
you
> >seem to have.
>
> I don't believe you.
Your problem.
> The attitude that wanting a tax cut in the 1980s was 'Selling one's soul'
is a pretty > defining test of a Guardian-reading pillock.
Never read the Guardian in my life. Are they similar to Telegraph/Mail
reading pillocks?
mick
mick
"Greg Hennessy" <nn...@NOSPAM.cmkrnl.cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fvjplukofqvl6emrr...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:13:32 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
> <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >They were nationalised post-war having been worn out during
> >the war.
>
> Worse than that, worn out by war time service that was *NOT* paid for by
> the state. Promises to settle up when it was all over that turned out to
be
> rather hollow.
>
> Railway owners and shareholders were rewarded for their patriotic duty of
> keeping staff paid and services running by having their assets seized with
> derisory compensation that nowhere reflected the value of the network on
> 31/08/39. Laughable 'compensation' which included govt paper later
inflated
> away.
How much compensation did the owners of British Rail recieve when it was
broken up and sold off?
mick
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>> Railway owners and shareholders were rewarded for their patriotic duty of
>> keeping staff paid and services running by having their assets seized with
>> derisory compensation that nowhere reflected the value of the network on
>> 31/08/39. Laughable 'compensation' which included govt paper later
>inflated
>> away.
>
>How much compensation did the owners of British Rail recieve when it was
>broken up and sold off?
Tu quoque. Come back when you have a real point.
greg
>
>mick