Does Baroness Thatcher know what she is dealing with?
vta...@my-dejanews.com
_Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
Her talk about security and American policies was either an exercise
in disinformation directed at `rogue' states, in which she claimed
that the U. S. keeps its door open to graduate students from North
Korea and Iran, and puts highly sensitive information on the Internet,
e. g., in the web pages of NASA, or it demonstrated genuine ignorance
about what the political composition of the U. S. really is.
I recommend to any British Tory who would believe Baroness Thatcher's
speech to read the history of the Senator Joseph McCarthy communist-
spy hearings with the understanding that Senator McCarthy was more
right than he knew, and that his opponents brought him down. Any
British Tory would also do well to assume that Britain has endured a
similar history of infiltration.
One thing that the Baroness said that was completely true is that
Communist leaders are `slow learners'. This is true because Communist
dogma was frozen in the 19th century, and every indoctrinated Communist
will abide by this dogma to the death.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Cliff Morrison
> When Baroness Thatcher was introduced today in Washington, D. C., as
> _Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
Seems an easy enough mistake to make; and as for 'insult'
well it hardly blips on the richter scale, surely?
JNugent231
>vta...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> When Baroness Thatcher was introduced today in Washington, D. C., as
>> _Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
>Seems an easy enough mistake to make; and as for 'insult'
>well it hardly blips on the richter scale, surely?
My thought exactly.
Spin Doctor
vta...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<747r0j$brp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>When Baroness Thatcher was introduced today in Washington, D. C., as
>_Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
Although this is not really a political point, it is perfectly normal to
refer to a Baroness as 'Lady'. In particular, when writing to a Baroness,
the correct form of address would be "Dear Lady x" In speech, when not
using the full title, Lady Thatcher would be alright. It would not,
however, be correct to refer to Her as Lady Thatcher of Kesteven rather She
is The Right Honorable, the Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven.
Hope this makes you all feel better.
Spin
Matthew M. Huntbach
> When Baroness Thatcher was introduced today in Washington, D. C., as
> _Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
No it was not. You obviously do not understand that someone with the title
"Baronness X" or "Baron Y" is correctly referred to as "Lady X" or "Lord Y".
The gaffe is on your part for making continued use of the form "Baronness" in
your article. This is not correct British usage.
Matthew Huntbach
Assem Assambekova
> vta...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <747r0j$brp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >When Baroness Thatcher was introduced today in Washington, D. C., as
> >_Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
>
> Although this is not really a political point, it is perfectly normal
> to
> refer to a Baroness as 'Lady'. In particular, when writing to a
> Baroness,
> the correct form of address would be "Dear Lady x" In speech, when
> not
> using the full title, Lady Thatcher would be alright. It would not,
> however, be correct to refer to Her as Lady Thatcher of Kesteven
> rather She
> is The Right Honorable, the Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven.
>
Or the increasingly common form (with other people, at any rate)'Lady
Margaret Thatcher', which would imply that she was the daughter
of an earl, a marquess or a duke.
--
Aidan Thomson.
Chas Bung-Wallet
>When Baroness Thatcher was introduced today in Washington, D. C., as
>_Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
If you're into such things, the correct form of address for a baroness
is exactly Lady So-and-So. Besides, you may consider it revenge for
the revocation of Robin Day's knighthood.
Spin Doctor
Assem Assambekova wrote in message <3667EF7A...@magdalen.ox.ac.uk>...
>Spin Doctor wrote:
>
>> vta...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> <747r0j$brp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >_Lady_ Thatcher, that was a deliberate gaffe, an insult if you wish.
>>
>> to
>> refer to a Baroness as 'Lady'. In particular, when writing to a
>> Baroness,
>> the correct form of address would be "Dear Lady x" In speech, when
>> not
>> using the full title, Lady Thatcher would be alright. It would not,
>> however, be correct to refer to Her as Lady Thatcher of Kesteven
>> rather She
>> is The Right Honorable, the Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven.
>>
>
>Or the increasingly common form (with other people, at any rate)'Lady
>Margaret Thatcher', which would imply that she was the daughter
>of an earl, a marquess or a duke.
Or as many of New Labour's child MP's seem to think, Baroness Mrs Thatcher.
Spin
Pete Barrett
<assem.as...@magdalen.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Or the increasingly common form (with other people, at any rate)'Lady
>Margaret Thatcher', which would imply that she was the daughter
>of an earl, a marquess or a duke.
Instead of the daughter of a grocer, a much more useful type of person.
Pete Barrett
jonathan joy
the f@#$ cares if she is a lady or baroness? What does this title mean
to 95% of the population - not a lot I suspect!
Matthew M. Huntbach
If they are so useful, why is it we are increasingly moving to the position
where there are only four grocers in the whole country? The independent
grocer is a vanishing species.
Matthew Huntbach
T Bruce Tober
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>If they are so useful, why is it we are increasingly moving to the position
>where there are only four grocers in the whole country? The independent
>grocer is a vanishing species.
Why?
Easy, because recent governments and the population as a whole in too
large part, has been taken in by the yank's hollywood hype and
Washington propaganda and is rapidly turning the UK into the 51st state
of the US. I for one shop mostly at grocer's, butchers, fruit and veg
shops and bakers. Only hit the soopermarkets when absolutely necessary.
tbt --
| Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
|Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <74gf25$3t3$2...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew M. Huntbach
> <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
> >If they are so useful, why is it we are increasingly moving to the position
> >where there are only four grocers in the whole country? The independent
> >grocer is a vanishing species.
> Why?
> Easy, because recent governments and the population as a whole in too
> large part, has been taken in by the yank's hollywood hype and
> Washington propaganda and is rapidly turning the UK into the 51st state
> of the US. I for one shop mostly at grocer's, butchers, fruit and veg
> shops and bakers. Only hit the soopermarkets when absolutely necessary.
Hmm, I usually take a fairly anti-American position, but I find it
difficult to place the entire, or even the major blame for the rise
in supermarkets and the fall in the independent grocer on Yank propaganda
and the Hollywood entertainment industry.
Matthew Huntbach
T Bruce Tober
Sorry, but that was simply my explanation of the reason for the
overwhelming love affair the British have with the americanisation of
the isle. The specifics for the supermarket are more to do with the
materialistics of the 80s and the needs of today, ie those adults in
work having to work six or seven days a week at two or more jobs to make
ends meet and therefore needing the "convenience" (albeit at exhorbitant
prices) of the supermarket.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <74gplm$b4n$5...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew M. Huntbach
> <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
> >Hmm, I usually take a fairly anti-American position, but I find it
> >difficult to place the entire, or even the major blame for the rise
> >in supermarkets and the fall in the independent grocer on Yank propaganda
> >and the Hollywood entertainment industry.
> Sorry, but that was simply my explanation of the reason for the
> overwhelming love affair the British have with the americanisation of
> the isle. The specifics for the supermarket are more to do with the
> materialistics of the 80s and the needs of today, ie those adults in
> work having to work six or seven days a week at two or more jobs to make
> ends meet and therefore needing the "convenience" (albeit at exhorbitant
> prices) of the supermarket.
I think it may have a lot to do with supermarkets being able to offer a much
greater range of products at a much lower price than corner shops.
I've no great love for the supermarket and the way the big chains operate,
but we have to be honest here. The real alternative for most people is not
upper middle class chi-chi boutiques selling speciality products. I do well
remember the very limited range of goods that were on sale locally in my
youth when there were no supermarkets within miles of my estate.
Matthew Huntbach
T Bruce Tober
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
>> work having to work six or seven days a week at two or more jobs to make
>> ends meet and therefore needing the "convenience" (albeit at exhorbitant
>> prices) of the supermarket.
>
>I think it may have a lot to do with supermarkets being able to offer a much
>greater range of products at a much lower price than corner shops.
That's the perception, but the reality is far different. I know I'm
saving much ŁŁŁ shopping at any of the several butchers, bakers and
fruit and veg shops I use. Considering time is money, I believe I also
save or at least don't spend any more, by shopping at my local shop at
times.
>remember the very limited range of goods that were on sale locally in my
>youth when there were no supermarkets within miles of my estate.
That may be, but I find a fine variety at the small shops I use and yes,
it's for those few things I can't find at those shops that I sometimes
use supermarkets.
Gareth Jones
>Sorry, but that was simply my explanation of the reason for the
>overwhelming love affair the British have with the americanisation of
>the isle. The specifics for the supermarket are more to do with the
>materialistics of the 80s and the needs of today, ie those adults in
>work having to work six or seven days a week at two or more jobs to make
>ends meet and therefore needing the "convenience" (albeit at exhorbitant
>prices) of the supermarket.
Materialistics? Personally I use the supermarkets (and willingly pay
their higher prices) for non-materialistic reasons - I value the time
I save considerably more than the extra money it costs. I don't *need*
the time, but I do want it.
Gareth
Aidan Thomson
T Bruce Tober wrote:
> In article <74gf25$3t3$2...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew M. Huntbach
> <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
> >If they are so useful, why is it we are increasingly moving to the position
> >where there are only four grocers in the whole country? The independent
> >grocer is a vanishing species.
>
> Why?
>
> Easy, because recent governments and the population as a whole in too
> large part, has been taken in by the yank's hollywood hype and
> Washington propaganda and is rapidly turning the UK into the 51st state
> of the US. I for one shop mostly at grocer's, butchers, fruit and veg
> shops and bakers. Only hit the soopermarkets when absolutely necessary.
But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
nation of shopkeepers?....
>
>
> tbt --
> | Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
> | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
> |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
--
Aidan Thomson.
'The law of supply and demand isn't on the statute books of any country.
Except America.'
Marty Dodge
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Easy, because recent governments and the population as a whole in too
> > large part, has been taken in by the yank's hollywood hype and
> > Washington propaganda and is rapidly turning the UK into the 51st state
> > of the US. I for one shop mostly at grocer's, butchers, fruit and veg
> > shops and bakers. Only hit the soopermarkets when absolutely necessary.
>
> But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
> nation of shopkeepers?....
>
> >
> >
> > tbt --
> > | Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
> > | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
> > |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
>
51st state of the US, the UK try the other way round. UK Plcs own 3 times as much
of the US commerce as do the Japannese. UK companies make purchases weekly, if the
UK became a state, she would be running the US in no time. Most of our ideas in
this country (the US) come from Age of Enlightment English & Scottish thinkers.
The US is basically the bastard child of the UK.
BTW I welcome as much UK influence in the US as possible. It is a great civilising
element.
Marty
T Bruce Tober
<aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
>nation of shopkeepers?....
Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
hungry materialistic fatcat? Pity that.
T Bruce Tober
writes
>>
>UK became a state, she would be running the US in no time.
and the us would very likely be the better off for it.
>Most of our ideas in
>this country (the US) come from Age of Enlightment English & Scottish thinkers.
That's as may be, but the us took those ideas well over the top to the
point of absurdity and amoral greed and materialism.
>The US is basically the bastard child of the UK.
"Bastard" being the appropriate term for most of the us capitalists.
>BTW I welcome as much UK influence in the US as possible. It is a great
>civilising
>element.
Hear! Hear!. Shame it seems to be going the reverse direction.
Marty Dodge
T Bruce Tober wrote:
> In article <366D4B4C...@ctel.net>, Marty Dodge <eld...@ctel.net>
> writes
> >>
> >UK became a state, she would be running the US in no time.
>
> and the us would very likely be the better off for it.
No "very likely" needed.
>
>
> >Most of our ideas in
> >this country (the US) come from Age of Enlightment English & Scottish thinkers.
>
> That's as may be, but the us took those ideas well over the top to the
> point of absurdity and amoral greed and materialism.
Well on this point we will disagree. Lower taxes and greed can be good things.
Thus during the "amoral" and "selfish" eighties the British and American populace
set records for giving to charities. Forced giving to the needy is not as effective
as making sure those who make money are happy, then they are more willing to give
it away. This also allows one to give to those they feel most deserving. Taxes are
organised theft, a necessary evil that should be kept to the absolute minimum.
Government is inefficient at getting help to those who really need it, charities
such as the Salvation Army are much more effective at making sure the proper people
get what they need.
>
>
> >The US is basically the bastard child of the UK.
>
> "Bastard" being the appropriate term for most of the us capitalists.
>
> >BTW I welcome as much UK influence in the US as possible. It is a great
> >civilising
> >element.
>
> Hear! Hear!. Shame it seems to be going the reverse direction.
In some cases this is due to British companies buying US companies and imprting
them to the UK. Burger King (part of Grand Metropolitan) being a classic example,
there is nothing more depressing that a British company dumb-downing the populace.
Sigh.
Marty
Richard Caley
mmh> I think it may have a lot to do with supermarkets being able to
mmh> offer a much greater range of products at a much lower price than
mmh> corner shops.
Not a fair comaprison, you'd have to compare equivalent space and
resources.
Comparing a supermarket to an equivalent number of shops I don't think
you could claim a greater variety or better price.
Certainly if you want 30 varieties of identical but differently
packaged cerial, the supermarket is for you.
The shops near my flat give better variety and better quality and
equal or better price (especially on vegetables, nothing like a
supermarket for charging an arm and a leg for tasteless dutch
supposed tomatoes, peppers etc.).
And no, these are not `upper middle class chi-chi boutiques selling
speciality products', just random small shops. Well, OK, plus one
internationally famous delicatessan:-).
mmh> remember the very limited range of goods that were on sale locally in my
mmh> youth when there were no supermarkets within miles of my estate.
Perhaps because (almost) no one wanted anything else?
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Richard Caley
tbt> Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
tbt> hungry materialistic fatcat?
Most shopkeepers don't get the chance to be fat cats?
Most shop keepers are materialistic, it's not a profession which
appeals to aesthetes and theologians. And nothing wrong with that,
we'd be well up shit creek if we relied on metaphysicians for out
bread and milk.
Richard Caley
md> Thus during the "amoral" and "selfish" eighties the British and
md> American populace set records for giving to charities.
Perhaps you can explain why you think this is, of itself, a good thing.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> <aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
> >But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
> >nation of shopkeepers?....
> Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
> hungry materialistic fatcat? Pity that.
Yes, this was what was behind my original point. There is a heck of a lot
of difference between an economy based largely on small local businesses
and one based on large national and multinational businesses. I found it
interesting that the class from which Mrs Thatcher sprung, that of the
small independent shopkeeper, is almost extinct now.
Matthew Huntbach
Marty Dodge
Richard Caley wrote:
>
> |<
I believe I did in the rest of the post on this subject. But here goes
again. I believe it is better for people to give money to the worse off
via choice rather than by government mandate, ie taxes for welfare and
social services. Well funded charities are more efficient and less
wasteful at getting services and monies to those who really need it
because of the lower amoung of bureaucracy and red tape.
In essence in the 80s those doing well were feeling good so they enjoyed
sharing their wealth. I see nothing wrong with this like charity events
were egotistical high-flyers compete to see who can spend the most money
on the charity. The charity does well and it makes the high-flyers feel
good, what is the harm in that?
Marty
Maria
It doesn't really matter what you think. :)
What I mean is that Supermarkets are not so much about people (apart
from the value they add to the business); they are about maximising
profits at any cost. They have out of town sites (cheap), they can buy
in (massive amounts of) bulk (cheap), and they attract a high number
of customers (high turnover = cheap).
And yet they *still* sell food that costs only a couple of p less than
the corner shop, and in some cases more, especially on fresh produce,
as well as manipulating suppliers and charging them extras like
'charity donations' and fees for displaying their goods on the end of
a gondola instead of in the middle. Supermarkets are nothing but a big
marketing exercise; the only thing they offer is convenience, but then
even convenience comes at a price.
I'm not sure which is worse; old fashioned Arkwright-style corner-shop
rip-off, or big corporate-US style rip-off.
Richard Caley
>> Perhaps you can explain why you think this is, of itself, a good thing.
md> I believe I did in the rest of the post on this subject.
Didn't seem so to me, you'll have to be more explicit.
md> But here goes again. I believe it is better for people to give
md> money to the worse off via choice rather than by government
md> mandate,
You see, this is not a support for an increase in giving to charity
being a Good Thing of itself.
For instance, it's clear that to the extent your statistic is true,
people were giving on top of the tax they were paying, since Thatcher
is notorious for having not reduced the tax burden while claiming to
have made huge cuts in it.
Ideally I think it would be best to live in a society where there
was little or no need for either charitable giving or social
taxation. Of course that is simply an ideal, not a realistic
expectation, it does however sink the idea that higher charitable
giving is a positive sign IMO.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Cliff Morrison
> Well funded charities are more efficient and less
> wasteful at getting services and monies to those who really need it
> because of the lower amoung of bureaucracy and red tape.
Yes, it's indeed most rewarding and a real comfort to know that in more
than a few cases their senior management are so jolly well cared for.
> In essence in the 80s those doing well were feeling good so they enjoyed
> sharing their wealth. I see nothing wrong with this like charity events
> were egotistical high-flyers compete to see who can spend the most money
> on the charity. The charity does well and it makes the high-flyers feel
> good, what is the harm in that?
Toss (or not) the poor a few crumbs from the table as a form of amusement?
Fucking pervs.
T Bruce Tober
writes
>
>
>T Bruce Tober wrote:
>
>> In article <366D4B4C...@ctel.net>, Marty Dodge <eld...@ctel.net>
>> writes
>> >>
>> >UK became a state, she would be running the US in no time.
>>
>> and the us would very likely be the better off for it.
>
>No "very likely" needed.
Agreed.
>Thus during the "amoral" and "selfish" eighties the British and American
>populace
>set records for giving to charities. Forced giving to the needy is not as
>effective
Force giving was the reason for all that charity giving, it was a tax
avoidance scam.
>as making sure those who make money are happy, then they are more willing to
>give
>it away.
Such a statement indicates you live in a fairy tale land. Take Bill
Gates (Please) for example. His reported charity giving is something
like .00001% of his income.
>are
>organised theft,
Baloney. taxes pay for the goods and services we all benefit from.
>a necessary evil that should be kept to the absolute minimum.
A necessary but unpleasant duty we all have and which many of us are
only too happy to pay increased amounts of in order to get even more and
better services.
>Government is inefficient at getting help to those who really need it,
If certain people would accept their responsibilities and stop whinging
about their taxes it could be a lot more efficient. And just what is it
that makes you guys thing it's so efficient considering most of these
inefficient govt types almost always come from or go into business.
>them to the UK. Burger King (part of Grand Metropolitan) being a classic
>example,
>there is nothing more depressing that a British company dumb-downing the
>populace.
Correct we have enuf problems with the mcdonalds and microsofts of the
world doing that already.
Gareth Jones
>What I mean is that Supermarkets are not so much about people (apart
>from the value they add to the business); they are about maximising
>profits at any cost. They have out of town sites (cheap), they can buy
>in (massive amounts of) bulk (cheap), and they attract a high number
>of customers (high turnover = cheap).
You could argue that any business is "not so much about people" as
about creating profit. What the supermarket business is "about" is not
terribly relevant - what matters to me as a consumer is that I am
willing to pay for that which they provide.
>And yet they *still* sell food that costs only a couple of p less than
>the corner shop, and in some cases more, especially on fresh produce,
>as well as manipulating suppliers and charging them extras like
>'charity donations' and fees for displaying their goods on the end of
>a gondola instead of in the middle. Supermarkets are nothing but a big
>marketing exercise; the only thing they offer is convenience, but then
>even convenience comes at a price.
Supermarkets do indeed offer convenience at a price - a price which I
am quite happy to pay. The quality of the produce is certainly no
worse than that in most small shops - in some cases it is better. In
my area there are a fairly large number of corner off-licenses, none
of whom have as good a range of inexpensive but good quality wine as
any of the nearby supermarkets. The best bread, bottled beer and meat
I can find in this area (Harrow) come from Waitrose (and yes, I have
tried every small bakery I can find....).
The convenience however is the most important benefit of the
supermarket - I can do almost all of my week's shopping in 30 minutes
at a supermarket, and then push my trolley 50 yards to my car. If I
drove to the town centre to shop it would take about that long to find
somewhere to park. I value my time a great deal and so this is a great
benefit.
>I'm not sure which is worse; old fashioned Arkwright-style corner-shop
>rip-off, or big corporate-US style rip-off.
I think the US thing is a red-herring. There is nothing particularly
american about big business or supermarkets.
Gareth
Gareth Jones
>In article <366D1483...@magd.ox.ac.uk>, Aidan Thomson
><aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
>>nation of shopkeepers?....
>
>Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
>hungry materialistic fatcat? Pity that.
Pity that you identify a company with its highly paid directors, and
cannot see that there is much more to a corporation than its
management.
Gareth
JNugent231
[re taxes, though within a longer post re taxes / charitable donations]
>>a necessary evil that should be kept to the absolute minimum.
>A necessary but unpleasant duty we all have and which many of us are
>only too happy to pay increased amounts of in order to get even more and
>better services.
I've heard that one before and am far from convinced.
If, as you say, "many of you" are "only too happy to pay increased amounts of
in order to get even more and better services", then be aware that there is
nothing to stop you doing just that, and there never has been. The Treasury
will accept your cheques with alacrity.
Alternatively, if you suspect that thr Treasury might not fund the services you
want, the "many of you" who feel that way might wish to organise your own
communally-financed services (extra to whatever the taxpayer already provides)
for your own "community" (ie, not including those who don't want to "pay
increased amounts of in order to get even more and better services"). If there
are as many souls willing to pay extra tax as is sometimes claimed, you'd have
no trouble in finding volunteers, would you? Or would you?
Perhaps that wasn't what you meant though? Perhaps you really mean that you
wish to see others, who are not so "only too happy to pay increased amounts",
coerced into paying more?
>If certain people would accept their responsibilities and stop whinging
>about their taxes it could be a lot more efficient.
Even more efficient if the willing payers organised their own payments and
services, surely?
John Alexander Thacker
: In article <366D646D...@ctel.net>, Marty Dodge <eld...@ctel.net>
: writes
:>Thus during the "amoral" and "selfish" eighties the British and American
:>populace
:>set records for giving to charities. Forced giving to the needy is not as
:>effective
: Force giving was the reason for all that charity giving, it was a tax
: avoidance scam.
Although, the charity giving increase came at the same time as
dramatic marginal income tax rate reduction - so the tax avoidance
value fell dramatically as well. The charitable donations increased
at the same time as the tax one escaped by giving decreased.
John
--
"I hope we're not trying to emulate South Carolina," he added.
"We're not moving forward if we're doing that."
-- Rep. Jim Black (D), new NC House Speaker, Raleigh N&O, 6 Dec 1998
Aidan Thomson
T Bruce Tober wrote:
> In article <366D1483...@magd.ox.ac.uk>, Aidan Thomson
> <aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
> >nation of shopkeepers?....
>
> Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
> hungry materialistic fatcat? Pity that.
>
I was meaning 'Nation of Shopkeepers' in the Napoleonic, generic sense,rather
than literally a nation of shopkeepers, and made the comment with my
tongue at least partly in my cheek, so I think your reply is a bit of an over-
simplification. Of course, there is a huge
difference between supermarket barons on the one hand and corner shops
which are the heart and soul of many communities up and down the country
and are struggling to make ends meet under the monopolising threats of
many a supermarket baron.
But - to return to electoral issues here if I may - it's worth pointing out that
on the left-right political spectrum front, the small businessman/self-employed/
shopkeeper sorts, described by Butler et al (or if not, Curtis et al, or Crewe
et al - I forget which) as the petty bourgeoisie (for generic purposes, not as a
disparaging term of social abuse, lest anyone complain) are on most political
issues,
certainly on most political-economic issues, the most right-wing grouping of
all. (See Denver and Hands, _Issues in British electoral politics_, if you
don't believe me). Whilst financially, therefore, there are huge differences
between the two types of shopkeeper (small and huge, that is), their
political attitudes, which ISTM are what are enshrined in US politics, are
very similar.
Incidentally, one other occupation included in the 'petty bourgeois' category
by the psephologists is farming, and I would say that the divisions between
the Norfolk farming millionaires on the one hand, and small farmers in (e.g.)
crofting areas in Scotland and the south-west of England are even greater
than in the supermarket/corner shop example. Emma Nicholson, in a speech
in Oxford last month, pointed out that there were farmers in her old seat
who regularly had an annual turnover of £1500, which isn't much. No-one
ever seems to have pointed the finger over expensive food towards the
supermarkets who can afford to buy farm produce at ridiculously low prices
in bulk, sell them at a huge profit, paying their ordinary workers very low
wages in the process. The less well-off consumer loses out, the farmers
lose out and the employees lose out. Only the shareholders don't, and the
people in the higher echelons of the supermarket chain. But we never hear
any complaints, a fact surely not unconnected with the high positions held in two
of our political parties by the owners of two of the largest chains.
> tbt --
> | Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
> | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
> |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
--
Aidan Thomson.
John Alexander Thacker
: But - to return to electoral issues here if I may -
: it's worth pointing out that
: on the left-right political spectrum front, the small
: businessman/self-employed/
: shopkeeper sorts, described by Butler et al (or if not,
: Curtis et al, or Crewe
: et al - I forget which) as the petty bourgeoisie
: (for generic purposes, not as a
: disparaging term of social abuse, lest anyone complain)
: are on most political issues,
: certainly on most political-economic issues, the most
: right-wing grouping of
: all. (See Denver and Hands, _Issues in British electoral
: politics_, if you
: don't believe me). Whilst financially, therefore, there
: are huge differences
: between the two types of shopkeeper (small and huge, that is),
: their political attitudes, which ISTM are what are enshrined
: in US politics, are very similar.
Actually there's very good reason for this. Governmental
regulation can almost always be manipulated for the benefit
of monopolies and big business, and usually are. Plus, large
business benefit from economies of scale with regards to
paperwork and regulation. (The additional paperwork from
hiring one person to make a shop of two is enormous over
hiring one more person in a huge company.) Plus, socialists
prefer to deal with large companies anyway, since they're
easier to bribe and regulate. Observe the
death of small business in Sweden, thanks to long Socialist
rule. The worst and least efficient monopolies come about
because of government favoritism, plus government favoritism
falls on large businesses, which can much more easily lobby
for tax breaks.
For this reason, big business in the US often supports both
Democrats and Republicans, but small business owners are much
more strongly Republican.
F.A. Hayek had a lot to say on this subject. (The tendency
of socialists to oppose small business in favor of big
business.)
Maria
wrote:
>In article <B9UVpIAB...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober (tbt) writes:
>
>
>tbt> Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
>tbt> hungry materialistic fatcat?
>
>Most shopkeepers don't get the chance to be fat cats?
Quite.
>Most shop keepers are materialistic, it's not a profession which
>appeals to aesthetes and theologians. And nothing wrong with that,
>we'd be well up shit creek if we relied on metaphysicians for out
>bread and milk.
If wanting to earn a living is materialistic, then I suppose you could
say that. Most of them certainly aren't looking at a company that will
eventually enable the owner to pass down a few million quid to their
offspring when they kick the bucket. If they are lucky, they will have
a reasonable standard of living (i.e. annual holiday, pay the bills
when they come in) and be able to pass down a business that enables
their kid/s to earn a living and maybe a bit of capital in the bank
for them.
The problem (or non-problem, whatever) with being a shopkeeper, is
that because you want to please your customers so that they will come
back, it matters what kind of relationship you have, whether your
customers feel that you have their interests at heart as well as your
own. If you don't, when they come back, they complain to you and tell
other people how horrid you are, or they don't come back at all.
I think in the old days it was called personal service (which cuts
both ways; i.e. if you give it then you expect dissatisfaction to be
personal too).
Big supermarkets have the best of both worlds really; a huge customer
base (so it doesn't matter if you lose a few miserable dissatisfied
customers because there will always be more) and a huge operation that
means that those actually owning/running things are so remote that
they don't have to deal with unhappy customers.They can just
concentrate on maximising profit while the people on the frontline are
barely earning a living and the customer is not getting best value for
money.
However, I suspect that if any shopkeeper's business evolved from
merely making a living to becoming a shopping Empire (e.g. M&S), and
could afford to become materialistic, I daresay they would.
It could be though, that the ones who *do* evolve in this way are
owned by materialistic people, rather than people who just want to
earn a living wage.
Hello by the way :)
Mex
T Bruce Tober
<ja...@gamehendge.dorm.duke.edu> writes
>In uk.politics.electoral T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>: In article <366D646D...@ctel.net>, Marty Dodge <eld...@ctel.net>
>: writes
>: avoidance scam.
>
>Although, the charity giving increase came at the same time as
>dramatic marginal income tax rate reduction - so the tax avoidance
>value fell dramatically as well. The charitable donations increased
>at the same time as the tax one escaped by giving decreased.
If what you say is true, and I have no stats to back it up or deny it,
then what I said is likewise true, the increase in charity gifts was
made to allow the same/similar tax deductions as less charity gifts
would have provided them in prior years. Very few fatcats are
philanthropists or they'd put people to work at decent wages, with
decent working conditions and benefits rather than (as they currently
do) sacking them and then easing their consciences and tax bills by
giving them charities.
T Bruce Tober
<aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>T Bruce Tober wrote:
>
>> In article <366D1483...@magd.ox.ac.uk>, Aidan Thomson
>> <aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
>> >nation of shopkeepers?....
>>
>>
>
>I was meaning 'Nation of Shopkeepers' in the Napoleonic, generic sense,rather
>than literally a nation of shopkeepers, and made the comment with my
>tongue at least partly in my cheek,
I knew that.
>and are struggling to make ends meet under the monopolising threats of
>many a supermarket baron.
Glad you understand that.
>disparaging term of social abuse, lest anyone complain) are on most political
>issues,
>certainly on most political-economic issues, the most right-wing grouping of
>all.
I've no doubt of that. And in large part it's for the same reason that
so many of today's youth are, whereas in past generations they were
left-wing. Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
left-wing politics-policy other than the rabid propaganda of the right
wing governments they've grown up under for most of or all of their
lives.
They also have as examples all the yuppies and their short term wealth
in the '80s (which is now mostly gone and/or turned against them in ways
such as that icon of yuppiedom, the cell phone, and the increasing
evidence that it's causing brain tumour in those who use them). And they
think they're all going to become instant Richard Bransons.
>Incidentally, one other occupation included in the 'petty bourgeois' category
>by the psephologists is farming, and I would say that the divisions between
>the Norfolk farming millionaires on the one hand, and small farmers in (e.g.)
Again, not surprising. I don't think farmers were ever accused of being
terribly liberal.
>No-one
>ever seems to have pointed the finger over expensive food towards the
>supermarkets who can afford to buy farm produce at ridiculously low prices
Except the Beeb last week. Don't recall whether it was a report on Radio
4 or a documentary on TV 1 or 2, but I watched in fascination rather
than surprise that the story was finally being told in some depth, I'd
heard snippets here and there before.
>in bulk, sell them at a huge profit, paying their ordinary workers very low
>wages in the process. The less well-off consumer loses out, the farmers
>lose out and the employees lose out. Only the shareholders don't, and the
>people in the higher echelons of the supermarket chain. But we never hear
>any complaints, a fact surely not unconnected with the high positions held in
>twoof our political parties by the owners of two of the largest chains.
Agreed almost totally.
Richard Caley
>> Most shop keepers are materialistic, it's not a profession which
>> appeals to aesthetes and theologians.
m> If wanting to earn a living is materialistic, then I suppose you could
m> say that.
I think it's more than that, starting and running a shop is hard work,
most could earn a living with much less work. There is something very
direct and practical about retailing, to want to put that amount of
effort into it implies a certain practical cast of mind.
Of course, that's a dreadfully huge generalisation, lots of weirdoes[*]
running second hand bookshops etc with a completely different attitude.
m> Hello by the way :)
Hi!
Finally decided that not reading news wasn't actually increasing my
workrate, just moving me to other displacement activities.
Now I have to work out who everyone is again since all the nutters
have presumably changed names.
[*] Before anyone gets upset and the massed second hand bookshop
owners of Edinburgh come 'round and beat me up with a leather
bound first edition[**], I'd better say I like weirdoes, most of
my friends are pretty odd, and no one ever labeled me conventional
with a straight face:-).
[**] Which I would probably quite enjoy actually.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <74h3t2$f08$2...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew M Huntbach (mmh) writes:
> mmh> I think it may have a lot to do with supermarkets being able to
> mmh> offer a much greater range of products at a much lower price than
> mmh> corner shops.
> Not a fair comaprison, you'd have to compare equivalent space and
> resources.
> Comparing a supermarket to an equivalent number of shops I don't think
> you could claim a greater variety or better price.
We have to face the fact that supermarkets have proved massively successful
and small shops have not. Go to any town centre and see all the small shops
that have closed down or become corner shops. Personally I'm a believer
in small-scale things, I don't like to see that happening. But much though
I'd like to, I find it hard to accept some conspiracy theory sort of argument
whereby everyone *really* wants to shop at small shops but they are somehow
forced to go to big supermarkets. Those of us who support the small scale are
going to get nowhere if we do not accept the evidence before us. People go
to supermakets because they prefer supermarkets.
> The shops near my flat give better variety and better quality and
> equal or better price (especially on vegetables, nothing like a
> supermarket for charging an arm and a leg for tasteless dutch
> supposed tomatoes, peppers etc.).
> And no, these are not `upper middle class chi-chi boutiques selling
> speciality products', just random small shops. Well, OK, plus one
> internationally famous delicatessan:-).
I believe you live in central Edinburgh - a sophisticated urban environment.
What you experience is not typical of the rest of the country. What you
are more likely to find elsewhere is all the "convenience stores" stocking
the same limited range of goods from the same cash-and-carry.
We do not live in a culture which values fresh products delivered to us by
specialists, which is why by and large outside a few sophisticated areas
you won't find much in the way of small specialist suppliers.
> mmh> remember the very limited range of goods that were on sale locally in my
> mmh> youth when there were no supermarkets within miles of my estate.
> Perhaps because (almost) no one wanted anything else?
They did not know anything else existed. Supermarkets have let them know by
providing new products alongside the staples. I remember, for example, when
pizza was one of these strange new products.
Matthew Huntbach
Richard Caley
mmh> We have to face the fact that supermarkets have proved massively
mmh> successful and small shops have not. Go to any town centre and
mmh> see all the small shops that have closed down or become corner
mmh> shops.
You're `any' here is a little over generalised. The cases I am
most familar with are
Edinburgh: Great town center no supermaket can get close to
Nottingham: Not bad.
Arnold: I used to walk past Sainbury's to the real shops.
Coventry: Worse than you can imagine unless you've lived there:-)
(Arnold is a small town, now effectively a subburb of Nottingham,
happens to be where I come from and the last place I lived other than
Edinburgh).
>> And no, these are not `upper middle class chi-chi boutiques selling
>> speciality products', just random small shops. Well, OK, plus one
>> internationally famous delicatessan:-).
mmh> I believe you live in central Edinburgh - a sophisticated urban
mmh> environment.
Perhaps because people in Edinburgh have more sense then to let it
degrade to the state of, well, Coventry or J Random London subburb.
mmh> What you experience is not typical of the rest of the country. What you
mmh> are more likely to find elsewhere is all the "convenience stores" stocking
mmh> the same limited range of goods from the same cash-and-carry.
Got plenty of those too. Usually the range is quite good, the only
reason I have for going to a supermarket Regularly is to take
advantage of the loss leaders. I buy milk, spuds, biscuits and some other
similar things from the Co-Op and other things from real shops.
Oh, one thing about a sane city like Edinburgh is that I go to
supermarkets regularly on foot, supermarkets don't necessarilly imply
windswept out of town developments from hell.
(OTOH, some of the Edinburgh satelite esstates are pretty grim. I can
only say it's a better arrangement to have the grim bits on the edges
and the working bits in the middle where it's easy to get to them,
even from the grim bits).
mmh> remember the very limited range of goods that were on sale locally in my
mmh> youth when there were no supermarkets within miles of my estate.
>> Perhaps because (almost) no one wanted anything else?
mmh> They did not know anything else existed.
Maybe. Supermarkets are pretty crap on many things I'd expect to pick
up in traditional suppliers back home. Don't ask me what or I'll start
getting nostalgic for edible pork pies and ...
mmh> Supermarkets have let them know by providing new products
mmh> alongside the staples. I remember, for example, when pizza was
mmh> one of these strange new products.
But supermarkets don't sell pizza, they sell cheap doughy stodge with
ketchup and soap on top. :-)
I suppose you could say supermarkets have increased the range of names
of foods people recognise, by applying them to permutations of the
same old cheap ingreedients. However, I suspect restaurants have had
more of an effect in that direction. Most of those identical
ready-meals labeled with exotic names are pretending to be what you'd
get from a take away or at a restaurant, not pretending to be
something exotic you never heard of.
(To drift a bit, I was in a quite good indian take away last week,
and it was depressing to watch 4 out of 5 people ahead of me pick up
the dreaded chicken tika massala. Depressing. Rather more Cheering
were the Christmas decorations wrapped around the pictures of scenes
from Mecca and Medina )
Lyn David Thomas
uk.politics.parliament and uk.politics.electoral and should
be posted to only uk.politics.misc
Can I also point out that you are restricted to posting to
no more than two groups in the uk.politics.* hierarchy?
Followups set accordingly
--
__
*Lyn David Thomas* \/
Web pages start at
http://www.stuffing.demon.co.uk/lyn
Gary Dale
rc>expectation, it does however sink the idea that higher charitable
rc>giving is a positive sign IMO.
Suppose it makes a change from wealthy individuals taking on charitable
concerns and subsidising poverty so as not to appear as free-loaders.
I suspect that if there wasn't poverty and homeless people these
society would have to invent them. There's a deeper, therapeutic
purpose to be served.
big...@clara.net
Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <74h3t2$f08$2...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew M Huntbach (mmh) writes:
>
> mmh> I think it may have a lot to do with supermarkets being able to
> mmh> offer a much greater range of products at a much lower price than
> mmh> corner shops.
>
> Not a fair comaprison, you'd have to compare equivalent space and
> resources.
>
> Comparing a supermarket to an equivalent number of shops I don't think
> you could claim a greater variety or better price.
>
> packaged cerial, the supermarket is for you.
>
> equal or better price (especially on vegetables, nothing like a
> supermarket for charging an arm and a leg for tasteless dutch
> supposed tomatoes, peppers etc.).
>
> speciality products', just random small shops. Well, OK, plus one
> internationally famous delicatessan:-).
>
Is it the one on Elm Row....I can't for the life of me remember the name.
Woman used to do a food column for Scotland on Sunday. Cafe/Restaurant out
the back.
> mmh> remember the very limited range of goods that were on sale locally in my
> mmh> youth when there were no supermarkets within miles of my estate.
>
> Perhaps because (almost) no one wanted anything else?
>
The wonderful variety in supermarkets has escaped me anyway. I couldn't buy
a mango in Sainsbury's in Camden Town last week. The fruit and veg is
exorbitant as well. The price of orange juice. I regularly can't get a
croissant in the evening. And another thing......
Cheers
Alan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Richard Caley
>> And no, these are not `upper middle class chi-chi boutiques selling
>> speciality products', just random small shops. Well, OK, plus one
>> internationally famous delicatessan:-).
b> Is it the one on Elm Row....I can't for the life of me remember the name.
Yep. Valvona and Corolla (spelling probably wrong). Also a fringe
venue, not many shops can claim that.
Paul Taylor
>I found it
>interesting that the class from which Mrs Thatcher sprung, that of the
>small independent shopkeeper, is almost extinct now.
It is worth remembering that Mrs Thatcher acquired the name by
which we know her when she married Dennis. She certainly wanted
us to think of her as the daughter of a small independent shopkeeper
but her political career was that of a millionaire's wife.
Gareth Jones
>I've no doubt of that. And in large part it's for the same reason that
>so many of today's youth are, whereas in past generations they were
>left-wing. Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
>left-wing politics-policy other than the rabid propaganda of the right
>wing governments they've grown up under for most of or all of their
>lives.
Who voted in those right-wing governments? Those who'd had too much
experience of the benefits of left-wing politics?
Gareth
algoss
Davies) wrote:
>In article <nMzMVFAd...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes:
>
>>Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
>>left-wing politics-policy
>
>BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the streets? Having
>the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these things "benefits"?
>
>
BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Beggars in the
streets. Increased crime. Crooked politicians. Mass
unemployment. Poll taxes. Crooked cops. Mass surveillance.
Public order control. Armed police.
Alan G
- -
Paranoia is natures way of telling you to 'be careful out there'
BOEDICIA
>Date: Tue, Dec 8, 1998 11:54 EST
>Message-id: <B9UVpIAB...@reporters.net>
>
>In article <366D1483...@magd.ox.ac.uk>, Aidan Thomson
><aidan....@magd.ox.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>But where did American-style materialism come from originally?Perchance the
>>nation of shopkeepers?....
>
>Do you see no difference between keeping shop and being a greedy, money-
>hungry materialistic fatcat? Pity that.
>
grandfather who arrived in New York
at the turn of the century, and before you
could say knife, had bought and sold so
many businesses that he became very wealthy".??
Sort of sounds like that other "penniless
Jewish refugee" who came to the U.K. after
WW2 and is now a multi billionaire by the
name of George Soros. I wonder if your
grandfather was as Bolshie as you, and if
so, why was he so engrossed in the
very capitalist system of buying and selling?
-
79-521-106). Freelance |bsite|
></PRE></HTML>
John Alexander Thacker
: In article <74kks8$dt8$1...@news.duke.edu>, John Alexander Thacker
: <ja...@gamehendge.dorm.duke.edu> writes
:>Although, the charity giving increase came at the same time as
:>value fell dramatically as well. The charitable donations increased
:>at the same time as the tax one escaped by giving decreased.
: If what you say is true, and I have no stats to back it up or deny it,
: then what I said is likewise true, the increase in charity gifts was
: made to allow the same/similar tax deductions as less charity gifts
: would have provided them in prior years. Very few fatcats are
: philanthropists or they'd put people to work at decent wages, with
: decent working conditions and benefits rather than (as they currently
: do) sacking them and then easing their consciences and tax bills by
: giving them charities.
You miss the point. They may have gotten the same amount of tax
deduction by giving more, but that didn't save them money.
If your tax rate is lowered from 20% to 10%, say, you might
have to give twice as much to charity to get the same tax
break, but you're still out the extra money you gave. You have
less money than had you not increased your charitable donations.
The lower taxes, the more likely the fatcats are to be
philanthropists; perhaps because they have more money to give,
perhaps because they view more of a need for charity when
government expenditures are low, and less of a need for charity
when government spending is high.
In the US, there is a strong correlation between areas which
vote for conservatives and low taxes, and areas with high
per capita contributions to charity. Areas with high taxes
give much less to charity.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 9 Dec 1998 12:53:51 GMT, hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Hugh
> Davies) wrote:
> >In article <nMzMVFAd...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes:
>>>Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
>>>left-wing politics-policy
>>BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the streets?
> BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Beggars in the streets.
A good point. Hugh Davies goes on about "garbage in the streets" (as if it
were there throughout the entire 1974-79 period, rather than as actually
was the case - there were a few cases of sporadic strikes by garbage
collectors). However, it is surely just as offensive to see our streets
littered with seriously ill people. There was a time when the idea of
poor people living and dying in the streets was something that was spoken about
as an example of the horrors you'd find in strange exotic places. Now we just
accept it as a normal part of existence. I walk past places where homeless
people live every day on my way to work and hardly think about it. Had
someone told me back in the 1970s that's how it was going to be in the 1990s,
I'd have thought our country was going to sink into the depths of
depravity.
Matthew Huntbach
Gary Dale
mh>people live every day on my way to work and hardly think about it.
And to think, as one poster pointed out, homeless people cannot even
get a croissant at night from Sainsburys. Surely it should be an
inalienable right of every British man (OR WOMAN) to go into a supermarket
and if he (OR SHE) so pleases part with his (OR HER) own hard-earned
(OR BEGGED) money for a croissant (OR BAGEL).
I tell you in recent times this country has really gone to the
dogs (OR CATS..)
big...@clara.net
Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <74m4lr$6h8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bigalp (b) writes:
>
> >> And no, these are not `upper middle class chi-chi boutiques selling
> >> speciality products', just random small shops. Well, OK, plus one
> >> internationally famous delicatessan:-).
>
> b> Is it the one on Elm Row....I can't for the life of me remember the name.
>
> Yep. Valvona and Corolla (spelling probably wrong). Also a fringe
> venue, not many shops can claim that.
>
more.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>In article <nMzMVFAd...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober
><octob...@reporters.net> writes:
>
>>Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
>>left-wing politics-policy
>
>BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the streets?
>the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these things "benefits"?
He said *benefits* - you just cite the drawbacks.
>
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
algoss
Davies) wrote:
>In article <366ed47d...@news.clara.net>, arf...@hotmail.com (algoss) writes:
>>On 9 Dec 1998 12:53:51 GMT, hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Hugh
>>Davies) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <nMzMVFAd...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
>>>>left-wing politics-policy
>>>
>>>BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the streets? Having
>>>the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these things "benefits"?
>>>
>>>
>>BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation?
>
>Which we don't have.
We did under the tories
>
>>Beggars in the
>>streets.
>
>Which we've always had.
I never saw one in my life in this country until Thatcher
got in.
>
>> Increased crime.
>
>Depends what you're measuring where.
A good enough excuse for Howards criminal justice acts.
>
>> Crooked politicians.
>
>Which we've always had.
Just not so many as in the last 20 years
>
>> Mass
>>unemployment.
>
>Which we don't have.
We did when The Thatcher came to power. 4 million+
>
>>Poll taxes.
>
>Which we don't have.
we did under the tories
>
>> Crooked cops.
>
>Which we've always had.
they had fewer powers then
>
>> Mass surveillance.
>>Public order control. Armed police.
>
>Which we've always had.
I get it. You're only 22 years old. You can't remember any
better times when the people were free.
>
>
Alan G
- -
Margaret Thatcher deserves a state funeral for services to the people of this country
Next Friday would be fine.
Sandy Morton
> Which we don't have.
> >Beggars in the
> >streets.
> Which we've always had.
> > Increased crime.
> Depends what you're measuring where.
> > Crooked politicians.
> Which we've always had.
> > Mass
> >unemployment.
> Which we don't have.
> >Poll taxes.
> Which we don't have.
> > Crooked cops.
> Which we've always had.
> > Mass surveillance.
> >Public order control. Armed police.
> Which we've always had.
Do we live in the same country?
Aidan Thomson
John Alexander Thacker wrote:
Worth noting that contributions to charity dropped sharply in the UKafter the
Lottery was institutionalised, which posed a problem for those
of us who were against the Lottery for various reasons (of which my
favourite is my girlfriend's description of it as the 'National Idiot Tax').
Do we take part in something of which we basically disapprove because
we want to see the arts and sport (for instance) get funded, or do we
not take part? (So far I have yet to buy a ticket, but have contributed to
a variety of charities in a variety of ways instead). One thing you can be
sure of: whilst people may have stopped giving as much to charity from
before the days of the Lottery (on the grounds that charity benefits from
Lottery funds), they don't tend to give their favourite charities much of
their jackpot wins (or at least if they do, we never hear about it).
Finally, we spend too much time in tax-related arguments confusing tax
in general with income tax in particular. Over the past 20 years, in the UK,
direct taxes have gone down, and indirect taxes have gone up.
According to a Newsnight report just after the General Election last year,
AFAIR, the middle
80% of the population are paying much the same proportion of
their income in taxes of all kind. The richest 10% are paying less, however,
and the bottom 10% are paying more. Whatever the rights and wrongs of
the taxes vs. charity arguments, one thing emerges loud and clear: it's the
most well off with most to gain under a system that doesn't require them to
pay more in taxes/charity, and the least well off with most to lose. Which
is
fine if you're into Two Nation libertarianism, but I don't know many people
in politics who would boast in public about a widening gap between the rich
and the poor.
--
Aidan Thomson
Andrew Smith
> In article <nMzMVFAd...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> writes:
>
> >Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
> >left-wing politics-policy
>
> BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the
> streets? Having the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these
> things "benefits"?
Ever get the nagging suspicion that both sides of an argument have no idea
about the topic in question?
Perhaps the pair of them can tell us which governments they think were
leftwing and why?
Andrew Smith
"Why should anyone condemn indecent assault? What a stupid McCarthyite
demand." - Leo
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>>>Having
>>>the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these things "benefits"?
>>
>
>
>There *are* no benefits.
You must have accidentally posted this early - you omitted 'if you're a
selfish fat-cat' from the last sentence! :)
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
Don't think so - you're in Scotland aren't you! :)
PJS
<Pine.SOL.3.95.981211161309.25903B-100000@primrose>, Andrew Smith
<ec...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 1998, Hugh Davies wrote:
>
> > In article <nMzMVFAd...@reporters.net>, T Bruce Tober
> <octob...@reporters.net> writes:
> >
> > >Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
> > >left-wing politics-policy
> >
> > BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the
> > streets? Having the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these
> > things "benefits"?
>
> Ever get the nagging suspicion that both sides of an argument have no idea
> about the topic in question?
>
> Perhaps the pair of them can tell us which governments they think were
> leftwing and why?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, I am easily old enough to have lived during the "Winter of
Discontent" and I'd like to know when and where there were "piles of garbage
(or 'rubbish' as would have called it then, when we still had our own language)
in the streets" or why "rampant inflation" was characteristic of a Labour
rather than a Tory government...
---
No matter where you go in the World, there you are.
JNugent231
[in reply to Hugh]
>I am easily old enough to have lived during the "Winter of
>Discontent" and I'd like to know when and where there were "piles of garbage
>(or 'rubbish' as would have called it then, when we still had our own
>language)
>in the streets"
Easy; 1978/79. Ask me another.
>or why "rampant inflation" was characteristic of a Labour
>rather than a Tory government...
27% anyone?
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>rather than a Tory government...
>
>27% anyone?
>
Sandy Morton
Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
much snipped
> >Do we live in the same country?
> Don't think so - you're in Scotland aren't you! :)
Yes - One of the nations which are part of Great Britain
--
sandymillport
on the bicycle island
in the global village
macdiarmid
Gareth Jones <gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm not sure which is worse; old fashioned Arkwright-style corner-shop
> >rip-off, or big corporate-US style rip-off.
You can get your own back by shoplifing at big stores. And it's
wall-to-wall Pakis in the little ones which never enter for that reason.
--
--
macdiarmid
Homosexual practice is unnatural, incompatible with the lifestyle of God's Kingdom and an affront to God's Law and Gospel. (Roman 1:28-7; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11)
Marc Living
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, JNugent231 <jnuge...@aol.com> stated this
>considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>or why "rampant inflation" was characteristic of a Labour
>>>rather than a Tory government...
>>27% anyone?
>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
I thought that we all agreed that anything bad which happens during
the first 18 months of an incoming Government is all the fault of the
previous government - whilst all the good things (tm) are because of
the new government:-)
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Gareth Jones
>In article <3671bb5a...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Gareth Jones <gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I'm not sure which is worse; old fashioned Arkwright-style corner-shop
>> >rip-off, or big corporate-US style rip-off.
I wrote nothing of the sort.
Gareth
JNugent231
>>27% anyone?
>>
>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
Inflation certainly was high when the Conservatives took over, but was rapidly
brought under control, within a couple of years (certainly by 1981). Slowing a
Callaghan/Wilson-style hyper-inflationary rate has been likened to slowing a
laden oil tanker - a slow and ponderous business.
algoss
ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk (Marc Living) wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:50:47 +0000, m'learned friend Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, JNugent231 <jnuge...@aol.com> stated this
>>considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>or why "rampant inflation" was characteristic of a Labour
>>>>rather than a Tory government...
>
>>>27% anyone?
>
>>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
>
>I thought that we all agreed that anything bad which happens during
>the first 18 months of an incoming Government is all the fault of the
>previous government - whilst all the good things (tm) are because of
>the new government:-)
>
We know the inflation rate reduced eventually under thatcher
but the way it was done didn't do much for the 4 million
plus and their dependants.
Alan Goss
algoss
wrote:
>>From: Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk>
>
>>>27% anyone?
>>>
>>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
>
>Inflation certainly was high when the Conservatives took over, but was rapidly
>brought under control, within a couple of years (certainly by 1981). Slowing a
>Callaghan/Wilson-style hyper-inflationary rate has been likened to slowing a
>laden oil tanker - a slow and ponderous business.
And managed by throwing a few million of the crew over the
side.
--
Patriotism.
The last refuge of the scoundrel
Adrian McMenamin
>On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Hugh Davies <hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> stated this
>considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>><octob...@reporters.net> writes:
>>
>>>Today they've had little or no experience of the benefits of
>>>left-wing politics-policy
>>
>>BWahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rampant inflation? Garbage piled in the streets?
>>Having
>>the IMF rescue the Government? In what ways are these things "benefits"?
>
>>
>>
>
1970s was the fault of the Tories (Keith Jospeh Memorial Lecture, January
1996).
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
> Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>much snipped
>
>> >Do we live in the same country?
>
>> Don't think so - you're in Scotland aren't you! :)
>
>Yes - One of the nations which are part of Great Britain
True, but Scotland IS a country, is it not! :)
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>>considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>rather than a Tory government...
>
>
>>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
>
>the first 18 months of an incoming Government is all the fault of the
>previous government - whilst all the good things (tm) are because of
>the new government:-)
How about 11% in 1990 then, after 11 years of Thatcherism? :)
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>>>27% anyone?
>>>
>>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
>
Inflation was 9% and already falling when the tories took over.
>, but was rapidly
>brought under control, within a couple of years (certainly by 1981).
The cost in jobs however was APPALLING!
Maria
<macdi...@ronin37.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3671bb5a...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Gareth Jones <gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I'm not sure which is worse; old fashioned Arkwright-style corner-shop
>> >rip-off, or big corporate-US style rip-off.
>
>You can get your own back by shoplifing at big stores.
I just stay away from them if possible.
>And it's
>wall-to-wall Pakis in the little ones which never enter for that reason.
I have to disagree; at least where I live, I find the range,
cleanliness, friendliness and competitive pricing much improved since
the grubby English owned corner shops near me were sold to Asians.
They do seem to try to make customers want to come back to their shops
(by providing a decent service) whereas before the owner seemed to
delight in selling (filthy) goods at a premium just because the shop
was conveniently located.
But that is just my experience. Maybe I'm just lucky!
Sandy Morton
Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Do we live in the same country?
> >
> >> Don't think so - you're in Scotland aren't you! :)
> >
> >Yes - One of the nations which are part of Great Britain
> True, but Scotland IS a country, is it not! :)
OK you win :-)
algoss
<a...@sandymillport.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <+N+Z$eAu48...@activist.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >Do we live in the same country?
>> >
>> >> Don't think so - you're in Scotland aren't you! :)
>> >
>> >Yes - One of the nations which are part of Great Britain
>
>> True, but Scotland IS a country, is it not! :)
>
Naah. It's a big midge farm.
Cliff Morrison
(algoss) wrote:
sssssh! official secret....
micro-weapons research, that.
Marc Living
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>>>24% in 1980 under Thatcher!
>>I thought that we all agreed that anything bad which happens during
>>the first 18 months of an incoming Government is all the fault of the
>>previous government - whilst all the good things (tm) are because of
>>the new government:-)
>How about 11% in 1990 then, after 11 years of Thatcherism? :)
Erm .... that was the fault of ... (quickly look at Mandleson's last
speech) ... ah yes ... the international financial crisis ... teenage
scribblers ... short-termist speculators ... leprechauns ... etc.
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
> Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >Do we live in the same country?
>> >
>> >> Don't think so - you're in Scotland aren't you! :)
>> >
>> >Yes - One of the nations which are part of Great Britain
>
>> True, but Scotland IS a country, is it not! :)
>
I'm on a roll! Next task - persuade you that Thatcherism was a mistake
(mind you, I'll have to persuade Tony Blair of that, first)! :)
Paula Thomas
mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) wrote:
Totally agree with you Maria. But the person is a bigot, look at his
sig.
--
Paula Thomas
Maria
<Pa...@wilmot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Totally agree with you Maria.
Jolly good! :)
>But the person is a bigot, look at his
>sig.
I know. But then 'bigot' tends to be used when the person with the
opinion is racist, and 'opinionated' seems to be used for other
occasions. Since I am here to debate opinions, I guess I need to
debate with bigots as well as opinionated people. :)
I don't mind. If it makes them think, it's worth it.
M
macdiarmid
Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> have to disagree; at least where I live, I find the range,
> cleanliness, friendliness and competitive pricing much improved since
> the grubby English owned corner shops near me were sold to Asians.
> They do seem to try to make customers want to come back to their shops
> (by providing a decent service) whereas before the owner seemed to
> delight in selling (filthy) goods at a premium just because the shop
> was conveniently located.
> But that is just my experience. Maybe I'm just lucky!
Not lucky. A bleeding liar. You are almost certainly a Paki. Clean? Pakis?
you jest. Cheap? Pakis? But of course, you are one od those on the brink
of ethnic cleansing, are you not?
--
--
macdiarmid
He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. Lao Tzu.
Then how did he manage to write a book? asked Pui
Maria
<macdi...@ronin37.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36740fe3...@news.clara.net>,
> Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> have to disagree; at least where I live, I find the range,
>> cleanliness, friendliness and competitive pricing much improved since
>> the grubby English owned corner shops near me were sold to Asians.
>> They do seem to try to make customers want to come back to their shops
>> (by providing a decent service) whereas before the owner seemed to
>> delight in selling (filthy) goods at a premium just because the shop
>> was conveniently located.
>> But that is just my experience. Maybe I'm just lucky!
>
>Not lucky.
>A bleeding liar.
Temper temper.
What's the matter? Don't you like truth when it doesn't suit your
propaganda purposes?
I am not lying.
> You are almost certainly a Paki.
No I am not.
And several people in this group can vouch for that because they have
met me.
>Clean? Pakis?
If you take the trouble to read my post, I said *Asian*.
They might be Pakistani or they might be Indian.
Whatever, the shop is clean, the goods are clean, and what is more the
goods are priced at the factory that makes them so the price is
printed on the label.
>you jest. Cheap? Pakis? But of course, you are one od those on the brink
>of ethnic cleansing, are you not?
Pardon?
Are you suggesting that I wish to clean someone else away, or that I
will be cleaned away? Not that it matters because you are talking
cobblers which ever it is.
It always amazes me how people like you can't *bear* the thought that
someone with dark skin, heaven forbid, might have made a success of
themselves *honestly*.
macdiarmid
Paula Thomas <Pa...@wilmot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Totally agree with you Maria. But the person is a bigot, look at his
> sig.
What's wrong with my sig? Don't like Chinks, huh? Racist! Racist! And
nothing I use in it is my own. They are invariably quotes from others.
Cliff Morrison
<macdi...@ronin37.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <36740fe3...@news.clara.net>,
> Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > have to disagree; at least where I live, I find the range,
> > cleanliness, friendliness and competitive pricing much improved since
> > the grubby English owned corner shops near me were sold to Asians.
> > They do seem to try to make customers want to come back to their shops
> > (by providing a decent service) whereas before the owner seemed to
> > delight in selling (filthy) goods at a premium just because the shop
> > was conveniently located.
> > But that is just my experience. Maybe I'm just lucky!
>
> Not lucky. A bleeding liar. You are almost certainly a Paki. Clean? Pakis?
> you jest. Cheap? Pakis? But of course, you are one od those on the brink
> of ethnic cleansing, are you not?
"macdiarmid", did you ever ask your mum what she did with the baby
that simultaneously popped from her adjacent orifice?
Richard Caley
m> If you take the trouble to read my post, I said *Asian*.
m> They might be Pakistani or they might be Indian.
Point of order, most shopkeepers of the general-grocer type I have
come across have tended to be of Bangladeshi origin.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Colin Rosenthal
>In article <3679bf36...@betanews.clara.net>, Maria (m) writes:
>
>m> If you take the trouble to read my post, I said *Asian*.
>m> They might be Pakistani or they might be Indian.
>
>Point of order, most shopkeepers of the general-grocer type I have
>come across have tended to be of Bangladeshi origin.
If we're going to be pedantic, many of them will have come to Britain when
Bangladesh was still part of Pakistan.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Maria
wrote:
>In article <3679bf36...@betanews.clara.net>, Maria (m) writes:
>
>m> If you take the trouble to read my post, I said *Asian*.
>m> They might be Pakistani or they might be Indian.
>
>Point of order, most shopkeepers of the general-grocer type I have
>come across have tended to be of Bangladeshi origin.
I thought that was Indian restaurants. ? Anyway...
Could be, but on my Rizla run this morning, I noticed that the lady of
the house wears a bindi, so they are Hindu's. They said they came over
from East Africa.
Richard Caley
cr> If we're going to be pedantic, many of them will have come to Britain when
cr> Bangladesh was still part of Pakistan.
Oh, if we are going to be pedantic, maybe they came from Uganda.
Sunil
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Maria wrote:
> If you take the trouble to read my post, I said *Asian*.
> They might be Pakistani or they might be Indian.
Asia is a big continent, Maria. An 'Asian' could be from anywhere from
Kamchatka (Russian Far East) to Turkey. If you mean 'from the Indian
subcontinent, then say 'Indian' (even though the Pakis don't want to
be politically part of India - but they're the same colour as us, and
we were all part of the same (ahem) 'Raj' (same indo-european root as
'Reich', n'esct-ce pas?) at one time. In the same way you Brits are
'Europeans' without actually bothering to join in the Euro lark).
> Whatever, the shop is clean, the goods are clean, and what is more the
> goods are priced at the factory that makes them so the price is
> printed on the label.
Well, prices in India have always been lower :)
> >you jest. Cheap? Pakis? But of course, you are one od those on the brink
> >of ethnic cleansing, are you not?
I've nothing against whites, at least not at a personal level. Hell, I
even speak your language, but if us darkies should leave white
countries, then shouldn't Afrikaners and Ozzies 'go back' to Europe?
Until white immigration, these were majority kaffa/abo lands. Just a
thought.
> Pardon?
> Are you suggesting that I wish to clean someone else away, or that I
> will be cleaned away? Not that it matters because you are talking
> cobblers which ever it is.
>
> It always amazes me how people like you can't *bear* the thought that
> someone with dark skin, heaven forbid, might have made a success of
> themselves *honestly*.
[theme to 'The Nazis - A Warning from History' in the background]
There's a nice big hole in the ozone layer, you know. Might just
favour those with darker skins in the long run. I think Darwin called
it 'selection'...
Sunil
Cliff Morrison
<sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> In the same way you Brits are
> 'Europeans' without actually bothering to join in the Euro lark.
Glad you noticed; to hear some of the EUrocentralizers one would think
we must have been summat else before joining their EU!
macdiarmid
Maria <to...@the.top> wrote:
> It always amazes me how people like you can't *bear* the thought that
> someone with dark skin, heaven forbid, might have made a success of
> themselves *honestly*.
One of their tricks, and they have tricks like monkeys have
them, resulted in the manager of a Tescos losing his cool with a group of
them. Seems Tescos got a load of cheap tinned peas in for the pensioners.
But a family of local Paki shopkeepers came in by the score; Mum,
Dad, Lulubelle, Ahmed, Abdullah and the other seventeen brothers. They
bought up the lot, took them back to the corner shop, put the price up and
told the poor old pensioners to pay up or get out of the shop. When they
came back for more the a/s manger wanted to give them all a kicking, bless
him.
Fifty per cent of the retail trade in England is now in the
hands of the Pakis. More price hikes on the way.
I say England since the Scots won't wear niggers like we do.
There are some living there but all on notice to leave. Once they get
independence you'll see the air across the border black with flying Pakis.
Richard Caley
m> Seems Tescos got a load of cheap tinned peas in for the
m> pensioners.
Splutter, Tesco as beneficent provider to the poor. Boy, planet
macdiarmid is drifting further from the Earth by the day.
m> I say England since the Scots won't wear niggers like we do.
My experience has been the oposite, lots of people of all sorts, but
relatively few bigots like you.
T Bruce Tober
>--
>--
> macdiarmid
>
>He who knows does not speak.
Which obviously lets you out.
> He who speaks does not know.
As I said, leaves you right out.
>Lao Tzu.
> Then how did he manage to write a book? asked Pui
See that big dust-covered book (book, you know, the squarish thing with
pieces of paper full of words inside the covers) over in the corner,
it's called a dictionary, go get it and have someone read to you from
it. Have them read you the meaning of "say" and the meaning of "write".
That should answer your ignorant question.
plonk
tbt --
| Bruce Tober, <octob...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> |
| Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance |
|Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website|
Maria
<macdi...@ronin37.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3679bf36...@betanews.clara.net>,
> Maria <to...@the.top> wrote:
>
>> It always amazes me how people like you can't *bear* the thought that
>> someone with dark skin, heaven forbid, might have made a success of
>> themselves *honestly*.
>
> One of their tricks, and they have tricks like monkeys have
>them, resulted in the manager of a Tescos losing his cool with a group of
>them. Seems Tescos got a load of cheap tinned peas in for the pensioners.
Pardon? If they got cheap tinned peas for pensioners, why were they
selling them to non-pensioners?
They obviously couldn't care less who they sold the peas to could
they? Nasty old Israeli supermarket people.
> But a family of local Paki shopkeepers came in by the score; Mum,
>Dad, Lulubelle, Ahmed, Abdullah and the other seventeen brothers. They
>bought up the lot, took them back to the corner shop, put the price up
Oh dear. How terrible.
Let's see now; I go to the wholesalers and buy a necklace for 50P and
sell it the next day for 2.95. (To people who would not trail down to
London and spend out 50 quid + VAT in order to get one necklace.)
And I have a friend who goes to car boot sales, buys things up early
in the morning, and sells them at higher prices later on in the day to
late car-booters. (People who couldn't be bothered to get up in time)
And worse of all; I go in to some restaurants, order a salad, and what
do they serve me? A few bits of lettuce and cucumber that they bought
from Tesco's 3 hours before, but washed, chopped up and put on a
plate. (People who don't wish to cook their own dinner)
Is there anybody you know who does not mark up goods in order to make
a profit? Is there a limit to the number of times you can mark up
goods?
Some of the stuff I buy has been marked up three or four times at
least, before I get it and stick on my bit.
Come on; firstly, if you can buy tinned peas in Tesco's for cheaper
than the wholesaler's price, then why not buy them and resell them. I
am not aware of any law against it.
Secondly, I know for a fact that this practice occurs, and it is not
just Pakistani's doing it.
If Pakistani's did it first, then I'm afraid that just shows that the
English are a bit slow on the uptake...and they are no worse than the
Supermarkets, who are profiteering.
The only thing I could really criticise them for is patronising Ms.
Shirley Porter's empire. They could at least have gone to Sainsbury's.
> and
>told the poor old pensioners to pay up or get out of the shop.
What bullied them like? Did they drag them into the shop off the
street first?
Look, this story of yours may be true, but I tried to have a strange
vision of a gang of poor old pensioners trailing all the way up to
Tesco's to get their cheap peas, and then trailing all the way over to
this corner shop when they found they had been bought up; it just
wouldn't gel. Sorry!
<sigh>
We all of us get stung when buying food, pensioner or low paid factory
bloke. You pay for the convenience of shopping at corner shops. you
pay more in a corner shop because the corner shop cannot buy the bulk
that a supermarket chain can buy. You pay for the convenience of
shopping at supermarkets. You pay more at supermarkets because they
want to wring every penny out of you that they can, in spite of the
fact that the supermarket could affrd to reduce prices considerably.
You pay, whatever.
>When they
>came back for more the a/s manger wanted to give them all a kicking, bless
>him.
I can't think why. Not that he mightn't have done the same had he
thought of it first.
> Fifty per cent of the retail trade in England is now in the
>hands of the Pakis.
Really? How did they get these shops? Armed invasion?
Perhaps you can think of a reason why the English are so keen to sell
their shops to the Pakistani's...?
>More price hikes on the way.
> I say England since the Scots won't wear niggers like we do.
And how do they wear Pakistani's?
>There are some living there but all on notice to leave. Once they get
>independence you'll see the air across the border black with flying Pakis.
First I heard of it.
Maria
>
>
>On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Maria wrote:
>
>> If you take the trouble to read my post, I said *Asian*.
>> They might be Pakistani or they might be Indian.
>
>Asia is a big continent, Maria.
I know that.
> An 'Asian' could be from anywhere from
>Kamchatka (Russian Far East) to Turkey.
I know that too.
But in common usage, and with reference to corner shops, 'Asian' is as
far as I know usually taken to mean someone from the Indian
subcontinent, rather than a Russian or a Turk, since Russians and
Turks do not AFAIK usually own corner shops in England. I know that
Turks like restaurants. I haven't a clue what Russians do.
Mactwatface knows that; he is just so ultra bigoted that not even
Indians are allowed to own corner shops; in his vocabulary of common
usage, they are all 'paki's'.
> If you mean 'from the Indian
>subcontinent, then say 'Indian'
Ok. Indian.
By that, Mactwatface will think I have excluded Pakistani's.
> (even though the Pakis don't want to
>be politically part of India - but they're the same colour as us, and
>we were all part of the same (ahem) 'Raj' (same indo-european root as
>'Reich', n'esct-ce pas?) at one time. In the same way you Brits are
>'Europeans' without actually bothering to join in the Euro lark).
Is that East European, West European, South European, North European
or Central European?
Since it is impossible to be geographically correct enough for
everybody round here, I shall leave you all to it.
Sandy Morton
Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm on a roll! Next task - persuade you that Thatcherism was a mistake
> (mind you, I'll have to persuade Tony Blair of that, first)! :)
Thatcher wasn't a mistake. Neither was Hague, Major, Home, Heath or
Churchill - and a few others. Tory Blair and Chamberlain do however have
a wee bit in common.