Copenhagen snow - big business control of the weather!
Steve Wallis
change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome
- a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
So was the snow just a random event? In my opinion, no! There is
planning, including computer modelling of the world, by organisations
with various agendas competing for control of the planet, and part of
this planning involves supposedly natural events such as the weather.
It is not a question of whether such modelling takes place, but as to
which forces in the world are dominant and to what extent they control
society; when there is so much at stake, things don't happen by
accident. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean on Boxing Day 2005 was
closest to Aceh in Indonesia and Sri Lanka, both of which had strong
national liberation movements, perhaps with the intention of cutting
across them by engineering moods of national unity. An earthquake
shortly afterwards was nearest Aceh.
I have held such a view of computer modelling for some time, as
encapsulated by my poem "The World Is Planned" (http://
galaxiamusic.org/lyrics/planned-4.html), which has the following
chorus:
Can you understand
That the world is planned?
But free will has a hand
In the struggle for every land
I have argued for society being primarily a struggle between people
who have primarily good intentions (are altruistic), and want a more
harmonious, united and peaceful world and those with mainly bad
intentions (are selfish) who want a continuation of the world's
problems (which of course includes global warming although I don't
think even they would want the extinction of humanity since being
selfish includes caring about your descendents). In newer versions of
my New Good Intentions Manifesto (http://socialiststeve.me.uk/good-
intentions-manifesto.html), I recognised that Marxist ideas of class
are also correct to a certain extent, with working class people
tending to be more altruistic than big businesspeople. I'd now
emphasise more the struggle between those with a socialist agenda and
those with a capitalist one, with good or bad intentions influencing
people's dedication to a particular cause.
In more recent versions of the poem, I put "They control the weather"
in the past tense, since the economic crisis has restricted the
ability of the forces of big business to control events in the world.
However, big business has survived the crisis and seems to be in a
stronger position internationally than I realised.
On the other hand, the political situation has been transformed
somewhat in a socialist direction in Britain, with Labour more
prepared to attack the rich (on bankers' bonuses and advocating a tax
on financial transactions) and with its manifesto at the next general
election including democratic workers' and users' control of public
services (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/11/labour-manifesto-public-services-sector).
However, Labour respects property rights and stands for socialism
without the fundamental redistribution of wealth that revolutionaries
call for (just as Latin American governments have let capitalist
corporations continue). The rhetoric reflects the change in the Labour
Party with prime minister Gordon Brown saying "we cannot permit the
politics of narrow self-interest to prevent a policy for human
survival" in Copenhagen.
I have argued that the main strategy employed by big business to stay
in control of the world is divide-and-rule, including on climate
change with some people more willing to make personal sacrifices to
help combat global warming than others. We (socialists) should
encourage renewable sources of energy to cut across this. We should
also point out that, even though natural processes like sun spots
sometimes affect temperatures more than human beings, glaciers and ice
at the poles are melting to a large extent, so it is clear that global
warming is a real problem that needs to be resolved - and hopefully
will be by a new global treaty in a much better mainly socialist
world, in the near future.
It seems that the main thing holding up a strong global climate deal
is the fact that the struggle between socialists and capitalists is on-
going and yet to be resolved; we should redouble our efforts to change
the world in order to prevent millions from dying as a result of
global warming.
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email addresses: sociali...@yahoo.co.uk,
revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeven
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in ]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo: http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,
http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net, http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
fitlike min
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
> change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome
> - a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>
Trouble with you hippies is that you have never worked for a living
and expect the rest of us to keep you...
Hardy
Robert Peffers
"fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:17ba6ece-f2f7-4e21...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Hardy
I have no idea if the person is a hippie or not.
The thing is he/she is attempting to use the threat, real or not, of Global
Warming as some kind of weapon in a perceived, or real, class-war.
That makes the author just as much a part of the false political warfare
that, without doubt, is going on.
Here in the UK we have had a revival with Labour claiming, apparently
correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with featherbedded
ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet.
Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public schoolboys
but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in non-elected Lords and
other government awarded titleholders.
Not much of a choice of party for the average voter.
--
Auld Bob.
Harry Merrick
> "fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:17ba6ece-f2f7-4e21...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 9:17 am, Steve Wallis
> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
>> change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome
>> - a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>>
> Yawn..Snipped your crap rantings.
> Trouble with you hippies is that you have never worked for a living
> and expect the rest of us to keep you...
>
> Hardy
>
> I have no idea if the person is a hippie or not.
> The thing is he/she is attempting to use the threat, real or not, of
> Global Warming as some kind of weapon in a perceived, or real,
> class-war.
I really cannot see how you reach that idea! Nonsense! Nobody has
successfully proven whether or not there is global warming or global
cooling, nor have they proven scientifically that man was responsible!
> That makes the author just as much a part of the false political
> warfare that, without doubt, is going on.
Balls. Just Socialism up to it's normal dirty tricks is all.
>
> Here in the UK we have had a revival
A revival of what?
>with Labour claiming, apparently
> correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with featherbedded
> ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet.
I resent that. I went to a Public School, for which my parents payed
heavily. I have worked as a farm labourer and eventually in sales. I have
worked every bit as hard as any member of the much vaunted socialist
"working class", probably more so. I am not working class, but neither am I
a "Toff" so called. I would say that I was middle class, and always have
been. I vote Tory were possible, because socialism merely drags us all into
the dirt every single time they get in. As for the "Toff" thing, this is
just racist class descrimination and we should all have got a long way away
from that rubbish. In any case, a good Public school education leading to a
good University means a superior education, and a clearer thought process
not blinded by immature class problems and money shortages.
> Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders. Not much of a
> choice of party for the average voter.
It appears to me that you have a very mixed up opinion regarding politics
and are a socialist as well, meaning you are confused now beyond all belief!
As for choice? Well, that is an individual thing of course, but I would say
there was sufficient choice for any person with half a brain. Get Labour out
at all costs, get out and vote whatever else you do, and lets see who gets
democratically elected with a landslide, hopefully. Obviously, I would
prefer a Tory landslide, seeing as we need new and original ideas to get us
all out of the mess that labour has left us in.
--
Harry Merrick.
fitlike min
> "fitlike min" <killwh...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Yes you are right Bob. The Tories have penetrated Gordon Browns inner
circle.
F.
Andy
Can't say I'm sold on either the "science" or the conspiracies.
However, we can't go on pissing in the pond that we all drinks from.
The problem with modern western society is quite simply plastic. In
the mid oceans, remains of man made plastic can be found. Food chain.
Cancer? Dementia? Heart Attacks?
And kids without mums and dads too. That ain't a lack of morality
caused by liberalism - it's by selfishness.
Britain gave the world the Industrial Revolution and the many benefits
it brought the world. Now we're a post-industrial society, we can find
jobs for ourselves in cleaning up the mess.
Climate Change is just science's way of showing religious and
spiritual malaise in the human race. We can fix it, as Bob The Builder
would say!
fitlike min
wrote:
No we sodding well cannot! We can only fix it if the cause is man
made. Cleaning up the planet isn't a bad thing per se of course as you
say.
Robert Henderson
<b7b3ee81-c69e-4c53...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Wallis <revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
>change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome -
>a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
Where oh where are the three creatures squealing OT..... RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
GM
wrote:
> In message
> <b7b3ee81-c69e-4c53-b302-29095ad8d...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
> >change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome -
> >a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>
> Where oh where are the three creatures squealing OT..... RH
> --
You'll be able to explain why this is OT then?
GMc
Robert Peffers
"Harry Merrick" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7p7b3m...@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:17ba6ece-f2f7-4e21...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 20, 9:17 am, Steve Wallis
>> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
>>> change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome
>>> - a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>>>
>> Yawn..Snipped your crap rantings.
>> Trouble with you hippies is that you have never worked for a living
>> and expect the rest of us to keep you...
>>
>> Hardy
>>
>> I have no idea if the person is a hippie or not.
>> The thing is he/she is attempting to use the threat, real or not, of
>> Global Warming as some kind of weapon in a perceived, or real,
>> class-war.
>
> I really cannot see how you reach that idea!
Strange that, as you cannot understand it, you see fit to comment.
Should the correct response be to seek clarification?
> Nonsense!
Why? You don't understand it, remember?
> Nobody has successfully proven whether or not there is global warming or
> global cooling, nor have they proven scientifically that man was
> responsible!
As I made no claim either way, and you don't understand it anyway, what is
your point in calling my post, "Rubbish".
>
>> That makes the author just as much a part of the false political
>> warfare that, without doubt, is going on.
>
> Balls. Just Socialism up to it's normal dirty tricks is all.
Considering I did not differentiate between the two main Westminster
political parties why do you call it, "Balls"?
>
>>
>> Here in the UK we have had a revival
>
> A revival of what?
That is better - you did not understand the post so you should be, as you
now are, asking for clarification.
I am pleased to oblige - The answer is that I wrote about, "A phoney class
war by the two main Westminster political parties"
>
>>with Labour claiming, apparently
>> correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with featherbedded
>> ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet.
>
> I resent that.
First, what has the statement got to do with you that you resent?
You didn't understand it - remember?
> I went to a Public School, for which my parents payed heavily.
By the standard of the English, you are using here, they seem to have wasted
their money.
> I have worked as a farm labourer and eventually in sales. I have worked
> every bit as hard as any member of the much vaunted socialist "working
> class", probably more so.
Please explain what my post had to do with you?
Also explain how working as a farm labourer, or in sales, does not make you
just as much a member of the working class as, say, a joiner, plumber, motor
mechanic or lavarory cleaner?
> I am not working class, but neither am I a "Toff" so called. I would say
> that I was middle class, and always have been.
Define middle class. While you are at it define working clas and upper
class?
> I vote Tory were possible, because socialism merely drags us all into the
> dirt every single time they get in.
Please explain what your voting preferences has to do with any of the points
I made that, remember, you do not understand.
> As for the "Toff" thing, this is just racist class descrimination and we
> should all have got a long way away from that rubbish.
Please explain how, "the Toff thing", is racist?
Then explain what I posted that makes you think I made a judgement of either
class?
Neither do I remember mentioning, "Toffs", this seems to be come from your
declared bias in favour of, "Toffs".
> In any case, a good Public school education leading to a good University
> means a superior education, and a clearer thought process not blinded by
> immature class problems and money shortages.
Looks like it failed miserably in your case.
First of all you say you don't understand my post but then proceed to make
wrong assupmtions of almost every point I made.
You assumed I was somehow on the side of one side of the class war you
thought I was posting about and you preceeded to attack my on that false
premise.
>
>
>> Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
>> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
>> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders. Not much of
>> a choice of party for the average voter.
>
> It appears to me
Wrongly.
> that you have a very mixed up opinion regarding politics and are a
> socialist as well, meaning you are confused now beyond all belief!
On what grounds do you deduce I am a socialist?
> As for choice? Well, that is an individual thing of course, but I would
> say there was sufficient choice for any person with half a brain.
That would seem to let you out as you have made a complete idiot of yourself
with your totally stupid reply to my post.
> Get Labour out at all costs, get out and vote whatever else you do, and
> lets see who gets democratically elected with a landslide, hopefully.
Your daft bit above is evidence enough for me to go to the poll and vote, as
I always have for another party that the Westminster main parties.
With idiots like you backing the Conservatives you convince me never to
vote Tory.
> Obviously, I would prefer a Tory landslide, seeing as we need new and
> original ideas to get us all out of the mess that labour has left us in.
Obviously you would. However, as you have totally failed to be able to
understand what my post was all about, and the strange assumptions you
jumper to, there is no doubt that your judgement is clouded by the very
class warfare that I was posting about and that you failed to be able to
read properly.
>
> --
> Harry Merrick.
Just for the record, Harry, I vote for neither Tory, Labour or Lib/Dems and
my post was about why the class warfare the present Tory/Labour, expenses
grabbing, disgraced numpties are engaged in is utter nonsense.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:31f14829d6f2cc12...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> 'Harry Merrick' wrote thus:
> Calling it a "mess" is almost an understatement...
>
You too?
This idiot, Harry Merrick, has totally misread what I posted.
Not only that but he has assumed I was a Labour supporter.
He then proceeds to attack me, the working class and the Labour party when
my post was about the stupid class wars that both main Westminster parties
have engaged in.
The fact that you have also jumped in with the premise that it is all
Labours fault makes my point for me.
I vote for none of the three main Westminster parties and the post was not
about support for either.
--
Auld Bob
Harry Merrick
> "Harry Merrick" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7p7b3m...@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:17ba6ece-f2f7-4e21...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 20, 9:17 am, Steve Wallis
>>> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to
>>>> climate change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the
>>>> final outcome - a very weak deal without legally binding emission
>>>> cuts.
.........."SNIP" of Indignant Obfuscationary Retaliation...............
> Obviously you would. However, as you have totally failed to be able to
> understand what my post was all about, and the strange assumptions you
> jumper to, there is no doubt that your judgement is clouded by the
> very class warfare that I was posting about and that you failed to be
> able to read properly.
>>
>> --
>> Harry Merrick.
>
> Just for the record, Harry, I vote for neither Tory, Labour or
> Lib/Dems and my post was about why the class warfare the present
> Tory/Labour, expenses grabbing, disgraced numpties are engaged in is
> utter nonsense.
Then I put it to you, your post was not composed in a rational manner that
all could understand. I too agree with you over the expenses scandal and the
outragious behaviour of a small percentage of our MP's. However, we do have
to move on, and to keep on bringing up these scandals is non-productive. As
regards the class warfare and "Toffs", it was yourself who introduced that
argument not me. I can only suggest that you go back and read what you "did"
actually post. As for assuming that you were a working class socialist, then
if you are not so, I appologise. However, presumption is as presumption
does! - Your post was highly suggestive that that was the case, and so I
presumed it was so!
--
Harry Merrick.
Robert Peffers
F.
Actually the point was that you could not squeeze a Rizla paper between the
three main Westminster parties. There is little difference between any of
them. They are full of people who have become politicians to feather their
own nests. What is more they don't give a damn about anyone else but their
own kind, their own party and their own way of life.
The people, the country and the World come a long way behind their own
narrow, selfish, grasping greedy lives.
They come from featherbedded backgrounds, mostly go into selective
education, on to Uni and take up some useless occupation while waiting to be
selected for a safe seat by whatever party they decide to make their path to
a career in politics.
I cannot remember a new parliament elected to Westminster that did not start
the new session with a vote to up their own remuneration and conditions.
There may be none of them who have actually suffered the normal life of the
average voter. Just how many of them have ever suffered hunger, cold and
struggled like normal people?
I took the time to check up on the Map's allowances and it was an eye
opener.
http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/
The above is an alphabetical list of their allowances and these are over,
and above, the normal set income they get.
Their current annual salary for an MP is �64,766.
Neither does it take account of the little perks available to all
Westminster MPs such as the subsidised bars, cafes and restaurants.
Then there are the increases for ministers
http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets
They even have their own subsidised malt whisky brand.
They also get a very large pension and handout on being thrown out by the
voters.
One term as an MP sees the MP set up for life and never needing to worry
about poverty ever again and this has nothing to do with which party they
belong to.
We need rid of career politicians but just how that can be achieved is a bit
difficult to arrange. The only answer is for the information on their
incomes to be attached to their election leaflets. If they have not been
elected then the cost of their predecessor should be shown for their
electors. I'm not saying the public should not pay but that the public
should see what they are paying. There should also be a ban on MPs holding
down other jobs or directorships as there is no doubt these extras mean they
have hidden agendas.
--
Auld Bob
Mighty White
>
> "Harry Merrick" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7p7b3m...@mid.individual.net...
> > Robert Peffers wrote:
> >>"fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:17ba6ece-f2f7-4e21...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.
> > > com... On Dec 20, 9:17 am, Steve Wallis
Robert, you are full of self-important shit.
--
My shit-o-meter detects bullshit
Robert Peffers
Actually we cannot fix it no matter what the cause is.
What we can do is give nature a hand and hope that nature can fix it.
However, nature has no concept of the supremacy of Home Sapiens and nature
has overseen several big shifts in what living things are supreme on Earth.
I am over 70 years old and have lived in both the former Lothians and Fife
mining field that once blighted the Central Scottish landscapes.
I was born on a farm and have always lived in a more rural area, (even when
in Edinburgh I lived in an area outside the main built-up area).
I thus saw the Lime Kiln, Oil Shale and Coal Mining peaks, dips and now
almost endings.
I watched the spoil heaps of the lime kilns, big red shale bings and coal
pit bings going back to more natural landscapes.
However, we did not do this by ourselves, we only helped nature to speed up
the process.
The first sign of nature getting to work was always the first sign of
vegetation creeping back on the spoil heaps. This was always, "Coltsfoot", a
common weed that grows everywhere. This would be an isolated plant on the
barren spoil heap. It would cling to a precarious existence and die in the
Winter. Next year there would be a little bit of blae with a pocket of humus
on it and a few seeds. The Coltsfoot had begun the slow process and now had
a foothold that increased with every growing season. Soon the rotted
vegetation allowed other plants to gain a foothold and the spoil heaps were
on the way to change.
However, if we spread the bings out and plant vegetation in pockets of
decent topsoil we speed up the process. I live within a hundred yards of
Lochore Meadows Country Park that is the result of just such a man assisted
recovery of a former coal-field area of devastation.
It doesn't matter if the global warming is man made or not but it does
matter that we do our best to help nature to recover from the abuse we have
given it.
We should, though, give more attention to such things as more efficient use
of the energy we have now.
One very neglected aspect of this is the insulation of our existing
habitations but even that is not so clear cut as it should be. For example
the manufacture of most insulation is energy intensive. What is wrong with
using natures own insulation materials?
The push towards green energy is not enough but really needs the
governments to push for energy conservation, (and I don't mean by turning
off the TV standby).
I watched a programme of a guy who built his own home on his own bit of
scrub land. He used wood from his own land and built the main walls with
ordinary straw bails. These were plastered inside and outside. He had a
combination of electric generation methods but no mains connection. He
pumped water from a well and had a composter for waste from his toilet, etc.
The drainage was by a cess pit and soakaway. It all worked well and he had
no outside supplies piped in. He seemed to live comfortably, cheaply and
well.
Now we cannot all do that but we could do a lot more than we do. So what if
the global warming is a scam? We could all do with a cheaper method of
normal living.
One without carbon tax, fuel duty and extra taxation is in everyone's best
interest.
We either help out nature or a great many of us will perish, one way or
another.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
You can put it however you like, Harry, but it will not change the fact that
you have made a right hash of reading my post and jumped to several daft
conclusions.
Here it is again, sans chevrons, for all to see.
-------------------------------------------
I have no idea if the person is a hippie or not.
The thing is he/she is attempting to use the threat, real or not, of Global
Warming as some kind of weapon in a perceived, or real, class-war.
That makes the author just as much a part of the false political warfare
that, without doubt, is going on.
Here in the UK we have had a revival with Labour claiming, apparently
correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with featherbedded
ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet.
Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public schoolboys
but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in non-elected Lords and
other government awarded titleholders.
Not much of a choice of party for the average voter.
--------------------------------------------
So your suggestion that I should read my own post comes back to haunt you
for there are none of the things you accused me of within that post.
I note you snipped the original out and also my reply to you.
If you wish I shall also retrieve these for you too.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
> working classes to get into power. My comments to Harry were in
> agreement about Labour and the chaos it's created in 12 years,
> not about you.
>
The class war now in progress in UK politics is stupid by any standards and
my post was aimed at that point.
In the first place there is nothing to distinguish between the politics of
either major party as they are both Thatcherite. They thus hustle in the
same part of the UK political spectrum.
Not only that but the party MPs are drawn from the same general background.
They are each top-heavy in ex-public school boys who have gone from
education into politics without any real-life experience of how their
electors live.
Now the basic facts are that there is supposed to be no more existing class
system in the UK today.
The political parties are overloaded with career politicians.
The main parties are much more concerned for the welfare of the party
machine than they are for either the United Kingdom of the voters who live
there.
Then we have the obvious fact that being an MP is a money making career that
seems driven by greed and where the politicians have no sense of morals
whatsoever.
It is not enough for them that their basic pay is high but they must also be
subsidised within Westminster's walls. I.e., they care more \about
subsidised MP's meals than they do about subsidised poor children's school
meals. They think it is right to have the voters pay over the odds for their
homes, offices, family members and even their bloody ducks.
This is not to mention the golden pay outs they get when they are thrown out
on their ears for fiddling their expenses nor that many of them take on,
(advisory), posts and directorships with private companies.
Let me spell it out for you -
THERE IS NOTHING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN EITHER MAJOR WESTMINSTER PARTY AS THEY
ARE ALL THE SAME.
THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORY AND LABOUR POLICIES AND THEY BOTH
OWN MORE LOYALTY TO THEIR PARTY THAN THEY DO TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECT THEM.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Henderson
<028d5b26-69e7-4fe5...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, GM
<g-...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>> >The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
>> >change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome -
>> >a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>>
>> Where oh where are the three creatures squealing OT..... RH
>> --
>
>You'll be able to explain why this is OT then?
>
>GMc
The creature Guig insists that only posts directly related to Scotch
politics are on topic... RH
Robert Peffers
> a socialist. He thinks there's electoral mileage in it for him.
And here you are falling for it. Seems no one but the Conservatives are
latching on to it?
Could it be that THEY, and their supporters, see some mileage in a class
war?
>
>>In the first place there is nothing to distinguish between the politics of
>>either major party as they are both Thatcherite. They thus hustle in the
>>same part of the UK political spectrum.
>
> 1.I wouldn't describe New Lab as remotely Thatcherite, although
> some issues that need attention only have one solution, so it can
> sometimes appear as you say. Thatcher certainly did not turn
> Britain into a quasi-police state, despite her need to bring the
> miners to heel under our old friend Scargill.
In the process the Mad Cow", also presided over the loss of the services the
British Public had paid for and ownd being sold off, at rock bottoam prises,
to private pockets.
She even sold off the Royal Dockyards and various navy, army and air force
repair depots into private pockets and even to some foreign powers.
It is notable the when Labour regained power they did not take the gifts
made back into public hands.
Thatcher also sold off things like the TSB. This was obviously nothing but
stealing from the people. The TSB was a trustee bank. That means the
trustees were appointed by the owners of the bank to run it. Those owners
were the members yet Thatcher sold off their bank from under them. She not
only saw off the miners but the car indusrty, steel industry and split up
the Post Office while selling off the profitable parts of it. The woman,
almost single handely, decimated the UK's heavy industry, medium industry
and even light engineering. The idiot woman made several daft decisions that
were breath taking in their stupidity. For example I well remember her take
on North Sea Gas. She stood up and said that we had a supply of energy under
the North Sea that would last forever so we didn't need the miners.
This was at a time when the Coal Board were leaders in the field of coal
gassification. The Lurgi Plant at Westfield in Fife had made great strides
in this field that meant they were producing gas from the coal but the flow
bed technology they were using was able to burn stuff not even usually
thought of as a fuel. The plant not only produced gas but it also produced
smokeless fuel and literally thousands of bi-products that are now being
produced from scarce oil reserves.
The Mad Cow sold the plant to the USA where it is working to this day. So
now the oil is running out, the gas has to be bought from foreign fields and
there is plenty of coal still down there that we will need some day soon.
Then Thatcher also gave us the change in rules that saw us inherit Mad Cow
Disease.
it was under her stewardship the rules were relaxed that allowed the farm
feed industry to feed the cattle with the waste beef that contained the
virus that we still have not seen the end of. Someone died last month from
the disease.
>
> 2.political parties win elections in Britain by coalescing around
> the so-called centre ground.
No there are three parties attempting to hold down that part of the
political spectrum and that is why there is nothing to choose between them.
>
>>Not only that but the party MPs are drawn from the same general
>>background.
>
> Some are, many are not. I often get the impression that a lot of
> Labour MPs have simply been scooped up off the street :-)
Rather than dragged out of public toilets and gay bars like the other
parties you mean?
>
>>They are each top-heavy in ex-public school boys who have gone from
>>education into politics without any real-life experience of how their
>>electors live.
>
> A sad reflection of British politics...the privileges are too
> tempting for some to ignore
For most to ignore, but such is the norm for career politics..
>
>>Now the basic facts are that there is supposed to be no more existing
>>class
>>system in the UK today.
>
> In many ways there is not, except Brown is trying to recreate it.
Get real! The Tory party were after that one like a terrier after a rat.
The fact is that if they had just ignored the remark it would never have
been noticed.
Quite obviously you do not watch the Parliament channel for if you did you
would be as disgusted as I am at the schoolyard behaviour of the MPs.
One lot sitting on o9ne side of the house the other lot on the other side.
Then they hurl abuse at each other across the floor of the house.
I've seen better behaviour at school dinners or in the primary school
playground.
>
>>The political parties are overloaded with career politicians.
>>The main parties are much more concerned for the welfare of the party
>>machine than they are for either the United Kingdom of the voters who live
>>there.
>
> True, another sad reflection of British politics.
>
>>Then we have the obvious fact that being an MP is a money making career
>>that
>>seems driven by greed and where the politicians have no sense of morals
>>whatsoever.
>
> ditto.
>
>>It is not enough for them that their basic pay is high but they must also
>>be
>>subsidised within Westminster's walls. I.e., they care more \about
>>subsidised MP's meals than they do about subsidised poor children's school
>>meals. They think it is right to have the voters pay over the odds for
>>their
>>homes, offices, family members and even their bloody ducks.
>>This is not to mention the golden pay outs they get when they are thrown
>>out
>>on their ears for fiddling their expenses nor that many of them take on,
>>(advisory), posts and directorships with private companies.
>>
>>Let me spell it out for you -
>>THERE IS NOTHING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN EITHER MAJOR WESTMINSTER PARTY AS THEY
>>ARE ALL THE SAME.
>>THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TORY AND LABOUR POLICIES AND THEY BOTH
>>OWN MORE LOYALTY TO THEIR PARTY THAN THEY DO TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECT THEM.
>
> Well, support Britain having a proper written constitution.
> It is the only solution to most of the issues you raise.
It is not the only solution.
I can think of others.
We alread have three quarters of a far better system working at the moment.
Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland all parliaments where there is far more order
and no trooping out through voting lobbies to be whipped through whatever
lobby the party wants them through. So just throw the bunch of wasters out
of Westminster. Build an English Parliament building around the middle of
England and give them a block grant like everyone else. Then each UK country
can send a few ministers to deal with common interests and the result is MPs
closer to their voters, less travel and far more accountability.
Most of all, though, we will, for the first time since 1707, a level playing
field.
>
--
Auld Bob
GM
wrote:
> In message
> <028d5b26-69e7-4fe5-a280-6184f8515...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, GM
> <g...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> >The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to climate
> >> >change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final outcome -
> >> >a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>
> >> Where oh where are the three creatures squealing OT..... RH
> >> --
>
> >You'll be able to explain why this is OT then?
>
> >GMc
>
> The creature Guig insists that only posts directly related to Scotch
> politics are on topic... RH
> --
Can you post some proof that this is indeed what he said?
GMc
Robert Henderson
<6c5088e6-7324-4056...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, GM
<g-...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> The creature Guig insists that only posts directly related to Scotch
>> politics are on topic... RH
>> --
>
>Can you post some proof that this is indeed what he said?
>
>GMc
Ask the creature to deny it.... RH
Harry Merrick
The conclusions, daft or otherwise, are a direct result of attempting to
interpret your own confusing prose. It would appear that not only myself is
daft here!
>
> Here it is again, sans chevrons, for all to see.
Oh happy day!
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> I have no idea if the person is a hippie or not.
>
> The thing is he/she is attempting to use the threat, real or not, of
> Global Warming as some kind of weapon in a perceived, or real,
> class-war.
Really? And were does he/she do anything of the sort? Your own perception.
>
> That makes the author just as much a part of the false political
> warfare that, without doubt, is going on.
OK, so explain yourself here. What "false" political warfare?
>
> Here in the UK we have had a revival with Labour claiming, apparently
> correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with featherbedded
> ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet.
In your own words you are condemned! By your extremely intransigent
accusation about, quote - "the Tory inner circle being overloaded with
featherbedded ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet" -
unquote, you automatically and by default include the usual class war
accusation of "Toff"! - In any case, you are declaring your own opinions
only, with no proof whatever.
>
> Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.
Cannot argue with that. Labour is determined to ruin this country by every
method possible in order to make it nearly impossible for any party coming
along next to be able to fix the problem. Hence the need for a Tory
landslide so that they can do the necessary.
>
> Not much of a choice of party for the average voter.
That is merely your own opinion.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> So your suggestion that I should read my own post comes back to haunt
> you for there are none of the things you accused me of within that
> post.
It would seem that you will not accept any views to the contrary of those
you present. Your reaction of accusing those who do, of course, merely
exposes your own abundant pomposity and self-opiniated intractability. It
seems you are rather an ascerbic and arrogant person. Sad, really.
>
> I note you snipped the original out and also my reply to you.
Normal good manners not to waste bandwidth. We already knew what I snipped.
Netiquette? You probably don't know what that is, so never mind!
> If you wish I shall also retrieve these for you too.
My dear fellow! Far be it for me not to give you something to do! By all
means if you wish!!
--
Harry Merrick.
Robert Peffers
How would you know? By your own words, you didn't understand my post.
>>
>> That makes the author just as much a part of the false political
>> warfare that, without doubt, is going on.
>
> OK, so explain yourself here. What "false" political warfare?
The one I clearly stated - the phoney political class war between the
Westminster Labour and Conservative party leaders.
As I indicated they are mostly all from the same class of featherbedded
ex-public schoolboys who went right into politics without any real
experiance of the real World.
By the way, I regard that Real World as being somewhat larger than the
narrow one of maual labour. The concept that it is not is yours, not mine.
>>
>> Here in the UK we have had a revival with Labour claiming, apparently
>> correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with featherbedded
>> ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up yet.
>
> In your own words you are condemned! By your extremely intransigent
> accusation about, quote - "the Tory inner circle being overloaded with
> featherbedded ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown up
> yet" -
> unquote, you automatically and by default include the usual class war
> accusation of "Toff"! - In any case, you are declaring your own opinions
> only, with no proof whatever.
What rubbish you do talk/write. I then went on to say, -
"Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.".
As your grasp on English seems rather nebulous, that says Labour are exactly
the same for the Conservatives also have a section of MPs with titles in
their midst.
>
>>
>> Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
>> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
>> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.
>
> Cannot argue with that. Labour is determined to ruin this country by every
> method possible in order to make it nearly impossible for any party coming
> along next to be able to fix the problem. Hence the need for a Tory
> landslide so that they can do the necessary.
The Tory party couldn't fix it the last time they tried. Nor the time before
that - or the time before that too.
You must be a total idiot if you think the Conservatives were ever good fot
the UK, (at least since before WWII).
Thatcher was a total disaster for the UK as a whole and for the three
non-English countries in particular.
She decimated the industrial base of the UK and moved the income from
exports and production to the service industries that have just become worse
and worse until now when they have hit the buffers and landed the World with
a depression. Have you forgotten the years of boom & bust that was her
legacy?
Just what makes your feavered barin imagine that a party of ex-public
schoolboys with blue rosettes are any better equipped to lead the UK than a
party of ex-public schoolboys with red rosettes?
Only an idiot could draw the daft conclusions that you have.
You seem to think that the Labour party are the sole cause of a World
Depression that was caused, mainly, by the right wing USA administration,
and that spread throughout the entire World. Do you honestly expect
reasonable people to conclude that the present economic disaster would have
passed the UK by if only the UK government had been Conservative? The sad
truth is that the burden of taxation, throughout Europe, has shifted from
those who can pay to those who cannot and it matters not what colour the MPs
rosettes are. Now the tax system is biased against the poorest. Take VAT,
this means anyone without much by way of disposable income pays a high
proportion of their purchas of life's essentials on tax. Then we have the
Council Tax, I'm an OAP and live in a small cottage. I pay almost the same
rate of tax as the local laird does on his mansion just up the road a bit.
Now examine the legal system, if I get a parking ticket in the local High
Street it docks me a major part of my weekly income. The local football star
is quite happy to use his wealth to just park as he likes and will not even
notice the charge. It makes no difference what party is in power as the
whole system is wrong. The only fair tax system must be based not upon need
and ability to pay and not upon greed and the inabillity to care about other
people's hardship.
The point is that the EU dictates the form of taxation and not Westminster.
Thus it matters not which party is in power - except to those who are so
bloody blind they cannot see past their class ridden party politics. For
example you are assuming, wrongly, that I am a Labour supporter. Can you not
see I am neither a Labour nor a Tory supporter?
>>
>> Not much of a choice of party for the average voter.
>
> That is merely your own opinion.
Then, perhaps you would like to enlighten me of which policies the Labour
Party has that the Conservatives have not, (or the other way round).
>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> So your suggestion that I should read my own post comes back to haunt
>> you for there are none of the things you accused me of within that
>> post.
>
> It would seem that you will not accept any views to the contrary of those
> you present. Your reaction of accusing those who do, of course, merely
> exposes your own abundant pomposity and self-opiniated intractability. It
> seems you are rather an ascerbic and arrogant person. Sad, really.
>
Every part of your postings has indicated that you think I am somehow
favouring the Labour party and you have attacked me as if I were.
This is your own ingrained class bias. I am not a Labour supporter. I am
over 70 years old and have never voted Labour in my life.
Mind you I have never voted Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or Communist
either and I've voted in every election since the Labour landslide in 1945.
Get it right I wish a pox on both their houses. Also get it right that I
have nothing against ex-public school boys.
If you were actually adept at reading the English language, and not so full
of your class predudice, you would have read that my condemnation was
against those who leave education and take up a career in politics but who
have never lived in the real World like normal, (even ex-public school
boys), who do live in the real World.
If you check back through your own posts you will see that you did assume,
wrongly, that I was against ALL ex-public school boys.
My post clearly stated that my objection was to those who went into politics
right from the education system. By the way the present Labour leader is
very close to that criterion.
He left University, taught for a short spell then worked as a researcher at
Scottish Television and right into politics. In Scotland Kirkcaldy High
Scool is about as close as you can get to an English Public school.
Then we have Clegg.who also seems to have followed a sheltered employment
career.
>>
>> I note you snipped the original out and also my reply to you.
>
> Normal good manners not to waste bandwidth. We already knew what I
> snipped.
> Netiquette? You probably don't know what that is, so never mind!
Obviously the one with a problem with Netiquette is none other than yourself
and your poor attempt at points scoring highlights that fact.
Netiquette demands that the person who replies DOES NOT snip out any part
relevant to the debate.
The very fact that YOU then refered ME to the snipped out part shows YOU do
not understand Netiquette.
>
>> If you wish I shall also retrieve these for you too.
>
> My dear fellow! Far be it for me not to give you something to do! By all
> means if you wish!!
Harry, just admit that you were quite wrong and grasped the, Err!, tarry end
of the stick.
Your whole approach, throughout this thread, was to attack me as if I was a
Socialist, anti-public Schools and taking part in a class war.
I'm not a socialist, I'm not against public schools and the present class
wars between the two main parties is, without doubt, phoney.
How could it be otherwise when the main parties MPs are all mainly from the
same background and have never experienced real life outside of either
education and politics?
I think the average reader of this thread will be quite able to see you as
the one with the preconceived class bias.
Quite simply you do not know my own background in education and employment
nor do you seem to have grasped my political leanings.
Yet, there you are, making errors in all these things. Get it right I have
never voted for the MP who represents the constituency where I live. By the
way, he is the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP.
May I suggest a course in Reading and Comprehension for yourself. You
obviously have great problems in that department.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:f6f257fcc08b3145...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>
>>> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:d21e2a10333c7e6c...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>>>> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:31f14829d6f2cc12...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>>>>>> 'Harry Merrick' wrote thus:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "fitlike min" <kill...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:17ba6ece-f2f7-4e21...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 9:17 am, Steve Wallis
>>>>>>>>> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The snow yesterday in Copenhagen undoubtedly gave a boost to
>>>>>>>>>> climate
>>>>>>>>>> change sceptics (deniers), quite possibly affecting the final
>>>>>>>>>> outcome
>>>>>>>>>> - a very weak deal without legally binding emission cuts.
>
>>> Such as there is a class war in progress was started by Brown,
>>> a socialist. He thinks there's electoral mileage in it for him.
>
>
>>And here you are falling for it.
>
> Falling for what?
> It is a matter of fact that Brown is trying to start a class war
> in the run up to the GE. His comments about Cameron's educational
> background are evidence of that. Brown sees electoral mileage in
> it, although it might backfire.
Not true in any way. It is true that Brown gave his opinion about Cameron's
background.
It is also true that Brown's own background is hardly any better.
As a son of the Manse he also comes from a privilidged background. Kirkcaldy
High was a selective establishment when Brown went there.
Then Brown went to University and followed with a short teaching career
before taking a job as a researcher with Scottish Television.
No real World there either.
Then we have the simple fact that a war must have at least two opposing
sides in order toi be a war.
Cameron was in there like a rat up a drain pipe.
Now to the respective parties.
Both are top heavy with career politicians who come from featherbedded
families, they went to puplic schools and went from education into politics
with no real life experiance in between.
Both parties have titled people in their midst with Labour having most life
Peers and the Tories inherited titles predominant.
So why blame Brown and Labour when both parties have nothing to choose
between them?
Why blame only one side of a didpute between two protaginests?
To me they are peas in a pod and I cannot think of a Conservative party
policy that differs greatly from the equivalent Labour policy.
In fact I cannot even recall Cameron stating a Conservative policy
It is rather like the Scottish rty
> I have long argued that some utility privatisations should have
> been done differently, using a new model of private Ltd Company
> along the lines of "XYZ Private Utility Co. Ltd" which would have
> had different Articles of Association to standard Ltd companies
> reflecting a need to operate in the wider public interest, not
> just shareholders interests. Such companies would have become
> a solid investment for 'grannies and orphans' etc.
>
> There's nothing stopping any govt in office sorting that out.
> In 13 years of NewLab we have seen no action.
Robert Peffers
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hOqdnfHXcevHJq3W...@bt.com...
It is rather like the Scottish Labour Party at Holyrood who seem to only
have a policy to decry everything the SNP does. Even when it was Labour
policy that led to whatever it is they are against. They do not care what is
good for Scotland, just whatever they think will discredit the SNP. The
latest is to criticise the use of NHS hospitals for private patients.
Yet labour funded a private hospital while in office. The facts are that the
SNP had greatly reduced the private use of the NHS and had brought the
private hospital into the NHS.
The SNP spokesperson said that we will always have private treatments within
the NHS as we cannot allow foreign people who have no claim on NHS treatment
to just die in the street. We must treat them and, if tghere is no
reciprocal arrangement, charge them for the treatment. In other words the
Scottish Labour party care more about the Labour Party than they do for
Scotland.
Westminster Tories seem cut from the same cloth. Low on policy but high on
labour bashing yet both partioes seem almost identical except for the names.
Why bother changing the system when the obvious answer was to wield a big
axe to remove any public sector manager who failed to manage.
Let's get things into proportion here.
Begining with the basic reasons for nationalising them in the first place.
We had just fought a World War and all our efforts had gone to winning that
war.
The whole UK was set-up to produce the weapons and equipments of war.
Our whole infrastructure had also taken a beating from the enemy attacks.
So all the utility services needed urgent overhaul.
We had poor railways and poor rolling stock. We had no comercial vehicle
manufacuring and little rolling stock.
Communications were in a bad way too as were the gas and electrical
services. The answer was to nationalise the services but ths was not done in
a haphazard manner.
For example it was thought that road services would not really be a cost
effective service but that the railways would. So public profits from one
would subsidise the other.
In communications we had the GPO who had the Telephones, the mail services
and Post Office services including the National Savings Bank.
In the event the Tories eventually split these services up putting the
profitable parts into private pockets but leaving the taxpayer with the loss
making parts and that is why BT are a large profitable compant but the Post
Offices are being closed all over the UK and this time it is the Labour
party doing the dirty deed of robbing the public of services the public
originally funded.
So just why were our public services sold off for peanuts when the obvious
point was the government of the day wanted them to be loss making in order
to sell them off?
Why not the big axe and efficient public services?
Having worked under both systems I know there was no fundemental difference
in management to warrant such thinking.
So now we have foreign hands on many of our former assets and those hands
are the ones taking profits but also closeing down after stripping away the
assets.
Ouch! The wee dog jumped on my knee and nudged my arm.
This post shot off onto the Net all by itself.
So I will continue where I left off.
/|\
Up
there -----------------------------------------------------------------------/|\
--
Auld Bob
Harry Merrick
Look, I am not going to even"start" to discuss this. YOU posted those words,
not I. Rediculous nonsense!
>
>>>
>>> That makes the author just as much a part of the false political
>>> warfare that, without doubt, is going on.
>>
>> OK, so explain yourself here. What "false" political warfare?
>
> The one I clearly stated - the phoney political class war between the
> Westminster Labour and Conservative party leaders.
But that is ONLY your own opinion. SFAIK, there is NO class war! Why should
there be? Brown is the only perpetrator of this abuse so far, apart from
yourself of course.
> As I indicated they are mostly all from the same class of
> featherbedded ex-public schoolboys who went right into politics
> without any real experiance of the real World.
I do wonder what planet you are on! - If you insist on using this emotive
socialist language, then you do have to remember that this has ALWAYS been
so! The best brains from all classes come directly from private education.
> By the way, I regard that Real World as being somewhat larger than the
> narrow one of maual labour. The concept that it is not is yours, not
> mine.
LOL! "Real world"!!! I wonder what that has to do with a sheltered
existance in Fife, or is it Perthshire. I have lived and worked throughout
the world and met many different persuasions of people and politics. I think
I would have an extremely good data base of experience to draw from. FWIW,
your own experience does seem to be badly limited.
>
>>>
>>> Here in the UK we have had a revival with Labour claiming,
>>> apparently correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with
>>> featherbedded ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown
>>> up yet.
>>
>> In your own words you are condemned! By your extremely intransigent
>> accusation about, quote - "the Tory inner circle being overloaded
>> with featherbedded ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never
>> grown up yet" -
>> unquote, you automatically and by default include the usual class war
>> accusation of "Toff"! - In any case, you are declaring your own
>> opinions only, with no proof whatever.
>
> What rubbish you do talk/write. I then went on to say, -
LOL! Usual crap response from some Scotch idiot with nothing sensible to
say.
>
> "Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.".
Did I disagree? I had thought definately not!
>
> As your grasp on English seems rather nebulous, that says Labour are
> exactly the same for the Conservatives also have a section of MPs
> with titles in their midst.
The Labour titles are mostly those given by Brown it seems, in an attempt to
solve his leadership problems. However, since you seem determined to go on
moaning about Public Schools and Titles, have a look at all past governments
from the formation of Parliament. What do you find? Titled and monied MP's,
Landed Gentry, Squires and the like, many of whom have gone to private
schools. Why is that, do you suppose? Better brains, better education,
better recources to draw on.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
>>> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
>>> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.
>>
>> Cannot argue with that. Labour is determined to ruin this country by
>> every method possible in order to make it nearly impossible for any
>> party coming along next to be able to fix the problem. Hence the
>> need for a Tory landslide so that they can do the necessary.
>
> The Tory party couldn't fix it the last time they tried. Nor the time
> before that - or the time before that too.
That Is all a matter of where you are coming from of course. Most people
would say that defeating the Miners and curbing Union strength was a very
good thing indeed.
Well there now! So am I! So we have something in common at last! What I do
"not" have is your unmitigated intolerance and fixed belief in Socialist
propaganda. You also suffer from a very biased and futile understanding of
past politics.
>and have never voted Labour in my life.
> Mind you I have never voted Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or
> Communist either and I've voted in every election since the Labour
> landslide in 1945. Get it right I wish a pox on both their houses.
> Also get it right that I have nothing against ex-public school boys.
>
> If you were actually adept at reading the English language, and not
> so full of your class predudice, you would have read that my
> condemnation was against those who leave education and take up a
> career in politics but who have never lived in the real World like
> normal, (even ex-public school boys), who do live in the real World.
>
> If you check back through your own posts you will see that you did
> assume, wrongly, that I was against ALL ex-public school boys.
Your rant is now far too long. And yes, your previous remarks do in fact
make it appear that you were against ALL ex-public school boys. You are
arguing against what you have already said and are now irrelevant.
>
> My post clearly stated that my objection was to those who went into
> politics right from the education system. By the way the present
> Labour leader is very close to that criterion.
> He left University, taught for a short spell then worked as a
> researcher at Scottish Television and right into politics. In
> Scotland Kirkcaldy High Scool is about as close as you can get to an
> English Public school.
> Then we have Clegg.who also seems to have followed a sheltered
> employment career.
Today, most people have and are sheltered, unless they join the armed forces
of course. Where Labour makes sure their chances of survival are as bad as
possible! What's so wrong with paur auld Cleggy? He seems a nice enough
bloke with good intentions at least.
>
>>>
>>> I note you snipped the original out and also my reply to you.
>>
>> Normal good manners not to waste bandwidth. We already knew what I
>> snipped.
>> Netiquette? You probably don't know what that is, so never mind!
>
> Obviously the one with a problem with Netiquette is none other than
> yourself and your poor attempt at points scoring highlights that fact.
>
> Netiquette demands that the person who replies DOES NOT snip out any
> part relevant to the debate.
It was not relevant to the debate since it appears for all to see earlier in
the thread!
>
> The very fact that YOU then refered ME to the snipped out part shows
> YOU do not understand Netiquette.
No, it merely means that you are a difficult intransigent Scott who like to
think that he knows it all!
>
>>
>>> If you wish I shall also retrieve these for you too.
>>
>> My dear fellow! Far be it for me not to give you something to do! By
>> all means if you wish!!
> Harry, just admit that you were quite wrong and grasped the, Err!,
> tarry end of the stick.
Oldest trick in the book! If you think that then you are a bigger fool than
I took you for.
> Your whole approach, throughout this thread, was to attack me as if I
> was a Socialist, anti-public Schools and taking part in a class war.
Well? You are aren't you? Nothing you have said so far says any different.
> I'm not a socialist, I'm not against public schools and the present
> class wars between the two main parties is, without doubt, phoney.
> How could it be otherwise when the main parties MPs are all mainly
> from the same background and have never experienced real life outside
> of either education and politics?
That is a direct result of good education for the masses and is bound to
happen. You are denying your own principles. As for experiencing real life
outside education and politics, well! Such utter nonsense! You are therefor
saying that "nobody" has done that!
>
>
> I think the average reader of this thread will be quite able to see
> you as the one with the preconceived class bias.
ROTFLMAO!! Oh really?
> Quite simply you do not know my own background in education and
> employment nor do you seem to have grasped my political leanings.
> Yet, there you are, making errors in all these things. Get it right I
> have never voted for the MP who represents the constituency where I
> live. By the way, he is the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP.
So, you are saying you are not a Socialist? I think that you don't know what
you are in fact.
>
> May I suggest a course in Reading and Comprehension for yourself. You
> obviously have great problems in that department.
Ha! Ha! - OK, so I do believe your rant has gone on long enough to bore most
people, so I will refrain from further comment. Further discussion is beyond
reason pointless!
--
Harry Merrick.
GM
wrote:
> In message
> <6c5088e6-7324-4056-8a9b-c34aa88c9...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, GM
> <g...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
> >> The creature Guig insists that only posts directly related to Scotch
> >> politics are on topic... RH
> >> --
>
> >Can you post some proof that this is indeed what he said?
>
> >GMc
>
> Ask the creature to deny it.... RH
> --
So you can't.
GMc
Robert Peffers
>
>>> Falling for what?
>>> It is a matter of fact that Brown is trying to start a class war
>>> in the run up to the GE. His comments about Cameron's educational
>>> background are evidence of that. Brown sees electoral mileage in
>>> it, although it might backfire.
>
>>Not true in any way. It is true that Brown gave his opinion about
>>Cameron's
>>background.
>
Can you not understand the English language?
I stated that it was true that Brown remarked upon Cameron's background.
That only makes it true that Brown remarked upon Cameron's background.
It does NOT make it true that this started a class war.
As I wrote, and you failed to comprehend, for that remark to escalate into a
class war required Cameron to make it into a class war.
There was the House asking questions about vital issues like flooding,
warfare, climate change and government policies and Cameron latches on to a
simple remark to escalate it into a matter of class warfare.
Have you actually watched the PMQs session where this incident happened?
In fact have you ever watched the utter rabble of schoolboy, Yah! Boo!, bad
behaviour of PMQs?
You will find them all here -
http://www.number10.gov.uk/number-10-tv/prime-ministers-questions
Like you Cameron jumps upon trivial things to hide his total lack of policy
behind.
Now I am not a Labour supporter but I do often watch the Parliament Channel
on TV. It has to be said that when it comes to PMQs Cameron usually comes
off second best but is usually right to the fore when it comes to insults
and bad manners.
If you ever listened to the exchanges in the House of Commons chamber you
would hear very much worse remarks roared at top volume by Cameron at Brown.
This is particularly evident at PM's Question Time.
>
>>It is also true that Brown's own background is hardly any better.
>
> I have virtually no interest in Brown's background ...other than
> trying to understand where his mad, evil persona comes from.
You are obviously blinded by your own mad, evil persona from seeing what is
there for those who are neutral in their party loyalty.
You make these idiotic accusations that are quite obviously prompted by
bigotry and hate and own nothing, whatsoever, to reasoned thought.
>
> He is a man carrying a grotesque opinion of his own skills and
> competence, who is more responsible for Britain's plight at this
> time than any other person.
This shows your lack of reasoned though once more.
Britains plight is due to the same cause as every other country in the World
and anyone who claims otherwise is an obvious idiot.
We are in a World wide depression mainly caused by the wild and reckless
actions of the USA money sector.
The reason the UK is still suffering while some others are already begining
to recover is entirely due to the Governments that presided over the
decimation of British manufacturing industries, the selling off of the
Public Service industies, the defence industries and the changes in the
financial sector that allowed many, once rock solid, financial institution
to go the same road as those in the USA. Those governmebnts were led by
Thatcher, Major and co.
> Yet he is so cowardly that he cannot
> face that truth and instead, chooses to blame anybody/everybody
> else. IMHO he is a dangerous man to be allowed anywhere near
> taxpayers money or any lever of power.
Yes but we are now all quite clear as to what your mad view are.
Only a blind fool would blame a UK PM for a World Wide recession and you are
that blind fool.
There was no way that the UK could have avoided the World Wide depression
but if it had not been for former Tory policies we could have fared far
better than we have.
In point of fact the actions taken by the present government have prevented
the UK's plight from being far, far, worse.
I do not support Labour but must conceed they are right on this issue. The
only way to avoid the worst effects of the depression was to spend money to
prevent those who were not the very, very, rich from starvation, hypothermia
and death was to spend more now and spread the misery over many years.
Cameron only has his own kind in mind when he advocates cut, cut, cut now.
While everyone knows that the effects of depression will have to be paid for
the lessons of history show that cut, cut, cut, leads to disaster.
The previous great depression went on a lot longer than this one and the USA
caused that one too. Their first attempts were cut, cut, cut and that only
deep0ened the Great Depression and caused it to drag on. Then the USA policy
changed and they finance a massive policy of rebuilding and major civil
engineering projects that saw people making wages that they spent in the
local areas. This started to stimulate business and that led to further job
creation. However, the policy had been far too late in starting and the USA
government were in dire straits when WWII broke out. They then passed a Cash
& Carry act that sold equipment to any nation that turned up with cash in
hand and with ships to cart it away. When the allies ran out of cash the USA
sold them 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for Free Trade agreements and
99 year leases on World wide UK bases. They were also still selling iron to
the Japanese at that time but were remaining out of WWII. Then they started
Lease/Lend as the Allies had no cash left to buy from them.
That was how the USA got out of the previous Great Depression.
Yet you think that the present depression is all the single handed fault of
Gordon Brown?
You are off your head and reading far too many Tory owned gutter press rags.
>
>
>>As a son of the Manse he also comes from a privilidged background.
>>Kirkcaldy
>>High was a selective establishment when Brown went there.
>>Then Brown went to University and followed with a short teaching career
>>before taking a job as a researcher with Scottish Television.
>> No real World there either.
>
> Turk posted a rather neat description of how Brown sees himself
> the other day: Father Christmas trying to follow his father.
>
> The difference being that taxpayers are Brown's congregation and
> he has a lot more power to extract money from us than his father.
> Poor countries (by Brown's definition) are the beneficiaries.
Get real there also.
Once more your narrow vision fails to see the truth.
The main industrial countries are seeing the ways forward to cut the carbon
footprints are to limit their own carbon footprint but that doing so will
matter not unless they can get the emerging nations to stop theirs becoming
bigger.
The emerging nations are not about to make any concessions that will stop
them feeding and providing jobs for their masses.
All that can be done to stop them is to help them prevent their people dying
from the effects of poverty.
So what bloody use is there in us getting ourselves out of the present fix
if the World changes are going to overtake any short term gains in our own
prosperity?
I'll put that another way for you - if we allow the World to continue as it
is just now then any gains made are going to count for nothing as the World
will continue but with a far different dominant species than Home Sapiens.
>snip.
You are a typical Tory nutcase who cannot see past the end of your own nose
and who is so full of blind hate for Labour that you probably blame Gordon
Brown for killing Jesus Christ.
God you are thick.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
Yes I posted those words and you do not understand what they mean.
>>
>>>>
>>>> That makes the author just as much a part of the false political
>>>> warfare that, without doubt, is going on.
>>>
>>> OK, so explain yourself here. What "false" political warfare?
>>
>> The one I clearly stated - the phoney political class war between the
>> Westminster Labour and Conservative party leaders.
>
> But that is ONLY your own opinion. SFAIK, there is NO class war! Why
> should there be? Brown is the only perpetrator of this abuse so far, apart
> from yourself of course.
Oh! Dear! You are still a blind fool.
I don't know what you thinl I have been posting but whatever it is you have
obviously lost your marbles.
I'm perpetrating nothing of what you seem to imagine I am.
The matter is quite clear.
During PMQs Brown made a remark in the passing.
Now I was watching the thing unfold so I know the context of the entire PMQs
session.
As is usual David Cameron was at his usual ploy of attempting to bully Brown
and he does this in a very loud and childish manner.
He grasped at the remark and has now pushed things out of all proportion.
PMQs has always been a platform for shouting insults across the floor of the
house and Cameron does that louder and more than most
If Cameron had treated the remark as Brown treats the insults of Cameron
there would have been no more to the matter thanalmost any other PMQs
session.
>
>> As I indicated they are mostly all from the same class of
>> featherbedded ex-public schoolboys who went right into politics
>> without any real experiance of the real World.
>
> I do wonder what planet you are on! - If you insist on using this emotive
> socialist language, then you do have to remember that this has ALWAYS been
> so! The best brains from all classes come directly from private education.
I'm not a Labour supporter. I've never voted labour in my life.
Ever since Gordon Brown stood as a candidate in this constituency I have
voted against him.
In fact I have always actively campaigned against him.
So just where do you get ths idea I'm using emotive socialist language?
You are obviously so blinded by your own class hate and Tory dogma that you
are predisposed to thinking anything but blind obedience to Tory dogma has
to be from your hatered of socialism.
>
>> By the way, I regard that Real World as being somewhat larger than the
>> narrow one of maual labour. The concept that it is not is yours, not
>> mine.
>
> LOL! "Real world"!!! I wonder what that has to do with a sheltered
> existance in Fife, or is it Perthshire. I have lived and worked throughout
> the world and met many different persuasions of people and politics. I
> think I would have an extremely good data base of experience to draw from.
> FWIW, your own experience does seem to be badly limited.
You do not know what my experiance has been or is.
I was first employed in 1952 and have never been unemployed throughout my
working life.
Just what do you fondly imagine I was involved in?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Here in the UK we have had a revival with Labour claiming,
>>>> apparently correctly, that the Tory inner circle is overloaded with
>>>> featherbedded ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never grown
>>>> up yet.
>>>
>>> In your own words you are condemned! By your extremely intransigent
>>> accusation about, quote - "the Tory inner circle being overloaded
>>> with featherbedded ex-public schoolboys, most of whom have never
>>> grown up yet" -
>>> unquote, you automatically and by default include the usual class war
>>> accusation of "Toff"! - In any case, you are declaring your own
>>> opinions only, with no proof whatever.
>>
>> What rubbish you do talk/write. I then went on to say, -
>
> LOL! Usual crap response from some Scotch idiot with nothing sensible to
> say.
>
So now you sink to racist abuse.
That rather marks your card for what you really are.
You would not recognise sense if it bit your bum.
>>
>> "Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
>> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
>> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.".
>
> Did I disagree? I had thought definately not!
That is not the point but the point does show how bloody foolish you are.
The above shows that I have taken an view that the whole matter is not only
blown out of all proportion but that neither side is any better than the
other when it comes to going from education to politics without entering the
real World.
On your part you not only came down on the side of Cameron but have assumed
that I supported Brown. simply because I did not support Cameron.
Your own bigoted views have blinded you to what I was saying.
You have no idea what my politics are, you have no idea what my employment
was and you have no idea what my station in life is.
Yet you have drawn assumptions from your own bigotry and you think you are
right.
>
>>
>> As your grasp on English seems rather nebulous, that says Labour are
>> exactly the same for the Conservatives also have a section of MPs
>> with titles in their midst.
>
> The Labour titles are mostly those given by Brown it seems, in an attempt
> to solve his leadership problems. However, since you seem determined to go
> on moaning about Public Schools and Titles, have a look at all past
> governments from the formation of Parliament. What do you find? Titled and
> monied MP's, Landed Gentry, Squires and the like, many of whom have gone
> to private schools. Why is that, do you suppose? Better brains, better
> education, better recources to draw on.
>>
You still have not the slightest idea of what I think nor, it seems, what I
wrote.
I'll give you the short answer that a fine education like yours seems to
have forgotten to teach you.
In the first place only the landed gentry were enfranchised.
That rather knocks your point on the head for a start.
Then, even after they got a vote the lower classes could not afford to stand
for election.
They just did not have the money because their lords and master made sure
they stayed poor.
The first socialist MP entered Westminster in 1892 as an Independent Labour
MP for London's East End. His name was Kier Hardie.
So your above idiotic claim is shot all to hell the only criterion until
well after 1892 was that you were either landed gentry or, later, that you
had enough funds.
This claim of yours highlights at least two of your obvious failures to
comprehend English, history and, above all, your inability to think
correctly.
For one thing I'm not a Labour supporter. For another I have made no claims
about the class wars, other than that they are phoney, and lastly your
attacks upon me prove you fail to understand what I have been saying.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then we have New Labour who also have a fair core of ex-public
>>>> schoolboys but who make up for any discrepancy by drafting in
>>>> non-elected Lords and other government awarded titleholders.
>>>
>>> Cannot argue with that. Labour is determined to ruin this country by
>>> every method possible in order to make it nearly impossible for any
>>> party coming along next to be able to fix the problem. Hence the
>>> need for a Tory landslide so that they can do the necessary.
>>
>> The Tory party couldn't fix it the last time they tried. Nor the time
>> before that - or the time before that too.
>
> That Is all a matter of where you are coming from of course. Most people
> would say that defeating the Miners and curbing Union strength was a very
> good thing indeed.
Most people would say nothing of the sort. What evidence have you to offer
to back that claim up?
In every industrial dispute the situation is just that - a dispute.
Now unless you are an idiot, and I suspect you are, you must know that a
dispute involves more than one party.
Thus there are at least two sides to every dispute and, as there were many
such disputes, no one side would always be right.
If you claim otherwise you show yourself as an idiot.
So any attempt to blame the bosses as always being the ones in the wrong is
just as stupid as claiming the workers were always in the wrong.
Oh! Wait a minute - you did just make such a daft claim.
So we are back to your proven stupidity once more.
Now, just to kick your silly bigoted argument into the long grass.
When the Trade Unions were at their strongest coincided with when the UK
ecomomy was also at its strongest.
Only a stupid persom would try to make out, as you do, that, " Most people
would say that defeating the Miners and curbing Union strength was a very
good thing indeed".
Not when it resulted in the end of the UK's position as a leading industrial
nation.
That stupid Mad Cow was, like you, so bloody minded, and against the workers
getting a decent remuneration foir their efforts, that she sold the UK out
to be able to say she had beaten the unions. Rather a Pyrrhic victory, don't
you think?
Not only that but it was her actions and policies that led to the culture
that has seen the financial sector become more and more rash, dishonest and
greedy. This has led directly to the financial failures that the tax payer,
(mainly the, "Working Class", have had to bail out.
WHAT A TOTAL IDIOT YOU ARE.
I'VE ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNED AGAINST GORDON BROWN IN EVERY ELECTION HE HAS STOOD
IN.
I LIVE IN HIS CONSTITUENCY AND I DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM.
>
>>and have never voted Labour in my life.
>> Mind you I have never voted Conservative, Liberal, Democrat or
>> Communist either and I've voted in every election since the Labour
>> landslide in 1945. Get it right I wish a pox on both their houses.
>> Also get it right that I have nothing against ex-public school boys.
>>
>> If you were actually adept at reading the English language, and not
>> so full of your class predudice, you would have read that my
>> condemnation was against those who leave education and take up a
>> career in politics but who have never lived in the real World like
>> normal, (even ex-public school boys), who do live in the real World.
>>
>> If you check back through your own posts you will see that you did
>> assume, wrongly, that I was against ALL ex-public school boys.
>
> Your rant is now far too long. And yes, your previous remarks do in fact
> make it appear that you were against ALL ex-public school boys. You are
> arguing against what you have already said and are now irrelevant.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
YOU EITHER CANNOT READ ENGLISH OR ARE SO STUPID THAT YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND
WHAT WAS WRITTEN.
I'M AGAINST THOSE WHO GO RIGHT FROM EDUCATION INTO POLITICS WITH NO
EXPERIANCE OF REAL LIFE.
DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT NOT ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLBOYS GO RIGHT INTO POLITICS?
>
>>
>> My post clearly stated that my objection was to those who went into
>> politics right from the education system. By the way the present
>> Labour leader is very close to that criterion.
>> He left University, taught for a short spell then worked as a
>> researcher at Scottish Television and right into politics. In
>> Scotland Kirkcaldy High Scool is about as close as you can get to an
>> English Public school.
>> Then we have Clegg.who also seems to have followed a sheltered
>> employment career.
>
> Today, most people have and are sheltered, unless they join the armed
> forces of course. Where Labour makes sure their chances of survival are as
> bad as possible! What's so wrong with paur auld Cleggy? He seems a nice
> enough bloke with good intentions at least.
>
You haven't a clue. Most people do not have a sheltered life. You need to
get out a bit more.
There are children out there that went to bed hungry this night. There are
some who have no bed to go to and some without a home.
There are some who will not survive through this cold spell and will die
from the cold.
Many of those armed forces you think are not sheltered joined the service
for only one reason.
They wanted to be sure of several square meals every day, somewhere to sleep
and a wage coming in. Believe me I know after 50 years in the MOD.
Fact is that recruitment is going up just now even although the chance of
being shot at or blown up has become quite a deal higher.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I note you snipped the original out and also my reply to you.
>>>
>>> Normal good manners not to waste bandwidth. We already knew what I
>>> snipped.
>>> Netiquette? You probably don't know what that is, so never mind!
>>
>> Obviously the one with a problem with Netiquette is none other than
>> yourself and your poor attempt at points scoring highlights that fact.
>>
>> Netiquette demands that the person who replies DOES NOT snip out any
>> part relevant to the debate.
>
> It was not relevant to the debate since it appears for all to see earlier
> in the thread!
As I said you do not understan Usenet. Newsgroups are not in real time and
so the fact that a part is upthread means that it is not there for all to
see.
Snip by all means but leave relevant bits alone. The thing that made the
snipped part relevant was that you refered back to it.
>
>>
>> The very fact that YOU then refered ME to the snipped out part shows
>> YOU do not understand Netiquette.
>
> No, it merely means that you are a difficult intransigent Scott who like
> to think that he knows it all!
Here are another couple of your strange assumptions.
Because I live in cotland does not mean I am a Scot.
Second of all, if I was I would be a Scot not a Scott.
I'm not stupid enough to ever think I know it all but I am bright enough to
know where to find someone who does.
>>
>>>
>>>> If you wish I shall also retrieve these for you too.
>>>
>>> My dear fellow! Far be it for me not to give you something to do! By
>>> all means if you wish!!
>
>> Harry, just admit that you were quite wrong and grasped the, Err!,
>> tarry end of the stick.
>
> Oldest trick in the book! If you think that then you are a bigger fool
> than I took you for.
But you did get it all wrong. You are working under the false idea that I am
a socialist.
You also assume I am supporting Brown over Cameron but in my posts I have
classed them both as being no better than each other.
You made assumptions about my employment and my way of life.
>
>> Your whole approach, throughout this thread, was to attack me as if I
>> was a Socialist, anti-public Schools and taking part in a class war.
>
> Well? You are aren't you? Nothing you have said so far says any different.
No I am not.
I made the point that it took two sides to make a war. You blame Brown.
I point out that Brown also went to a selective school, University and into
politics.
You claim I'm a Labour supporter but I have actively campaigned against
Brown in every election he has stood it.
>> I'm not a socialist, I'm not against public schools and the present
>> class wars between the two main parties is, without doubt, phoney.
>> How could it be otherwise when the main parties MPs are all mainly
>> from the same background and have never experienced real life outside
>> of either education and politics?
>
> That is a direct result of good education for the masses and is bound to
> happen. You are denying your own principles. As for experiencing real life
> outside education and politics, well! Such utter nonsense! You are
> therefor saying that "nobody" has done that!
You don't know my principles. I've never stated them here.
You don't know my education, I've never mentioned it either.
I'm saying nothing of the sort. There are people who leave education and
face the hard facts of life without benefit of the wealth and perks the
career political types have.
Do you think Cameron or Brown had any trouble with debts gained by going to
University?
Well every one of my grand children are struggling to pay off their debts.
Do you think Brown or Cameron ever had bother getting a home of their own?
Quite simply they cannot concieve how the majority of people live.
I'll tell you one thing about my life. When I was aroung 11 I started doing
volunteer work with the poorest of the poor in the very poorest areas of
Edinburgh. Post WWII Edinburgh and Leith were very poor indeed. I still do
volunteer work to this day. Belive me I do know how these people suffer and
suffered along with them when my first wife died just after childbirth
leaving me to bring up two children on my own. There were no welfare backups
in those days. The only offer was to put the boys into care. I didn't for
I'd seen how these places worked. Well I starved and even walked on my bare
feet through the bottom of my shoes. The boys did not starve nor go unclad
and I worked to keep them. I do know what the real World can hold. Now tell
us about the mindset of the MP who claimed expenses for a duck house from
the taxpayer. Do you think he knows the real World.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Henderson
<3b28ad88-beec-4abc...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, GM
<g-...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> >> The creature Guig insists that only posts directly related to Scotch
>> >> politics are on topic... RH
>> >> --
>>
>> >Can you post some proof that this is indeed what he said?
>>
>> >GMc
>>
>> Ask the creature to deny it.... RH
>> --
>
>
>So you can't.
>
>GMc
Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
Harry Merrick
>>> you as the one with the preconceived class bias.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!! Oh really?
>>
>>> Quite simply you do not know my own background in education and
>>> employment nor do you seem to have grasped my political leanings.
>>> Yet, there you are, making errors in all these things. Get it right
>>> I have never voted for the MP who represents the constituency where
>>> I live. By the way, he is the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP.
>>
>> So, you are saying you are not a Socialist? I think that you don't
>> know what you are in fact.
>>>
>>> May I suggest a course in Reading and Comprehension for yourself.
>>> You obviously have great problems in that department.
>>
>> Ha! Ha! - OK, so I do believe your rant has gone on long enough to
>> bore most people, so I will refrain from further comment. Further
>> discussion is beyond reason pointless!
As I said, in such a circuitous and pointless discussion there is no
sensible reason in continueing. So I won't!
Happy Christmas to one and all!
--
Harry Merrick.
Jellore
I love it when the snow falls, all of the deniers can't get enough of
it. Having lived in Australia for the past decades, it is frightening
how quickly the weather patterns are changing.
Franklin
>
> I'm a [Tory] nutcase who blames Brown for killing Jesus.
>
You never said a truer thing.
GM
wrote:
> In message
> <3b28ad88-beec-4abc-9e8b-1e91fd6bf...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, GM
> <g...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
> >> >> The creature Guig insists that only posts directly related to Scotch
> >> >> politics are on topic... RH
> >> >> --
>
> >> >Can you post some proof that this is indeed what he said?
>
> >> >GMc
>
> >> Ask the creature to deny it.... RH
> >> --
>
> >So you can't.
>
> >GMc
>
> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
>
> --
It was your assertion to prove, Robert. You couldn't. There is no
case for me to argue with.
Please stop your infantile name calling.
GMc
Robert Henderson
<b4e36473-f486-43d7...@b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, GM
<g-...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
>>
>> --
>
>It was your assertion to prove, Robert. You couldn't. There is no
>case for me to argue with.
>
>Please stop your infantile name calling.
>
>GMc
Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
--
GM
wrote:
> In message
> <b4e36473-f486-43d7-b11b-379a79afb...@b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, GM
> <g...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
>
> >> --
>
> >It was your assertion to prove, Robert. You couldn't. There is no
> >case for me to argue with.
>
> >Please stop your infantile name calling.
>
> >GMc
>
> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
> --
Robert, what makes you think you have been genetically modified?
You posted absolutely no evidence - you made an absurd statement. Is
this your idea of discussion?
GMc
Robert Henderson
<3e348c55-610d-428e...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Jellore <jel...@bigpond.com> writes
>
>I love it when the snow falls, all of the deniers can't get enough of
>it. Having lived in Australia for the past decades,
Ah, another fantasy Celt living far, far way from his imagined "ain
land". RH
>it is frightening
>how quickly the weather patterns are changing.
>
--
GM
wrote:
> In message
> <b4e36473-f486-43d7-b11b-379a79afb...@b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, GM
> <g...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
>
> >> --
>
> >It was your assertion to prove, Robert. You couldn't. There is no
> >case for me to argue with.
>
> >Please stop your infantile name calling.
>
> >GMc
>
> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
> --
Well if the name calling makes you feel better - do carry on.
You posted no evidence to test - merely an unsubstantiated statement.
Your inability to post a coherent argument is well known.
GMc
Robert Henderson
<9abcbdd0-4a60-4430...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, GM
<g-...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>> >GMc
>>
>> Genetically Modified's refusal to test the evidence noted.... RH
>> --
>
>Robert, what makes you think you have been genetically modified?
>
>You posted absolutely no evidence - you made an absurd statement. Is
>this your idea of discussion?
>
>GMc
RH
--
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:eb7cb26b3c2d874f...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:81e66d9979788d34...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>>
>>>>> Falling for what?
>>>>> It is a matter of fact that Brown is trying to start a class war
>>>>> in the run up to the GE. His comments about Cameron's educational
>>>>> background are evidence of that. Brown sees electoral mileage in
>>>>> it, although it might backfire.
>>>
>>>>Not true in any way. It is true that Brown gave his opinion about
>>>>Cameron's
>>>>background.
>>>
>>> So it is true.
>>Can you not understand the English language?
>>
>>I stated that it was true that Brown remarked upon Cameron's background.
>>
>>That only makes it true that Brown remarked upon Cameron's background.
>
> "Not true in any way."
>
> "It is true that Brown gave his opinion about Cameron's
> background."
>
> "Can you not understand the English language?"
I know what I wrote but it seems you cannot understand plain English.
>
>>It does NOT make it true that this started a class war.
>
> I didn't say it had. Check what I wrote. To quote you:
> "Can you not understand the English language?"
>
>>As I wrote, and you failed to comprehend, for that remark to escalate into
>>a
>>class war required Cameron to make it into a class war.
>
> I disagree. It is the media and commentators who have taken
> Brown's comments as being an attempt to start a class war.
>
As I enquired, did you actually watch PMQs when the remark was made?
In fact it was NOT the media that escalated the matter into a class war but
it was Cameron's subsequent statements to the media that escalated the
matter into class warfare.
Here he is escalating the PMQs incident right out of all proportion -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8397694.stm
Of course the media reported it - that is what they are there for - but if
Cameron had not picked up on it there would have been nothing to report.
The fact is that Cameron spends every PMQ time slagging off both Brown and
the Labour party. He very often goes well over the score and has been
threatened with being ejected by the speaker more than once. He has little
to complain about if Labour hit back in a similar manner to his own.
>>There was the House asking questions about vital issues like flooding,
>>warfare, climate change and government policies and Cameron latches on to
>>a
>>simple remark to escalate it into a matter of class warfare.
>
> Right. It's always Cameron's fault.
Now, I said no such thing, the fact is that in this instance he, Cameron,
was coming off worst. He slammed into Brown and he got the worst of the
exchange.
So he then, afterwards, made the statement to the media.
It has to be said that the media is generally backing the Tory Party so
takes every chance to put Brown in a bad light.
I have little time for Brown but even less for Cameron.
That does not mean I would not derfend Cameron if I though him in the right.
As I vote neither Tory or Labour I have no axe to grind when it comes down
to choosing between them.
It is, quite simply, a matter of fairness. Both party leaders were being
nasty to each other but it was Cameron who chose to make an issue out of
just one of the jibes that were passing between them.
As far as I'm concerned there are far more important matters they both
should be attending to.
>
> I must have missed that.
>
> But AIR it was Brown's asinine comment about Conservative policies
> being "decided on the playing fields of Eton" that started it.
>
>>Have you actually watched the PMQs session where this incident happened?
>
> Yes.
Then you should have noticed they were, as usual, at each other's throats.
Trouble was that the matter did not stop there and Cameron then made the
matter an issue. Believe it or not while he was in Afghanistan.
See here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8397694.stm
Now, I ask you, he is in the war area and there are people fighting and
dying while he stands there complaining about Brown prodding him with a
stick during PMQs.
Remember that what he was complaining about was while he, Cameron, was also
lashing out at Brown during PMQs.
>
>>In fact have you ever watched the utter rabble of schoolboy, Yah! Boo!,
>>bad
>>behaviour of PMQs?
>
> Yes.
>
>>You will find them all here -
>>http://www.number10.gov.uk/number-10-tv/prime-ministers-questions
>
> I suggest you read them more carefully...
>
>>Like you Cameron jumps upon trivial things to hide his total lack of
>>policy
>>behind.
>
> You've lost me now...
>
>>Now I am not a Labour supporter
>
> Sure, I believe you.
>
>>but I do often watch the Parliament Channel on TV.
>
> Me too sometimes ...when I'm bored :-)
>
>>It has to be said that when it comes to PMQs Cameron usually comes
>>off second best
>
> I disagree.
> Brown invariably spews bare faced lies and bluster...for that is
> what he does...he's a socialist.
The above say more than I could about how you are seeing the matter.
You are obviously biased before you start.
I don't like or support either man and thus I'm more objective.
>
>>but is usually right to the fore when it comes to insults and bad manners.
>
> I disagree.
Then you are not watching with an open mind.
Brown usually has the answers and sticks to policy.
Not only that but he usually can find a flaw in the Tory policy on the
matter in hand.
In this instance Cameron made a jibe about a Labour Bachbencher defending
his marginal constituency then asked the PM if he still wanted to increase
the tax threshold of inheritance tax, (
labour had reversed their decisision to increase it).
The upshot was that Brown then attacked the Tory inheritance tax policy and
the policy that would exempt non-domiciled MPs escape ALL taxation when the
revenue for both is needed for getting out of recession.
Then, later, Cameron gives a press conference and starts a class war.
If you can see that as some kind of victory for Cameron you are blinded by
your own bias.
I will be voting against both parties in the election and it looked like
Brown had got the better of the exchange.
Not only that but I thought that Cameron had been far more nasty and
vindictive in the attacks on Labour, especially as the ones he attacked were
backbenchers who couldn't answer back.
>
>>If you ever listened to the exchanges in the House of Commons chamber you
>>would hear very much worse remarks roared at top volume by Cameron at
>>Brown.
>
> I have not heard such nonsense.
>
> Are you making this up as you go along?
>
> Go on, you can tell me...
>
>>This is particularly evident at PM's Question Time.
>
> see above.
Here is a cut and paste from a blog on the day of the PMQs in question.
-------------------------------------
A quick tour around the political blogoshpere, and it seems everyone is
saying Brown came out on top in today's PMQs. For what it's worth, I'd
agree with them - but only to a point. On the one hand, Cameron was
unusually clumsy, which allowed Brown to land some pretty decent blows.
But, on the other, I suspect some of those blows won't play well on TV
later. And, let's not forget, the entire point of PMQs, from the leaders'
perspectives, is to score some coverage on the Ten 'O' Clock News.
It all depends on what the broadcasters pick up on. If it's Brown's gag
that the Tories' IHT policy was "dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton",
then it will hardly reflect well on the PM. This clumsy, class-based
politics didn't do Labour much good during the Crewe & Nantwich byelection,
and it rather undermines Brown's frequent claim - frequently made in PMQs,
that is - that he concentrates on politics, while Cameron concentrates on
personality. Throw in Brown's G20 gaffe, and suddenly this PMQs session
doesn't look all that rosy for him, after all.
If I were one of Brown's coterie, I'd be hoping that the broadcasters
highlight his "The more he talks, the less he says" jibe against Cameron.
As James said a couple of days ago, the Tories could still do much more to
fill out their policy package, to present a positive front to voters.
Attacks on that particular weakness may have greater traction.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now consider that this blog was written BEFORE Cameron decided to escalate
it into a class war and you can see the general opinion was that Brown had
the better of the exchanges.
You can think that PMQs are not just a rabble of schoolboy like name calling
but to the vast majority of people who watch it the whole thing reflects
badly upon the entire House of Commons and shows them as nothing more than a
shower of particularly nasty little schoolboys.
>
>>>>It is also true that Brown's own background is hardly any better.
>>>
>>> I have virtually no interest in Brown's background ...other than
>>> trying to understand where his mad, evil persona comes from.
>>
>>You are obviously blinded by your own mad, evil persona from seeing what
>>is
>>there for those who are neutral in their party loyalty.
>
> Neutral. mmmmm. That'll be you then. Right?
Yes that'll be me as I would rather be disenfranshised than vote either Tory
or Labour.
It is only your own extreme political bias that leads you to the view anyone
not so like minded as yourself must be a Labour supporter.
Shades of G.W.Bush and, "If you are not for us then you are against us".
>
>>You make these idiotic accusations that are quite obviously prompted by
>>bigotry and hate and own nothing, whatsoever, to reasoned thought.
>
> IMHO Brown is a madman and a coward and unfit to be left
> in charge of anything, let alone an economy and a country.
> Whatever he touches will soon be corrupted.
>
> He represents everything I dislike in politics: lies, bluster and
> of course vile international socialism.
As I said, your own extreme right wing bias.
>
>>> He is a man carrying a grotesque opinion of his own skills and
>>> competence, who is more responsible for Britain's plight at this
>>> time than any other person.
>>
>>This shows your lack of reasoned though once more.
>
> On the contrary, I have given a lot of thought to Brown in an
> effort to understand his madness and obsession with international
> socialism.
I have no doubt of that - none whatsoever.
>
>>Britains plight is due to the same cause as every other country in the
>>World
>>and anyone who claims otherwise is an obvious idiot.
>
> Rotfl.
> -Let's forget about the biggest credit bubble in history that
> Brown started.
Rubbish!
> -Let's forget about his massive govt debt that'll cost every one
> of us plenty for years to come.
Better a debt to spread out over many years than poor people dying from
hunger and freezing to death on the streets of the UK.
Oh! I forgot that these are, exactly, your policies as a rightard.
> -Let's forget that Australia has hardly suffered any recession
> at all.
Exactly what I told you.
Thatcher ruined the UK industrial base and made the main part of our economy
the service industry and she was told at the time the grave dangers of doing
so if/when there was recession/depression or even just due to her own
boom/bust policies.
That is why the UK was among the first into the depression, sank deeper into
the depression, will remain longer in the depression and take longer getting
out of depression.
We now have little by way of usable mineral resources, little by way of
manufacturing industry, nothing much by way of export industry.
The financial services we rely upon are those that go down first and lose
most in a depression.
The USA suffered greatly in the last great depression because she had a
policy of isolationalism so she could not work her way out of the depression
as she had no outside markets to sell her goods to.
The economy goes down and puts people out of work, they have no money to
spend so the economy goes further down and more go out of work and the
spiral goes down and down. All that saved them, in the end, was WWII. So
tell us all, just what has the UK got to get us out of depression?
No great industrial base, no great resources to call upon and now people
don't trust the financial service sector.
Oh! Wait! We still have some oil in the Scottish sector of the North Sea.
However, I don't expect dyed in the wool rightards to understand the way our
economy works.
> -Let's forget that every other G7 country is now out of recession,
> except Britain.
No doubt you would like to dismiss the hard cold facts that it was the Tory
policies that gave us the services based economy we have today and the
Labour policies that did very little to correct the matter when the people
threw Thatcher and co., out.
> etc
etc.
> etc
ect.
> etc
etc.
>
>>We are in a World wide depression mainly caused by the wild and reckless
>>actions of the USA money sector.
>
> Right. it's not Brown's fault.
No it is not all his fault but he did help a bit.
>
> You are a fool and New Lab propagandist.
Why would I attempt to spread propaganda for a party I do not, and never
have, voted for?
You really are a blind fool who is so blinded by your dyed in the wool
extreme stupid right wing mindset you cannot see the facts that are quite
obvious to other people.
>
>>The reason the UK is still suffering while some others are already
>>begining
>>to recover is entirely due to the Governments that presided over the
>>decimation of British manufacturing industries, the selling off of the
>>Public Service industies, the defence industries and the changes in the
>>financial sector that allowed many, once rock solid, financial institution
>>to go the same road as those in the USA. Those governmebnts were led by
>>Thatcher, Major and co.
>
> Right. It's the fault of the Tory Party.
You really are determined to have me be a Labour supporter.
You are so backward looking you cannot see any other way but either Tory or
Labour as being the only way.
Has it not entered your head that both may be equally wrong?
There really is no way that extreme right wind policy can work on a long
term basis and there is no way that an extreme lrft wing policy can work in
the long term either.
In any case there is not enough space between the Tory and Labour party
policies to squeeze a Rizla paper between them.
Todays Labour party is a right wing political party with nothing to choose
between them and the present Tory Party.
The Tory party has you right where they want you, "ent mind the policy feel
the hate for the opposition >
> How did I miss that?
>
>>> Yet he is so cowardly that he cannot
>>> face that truth and instead, chooses to blame anybody/everybody
>>> else. IMHO he is a dangerous man to be allowed anywhere near
>>> taxpayers money or any lever of power.
>>
>>Yes but we are now all quite clear as to what your mad view are.
>>Only a blind fool would blame a UK PM for a World Wide recession and you
>>are
>>that blind fool.
>
> Rotfl.
>
>>There was no way that the UK could have avoided the World Wide depression
>>but if it had not been for former Tory policies we could have fared far
>>better than we have.
>
> Rotfl.
>
>>In point of fact the actions taken by the present government have
>>prevented
>>the UK's plight from being far, far, worse.
>
> Rotfl.
> I'm in stitches.
>
>>I do not support Labour but must conceed they are right on this issue.
>
> No, of course you don't. You became a fool all by yourself.
>
>>The
>>only way to avoid the worst effects of the depression was to spend money
>>to
>>prevent those who were not the very, very, rich from starvation,
>>hypothermia
>>and death was to spend more now and spread the misery over many years.
>
> Rotfl.
>
>>Cameron only has his own kind in mind when he advocates cut, cut, cut now.
>>While everyone knows that the effects of depression will have to be paid
>>for
>>the lessons of history show that cut, cut, cut, leads to disaster.
>
> I'm in stitches again.
>
>>The previous great depression went on a lot longer than this one and the
>>USA
>>caused that one too. Their first attempts were cut, cut, cut and that only
>>deep0ened the Great Depression and caused it to drag on. Then the USA
>>policy
>>changed and they finance a massive policy of rebuilding and major civil
>>engineering projects that saw people making wages that they spent in the
>>local areas. This started to stimulate business and that led to further
>>job
>>creation. However, the policy had been far too late in starting and the
>>USA
>>government were in dire straits when WWII broke out. They then passed a
>>Cash
>>& Carry act that sold equipment to any nation that turned up with cash in
>>hand and with ships to cart it away. When the allies ran out of cash the
>>USA
>>sold them 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for Free Trade agreements and
>>99 year leases on World wide UK bases. They were also still selling iron
>>to
>>the Japanese at that time but were remaining out of WWII. Then they
>>started
>>Lease/Lend as the Allies had no cash left to buy from them.
>>That was how the USA got out of the previous Great Depression.
>
> Hell! I can't cope with all this laughing...
>
>>Yet you think that the present depression is all the single handed fault
>>of
>>Gordon Brown?
>>You are off your head and reading far too many Tory owned gutter press
>>rags.
>
> Rotfl. I'm in stitches again. Stop it will you!
>
>>>>As a son of the Manse he also comes from a privilidged background.
>>>>Kirkcaldy
>>>>High was a selective establishment when Brown went there.
>>>>Then Brown went to University and followed with a short teaching career
>>>>before taking a job as a researcher with Scottish Television.
>>>> No real World there either.
>>>
>>> Turk posted a rather neat description of how Brown sees himself
>>> the other day: Father Christmas trying to follow his father.
>>>
>>> The difference being that taxpayers are Brown's congregation and
>>> he has a lot more power to extract money from us than his father.
>>> Poor countries (by Brown's definition) are the beneficiaries.
>>
>>Get real there also.
>
> Right.
>
>>Once more your narrow vision fails to see the truth.
>
> Right. I fail to see the truth.
>
>>The main industrial countries are seeing the ways forward to cut the
>>carbon
>>footprints are to limit their own carbon footprint but that doing so will
>>matter not unless they can get the emerging nations to stop theirs
>>becoming
>>bigger.
>
> Right. You've got the answer.
>
>>The emerging nations are not about to make any concessions that will stop
>>them feeding and providing jobs for their masses.
>>All that can be done to stop them is to help them prevent their people
>>dying
>>from the effects of poverty.
>
> Right. For them too.
>
>>So what bloody use is there in us getting ourselves out of the present fix
>>if the World changes are going to overtake any short term gains in our own
>>prosperity?
>
> Right. There's no gain.
>
>>I'll put that another way for you - if we allow the World to continue as
>>it
>>is just now then any gains made are going to count for nothing as the
>>World
>>will continue but with a far different dominant species than Home Sapiens.
>
> Right. It's the homo sapiens at fault.
>
>>>snip.
>>
>>You are a typical Tory nutcase who cannot see past the end of your own
>>nose
>>and who is so full of blind hate for Labour that you probably blame Gordon
>>Brown for killing Jesus Christ.
>
> Right. I'm a Tory nutcase who blames Brown for killing Jesus.
>
>>God you are thick.
>
> Right. How did I miss that?
>