Masons Started First World War
RBarat4229
Every student of history knows that the event which sparked-off
World War I, was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke, Francis
Ferdinand, at Serajevo in 1914.
What very few know, is that the conspiracy to murder the Archduke
was a Masonic Plot.
It is almost never mentioned in standard history texts, yet it is
non the less a known fact, that the members of the group that carried
out the assassination were Masons, and it was revealed in sworn testi-
mony at their trial "that the Freemasons had condemned Francis Ferdin-
and to death".
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>RBarat4229 <rbara...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> MASONS STARTED FIRST WORLD WAR
> ^^^^^^
>Correction : That should be Nationalists.
^^^^^^^^^^
>
What fun can anyone play this game?
Correction that should be Imperialists.
This is off topic for this group I suggest people post somewhere else
in replying to this.
--
__
*Lyn David Thomas* \/
Web pages start at
http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk
David Currie
"Lyn David Thomas" <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39a0f9b7...@news.freeserve.net...
> On 20 Aug 2000 22:28:44 GMT, Darren Wyn Rees <mer...@netlink.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >RBarat4229 <rbara...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> MASONS STARTED FIRST WORLD WAR
> > ^^^^^^
> >Correction : That should be Nationalists.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
>
> What fun can anyone play this game?
>
> Correction that should be Imperialists.
>
> This is off topic for this group I suggest people post somewhere else
> in replying to this.
>
should be no discussion that is critical of Nationalism.
Lyn David Thomas
Naturally all sins in the world are the cause of nationalist like
Gandi and Nelson Mandella
David Currie
Don't even try and compare your pitiful party to Nelson Mandela.
Lyn David Thomas
<davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why not? Or do only nationalists come in bad flavours? How about
conservatives - say like Hitler, or socialists like Stalin?
These sweeping generalisations are simply ludicrous.
David Currie
It's interesting that you place Stalin as a socialist and Hitler as a
conservative. It displays your total ignorance.
P.s Mandela fought against a racist, discriminatory and morally repugnant
regime. If he was Nationalist, he was one of the very few to reject a
racial analysis.
Lyn David Thomas
<davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's interesting that you place Stalin as a socialist and Hitler as a
>conservative. It displays your total ignorance.
You rather make my point for me, Plaid are as far removed from the
imperialist who started WW1 as Stalin was from Socialism. Hence my
comments about sweeping statements.
>P.s Mandela fought against a racist, discriminatory and morally repugnant
>regime. If he was Nationalist, he was one of the very few to reject a
>racial analysis.
So do Plaid.
--
David Currie
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:09:55 +0100, "David Currie"
> <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >It's interesting that you place Stalin as a socialist and Hitler as a
> >conservative. It displays your total ignorance.
>
>
> imperialist who started WW1 as Stalin was from Socialism. Hence my
> comments about sweeping statements.
>
> >regime. If he was Nationalist, he was one of the very few to reject a
> >racial analysis.
>
Plaid's racism is covert. When they speak of 'London' control they mean
'the English'. Don't believe me? See my earlier post regarding what Wigley
said about controlling English immigration into Wales.
And they do not fight against the sort of regime that was apartheid. You
are making yourself look utterly foolish by suggesting they do.
> --
Llion
> >P.s Mandela fought against a racist, discriminatory and morally repugnant
> >regime. If he was Nationalist, he was one of the very few to reject a
> >racial analysis.
>
> So do Plaid.
Plaid has never fought against racism. Only in recent times and for the sake
of their own growth as a party have Plaid introduced this philosophy of
having a racial mix within it's own structure. This very same party is far
from immune from bearing a racist label.
Regards,
Llion
Lyn David Thomas
<davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lyn David Thomas" <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a24586...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:09:55 +0100, "David Currie"
>> <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >It's interesting that you place Stalin as a socialist and Hitler as a
>> >conservative. It displays your total ignorance.
>>
>>
>> You rather make my point for me, Plaid are as far removed from the
>> imperialist who started WW1 as Stalin was from Socialism. Hence my
>> comments about sweeping statements.
>>
>> >P.s Mandela fought against a racist, discriminatory and morally repugnant
>> >regime. If he was Nationalist, he was one of the very few to reject a
>> >racial analysis.
>>
>> So do Plaid.
>
>Plaid's racism is covert. When they speak of 'London' control they mean
>'the English'. Don't believe me? See my earlier post regarding what Wigley
>said about controlling English immigration into Wales.
>
>And they do not fight against the sort of regime that was apartheid. You
>are making yourself look utterly foolish by suggesting they do.
I am a member of Plaid and I am not racist, neither is the party.
There is a difference between the English and the Government of the
UK, you can not want to be governed by the UK and still not be anti
English or racist. Do I have to say that my boyfriend is English?
--
David Currie
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:57:08 +0100, "David Currie"
> <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lyn David Thomas" <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:09:55 +0100, "David Currie"
> >> <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >It's interesting that you place Stalin as a socialist and Hitler as a
> >> >conservative. It displays your total ignorance.
> >>
> >>
> >> imperialist who started WW1 as Stalin was from Socialism. Hence my
> >> comments about sweeping statements.
> >>
repugnant
> >> >regime. If he was Nationalist, he was one of the very few to reject a
> >> >racial analysis.
> >>
> >
> >Plaid's racism is covert. When they speak of 'London' control they mean
> >'the English'. Don't believe me? See my earlier post regarding what
Wigley
> >said about controlling English immigration into Wales.
> >
> >And they do not fight against the sort of regime that was apartheid. You
> >are making yourself look utterly foolish by suggesting they do.
>
> I am a member of Plaid and I am not racist, neither is the party.
> There is a difference between the English and the Government of the
> UK, you can not want to be governed by the UK and still not be anti
> English or racist. Do I have to say that my boyfriend is English?
> --
>
party and still pervasive. It is simply coded and covert nowadays.
Your relationship is micro. I am talking macro.
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>Plaid has never fought against racism. Only in recent times and for the sake
>of their own growth as a party have Plaid introduced this philosophy of
>having a racial mix within it's own structure. This very same party is far
>from immune from bearing a racist label.
Strange that, I can remember going to anti racim events where people
like Dafydd Wigley spoke, and other in the party from the 1970's.
What you are refering to is that Plaid have only just started about
setting up specific structures and support groups within the party
analagous to Asian Scots for Independence (in the SNP).
If you really want to look at parties that pander to racism then I
suggest you look at the language used by some Labour spokespeople and
most of the Conservatives when talking about assylum seakers.
--
David Currie
Typical Plaidy. Pointing the finger at others. Always defined by what
they're not, not what they are (i.e Anti-English racists) We're talking
about Nationalism. Neither of the two parties you mention are Nationalists.
For the record, though I challenge you to provide a quote from a Labour
source that is racist regarding asylum seekers.
Mark Bowen
Que?
Mark Bowen
> source that is racist regarding asylum seekers.
And I want him to provide a quote from a Conservative source. In the past I
have actually praised Lyn for his contributions but am disgusted by the way
he has played the race card in other ng's. He never provides direct
quotations to enhance his revolting allegations. On one recent occasion he
endeavoured to attribute bigoted remarks from a person who is not a member
of the Conservative Party to us.
Llion
> Strange that, I can remember going to anti racim events where people
> like Dafydd Wigley spoke, and other in the party from the 1970's.
Plaid's definition of racism somewhat differs to it's true meaning. They
have believed it to be simply black or white, wheras they have under the
same breath shown great concern with regards to "English immigration" into
Wales and as a poster kindly submitted on this very NG a quotation that it
must stop by Dafydd Wigley (himself an Englishman) before the "situation
boils over". Sorry Lyn, I would'nt say that such statements does any favours
for Plaid, nor do such remarks go hand in hand with a Party that would wish
to project an immage of impartiality towards different races. Old hat really
and has been well exhausted for debate. Plaid have no record that I've heard
of, towards the combat of racism!
> What you are refering to is that Plaid have only just started about
> setting up specific structures and support groups within the party
> analagous to Asian Scots for Independence (in the SNP).
That's precisely what I'm refering to albeit dressed differently. They
eventually twigged how far everyone else had developed and albeit again,
rather late.
> If you really want to look at parties that pander to racism then I
> suggest you look at the language used by some Labour spokespeople and
> most of the Conservatives when talking about assylum seakers.
Are you referring to comments supporting tighter control of immigration into
the UK?
Regards,
Llion
Lyn David Thomas
<davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Strange that, I can remember going to anti racim events where people
>> like Dafydd Wigley spoke, and other in the party from the 1970's.
>>
>> What you are refering to is that Plaid have only just started about
>> setting up specific structures and support groups within the party
>> analagous to Asian Scots for Independence (in the SNP).
>>
>> If you really want to look at parties that pander to racism then I
>> suggest you look at the language used by some Labour spokespeople and
>> most of the Conservatives when talking about assylum seakers.
>
>Typical Plaidy. Pointing the finger at others. Always defined by what
>they're not, not what they are (i.e Anti-English racists) We're talking
>about Nationalism. Neither of the two parties you mention are Nationalists.
Oh yes they are, they are UK nationalists, in fact almost everyone is
a nationalist, which is why it is such a meaninless lable.
>For the record, though I challenge you to provide a quote from a Labour
>source that is racist regarding asylum seekers.
Oh I shall ask som Lib Dem friends for quotes. I seem to remember a
slap from a few Lib Dems directed at Labour over their response to the
Tories, for a while it seemed that they were all trying to outdo each
other with the inflamitory language.
--
Lyn David Thomas
<mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> For the record, though I challenge you to provide a quote from a Labour
>> source that is racist regarding asylum seekers.
>
>And I want him to provide a quote from a Conservative source. In the past I
>have actually praised Lyn for his contributions but am disgusted by the way
>he has played the race card in other ng's. He never provides direct
>quotations to enhance his revolting allegations. On one recent occasion he
>endeavoured to attribute bigoted remarks from a person who is not a member
>of the Conservative Party to us.
Ah you mean the homophobe, well your party has scores of people who
regularly spout homophobic abuse and are never repremanded, I recall
one local council leader who even called for all gays to be shot or
gassed and no action was taken against him. The Tory party has long
used bigotry to gain support. I know of many Tories who can no longer
stomach its xenophobic and homophobic viewpoints.
--
David Currie
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:42:43 +0100, "David Currie"
> <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Strange that, I can remember going to anti racim events where people
> >> like Dafydd Wigley spoke, and other in the party from the 1970's.
> >>
> >> What you are refering to is that Plaid have only just started about
> >> setting up specific structures and support groups within the party
> >> analagous to Asian Scots for Independence (in the SNP).
> >>
> >> If you really want to look at parties that pander to racism then I
> >> suggest you look at the language used by some Labour spokespeople and
> >> most of the Conservatives when talking about assylum seakers.
> >
> >Typical Plaidy. Pointing the finger at others. Always defined by what
> >they're not, not what they are (i.e Anti-English racists) We're talking
> >about Nationalism. Neither of the two parties you mention are
Nationalists.
>
> Oh yes they are, they are UK nationalists, in fact almost everyone is
> a nationalist, which is why it is such a meaninless lable.
No. Those parties do not have at their base a national and, I would
contend, an ethnic analysis. They do not refer to the UK as a nation. They
do not make the constitutional position of the UK their primary reason for
being (before you dispute that Plaid do this, I suggest you look at last
month's Ieuan Wyn Jones interview in Golwg).
>
> >For the record, though I challenge you to provide a quote from a Labour
> >source that is racist regarding asylum seekers.
>
> Oh I shall ask som Lib Dem friends for quotes. I seem to remember a
> slap from a few Lib Dems directed at Labour over their response to the
> Tories, for a while it seemed that they were all trying to outdo each
> other with the inflamitory language.
>
Please do.
David Currie
"Mark Bowen" <mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:8nueu5$np9$1...@barcode.tesco.net...
> >How about conservatives - say like Hitler
>
> Que?
>
Lyn David Thomas
<mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>How about conservatives - say like Hitler
>
>Que?
You are missing the point, sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
Yes there are awful nationalists and there are good nationalists, to
pretend that all nationalists are good or bad is ludicrous. Hitler
was a reactionary, from that you can say he was a conservative, but it
would be absurd to suggest that all conservatives are fascists, even
if they do lie on that wing of the radical-reactionary axis.
--
David Currie
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:41:18 +0100, "Mark Bowen"
> <mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> >>How about conservatives - say like Hitler
> >
> >Que?
>
> You are missing the point, sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
> Yes there are awful nationalists and there are good nationalists, to
> pretend that all nationalists are good or bad is ludicrous. Hitler
> was a reactionary, from that you can say he was a conservative, but it
> would be absurd to suggest that all conservatives are fascists, even
> if they do lie on that wing of the radical-reactionary axis.
>
You miss the point. Nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative and destructive
political ideology. Hitler was in fact a Nationalist.
David Currie
"David Currie" <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8nunep$5ai$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
That is why he had the admiration of some of Plaid's most important figures.
Lyn David Thomas
<davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lyn David Thomas" <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a2e019...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:41:18 +0100, "Mark Bowen"
>> <mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>How about conservatives - say like Hitler
>> >
>> >Que?
>>
>> You are missing the point, sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
>> Yes there are awful nationalists and there are good nationalists, to
>> pretend that all nationalists are good or bad is ludicrous. Hitler
>> was a reactionary, from that you can say he was a conservative, but it
>> would be absurd to suggest that all conservatives are fascists, even
>> if they do lie on that wing of the radical-reactionary axis.
>>
>
>You miss the point. Nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative and destructive
>political ideology. Hitler was in fact a Nationalist.
As was Stalin, as is Thatcher, Major and Blair. As were all the
leaders of all the states that wanted independence from the British
Empire - were/are they all evil?
--
Lyn David Thomas
<davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David Currie" <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8nunep$5ai$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Lyn David Thomas" <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:39a2e019...@news.freeserve.net...
>> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:41:18 +0100, "Mark Bowen"
>> > <mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >>How about conservatives - say like Hitler
>> > >
>> > >Que?
>> >
>> > You are missing the point, sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
>> > Yes there are awful nationalists and there are good nationalists, to
>> > pretend that all nationalists are good or bad is ludicrous. Hitler
>> > was a reactionary, from that you can say he was a conservative, but it
>> > would be absurd to suggest that all conservatives are fascists, even
>> > if they do lie on that wing of the radical-reactionary axis.
>> >
>>
>> You miss the point. Nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative and
>destructive
>> political ideology. Hitler was in fact a Nationalist.
>
>That is why he had the admiration of some of Plaid's most important figures.
And was loathed by the rest, just like all other UK political parties.
You really should try and build your case on something else.
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>
>Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a286e...@news.freeserve.net...
>
>> Strange that, I can remember going to anti racim events where people
>> like Dafydd Wigley spoke, and other in the party from the 1970's.
>
>Plaid's definition of racism somewhat differs to it's true meaning. They
>have believed it to be simply black or white, wheras they have under the
>same breath shown great concern with regards to "English immigration" into
>Wales and as a poster kindly submitted on this very NG a quotation that it
>must stop by Dafydd Wigley (himself an Englishman) before the "situation
>boils over". Sorry Lyn, I would'nt say that such statements does any favours
>for Plaid, nor do such remarks go hand in hand with a Party that would wish
>to project an immage of impartiality towards different races. Old hat really
>and has been well exhausted for debate. Plaid have no record that I've heard
>of, towards the combat of racism!
I think the quote is taken out of context - there are problems of
monoglot english language speakers moving into communities where the
main language is Welsh - that is when the people moving in expect
everyone to speak English and make no attempt to learn Welsh - or
worse ban people from speaking Welsh.
The fact that you have not heard of Plaid people working in the anti
racism movement is not surprising - they do and always have.
>> What you are refering to is that Plaid have only just started about
>> setting up specific structures and support groups within the party
>> analagous to Asian Scots for Independence (in the SNP).
>
>That's precisely what I'm refering to albeit dressed differently. They
>eventually twigged how far everyone else had developed and albeit again,
>rather late.
Perhaps we were slow in doing this but this is not to say that there
was any racism involved, just no demand from anyone that such a group
be set up.
>> If you really want to look at parties that pander to racism then I
>> suggest you look at the language used by some Labour spokespeople and
>> most of the Conservatives when talking about assylum seakers.
>
>Are you referring to comments supporting tighter control of immigration into
>the UK?
Amonst other things yes. Assylum seakers depicted as bogus etc. That
is after moving the goal posts so that it is very difficult to be a
legit assylum seaker anyway.
--
David Currie
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:20:40 +0100, "David Currie"
>
> >
> >"Lyn David Thomas" <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:41:18 +0100, "Mark Bowen"
> >> <mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>How about conservatives - say like Hitler
> >> >
> >> >Que?
> >>
> >> You are missing the point, sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
> >> Yes there are awful nationalists and there are good nationalists, to
> >> pretend that all nationalists are good or bad is ludicrous. Hitler
> >> was a reactionary, from that you can say he was a conservative, but it
> >> would be absurd to suggest that all conservatives are fascists, even
> >> if they do lie on that wing of the radical-reactionary axis.
> >>
> >
> >You miss the point. Nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative and
destructive
> >political ideology. Hitler was in fact a Nationalist.
>
> leaders of all the states that wanted independence from the British
> Empire - were/are they all evil?
> --
I suppose Tinkywinky, Jeffrey from Rainbow and Roy of the Rovers were also
Nationalists?
See my earleir point about what defines a Nationalist before posting
inafantile a nd poorly argued responses. None of the people you mention
were Nationalists - they all governed multinational states for God's sake!
Geraint Lewis
>
>
> You are missing the point, sweeping generalisations are not helpful.
> Yes there are awful nationalists and there are good nationalists, to
> pretend that all nationalists are good or bad is ludicrous. Hitler
> was a reactionary, from that you can say he was a conservative, but it
> would be absurd to suggest that all conservatives are fascists, even
> if they do lie on that wing of the radical-reactionary axis.
>
with the Conservative party. In fact you can find a large number of
people who would not consider themselves fascist but are indeed so
within the confines of the Labour party.
--
Geraint Lewis
Llion
> I think the quote is taken out of context - there are problems of
> monoglot english language speakers moving into communities where the
> main language is Welsh - that is when the people moving in expect
> everyone to speak English and make no attempt to learn Welsh - or
> worse ban people from speaking Welsh.
Would you therefore suggest that their settlement in Wales should undergo a
tighter control?
> The fact that you have not heard of Plaid people working in the anti
> racism movement is not surprising - they do and always have.
They obviously failed to capture the attention of the voter.
> Perhaps we were slow in doing this but this is not to say that there
> was any racism involved, just no demand from anyone that such a group
> be set up.
It's been pretty much a multi cultural society in Wales as well as the Uk
for some time. Do you believe that this fairly recent initiative by Plaid
derives from the realisation that for increased support, it's a move in the
right direction or is an overdue initiative that's based on general
equality?, i.e. for the people or for the Party?
> >Are you referring to comments supporting tighter control of immigration
into
> >the UK?
>
> Amonst other things yes. Assylum seakers depicted as bogus etc. That
> is after moving the goal posts so that it is very difficult to be a
> legit assylum seaker anyway.
I would suggest that bogus assylum seekers do exist and that their effect
can somewhat stretch the Uk's financial resources, a reason that is surely
financially based? Personally, I'd hate the thought of supporting such
instances.
Regards,
Llion
Mark Bowen
> >> For the record, though I challenge you to provide a quote from a Labour
> >> source that is racist regarding asylum seekers.
> >
I
> >have actually praised Lyn for his contributions but am disgusted by the
way
> >he has played the race card in other ng's. He never provides direct
> >quotations to enhance his revolting allegations. On one recent occasion
he
> >endeavoured to attribute bigoted remarks from a person who is not a
member
> >of the Conservative Party to us.
>
> Ah you mean the homophobe
Whatever the person may be, they are not members of the Conservative Party.
> well your party has scores of people who
> regularly spout homophobic abuse and are never repremanded,
Provide an example, coupled with a quotation.
> I recall
> one local council leader who even called for all gays to be shot or
> gassed and no action was taken against him.
Who was this? When was the comment made? Do you have proof that it 'was'
made? If it was made, I condemn it as would the Conservative Party.
> The Tory party has long used bigotry to gain support.
Evidence?
> I know of many Tories who can no longer stomach its xenophobic and
homophobic viewpoints.
Evidence?
Most importantly, you have not responded to my request. I will make it
again.....
I challenge you to provide a quote from a Conservative source that is racist
regarding asylum seekers.
David Currie
"Geraint Lewis" <ger...@rheidol.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39A3BD0D...@rheidol.demon.co.uk...
Examples?
Geraint Lewis
>
> > True fascists have far more in common with the Labour party than they do
> > with the Conservative party. In fact you can find a large number of
> > people who would not consider themselves fascist but are indeed so
> > within the confines of the Labour party.
> >
>
Of which facist Labour supporters or that true facists have more in
common with the Labour party than the Conservative party?
--
Geraint Lewis
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>
>Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a3066c...@news.freeserve.net...
>
>> I think the quote is taken out of context - there are problems of
>> monoglot english language speakers moving into communities where the
>> main language is Welsh - that is when the people moving in expect
>> everyone to speak English and make no attempt to learn Welsh - or
>> worse ban people from speaking Welsh.
>
>Would you therefore suggest that their settlement in Wales should undergo a
>tighter control?
No that greater steps should be made to enable them to integrate into
the community, provide more language classes etc. Second homes are
another issue - hence calls from a number of holiday areas for
legislation to enable them to limit the number of second homes in an
area (but that is a side issue).
>> The fact that you have not heard of Plaid people working in the anti
>> racism movement is not surprising - they do and always have.
>
>They obviously failed to capture the attention of the voter.
Not our fault.
>> Perhaps we were slow in doing this but this is not to say that there
>> was any racism involved, just no demand from anyone that such a group
>> be set up.
>
>It's been pretty much a multi cultural society in Wales as well as the Uk
>for some time. Do you believe that this fairly recent initiative by Plaid
>derives from the realisation that for increased support, it's a move in the
>right direction or is an overdue initiative that's based on general
>equality?, i.e. for the people or for the Party?
I think it was overdue - of course Plaid has always had a high
proportion of people who were not originally from Wales as members.
>> >Are you referring to comments supporting tighter control of immigration
>into
>> >the UK?
>>
>> Amonst other things yes. Assylum seakers depicted as bogus etc. That
>> is after moving the goal posts so that it is very difficult to be a
>> legit assylum seaker anyway.
>
>I would suggest that bogus assylum seekers do exist and that their effect
>can somewhat stretch the Uk's financial resources, a reason that is surely
>financially based? Personally, I'd hate the thought of supporting such
>instances.
>
>
They do exist but the rhetoric would make you think that the vast
majority were bogus, while in fact over 50 either get asylum or are
given exceptional leave of to remain. This is even after the rules
have been rigged against them.
--
Lyn David Thomas
<mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> Conservative Party to us.
>>
>> Ah you mean the homophobe
>
>Whatever the person may be, they are not members of the Conservative Party.
Agreed - though he was, and suggested that he might become again if
the conservative party was becoming homophobic.
>> well your party has scores of people who
>> regularly spout homophobic abuse and are never repremanded,
>
>Provide an example, coupled with a quotation.
I'll dig out a long list for you.
>> I recall
>> one local council leader who even called for all gays to be shot or
>> gassed and no action was taken against him.
>
>Who was this? When was the comment made? Do you have proof that it 'was'
>made? If it was made, I condemn it as would the Conservative Party.
Yes I do, as in several reporter in the public gallery taking it down.
I remember the protests against it well, I know several of the 12
people who were jailed for 2weeks for protesting outside his house
(several of them later took the Chief Counstable of Staffordshire to
court for false imprisonment and won over 70,000 in compensation).
The quotes are taken from In the Pink - a local lesbian and gay paper
that I had a hand in producing - they in turn were taken from the
Express and Star (the main paper in Wolverhampton).
The Council Leader in question was Cllr Bill Brownhill and the council
was South Staffordshire district council.
Speaking at a health committee meeting he said speaking of homosexuals
and AIDS:
"I should shoot them all... those bunch of queers that legalise filth
in homosexuality have a lot to answer for and I hope they are proud of
what they have done. It is disgusting and diabolical. As a cure I
would put 90% of them in the ruddy gas chambers. Are we going to keep
letting these queers trade their filth up and down the country? We
must find a way of stopping these gays going round. Yet we are making
heros of some of these people and some are evne being knighted."
He was supported in these views by the leader of the local labour
group, Jack Greenaway, who said, "everyone of us here will agree with
what has been said."
The meeting voted to ask the Home Office to look at the laws on
homosexuality (presumably to make it illegal).
The Chair of South Staffs Labour Party threatened to expell Cllr
Greenway from the Labour Party if he didn't appologise, I believe he
did.
To his credit the then Tory MP for South Staffs condemmed the comments
of the Tory leader of the Council saying that his comments were
"Unchristian. But the conservative party Central Office spokesperson
declined to condem the remarks and added that no disiplinary action
would be taken as it "is the season of good will".
The remarks were made at a council meeting at the end of December
1986.
At the same time a tory councillor in Dudley, Bob Hyde attacked the
equal opportunities policy of Dudley council saying that he didn't
want his children taught by "perverts, queers or homosexuals".
>> The Tory party has long used bigotry to gain support.
>
>Evidence?
How about the 1987 general election poster showing Jenny Lives With
Eric And Martin - how about local elections in Birmingham where the
Conservatives attacked the formation of a gay commercial district in
Birmingham (claiming that the council created it).
They have consistently pandered to homophobia.
The whole basis of Section 28 is homophobic - the attitude of the
current leadership to its repeal is both homophobic and the debates
from the Lords shows just how homophobic they are. Try reading it
sometime.
>> I know of many Tories who can no longer stomach its xenophobic and
>homophobic viewpoints.
>
>Evidence?
Try Julian White - a regular on
uk.politics.electoral,uk.politics.misc, one of the leading lights of
the conservative party in East Anglia. How about the recent and well
publicised defection of Ivan Massow.
>Most importantly, you have not responded to my request. I will make it
>again.....
>
>I challenge you to provide a quote from a Conservative source that is racist
>regarding asylum seekers.
I'm checking my records, I'll get back to you on that, hansard takes
some time to read.
Llion
> >Would you therefore suggest that their settlement in Wales should undergo
a
> >tighter control?
> No that greater steps should be made to enable them to integrate into
> the community, provide more language classes etc. Second homes are
> another issue - hence calls from a number of holiday areas for
> legislation to enable them to limit the number of second homes in an
> area (but that is a side issue).
What if the non Welsh speaker chose not to learn the language, but still
desired Wales as a place to settle? Surely restricting someone to buy a
second home in Wales is a restriction of an individual's freedom? This seems
a very unhealthy Nationalist philosophy, so mush so I reckon Plaid should
come clean with everyone, especially since they hope to gather support from
all cultures. sounds a bit like "Please support us, English or not, but
do'nt buy a second home in Wales"
> >They obviously failed to capture the attention of the voter.
>
> Not our fault.
I think so Lyn. If you fail to market a product it does'nt sell. If you fail
as a political party to get your message across to the voter, who's fault is
it?
> >It's been pretty much a multi cultural society in Wales as well as the Uk
> >for some time. Do you believe that this fairly recent initiative by Plaid
> >derives from the realisation that for increased support, it's a move in
the
> >right direction or is an overdue initiative that's based on general
> >equality?, i.e. for the people or for the Party?
> I think it was overdue - of course Plaid has always had a high
> proportion of people who were not originally from Wales as members.
Dafydd Wigley for one! Like Bruce Forsyth would say :- "Did'nt he do well"?
> >I would suggest that bogus assylum seekers do exist and that their effect
> >can somewhat stretch the Uk's financial resources, a reason that is
surely
> >financially based? Personally, I'd hate the thought of supporting such
> >instances.
> They do exist but the rhetoric would make you think that the vast
> majority were bogus, while in fact over 50 either get asylum or are
> given exceptional leave of to remain. This is even after the rules
> have been rigged against them.
Maybe so. A matter of interpretation perhaps. I'd say a rigging is slightly
overdoing it though
Regards,
Llion
David Currie
Both or either.
Geraint Lewis
>
> "Geraint Lewis" <ger...@rheidol.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39A43468...@rheidol.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > common with the Labour party than the Conservative party?
> >
>
OK I guess the most obvious one in the UK is Moseley who didn't undergo
a major policy conversion during his switch from Labour to Fascism, he
just changed his attitude towards 'non-British people'. Another obvious
one is of course Hitler himself. If you look past his record of
discriminating against everyone who wasn't in his narrow view German
you'll see that a number of his policies would have been amiable to the
Socialists of the time. Remember Socialism is about attempting to create
economic equality for everyone, it does not define who everyone is and
so can be open to interpretation. The Capitalism is about creating
economic inequality for everyone, again it does not define who everyone
is.
Facist Labour supporters exist in the Valleys, usually they are nobody's
who have been life long supporters and in some cases members. They tend
to be people who believe in all this economic equality for British
people. They usually have a belief that Hitler exterminated Jews and
they don't believe in that and so are convinced that their belief that
Refugees should be prevented from entering the country or that criminals
should be hanged is different from the social control policies that
Hitler advocated. They seem themselves as different, perceiving
themselves as Socialists and not Facists such as Hitler.
--
Geraint Lewis
David Currie
> David Currie wrote:
> >
> > "Geraint Lewis" <ger...@rheidol.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:39A43468...@rheidol.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > common with the Labour party than the Conservative party?
> > >
> >
>
> OK I guess the most obvious one in the UK is Moseley who didn't undergo
> a major policy conversion during his switch from Labour to Fascism, he
> just changed his attitude towards 'non-British people'.
I thought the whole point was that he left (was expelled from) Labour
because it didn't embody his views.
Does this mean that everyone who defects from one party to another is not
making an ideological shift? Is the Tory Party that Alan Howarth left
really a bunch of lefties and he left becuase he preferred the colour red.
Moseley and Labour parted company precisely because his views and theirs
were not compatible. So if anything it shows that Labour was no place for
fascists.
Another obvious
> one is of course Hitler himself. If you look past his record of
> discriminating against everyone who wasn't in his narrow view German
> you'll see that a number of his policies would have been amiable to the
> Socialists of the time.
Very weak. Hitler had the admiration of several leading Plaid members, I
don't recall the likes of George Lansbury lauding him as Saunders Lewis did.
Remember Socialism is about attempting to create
> economic equality for everyone, it does not define who everyone is and
> so can be open to interpretation.
??? How does this possibly square with the attempted extermination of the
Jews etc.?
The Capitalism is about creating
> economic inequality for everyone, again it does not define who everyone
> is.
>
> Facist Labour supporters exist in the Valleys, usually they are nobody's
> who have been life long supporters and in some cases members.
Or in other words, you cannot back up your claim. Try a policy of
controlling English immigration into Wales if you want to see fascism in
action.
They tend
> to be people who believe in all this economic equality for British
> people. They usually have a belief that Hitler exterminated Jews and
> they don't believe in that and so are convinced that their belief that
> Refugees should be prevented from entering the country or that criminals
> should be hanged is different from the social control policies that
> Hitler advocated.
They are - and neither are as far as I am aware the policy of any British
political party.
They seem themselves as different, perceiving
> themselves as Socialists and not Facists such as Hitler.
>
Well, that's pretty conclusive, then - not.
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>
>Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39a3ebf9...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:15:31 +0100, "Llion" <Ll...@easynet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Would you therefore suggest that their settlement in Wales should undergo
>a
>> >tighter control?
>
>> No that greater steps should be made to enable them to integrate into
>> the community, provide more language classes etc. Second homes are
>> another issue - hence calls from a number of holiday areas for
>> legislation to enable them to limit the number of second homes in an
>> area (but that is a side issue).
>
>What if the non Welsh speaker chose not to learn the language, but still
>desired Wales as a place to settle?
It they are moving into an area where the every day language is Welsh
then it would be rude of them not to try and learn it if they want to
fit into the community.
>Surely restricting someone to buy a
>second home in Wales is a restriction of an individual's freedom?
To a degree yes, which is why no one is suggesting that second home
ownership be banned, just that it be regulated so that there is a
balance. Second homes are already treated differently from primary
homes - ie they get a 50% reduction in council tax. I suggest this
accepts that second homes are different to primary homes. It is
suggested that this become a planning matter.
> This seems
>a very unhealthy Nationalist philosophy, so mush so I reckon Plaid should
>come clean with everyone, especially since they hope to gather support from
>all cultures. sounds a bit like "Please support us, English or not, but
>do'nt buy a second home in Wales"
Since when have we said that, can I point out that the idea of alowing
a local authority to set a limit on the number of second homes is
something that local councils in other holiday areas like Cornwall,
East Anglia and Cumbria have also experessed an interest in. Hardly a
nationalist reason, more to do with trying to stop some villages from
becoming winter ghost towns and to prevent the worse excesses of
market distortion.
>> >They obviously failed to capture the attention of the voter.
>>
>> Not our fault.
>
>I think so Lyn. If you fail to market a product it does'nt sell. If you fail
>as a political party to get your message across to the voter, who's fault is
>it?
Sometimes it is the fault of the organisation, but when you have
larger organisations who ignore or worse deny what you are doing then
it is difficult to make headway. I suggest you examine who signs
early day motions on racism and who signs up to public anouncements
etc.
>> >It's been pretty much a multi cultural society in Wales as well as the Uk
>> >for some time. Do you believe that this fairly recent initiative by Plaid
>> >derives from the realisation that for increased support, it's a move in
>the
>> >right direction or is an overdue initiative that's based on general
>> >equality?, i.e. for the people or for the Party?
>
>> I think it was overdue - of course Plaid has always had a high
>> proportion of people who were not originally from Wales as members.
>
>Dafydd Wigley for one! Like Bruce Forsyth would say :- "Did'nt he do well"?
Indeed, though he is clearly Welsh anyway, we also have many people
who are English who have settled in Wales as members.
>> >I would suggest that bogus assylum seekers do exist and that their effect
>> >can somewhat stretch the Uk's financial resources, a reason that is
>surely
>> >financially based? Personally, I'd hate the thought of supporting such
>> >instances.
>
>> They do exist but the rhetoric would make you think that the vast
>> majority were bogus, while in fact over 50 either get asylum or are
>> given exceptional leave of to remain. This is even after the rules
>> have been rigged against them.
>
>Maybe so. A matter of interpretation perhaps. I'd say a rigging is slightly
>overdoing it though
>
That is not what the international agencies have said.
Geraint Lewis
>
> I thought the whole point was that he left (was expelled from) Labour
> because it didn't embody his views.
>
> Does this mean that everyone who defects from one party to another is not
> making an ideological shift? Is the Tory Party that Alan Howarth left
> really a bunch of lefties and he left becuase he preferred the colour red.
>
> Moseley and Labour parted company precisely because his views and theirs
> were not compatible. So if anything it shows that Labour was no place for
> fascists.
>
creed and race without holding a different ideology regarding issues
such as poverty and equality.
>
> Very weak. Hitler had the admiration of several leading Plaid members, I
> don't recall the likes of George Lansbury lauding him as Saunders Lewis did.
>
mean that they disagreed with every policy he ever invented. The policy
of extermination of the Jews, Blacks and just about anyone else who was
not a German is good enough reason to totally be in opposition to him
but it was not his only policy and there are a number of economic
policies which socialists would have been more appreciative of.
> ??? How does this possibly square with the attempted extermination of the
> Jews etc.?
>
who was German. Jews were not regarded as human let alone German.
> Or in other words, you cannot back up your claim. Try a policy of
> controlling English immigration into Wales if you want to see fascism in
> action.
>
it but as I said, they tend not to be important so it wouldn't help you
as you wouldn't know who they were in the first place.
>
> They are - and neither are as far as I am aware the policy of any British
> political party.
>
Whether they are the policies of British political parties does not
change the fact that they are the beliefs of many British people. Do you
really believe there is a vast difference between Hitlers social
policies and those of British people who believe in returning the death
penalty? I do after all recall the Conservative party advocating the
return of the concentration camp, oh sorry it was a hostel wasn't it.
>
> Well, that's pretty conclusive, then - not.
Ahh so you see politics as a straight line then?
--
Geraint Lewis
David Currie
> David Currie wrote:
> >
> > I thought the whole point was that he left (was expelled from) Labour
> > because it didn't embody his views.
> >
> > Does this mean that everyone who defects from one party to another is
not
> > making an ideological shift? Is the Tory Party that Alan Howarth left
> > really a bunch of lefties and he left becuase he preferred the colour
red.
> >
> > Moseley and Labour parted company precisely because his views and theirs
> > were not compatible. So if anything it shows that Labour was no place
for
> > fascists.
> >
> It is possible to hold a different ideology regarding issues such as
> creed and race without holding a different ideology regarding issues
> such as poverty and equality.
It is possible. But it wasn't the case with Moseley, was it?
> >
> > Very weak. Hitler had the admiration of several leading Plaid members,
I
> > don't recall the likes of George Lansbury lauding him as Saunders Lewis
did.
> >
> Just because someone did not say Hitler was great does not automatically
> mean that they disagreed with every policy he ever invented.
Lansbury (the Labour leader at the time of Saunders Lewis) was a pacifist
who condemned Hitler outright. Lewis sympathised with Hitler and criticised
the British press for attacking him. Those are the facts.
The policy
> of extermination of the Jews, Blacks and just about anyone else who was
> not a German is good enough reason to totally be in opposition to him
> but it was not his only policy and there are a number of economic
> policies which socialists would have been more appreciative of.
But they weren't, were they? I asked for examples, not your opinions on
whether socialists would agree with aspects of Hitler's programmes.
> >
> > ??? How does this possibly square with the attempted extermination of
the
> > Jews etc.?
> >
> It was about attempting to create an equal and fair society for everyone
> who was German. Jews were not regarded as human let alone German.
Which is not the internationalist socialist doctrine as far as I am aware,
so I cannot see how Socialists would support the Nazi philosphy.
> >
> > Or in other words, you cannot back up your claim. Try a policy of
> > controlling English immigration into Wales if you want to see fascism in
> > action.
> >
> I'm pretty certain I could name quite a few if I had a good think about
> it but as I said, they tend not to be important so it wouldn't help you
> as you wouldn't know who they were in the first place.
Try me.
Geraint Lewis
>
>
> Lansbury (the Labour leader at the time of Saunders Lewis) was a pacifist
> who condemned Hitler outright. Lewis sympathised with Hitler and criticised
> the British press for attacking him. Those are the facts.
>
the Lansbury would have opposed his racist attitude and war mongering,
he would not have got as far as judging the guy on his policies for
creating full employment.
> But they weren't, were they? I asked for examples, not your opinions on
> whether socialists would agree with aspects of Hitler's programmes.
>
financing public works to create jobs, this is a keynesian policy and so
on the surface would have been supported by socialists. It is only when
looking at how the Nazi's implemented this policy that flaws can be seen
from a Socialist point of view.
They also of course carried out a programme of nationalisation of a
number of major industries.
>
> Which is not the internationalist socialist doctrine as far as I am aware,
> so I cannot see how Socialists would support the Nazi philosphy.
>
I didn't say they would support the philosphy I said that there were a
number of policies which would potentially be agreeable to both sides. I
have stressed that this does not include the policy of discrimination
and extermination that the Nazi's carried out. It is important to
remember that Socialism is an economic philosophy and not a social one.
The social philosophy has been added on later.
--
Geraint Lewis
Llion
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:50:03 +0100, "Llion" <Ll...@easynet.co.uk>
> >What if the non Welsh speaker chose not to learn the language, but still
> >desired Wales as a place to settle?
> It they are moving into an area where the every day language is Welsh
> then it would be rude of them not to try and learn it if they want to
> fit into the community.
Surely you're not serious? Rude for not trying to learn the language? I'm
glad a Plaid member actually said that.
> >Surely restricting someone to buy a
> >second home in Wales is a restriction of an individual's freedom?
>
> To a degree yes, which is why no one is suggesting that second home
> ownership be banned, just that it be regulated so that there is a
> balance.
If you or Plaid would'nt propose to ban a second home, but would agree with
a regulation, what do you mean?
Second homes are already treated differently from primary
> homes - ie they get a 50% reduction in council tax. I suggest this
> accepts that second homes are different to primary homes. It is
> suggested that this become a planning matter.
Do you mean Economic development rather than Planning?
> > This seems
> >a very unhealthy Nationalist philosophy, so mush so I reckon Plaid should
> >come clean with everyone, especially since they hope to gather support
from
> >all cultures. sounds a bit like "Please support us, English or not, but
> >do'nt buy a second home in Wales"
>
> Since when have we said that, can I point out that the idea of alowing
> a local authority to set a limit on the number of second homes is
> something that local councils in other holiday areas like Cornwall,
> East Anglia and Cumbria have also experessed an interest in. Hardly a
> nationalist reason, more to do with trying to stop some villages from
> becoming winter ghost towns and to prevent the worse excesses of
> market distortion.
Your party has said that Lyn. In fact it was Elfyn Llwyd who proposed a
restriction as per our discussion several months ago. It is a nationalist
initiative, not one from the Torries or Labour or that other party (what's
their name again) Besides I would say it's disciminatory. I thought you
would understand the fundaments of equality. Same rules for everyone on all
topics Lyn or just some of them?
> >I think so Lyn. If you fail to market a product it does'nt sell. If you
fail
> >as a political party to get your message across to the voter, who's fault
is
> >it?
>
> Sometimes it is the fault of the organisation, but when you have
> larger organisations who ignore or worse deny what you are doing then
> it is difficult to make headway. I suggest you examine who signs
> early day motions on racism and who signs up to public anouncements
> etc.
Fair enough, the media have denied their publicity.
> >Dafydd Wigley for one! Like Bruce Forsyth would say :- "Did'nt he do
well"?
> Indeed, though he is clearly Welsh anyway,
I suppose so, even though as a footballer he'd be quite eligibe to play for
England, being Derby born.
> we also have many people
> who are English who have settled in Wales as members.
I know, quite amazing really.
> >Maybe so. A matter of interpretation perhaps. I'd say a rigging is
slightly
> >overdoing it though
> That is not what the international agencies have said.
Without proof perhaps, many would rebuke such claims
Regards,
Llion
Mark Bowen
> >>
> >> Ah you mean the homophobe
> >
> >Whatever the person may be, they are not members of the Conservative
Party.
>
> Agreed - though he was, and suggested that he might become again if
> the conservative party was becoming homophobic.
We are not talking about the same person. I believe the one I have in mind
was female?
> >> well your party has scores of people who
> >> regularly spout homophobic abuse and are never repremanded,
> >
> >Provide an example, coupled with a quotation.
>
> I'll dig out a long list for you.
Soon?
86? Britain is a very different place since then. I thought were we all
working on the basis of Conservative Party policy 'today'?
> At the same time a tory councillor in Dudley, Bob Hyde attacked the
> equal opportunities policy of Dudley council saying that he didn't
> want his children taught by "perverts, queers or homosexuals".
>
> >> The Tory party has long used bigotry to gain support.
> >
> >Evidence?
>
> How about the 1987 general election poster showing Jenny Lives With
> Eric And Martin - how about local elections in Birmingham where the
> Conservatives attacked the formation of a gay commercial district in
> Birmingham (claiming that the council created it).
>
> They have consistently pandered to homophobia.
>
> The whole basis of Section 28 is homophobic - the attitude of the
> current leadership to its repeal is both homophobic and the debates
> from the Lords shows just how homophobic they are. Try reading it
> sometime.
I have not read anything that disturbs me from a member of my party. I am,
ofcourse, willing to consider any quotation?
> >> I know of many Tories who can no longer stomach its xenophobic and
> >homophobic viewpoints.
> >
> >Evidence?
>
> Try Julian White - a regular on
> uk.politics.electoral,uk.politics.misc, one of the leading lights of
> the conservative party in East Anglia. How about the recent and well
> publicised defection of Ivan Massow.
I knew you would mention these two individuals. They are not here to defend
themselves but all I will say is that 'you' participated in a thread where I
asked one of these two individuals to provide evidence to enhance his very
serious allegations? He never did. Neither person is a member of the
Conservative Party. You are incorrect about one of the individuals.
With regards to the other person..................?
Anyone for a hunt?
> >Most importantly, you have not responded to my request. I will make it
> >again.....
> >
> >I challenge you to provide a quote from a Conservative source that is
racist
> >regarding asylum seekers.
>
> I'm checking my records, I'll get back to you on that, hansard takes
> some time to read.
I look forward to it. I do hope that next time you make your serious
allegations, you will have quotations ready.
David Currie
> David Currie wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lansbury (the Labour leader at the time of Saunders Lewis) was a
pacifist
> > who condemned Hitler outright. Lewis sympathised with Hitler and
criticised
> > the British press for attacking him. Those are the facts.
> >
> I cannot tell you why Lewis sympathized with Hitler I can only say that
> the Lansbury would have opposed his racist attitude and war mongering,
> he would not have got as far as judging the guy on his policies for
> creating full employment.
I would have done the same (assuming you are correct). Even full employment
has an unnacceptable price.
> >
> > But they weren't, were they? I asked for examples, not your opinions on
> > whether socialists would agree with aspects of Hitler's programmes.
> >
> In an attempt to create employment the Nazi's introduced a programme of
> financing public works to create jobs, this is a keynesian policy and so
> on the surface would have been supported by socialists. It is only when
> looking at how the Nazi's implemented this policy that flaws can be seen
> from a Socialist point of view.
>
> They also of course carried out a programme of nationalisation of a
> number of major industries.
But that's a million miles away from saying true fascists have far more in
common with the Labour party than they do with the Conservative party. Or
that you can find a large number of people who would not consider themselves
fascist but are indeed sowithin the confines of the Labour party. The
policies you talk about are not fascist; they were used by Hitler as part of
his fascist enterprise. There is a funamental difference. There is also so
much which seperates socialism and fascism that in no way could a true
fascist find himself at home in the Labour Party.
>
> >
> > Which is not the internationalist socialist doctrine as far as I am
aware,
> > so I cannot see how Socialists would support the Nazi philosphy.
> >
> I didn't say they would support the philosphy I said that there were a
> number of policies which would potentially be agreeable to both sides.
Oh no you didn't. You categorically didn't. You exact quote is contained
in my above answer. If you believe you did we have been arguing on the
basis of a huge misunderstanding.
I
> have stressed that this does not include the policy of discrimination
> and extermination that the Nazi's carried out. It is important to
> remember that Socialism is an economic philosophy and not a social one.
> The social philosophy has been added on later.
>
> --
> Geraint Lewis
Your analysis is bizarre to me.
David Currie
"Llion" <Ll...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iTcp5.95789$3T6.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
Unless they believe that Plaid is simply a project of geographical
management there is no real place for them. They are merely trophies.
Chwith
RBarat4229 <rbara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000820172327...@ng-me1.aol.com...
> MASONS STARTED FIRST WORLD WAR
>
> Every student of history knows that the event which sparked-off
> World War I, was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke, Francis
> Ferdinand, at Serajevo in 1914.
> What very few know, is that the conspiracy to murder the Archduke
> was a Masonic Plot.
> It is almost never mentioned in standard history texts, yet it is
> non the less a known fact, that the members of the group that carried
> out the assassination were Masons, and it was revealed in sworn testi-
> mony at their trial "that the Freemasons had condemned Francis Ferdin-
> and to death".
And your point is...?
Llion
> > Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > we also have many people
> > > who are English who have settled in Wales as members.
> > I know, quite amazing really.
> Unless they believe that Plaid is simply a project of geographical
> management there is no real place for them. They are merely trophies.
Umm? Must be, come to think of it.
Regards,
Llion
David Currie
As opposed to a project of ethnic and cultural re-assertion.
> Regards,
>
> Llion
>
>
>
>
Chwith
> On 20 Aug 2000 22:28:44 GMT, Darren Wyn Rees <mer...@netlink.co.uk>
> wrote:> > ^^^^^^
> >Correction : That should be Nationalists.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
>
> What fun can anyone play this game?
It would seem so... :-\
> Correction that should be Imperialists.
>
> This is off topic for this group I suggest people post somewhere else
> in replying to this.
Too late :-(
Llion
>
> "Llion" <Ll...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6Xjp5.101904$3T6.4...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > > Unless they believe that Plaid is simply a project of geographical
> > > management there is no real place for them. They are merely trophies.
> >
> > Umm? Must be, come to think of it.
> >
>
> As opposed to a project of ethnic and cultural re-assertion.
I remember saying something previously, several months ago along the lines
of ethnic cleansing or fitering.
Regards,
Llion
Lyn David Thomas
<mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> Try Julian White - a regular on
>> uk.politics.electoral,uk.politics.misc, one of the leading lights of
>> the conservative party in East Anglia. How about the recent and well
>> publicised defection of Ivan Massow.
>
>I knew you would mention these two individuals. They are not here to defend
>themselves but all I will say is that 'you' participated in a thread where I
>asked one of these two individuals to provide evidence to enhance his very
>serious allegations? He never did. Neither person is a member of the
>Conservative Party. You are incorrect about one of the individuals.
>With regards to the other person..................?
>
Are you seriously saying that these two people were not conservative
party members?
Mark Bowen
> >> uk.politics.electoral,uk.politics.misc, one of the leading lights of
> >> the conservative party in East Anglia. How about the recent and well
> >> publicised defection of Ivan Massow.
> >
> >I knew you would mention these two individuals. They are not here to
defend
> >themselves but all I will say is that 'you' participated in a thread
where I
> >asked one of these two individuals to provide evidence to enhance his
very
> >serious allegations? He never did. Neither person is a member of the
> >Conservative Party. You are incorrect about one of the individuals.
> >With regards to the other person..................?
> >
>
>
> party members?
No, I did not say that, nor imply it. Read my posting again and let me know
if you are confused with my use of present and past tense?
John Jenkins
vote-grabbing name change will be to the National Socialist Party Wales
(Nazi Cymraeg)? Not that socialism will get a look-in under IWJ!
I can't wait for they the Labour Party to start acting socilist again, Plaid
acting nationalist again and the Lib Dems acting up again!
Ymlaen Geidwadol, eh?
Lyn David Thomas
<john...@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>So I suppose that Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales' plan for next year's
>vote-grabbing name change will be to the National Socialist Party Wales
>(Nazi Cymraeg)? Not that socialism will get a look-in under IWJ!
Very funny, and of course the only party that seems to be going all
out for the bigot vote at the moment is the Tory Party. Racist health
policies, homophobia rampant etc.
Llion
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:39:39 +0100, "John Jenkins"
> <john...@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>
> >So I suppose that Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales' plan for next year's
> >vote-grabbing name change will be to the National Socialist Party Wales
> >(Nazi Cymraeg)? Not that socialism will get a look-in under IWJ!
>
> Very funny, and of course the only party that seems to be going all
> out for the bigot vote at the moment is the Tory Party. Racist health
> policies, homophobia rampant etc.
The Plaid second home restriction initiative has certainly been interpreted
by some as a racist one and discriminatory. Similarly in a way to the
"discriminatory" stance another party stands accused over Section 28. It
would be nice though if such did not exist. Equality actually meaning
equality, right across the board that is. What do you reckon Lyn? Both or
just one?
Regards,
Llion
Mark Bowen
> >vote-grabbing name change will be to the National Socialist Party Wales
> >(Nazi Cymraeg)? Not that socialism will get a look-in under IWJ!
>
> Very funny, and of course the only party that seems to be going all
> out for the bigot vote at the moment is the Tory Party. Racist health
> policies, homophobia rampant etc.
And he [Lyn] continues to play the race card. Disgraceful!!!!
Lyn David Thomas
Umm I think it was your health spokesperson who did it over the
weekend. And I agree it is disgraceful, care to comment on Steve
Norris' comments also?
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>
>Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39aaa5af...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:39:39 +0100, "John Jenkins"
>> <john...@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So I suppose that Plaid Cymru - The Party of Wales' plan for next year's
>> >vote-grabbing name change will be to the National Socialist Party Wales
>> >(Nazi Cymraeg)? Not that socialism will get a look-in under IWJ!
>>
>> Very funny, and of course the only party that seems to be going all
>> out for the bigot vote at the moment is the Tory Party. Racist health
>> policies, homophobia rampant etc.
>
>The Plaid second home restriction initiative has certainly been interpreted
>by some as a racist one and discriminatory.
Then that is wilfully misinterpreting it, the second homes proposals
would apply equally to all regardless of their origin etc. It is also
backed by councils in Cumbria, East Anglia and Cornwall. You
suggesting that they are being racist too?
> Similarly in a way to the"discriminatory" stance another party stands
>accused over Section 28.
No because it singles out gay people for different and discriminatory
practice quite a difference.
Your comparison doesn't hold water.
> It
>would be nice though if such did not exist. Equality actually meaning
>equality, right across the board that is. What do you reckon Lyn? Both or
>just one?
>
The two issues are not the same, one disriminates against a whole
group of people, the other brings second home ownership within the
planning regulations, it doesn't outlaw it and it doesn't specify who
can and who can not have a second home.
David Currie
As much as it pains me to admit it, I actually think that Plaid Cymru's
proposal regarding second homes is quite sensible (it's not theirs, of
course). I think the - legimitate - taint of separatism (to quote Dafydd
Wigley) associated with Plaid has done the policy great harm, however.
I believe a good many people will regard the policy as Llion does and will
doubt Plaid's motives, and they would be right in the second analysis.
Plaid Cymru are undoubtedly advocating the policy to shore up support among
their cultural Nationalist wing, for whom the issue of English owned holiday
homes is laden with meaning beyond the modest planning implications proposed
by Plaid. If used properly the powers could help sort out the situation. If
used irresponsibly by Plaid councillors in their hearland it could become a
weapon subtly beat the separatist drum without attracting attention from the
South .
So much for saying the same thing throughout Wales, then.
Llion
> Then that is wilfully misinterpreting it, the second homes proposals
> would apply equally to all regardless of their origin etc. It is also
> backed by councils in Cumbria, East Anglia and Cornwall. You
> suggesting that they are being racist too?
The second home proposal does not apply from my understanding to those Welsh
people that have multiple properties within Wales. Plaid's interest is for
the restriction of English immigration. The Welsh can not afford the asking
price, so Plaid put a convenient obstacle to sustain their own culture.
> > Similarly in a way to the"discriminatory" stance another party stands
> >accused over Section 28.
>
> No because it singles out gay people for different and discriminatory
> practice quite a difference.
Different to what, The discrimination that applies to those financially able
to afford more than one property?
> Your comparison doesn't hold water.
Holds plenty from where I'm sitting. You seem eager to expect equality in
one department and not the other. That's seems pretty clear.
> > It
> >would be nice though if such did not exist. Equality actually meaning
> >equality, right across the board that is. What do you reckon Lyn? Both or
> >just one?
> >
>
> The two issues are not the same, one disriminates against a whole
> group of people, the other brings second home ownership within the
> planning regulations, it doesn't outlaw it and it doesn't specify who
> can and who can not have a second home.
Dress it up how you wish. They are both discriminating. Granted the issues
are quite different, but the Plaid proposal dispalys an old trait that
falls short of equality and impartiality. The interest for Plaid in this
instance is purely for the preservation of an inbred environment for the
sake of their own security and future support. Wigley's comment regarding
immigration quoted on this NG provides ample evidence to support that
conclusion.
Regards,
Llion
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>
>Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39aad8b...@news.freeserve.net...
>
>
>> Then that is wilfully misinterpreting it, the second homes proposals
>> would apply equally to all regardless of their origin etc. It is also
>> backed by councils in Cumbria, East Anglia and Cornwall. You
>> suggesting that they are being racist too?
>
>The second home proposal does not apply from my understanding to those Welsh
>people that have multiple properties within Wales.
Then you misunderstand, it would apply to everyone regardless of where
they come from. The way it would work is that a local authority would
assess the percentage of holiday homes in its area (broken down by
community (or parish in England) ) change of use from primary to
second home status would require planning consent (remember people
already make such a declaration when they apply for council tax
reduction so the principle of primary and second home status already
exists in law). The local council will set a limit on the number of
second homes permitted in each community. That is it.
> Plaid's interest is for
>the restriction of English immigration. The Welsh can not afford the asking
>price, so Plaid put a convenient obstacle to sustain their own culture.
This is also untrue.
>> > Similarly in a way to the"discriminatory" stance another party stands
>> >accused over Section 28.
>>
>> No because it singles out gay people for different and discriminatory
>> practice quite a difference.
>
>Different to what, The discrimination that applies to those financially able
>to afford more than one property?
One says that one sexuality isn't valid, one says that a community can
set a maximum number of holiday homes in its area, it doesn't say that
people can not own second homes. So very different.
>> Your comparison doesn't hold water.
>
>Holds plenty from where I'm sitting. You seem eager to expect equality in
>one department and not the other. That's seems pretty clear.
Then you are being deliberately dense. No one is banning holiday home
ownership, just placing a local cap on the numbers. No
discrimination. The other specifically does discriminate giving more
favoured status to one group than an other.
> > > It
>> >would be nice though if such did not exist. Equality actually meaning
>> >equality, right across the board that is. What do you reckon Lyn? Both or
>> >just one?
>> >
--
Llion
> >The second home proposal does not apply from my understanding to those
Welsh
> >people that have multiple properties within Wales.
> Then you misunderstand, it would apply to everyone regardless of where
> they come from. The way it would work is that a local authority would
> assess the percentage of holiday homes in its area (broken down by
> community (or parish in England) ) change of use from primary to
> second home status would require planning consent (remember people
> already make such a declaration when they apply for council tax
> reduction so the principle of primary and second home status already
> exists in law). The local council will set a limit on the number of
> second homes permitted in each community. That is it.
My apologies. What you state is quite different to a Newspaper article I
read several months ago when Elfyn Llwyd made the announcement.
> > Plaid's interest is for
> >the restriction of English immigration. The Welsh can not afford the
asking
> >price, so Plaid put a convenient obstacle to sustain their own culture.
>
> This is also untrue.
I do'nt think so
> >Different to what, The discrimination that applies to those financially
able
> >to afford more than one property?
>
> One says that one sexuality isn't valid, one says that a community can
> set a maximum number of holiday homes in its area, it doesn't say that
> people can not own second homes. So very different.
Your Party says that a free market is'nt valid, without restriction. You're
guaranteed to loose votes on this one. Hope the journalists highlight the
issue nearer election time.
> Then you are being deliberately dense. No one is banning holiday home
> ownership, just placing a local cap on the numbers. No
> discrimination. The other specifically does discriminate giving more
> favoured status to one group than an other.
Yes Lyn, I agree with your point on the ignorant Section 28 concept. I have
chosen a poor analogy, I admit. Both however, do relate to equality or lack
of it, and not to mention it's reason according to you is because there is a
danger of the creation of ghost towns in out of season periods. You say this
without realising that the locals fail to make a purchase in the first
instance. To restrict a house purchase for such a reson is crazy to say the
least and may I add not a bit of a shock from the Plaid camp. What about the
property seller who discovers a purchaser who can not go ahead because of
this newly founded obstacle? Will the seller achieve compensation for
interest in the selling delay or lost sale? If not then why? If so then who
pays? Or is it going to be just tough luck? Something for the Plaid amoebas
to think about? And more red tape from a warped Plaid council here in
Gwynedd.
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> tighter control?
>
Every night for a while on National (UK National) TV for a while, we were
bombarded with news about
immigrants into the SE of England from abroad, and various politicians harping
on about how bad this was.
There is a point in this no matter how distasteful it seems at first.
The following diverts a bit from prime topic, but follow thread for the point:
The economic divide makes houses in rural/coastal areas very cheap, rich city
dwellers buy them as
holiday homes.
It is extremely distressing to live in an area and see your children forced to
move away (possibly into far more
dubious and unfriendly areas), as they cannot get work or afford housing
locally. Many villages in wales,
scotland, england (peak district for one), west of ireland etc. have suffered
this fate, and become ghost towns.
With population no longer able to support local schools and hospitals,
remaining families have to commute
up to 100 miles a day just to get their kids to school and back. Then the
cycle continues with greater expenses (petrol) , lower wages etc.
So this group of people don't want immigrants because it lowers their standard
of living (house prices go up).
City dwellers in the South East of England (eg Essex) find that local people
are 'gazumped' on the housing
list for council houses in favour of refugees/immigrants. The immigrants do
low pay work, chopping off the bottom end of the labour market.
Poor people living in these areas experience a drop in the standard of living.
This is fact.
If you take a cake that is adequate for 6 people and share it among 12, the
amount of cake for each is halved.
This is the unpalatable core truth of National Socialism.
Apparently between 1400 and 1500 (or thereabouts), the population of the UK
rose from 2.5 million to about
7.5 million, the largest since Roman times (fairly steady around 5 million).
The people naturally experienced
a huge drop in living standards as a result.
I think Nationalism (as in National Socialism) always surges as living
standards drop.
Yorkshiremen will look at Lancastrians and imagine their dinner plates piled
twice as high
if only the lancastrians disappeared somehow...
So is there an answer??
Well the UK, and Europe as a whole certainly can't open the floodgates to the
masses waiting to get in.
(economic migrants), unless we want to quickly attain the living standards in
Mombai (probably will
exceed the population of UK in 2035).
Can we address the economic divide - perhaps with remote working, local
investment in cottage industries.
Encourage other countries to control their population.
Anyone else care to comment?
Jeff Davies
je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk
Llion
Jeff Davies <je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39AC493A...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk...
> So this group of people don't want immigrants because it lowers their
standard
> of living (house prices go up).
Tell me. You are referring to Plaid are'nt you?
> If you take a cake that is adequate for 6 people and share it among 12,
the
> amount of cake for each is halved.
!0 out of 10 on arithmetic
> I think Nationalism (as in National Socialism) always surges as living
> standards drop.
Socialism being semi-Communism seems to add up. The difference being that
living standards are'nt dropping.
> Yorkshiremen will look at Lancastrians and imagine their dinner plates
piled
> twice as high
> if only the lancastrians disappeared somehow...
Seems like a Plaid philosophy against any Immigrant. somehow though. I doubt
whether Plaid realise that without the "immigrants", we would be a third
world category.
> So is there an answer??
> Well the UK, and Europe as a whole certainly can't open the floodgates to
the
> masses waiting to get in.
> (economic migrants), unless we want to quickly attain the living standards
in
> Mombai (probably will
> exceed the population of UK in 2035).
> Can we address the economic divide - perhaps with remote working, local
> investment in cottage industries.
> Encourage other countries to control their population.
I presume that you're quite anti Immigration?
> Anyone else care to comment?
Open any floodgates? or are we to adopt such extreme patriotism and develop
into a sad interbred Nationalist? Sorry, can't help thinking of the battle
of the banjo's when Plaid becomes part of the equation.
Regards,
Llion
Lyn David Thomas
wrote:
>
>Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:39ab755e...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:17:10 +0100, "Llion" <Ll...@easynet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> >The second home proposal does not apply from my understanding to those
>Welsh
>> >people that have multiple properties within Wales.
>
>> Then you misunderstand, it would apply to everyone regardless of where
>> they come from. The way it would work is that a local authority would
>> assess the percentage of holiday homes in its area (broken down by
>> community (or parish in England) ) change of use from primary to
>> second home status would require planning consent (remember people
>> already make such a declaration when they apply for council tax
>> reduction so the principle of primary and second home status already
>> exists in law). The local council will set a limit on the number of
>> second homes permitted in each community. That is it.
>
>My apologies. What you state is quite different to a Newspaper article I
>read several months ago when Elfyn Llwyd made the announcement.
Newspapers are not noted for getting things right - The Western
Mail/Echo have just put out a free booklet on Cardiff listing the
Assembly members for the South East Wales region as some of Cardiff's
AMs......
>> > Plaid's interest is for
>> >the restriction of English immigration. The Welsh can not afford the
>asking
>> >price, so Plaid put a convenient obstacle to sustain their own culture.
>>
>> This is also untrue.
>
>I do'nt think so
>
>> >Different to what, The discrimination that applies to those financially
>able
>> >to afford more than one property?
>>
>> One says that one sexuality isn't valid, one says that a community can
>> set a maximum number of holiday homes in its area, it doesn't say that
>> people can not own second homes. So very different.
>
>Your Party says that a free market is'nt valid, without restriction. You're
>guaranteed to loose votes on this one. Hope the journalists highlight the
>issue nearer election time.
Restrictions already exist in housing. Both in building and design.
The free market as such doesn't exist, it is highly regulated, as it
shoud be.
Mark Bowen
>
> Umm I think it was your health spokesperson who did it over the
> weekend. And I agree it is disgraceful, care to comment on Steve
> Norris' comments also?
1) Health Spokesman
No, he did not do that. I strongly support the comments made by Dr Raj
Chandran. I went to the Doctor today. My Doctor is British, he happens to be
Asian. Skin Colour is not an issue for me, but it is for the Trendy brigade
in this country.
2) Steve Norris
Of what I read of the interview, I disagree with him.
Darren, my apologies, if you are reading this thread, that this contribution
has nothing to do with the Assembly. I must, however, respond when
inaccurate comments are made.
Lyn David Thomas
<mark_b...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> >And he [Lyn] continues to play the race card. Disgraceful!!!!
>>
>> Umm I think it was your health spokesperson who did it over the
>> weekend. And I agree it is disgraceful, care to comment on Steve
>> Norris' comments also?
>
>1) Health Spokesman
>No, he did not do that. I strongly support the comments made by Dr Raj
>Chandran. I went to the Doctor today. My Doctor is British, he happens to be
>Asian. Skin Colour is not an issue for me, but it is for the Trendy brigade
>in this country.
Then he is an idiot too, the statement was clearly intended to apease
the racists in the Tory party. Non-UK doctors already have to go
through a language proficincey test. This isn't just my view it is
the view of many others.
>2) Steve Norris
>Of what I read of the interview, I disagree with him.
Isn't he in a position to know?
>Darren, my apologies, if you are reading this thread, that this contribution
>has nothing to do with the Assembly. I must, however, respond when
>inaccurate comments are made.
>
Followups set to wales.politics.general
Llion
> Newspapers are not noted for getting things right - The Western
> Mail/Echo have just put out a free booklet on Cardiff listing the
> Assembly members for the South East Wales region as some of Cardiff's
> AMs......
Fair point.
> Restrictions already exist in housing. Both in building and design.
> The free market as such doesn't exist, it is highly regulated, as it
> shoud be.
They certainly do exist in housing, you're quite right. so much so that your
Plaid Gwynedd Council actually insist which quarry people purchase slates
from during housing construction, again contrary to the qualities of a free
market, more of a racket in fact. As for your free market comment, it does
exist, you can purchase from anywhere in the world directly and sell
anywhere in the world directly, unless you come across obstacles that have
been put in place to counter it. Fear of competition is another motive for
those constraints. Sorry, I'm a 22 carrat capitalist, not a local Authority
or other employee of a larger company. The philosophies of the Socialist and
the Capitalist will always differ, withe former not much different in many
ways to a communist.
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> Jeff Davies <je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39AC493A...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk...
>
> > So this group of people don't want immigrants because it lowers their
> standard
> > of living (house prices go up).
>
> Tell me. You are referring to Plaid are'nt you?
>
Er no, it's a more general point. Certainly the message "Deddf Eiddo" daubed on
a wall somewheregot me thinking about the issue some years ago. You must be
able to see the point in it. There is
human suffering involved. To ignore that is to be inhuman.
> > If you take a cake that is adequate for 6 people and share it among 12,
> the
> > amount of cake for each is halved.
>
> !0 out of 10 on arithmetic
> > I think Nationalism (as in National Socialism) always surges as living
> > standards drop.
>
> Socialism being semi-Communism seems to add up. The difference being that
> living standards are'nt dropping.
>
A house now costs more in terms of annual income than it did 10 years ago.
First time buyerscan't get on the housing ladder. In the south east, no matter
what time of day or night it
is, eg: if you go for a walk at 3 am, there are planes flying past, cars
driving past. Go to a
country pub on a hot day, and there are THOUSANDS of people around it (I lived
near epping forest).
Sorry, cheap jeans, and videos just don't cut it for me, give me a 500 metre
space around me at least
once a month.
BTW the living standards I referred to were particularly the living standards
of the two groups concerned.
It definitely IS a drop in living standards if your local school closes and you
have to drive your kids
100 miles per day to their respective schools (as a bloke I was talking to last
week in the Peak district told
me he had to). 3 hours per day in the car... not fun. Not cheap.
How can you imagine living standards are increasing?? You can't base a
qualitative thing (by definition) like
quality of life on some quantatative measure being a mathematical agregation
of high street prices
index linked over gross income.
> > Yorkshiremen will look at Lancastrians and imagine their dinner plates
> piled
> > twice as high
> > if only the lancastrians disappeared somehow...
>
> Seems like a Plaid philosophy against any Immigrant. somehow though. I doubt
> whether Plaid realise that without the "immigrants", we would be a third
> world category.
>
Are you talking about visitors paying money to come visit, or are you saying
indigenous welsh are thick?
> > So is there an answer??
> > Well the UK, and Europe as a whole certainly can't open the floodgates to
> the
> > masses waiting to get in.
> > (economic migrants), unless we want to quickly attain the living standards
> in
> > Mombai (probably will
> > exceed the population of UK in 2035).
> > Can we address the economic divide - perhaps with remote working, local
> > investment in cottage industries.
> > Encourage other countries to control their population.
>
> I presume that you're quite anti Immigration?
>
We don't have the resources to save every person in danger on the planet.
Better to stop selling themweapons, and help try to find a (better) way to keep
the world population stable.
What I am saying BTW is that if we took in the tens of millions on the edge of
starvation in India (for
example), then living standards would plummet in the UK, and there would be a
natural
Nazi type reaction by British people. It is natural since other primates and
rats in labs react in the same
way. Ugly, like when a fox eats a chick, but natural.
The non-immigrant population of the UK is falling due to falling birth rates.
However the gross population
is growing due to immigrants. (I heard it on TV so it must be true). I think it
is much safer for all to keep
immigration rates low. In fact to a point where the gross population of UK is
falling.
This would tend to increase the standard of living over some decades, whilst
keeping some new culture
coming in, and pacifying the people who would be nazis. (I am not one).
We might even become a good example to other countries.
> > Anyone else care to comment?
>
> Open any floodgates? or are we to adopt such extreme patriotism and develop
> into a sad interbred Nationalist? Sorry, can't help thinking of the battle
> of the banjo's when Plaid becomes part of the equation.
>
Tee hee that is pretty funny. I know what you mean. I think however you might
be categorising me.I can't imagine having the operation (frontal lobotomy)
required for party politics.
It is sad that one can't comment on immigration without it becoming a race
issue.
There was a Horizon (or someting similar) on TV some 4 months ago, which looked
at Calderas (Super
Volcanoes). It appears that one went off 78000 years ago, reducing the human
population to
3000 individuals (verified by examining current human's Mitochondrial DNA which
is not altered in
Meiosis, and so by phylogenetic means, a severe bottleneck in the human
population at this time
was found).
This means that the entire world (human) population is descended from 3000
individuals.
We really are all brothers (and sisters). Our genetic base is painfully thin.
Kind of puts in-breeding in perspective doesn't it.
Anyway, imagine being in a life boat, and a liner sinks. When do you stop
taking on board more people.
Very difficult choice. But at some stage it has to be taken.
The pre-industrial UK population was more or less steady at about 5 million for
most of our history.
> Regards,
>
> Llion
Jeff Davies
je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk
Llion
> Er no, it's a more general point. Certainly the message "Deddf Eiddo"
daubed on
> a wall somewheregot me thinking about the issue some years ago. You must
be
> able to see the point in it. There is
> human suffering involved. To ignore that is to be inhuman.
Is or was?
> A house now costs more in terms of annual income than it did 10 years ago.
> First time buyerscan't get on the housing ladder. In the south east, no
matter
> what time of day or night it
> is, eg: if you go for a walk at 3 am, there are planes flying past, cars
> driving past. Go to a
> country pub on a hot day, and there are THOUSANDS of people around it (I
lived
> near epping forest).
> Sorry, cheap jeans, and videos just don't cut it for me, give me a 500
metre
> space around me at least
> once a month.
I can understand the need for space. Strange you should mention the cost of
living though. Only last Sunday, a Newspaper quoted a result of a Survey
carried out between Wales and the S. of England, with Welsh people being up
to 40% better off by measurement of earnings required versus cost of living.
> BTW the living standards I referred to were particularly the living
standards
> of the two groups concerned.
> It definitely IS a drop in living standards if your local school closes
and you
> have to drive your kids
> 100 miles per day to their respective schools (as a bloke I was talking to
last
> week in the Peak district told
> me he had to). 3 hours per day in the car... not fun. Not cheap.
Jeff, he chooses to live there. Available facilities for example will differ
with geography. To be merited on self management, he'd move. Does he have to
move? Well No. Why does he have to drive so far? Area too sparsely populated
versus cost? Cost is not an issue perhaps, then who pays the subsidy to
bring the school to him. Besides what the gauge of living standards for one
may well differ to another. Option :- plenty of space = less facilities.
> How can you imagine living standards are increasing?? You can't base a
> qualitative thing (by definition) like
> quality of life on some quantatative measure being a mathematical
agregation
> of high street prices
> index linked over gross income.
I believe that the UK as a whole is more prosperous than it's ever been. Not
a statement that hardships do'nt exist.
> Are you talking about visitors paying money to come visit, or are you
saying
> indigenous welsh are thick?
When you see a doctor in hospital, what are you likely to see most of the
time? When you shop at a supermarket every week, who owns the store? When
you fill your car with petrol, who is likely to own the garage? You can go
on and onto numerous examples and discover, that the larger organisations
are from the outside. That's what I mean, not an unfounded knock, just plain
reality.
> We don't have the resources to save every person in danger on the planet.
Agree with regulation on immigration into the UK 100%
> The non-immigrant population of the UK is falling due to falling birth
rates.
> However the gross population
> is growing due to immigrants. (I heard it on TV so it must be true). I
think it
> is much safer for all to keep
> immigration rates low. In fact to a point where the gross population of UK
is
> falling.
> This would tend to increase the standard of living over some decades,
whilst
> keeping some new culture
Enoch Powell stated the same only to become a founded prediction, even
though he was condemned for doing so.
> > Open any floodgates? or are we to adopt such extreme patriotism and
develop
> > into a sad interbred Nationalist? Sorry, can't help thinking of the
battle
> > of the banjo's when Plaid becomes part of the equation.
> Tee hee that is pretty funny. I know what you mean. I think however you
might
> be categorising me.
Not really.
>I can't imagine having the operation (frontal lobotomy)
> required for party politics.
> It is sad that one can't comment on immigration without it becoming a race
> issue.
They do go hand in hand unfortunately. The race card will always crop up.
I'm more intrigued with Plaid's previous reference to Immigration from
England.
> This means that the entire world (human) population is descended from 3000
> individuals.
> We really are all brothers (and sisters). Our genetic base is painfully
thin.
> Kind of puts in-breeding in perspective doesn't it.
Certainly does.
> Anyway, imagine being in a life boat, and a liner sinks. When do you stop
> taking on board more people.
> Very difficult choice. But at some stage it has to be taken.
When the lifeboat sinks as well! (joke)
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> Jeff Davies <je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39AD7DD3...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk...
>
>
> Is or was?
>
Why would it stop happening
>
>
> I can understand the need for space. Strange you should mention the cost of
> living though. Only last Sunday, a Newspaper quoted a result of a Survey
> carried out between Wales and the S. of England, with Welsh people being up
> to 40% better off by measurement of earnings required versus cost of living.
>
Yes, but earnings - cost of living doesn't equate to standard of living.It is
far more complicated than a simple arithmetic ratio.
> > BTW the living standards I referred to were particularly the living
> standards
> > of the two groups concerned.
> > It definitely IS a drop in living standards if your local school closes
> and you
> > have to drive your kids
> > 100 miles per day to their respective schools (as a bloke I was talking to
> last
> > week in the Peak district told
> > me he had to). 3 hours per day in the car... not fun. Not cheap.
>
> Jeff, he chooses to live there. Available facilities for example will differ
> with geography. To be merited on self management, he'd move. Does he have to
> move? Well No. Why does he have to drive so far? Area too sparsely populated
> versus cost? Cost is not an issue perhaps, then who pays the subsidy to
> bring the school to him. Besides what the gauge of living standards for one
> may well differ to another. Option :- plenty of space = less facilities.
>
When he moved there things were different. The children of residents have been
forced to moveaway due to people buying holiday cottages. Those people wouldn't
be able to buy holiday cottages
if there wasn't such a North South economic divide. We are witnessing the
government deliberately
favouring the South (insurance, markets) as opposed to the North
(manufacturing) with the maintenance
of the high pound.
Is it not crazy to move everyone (as is happening) to a low lying area of the
UK when the sea level is rising
in excess of 3 inches (? or cm, can't remember) per year due to the east of
England sinking, and
the Sea Level rising (it is rising by less on the West of the country) - these
are official UK government facts.
open.gov.uk.
Why build "a million new homes" in this area, and all the investment in
infrastructure when it will
pretty soon be waterlogged.
Beats me.
The problem is in our parliamentary democracy, that no long term strategy can
be made especially if
it requires any painful change by the people.
The largest tax by the way ever levied by a King of england was 3%. The first
parliament made it closer to
50%. (more loafers??).
I don't think we should regard our system as perfect. We should somehow
introduce some way of
making long term decisions and keeping to them. Perhaps a higher body dealing
specifically with
long term plans, with election every 10 to 15 years?
> > How can you imagine living standards are increasing?? You can't base a
> > qualitative thing (by definition) like
> > quality of life on some quantatative measure being a mathematical
> agregation
> > of high street prices
> > index linked over gross income.
>
> I believe that the UK as a whole is more prosperous than it's ever been. Not
> a statement that hardships do'nt exist.
>
I think it appears more prosperous, but isn't. The same houses cost 100 times
more. Furniture andgoods cost far far less, but they are crap, breaking after a
year, and for example instead of being wood,
being some mushy amalgam with a veneer of wood on top.
Our agricultural policies are a disaster, and yet we follow the same path to
ruin, and we are wasting more
energy than ever.
Why? What point is there in that?
> > Are you talking about visitors paying money to come visit, or are you
> saying
> > indigenous welsh are thick?
>
> When you see a doctor in hospital, what are you likely to see most of the
> time?
Foreigners (ie of non-uk origin. This is presumably because our doctors go to
other countries
where pay is higher and better working conditions).
> When you shop at a supermarket every week, who owns the store?
Some anonymous shareholder, probably Bill Gates.
> When
> you fill your car with petrol, who is likely to own the garage?
Ditto.
> You can go
> on and onto numerous examples and discover, that the larger organisations
> are from the outside. That's what I mean, not an unfounded knock, just plain
> reality.
>
So the profits go outside also.
> > We don't have the resources to save every person in danger on the planet.
>
> Agree with regulation on immigration into the UK 100%
>
> > The non-immigrant population of the UK is falling due to falling birth
> rates.
> > However the gross population
> > is growing due to immigrants. (I heard it on TV so it must be true). I
> think it
> > is much safer for all to keep
> > immigration rates low. In fact to a point where the gross population of UK
> is
> > falling.
> > This would tend to increase the standard of living over some decades,
> whilst
> > keeping some new culture
>
> Enoch Powell stated the same only to become a founded prediction, even
> though he was condemned for doing so.
>
Was Enoch Powell right wing? As is a Gas Chamber merchant? If so, he and all
like himshould be shot. (or gassed).
> >>I can't imagine having the operation (frontal lobotomy)
> > required for party politics.
> > It is sad that one can't comment on immigration without it becoming a race
> > issue.
>
> They do go hand in hand unfortunately. The race card will always crop up.
> I'm more intrigued with Plaid's previous reference to Immigration from
> England.
>
There are similar direct negative effects on the pre-existing population due to
this economic divide.I think - remove the divide, remove the problem. If people
really do want to move to Wales for what it is
that's fine, but if it's simply a cheap house by the beach and f**k the Welsh,
then this is no good at all.
> > This means that the entire world (human) population is descended from 3000
> > individuals.
> > We really are all brothers (and sisters). Our genetic base is painfully
> thin.
> > Kind of puts in-breeding in perspective doesn't it.
>
> Certainly does.
>
> > Anyway, imagine being in a life boat, and a liner sinks. When do you stop
> > taking on board more people.
> > Very difficult choice. But at some stage it has to be taken.
>
> When the lifeboat sinks as well! (joke)
>
Preferably before.
> Regards,
>
> Llion
Llion
> Llion wrote:
>
> > Jeff Davies <je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:39AD7DD3...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk...
> > Is or was?
> Why would it stop happening
I meant the time context of your statement
> Yes, but earnings - cost of living doesn't equate to standard of living.It
is
> far more complicated than a simple arithmetic ratio.
When you say more complicated than that, elaborate.
> > Jeff, he chooses to live there. Available facilities for example will
differ
> > with geography. To be merited on self management, he'd move. Does he
have to
> > move? Well No. Why does he have to drive so far? Area too sparsely
populated
> > versus cost? Cost is not an issue perhaps, then who pays the subsidy to
> > bring the school to him. Besides what the gauge of living standards for
one
> > may well differ to another. Option :- plenty of space = less facilities.
> When he moved there things were different. The children of residents have
been
> forced to moveaway due to people buying holiday cottages.
Forced Jeff? by whom?. A free market does not force anyone to do anything.
Amongst many other things it can change the environment that we know or used
to know. When that happens, why is it that many feel that they have a divine
right to sustain the status quo and make everything adapt to their
expectations? Now if you were to openly state that you're a Socialist, I'd
understsand. If you ran your own business I would be pretty baffled. if you
fitted into both categories:- ie. A Socialist and a Proprietor or Company
Director, I'd ask you out for a pint to discover what I've missed.
>Those people wouldn't
> be able to buy holiday cottages
> if there wasn't such a North South economic divide. We are witnessing the
> government deliberately
> favouring the South (insurance, markets) as opposed to the North
> (manufacturing) with the maintenance
> of the high pound.
Any government in this instance. The North / South divide is as ever
apparent in Wales as in the remainder of the UK. I'm a Gog and accept it,
purely by population, or as Trevor McDonald says on the ITN bulletins "In
the City today bla bla bla". Most people in the UK and outside London are
thinking "which bloody city"? There's an example of what I can only agree
with, sheer South arrogance!
> Is it not crazy to move everyone (as is happening) to a low lying area of
the
> UK when the sea level is rising
> in excess of 3 inches (? or cm, can't remember) per year due to the east
of
> England sinking, and
> the Sea Level rising (it is rising by less on the West of the country) -
these
> are official UK government facts.
> open.gov.uk.
I'm in the North West and 40 metres from the high tide at a little beach in
Dinas Dinlle, near Caernarfon. Seen a postcard of the very same beach dated
in April 1912 (same year as the Titanic sank) Some of the buildings here are
clearly visible and still in existence on the very same photograph. Also
heard many rumours that the main road running parallel to the beach is the
third road built in the 20th century and due to believe it or not, "Erosion"
. The post card however, tells a different story, same Road and 88 years on
with no difference in the space between the buildings and the waterline at
high tide, judging by the washed up seaweed on the postcard of course. (A
discovery that Peter Sellers with a French accent would be proud of)
> Why build "a million new homes" in this area, and all the investment in
> infrastructure when it will
> pretty soon be waterlogged.
> Beats me.
Time for me to look for a new home?
> The problem is in our parliamentary democracy, that no long term strategy
can
> be made especially if
> it requires any painful change by the people.
Thankfully democracy within the Uk, like many other Countries demands a
refresh by the election process, itself a monitor and gauge of performance
of the predecessor.
> I don't think we should regard our system as perfect. We should somehow
> introduce some way of
> making long term decisions and keeping to them. Perhaps a higher body
dealing
> specifically with
> long term plans, with election every 10 to 15 years?
What about a possibe complacency for say the first 8 years and a "step up a
gear period" prior to election time (similar to what's going on at the
moment on a smaller scale) and not to mention the possibility of a "well
established" corrupt regime in the same period? (whoever is in government) I
can see where and appreciate where you're coming from for a possible founded
and tested structure. What about the risks of the former? 10 years in
government, I would suspect might well make a lot of politicians and their
private associates pretty rich and without the awards of merit.
> > I believe that the UK as a whole is more prosperous than it's ever been.
Not
> > a statement that hardships do'nt exist.
> I think it appears more prosperous, but isn't. The same houses cost 100
times
> more.
As to which year by comparison to salary?
>Furniture andgoods cost far far less, but they are crap, breaking after a
> year, and for example instead of being wood,
> being some mushy amalgam with a veneer of wood on top.
Yes Jeff everyone's aware:- MFI Chipboard crap (Wolff in sheeps clothing
material) Bit of excitement:- might be sued for that statement? Anyway
IDGAF!
> Our agricultural policies are a disaster, and yet we follow the same path
to
> ruin, and we are wasting more
> energy than ever.
> Why? What point is there in that?
I think it's time that I make a self admission into Ysbyty Gwynedd's Hergest
Ward! we've drifted so far from the Masons subject. Good thread though.
Shame Plaid supporters appart from Lyn adopt an arrogant stance by thinking
that they're too good do get involved in such cheap talk?.
> > When you see a doctor in hospital, what are you likely to see most of
the
> > time?
>
> Foreigners (ie of non-uk origin. This is presumably because our doctors go
to
> other countries
> where pay is higher and better working conditions).
On that note, surely you accept that Emmigration is ok and Immigration is
not. Someone somewhere is taking ours onboard and we have special
conditions? Ok if there's a reason it's acceptable. (another pun)
> > When you shop at a supermarket every week, who owns the store?
>
> Some anonymous shareholder, probably Bill Gates.
A Welsh initiative?
> > When
> > you fill your car with petrol, who is likely to own the garage?
>
> Ditto.
I' also say ditto (non-Welsh)
> > You can go
> > on and onto numerous examples and discover, that the larger
organisations
> > are from the outside. That's what I mean, not an unfounded knock, just
plain
> > reality.
> So the profits go outside also.
Fair enough, so the fact that these non-Welsh Companies employ Welsh people
does'nt count? I seem to have lost the plot here, you'll will admit to
others taking the initiative and perhaps at the same time ignore the fact
that because of that, it's an us / them thing. I would believe in a take the
plunge and loose it all or succeed ( or sit back and moan). The practical
process is rather more complex I'm sure but the resultant perspective of the
individual who chose not to initiate leaves me rather bewildered. Got your
chance, did'nt take or would'nt dare and lost it. Can't be sour from that
stage, can we?
> Was Enoch Powell right wing? As is a Gas Chamber merchant? If so, he and
all
> like him should be shot. (or gassed).
Sorry, I could'nt agree with any of Hitler's conceps and practices
> There are similar direct negative effects on the pre-existing population
due to
> this economic divide.
Elaborate?
>I think - remove the divide, remove the problem. If people
> really do want to move to Wales for what it is
> that's fine, but if it's simply a cheap house by the beach and f**k the
Welsh,
> then this is no good at all.
Elaborate again? (please)
> > > Anyway, imagine being in a life boat, and a liner sinks. When do you
stop
> > > taking on board more people.
> > > Very difficult choice. But at some stage it has to be taken.
> >
> > When the lifeboat sinks as well! (joke)
> >
>
> Preferably before.
Like I said (joke)
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> > Yes, but earnings - cost of living doesn't equate to standard of living.It
> is
> > far more complicated than a simple arithmetic ratio.
>
> When you say more complicated than that, elaborate.
>
Would you rather live in a croft in the highlands fired by a peat fire as a
peasant farmeror live in Hong Kong, where the luxury of space eludes most
people. The people in HK
will be able to buy all manner of tech toys for nothing. They work all the
time, are rich compared
to most countries. The bloke in a croft in scotland won't have hot water, and
yet I'd rather be him.
His live, arithmetically far worse, to me is more desirable.
Of course, any remaining crofters after the highland clearances (ethnic
cleansing) will be subject
to the same story we talked of earlier. Rich city folk buying out their
neighbours, complaining
to the council about the discraceful sheep dung and noise of cows baying.
Since the ability for the city folk to buy out the locals comes from the
artificial financial divide, in
most part created by the maintenance of a high exchange rate (by high interest
rates, and the current
tax policy), shouldn't the people in these areas feel aggrieved that the
government does not protect them.
In fact I suppose this comes around to a bill of rights. The British
constitution is a complete joke, and until
there is a written constitution, minorities will suffer.
But I don't suppose the majority care, and we have no heroic politicians who
will force through something
like this.
> > When he moved there things were different. The children of residents have
> been
> > forced to moveaway due to people buying holiday cottages.
>
> Forced Jeff? by whom?. A free market does not force anyone to do anything.
>
If they wish to stay they have no choice, they cannot get local work that will
allow themto outbid small change from south eastern people.
> Amongst many other things it can change the environment that we know or used
> to know. When that happens, why is it that many feel that they have a divine
> right to sustain the status quo and make everything adapt to their
No. The system is biased in favour of the folks in the south east. As they make
the majority, theymake government policy. See above about Charter/Rights.
> expectations? Now if you were to openly state that you're a Socialist, I'd
> understsand. If you ran your own business I would be pretty baffled. if you
> fitted into both categories:- ie. A Socialist and a Proprietor or Company
> Director, I'd ask you out for a pint to discover what I've missed.
Actually I do run my own business and I can certainly see the benefits of for
example, communism.
Lets face it most people in the Soviet Union WERE better off than they are now.
(and so were we, no Russian Mafia, and no cheap Nukes floating around including
the 84 briefcase
sized nuclear weapons that "have gone missing").
Perhaps the USSR couldn't quite keep up with the USA since the USSR is mainly
permafrost,
and the USA is a highly rich geological and agricultural area of land stolen by
genocide (was still
going on in 1911 by the way) from the indigenous people.
America by the way is no model to follow.
They won't face their past, try to rewrite it in films, consume more than
anyone else per capita (in other words contribute more to global warming),
don't win wars despite
incredibly high tech killing machines (Saddam and Milosevic are still in power
not to mention Gadafi and
Castro), and (as if to prove their lunacy) have guns in just about every film
they make (and protect the
RIGHT to have one in their constitution???).
> > favouring the South (insurance, markets) as opposed to the North
> > (manufacturing) with the maintenance
> > of the high pound.
>
> Any government in this instance. The North / South divide is as ever
> apparent in Wales as in the remainder of the UK. I'm a Gog and accept it,
> purely by population, or as Trevor McDonald says on the ITN bulletins "In
> the City today bla bla bla". Most people in the UK and outside London are
> thinking "which bloody city"? There's an example of what I can only agree
> with, sheer South arrogance!
>
Having worked in the city, I hadn't noticed this. I think it's THE City they
are referring to.
> > Is it not crazy to move everyone (as is happening) to a low lying area of
> the
> > UK when the sea level is rising
> > in excess of 3 inches (? or cm, can't remember) per year due to the east
> of
> > England sinking, and
> > the Sea Level rising (it is rising by less on the West of the country) -
> these
> > are official UK government facts.
> > open.gov.uk.
>
> I'm in the North West and 40 metres from the high tide at a little beach in
> Dinas Dinlle, near Caernarfon. Seen a postcard of the very same beach dated
> in April 1912 (same year as the Titanic sank) Some of the buildings here are
> clearly visible and still in existence on the very same photograph. Also
> heard many rumours that the main road running parallel to the beach is the
> third road built in the 20th century and due to believe it or not, "Erosion"
> . The post card however, tells a different story, same Road and 88 years on
> with no difference in the space between the buildings and the waterline at
> high tide, judging by the washed up seaweed on the postcard of course. (A
> discovery that Peter Sellers with a French accent would be proud of)
>
UK government scientists must be wrong then. (check out the website).
> > The problem is in our parliamentary democracy, that no long term strategy
> can
> > be made especially if
> > it requires any painful change by the people.
>
> Thankfully democracy within the Uk, like many other Countries demands a
> refresh by the election process, itself a monitor and gauge of performance
> of the predecessor.
>
Perhaps the electorate should be more worthy then?
> What about a possibe complacency for say the first 8 years and a "step up a
> gear period" prior to election time (similar to what's going on at the
> moment on a smaller scale) and not to mention the possibility of a "well
> established" corrupt regime in the same period? (whoever is in government) I
> can see where and appreciate where you're coming from for a possible founded
> and tested structure. What about the risks of the former? 10 years in
> government, I would suspect might well make a lot of politicians and their
> private associates pretty rich and without the awards of merit.
>
I think the USA and France have a longer term presidency than parliament, so ..
you're spot onabsolutely correct.
> Yes Jeff everyone's aware:- MFI Chipboard crap (Wolff in sheeps clothing
> material) Bit of excitement:- might be sued for that statement? Anyway
> IDGAF!
>
It goes deeper than that though, everything is throwaway now, and there is a
lot of wasted energy inmanufacturing. A more appropriate attitude at this time
would be conservation of energy by having
designs that are easily upgradable and interchangable, but this goes against
the capitalist principles
of manufacturers.
> > Foreigners (ie of non-uk origin. This is presumably because our doctors go
> to
> > other countries
> > where pay is higher and better working conditions).
>
> On that note, surely you accept that Emmigration is ok and Immigration is
> not. Someone somewhere is taking ours onboard and we have special
> conditions? Ok if there's a reason it's acceptable. (another pun)
>
I think the levels of emigration are smaller, probably since USA doesn't take
many brits anymore.
> >
> > Some anonymous shareholder, probably Bill Gates.
>
> A Welsh initiative?
>
> > > When
> > > you fill your car with petrol, who is likely to own the garage?
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> I' also say ditto (non-Welsh)
Bill Gates is unlikely to buy a holiday cottage in Anglesey
> > So the profits go outside also.
>
> Fair enough, so the fact that these non-Welsh Companies employ Welsh people
> does'nt count?
> plunge and loose it all or succeed ( or sit back and moan). The practical
> process is rather more complex I'm sure but the resultant perspective of the
> individual who chose not to initiate leaves me rather bewildered. Got your
> chance, did'nt take or would'nt dare and lost it. Can't be sour from that
> stage, can we?
>
Sorry don't understand.
> > Was Enoch Powell right wing? As is a Gas Chamber merchant? If so, he and
> all
> > like him should be shot. (or gassed).
>
> Sorry, I could'nt agree with any of Hitler's conceps and practices
>
Sorted out the German Economy tho
> >I think - remove the divide, remove the problem. If people
> > really do want to move to Wales for what it is
> > that's fine, but if it's simply a cheap house by the beach and f**k the
> Welsh,
> > then this is no good at all.
>
> Elaborate again? (please)
>
I suppose what I'm saying is, what good is it to you to allow other (richer)
people into your countryif all that happens is you are dispossessed of your
country. The effect I suppose you are after is more
like a trickle down of wealth. This requires better management than we've seen
to date.
Mark Bowen
make
> the majority, they make government policy.
1) Who exactly are the "folks" in the South East? Do tell.
2) Do you realise that the Prime Minister represents Sedgefield - a
constituency in the North East?
3) Do you realise that the Chancellor is Scottish? And the Foreign Secretary
too?
Llion
> Would you rather live in a croft in the highlands fired by a peat fire as
a
> peasant farmeror live in Hong Kong, where the luxury of space eludes most
> people. The people in HK
> will be able to buy all manner of tech toys for nothing. They work all the
> time, are rich compared
I do'nt know whether I'm losing it or have totally lost it. What has the
above example to do with Wales?
> Rich city folk buying out their
> neighbours, complaining
> to the council about the discraceful sheep dung and noise of cows baying.
Sorry have'nt experienced any of this, nor if I may add, likely to.
> Since the ability for the city folk to buy out the locals comes from the
> artificial financial divide, in
> most part created by the maintenance of a high exchange rate (by high
interest
> rates, and the current
> tax policy), shouldn't the people in these areas feel aggrieved that the
> government does not protect them.
Tax rates has absolutely nothing to do with geography within the UK. Have I
missed something here or are you winding me up?
> In fact I suppose this comes around to a bill of rights. The British
> constitution is a complete joke, and until
> there is a written constitution, minorities will suffer.
Which minorities? Are we refering to sparesly populated areas or types of
people?
> But I don't suppose the majority care, and we have no heroic politicians
who
> will force through something
> like this.
Hey presto! the majority could'nt give a toss about the minority. Too often
their interest conflict.
> > Forced Jeff? by whom?. A free market does not force anyone to do
anything.
> If they wish to stay they have no choice, they cannot get local work that
will
> allow themto outbid small change from south eastern people.
You've just said it :- "If they wish to stay" I can'nt and do'nt moan about
it. Why is it that the mountain must come to Mohamed? Let's get real here,
please.
> No. The system is biased in favour of the folks in the south east. As they
make
> the majority, theymake government policy. See above about Charter/Rights.
You're definately losing me now.
> > expectations? Now if you were to openly state that you're a Socialist,
I'd
> > understsand. If you ran your own business I would be pretty baffled. if
you
> > fitted into both categories:- ie. A Socialist and a Proprietor or
Company
> > Director, I'd ask you out for a pint to discover what I've missed.
> Actually I do run my own business and I can certainly see the benefits of
for
> example, communism.
Is your business your only occupation?
> Lets face it most people in the Soviet Union WERE better off than they are
now.
> (and so were we, no Russian Mafia, and no cheap Nukes floating around
including
> the 84 briefcase
> sized nuclear weapons that "have gone missing").
Sorry, can't possibly see how communism can be a better method of
government. I'd vote Plaid before that lot.
[snipped]
> > I'm in the North West and 40 metres from the high tide at a little beach
in
> > Dinas Dinlle, near Caernarfon. Seen a postcard of the very same beach
dated
> > in April 1912 (same year as the Titanic sank) Some of the buildings here
are
> > clearly visible and still in existence on the very same photograph. Also
> > heard many rumours that the main road running parallel to the beach is
the
> > third road built in the 20th century and due to believe it or not,
"Erosion"
> > . The post card however, tells a different story, same Road and 88
years on
> > with no difference in the space between the buildings and the waterline
at
> > high tide, judging by the washed up seaweed on the postcard of course.
(A
> > discovery that Peter Sellers with a French accent would be proud of)
> >
>
> UK government scientists must be wrong then. (check out the website).
Lost their marbles from what evidence I can see and they fail to reveal.
I've only to look out of the window Jeff and see no change along with the
history that's cast in stone.
> It goes deeper than that though, everything is throwaway now, and there is
a
> lot of wasted energy inmanufacturing. A more appropriate attitude at this
time
> would be conservation of energy by having
> designs that are easily upgradable and interchangable, but this goes
against
> the capitalist principles
> of manufacturers.
I've said it before, I'm a Capitalist by nature and proud of it.
> > On that note, surely you accept that Emmigration is ok and Immigration
is
> > not. Someone somewhere is taking ours onboard and we have special
> > conditions? Ok if there's a reason it's acceptable. (another pun)
> >
>
> I think the levels of emigration are smaller, probably since USA doesn't
take
> many brits anymore.
Come on Jeff. Its seems ok for Emmigration but not Emmigration
> > > > you fill your car with petrol, who is likely to own the garage?
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> >
> > I' also say ditto (non-Welsh)
>
> Bill Gates is unlikely to buy a holiday cottage in Anglesey
Say what? Are we following the same discussion?
> > plunge and loose it all or succeed ( or sit back and moan). The
practical
> > process is rather more complex I'm sure but the resultant perspective of
the
> > individual who chose not to initiate leaves me rather bewildered. Got
your
> > chance, did'nt take or would'nt dare and lost it. Can't be sour from
that
> > stage, can we?
> Sorry don't understand.
As plain as I can explain:- The "have nots"! will always criticise those
previous have nots that have become "Haves" We all start with sod all,
unless you have inherited.
> > Sorry, I could'nt agree with any of Hitler's conceps and practices
> Sorted out the German Economy tho
What, by the massacre of millions of Jews?
> I suppose what I'm saying is, what good is it to you to allow other
(richer)
> people into your countryif all that happens is you are dispossessed of
your
> country. The effect I suppose you are after is more
> like a trickle down of wealth. This requires better management than we've
seen
> to date.
Do you suggest that the richer or well off people of Wales move out?
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> > No. The system is biased in favour of the folks in the south east. As they
> make
> > the majority, they make government policy.
>
> 1) Who exactly are the "folks" in the South East? Do tell.
Folks is a slang term for people, probably derived from the german for
"people".Folks in the south east therefore means (in this context) people who
live in the South East of England.
Houses in the south east are worth a lot more than they are in many other areas
(recent news).
Incomes are much higher (on average).
They are also more numerous than the (poorer) people in the rest of the
country. Therefore they are
more likely to control the direction of a UK based government.
This is only right in a democracy, however we don't have any protection for
minorities, which in the
USA is effected through the Bill Of Rights.
A "minority" is any subset of the whole (population of the UK) that is (in
effect, since rotten boroughs
and our non-proportional system warps the picture somewhat) in number less than
one half of the
total population.
> 2) Do you realise that the Prime Minister represents Sedgefield - a
> constituency in the North East?
Are you saying the population of Sedgefield is greater than 50% of the
population of the UK?I can't imagine you are saying this.
You must have heard disgruntled labour party people moaning about the
consessions made by the
government (which are not in keeping with traditional labour values) in order
to get into power.
Anyway, I think they're doing a good job by reducing the national debt, but it
seems all governments
are missing the BIG PROBLEM which is our shagging of the environment.
>
> 3) Do you realise that the Chancellor is Scottish? And the Foreign Secretary
> too?
And so?, they live in the south east most of the time presumably, since it is
unlikely that even they could
get chauffered into work in a supersonic war hawk every morning (maybe that's
what "2 jags" prescott
really means!! the crusty things drop from my eyes at last").
Jeff Davies
je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk
Jeff Davies
> > Would you rather live in a croft in the highlands fired by a peat fire as
> a
> > peasant farmeror live in Hong Kong, where the luxury of space eludes most
> > people. The people in HK
> > will be able to buy all manner of tech toys for nothing. They work all the
> > time, are rich compared
>
> I do'nt know whether I'm losing it or have totally lost it. What has the
> above example to do with Wales?
>
Nothing directly, it was a comparison of lifestyles, without looking back at
the thread I can't rememberwhat for now either.
> Tax rates has absolutely nothing to do with geography within the UK. Have I
> missed something here or are you winding me up?
>
I was talking about tax rates being an additional way of controlling the
economy in addition to therather awkward old tool of interest rates. Obviously
if you lower interest rates, high street spending goes
up assuming unrestricted credit, however your currency drops in value (people
move accounts to
countries with higher interest rates - to get more interest..). However, say
you wanted to lower
interest rates (to lower your currency), but didn't want to spark inflation by
causing a furious spending
spree, you could increase VAT ie Sales Tax.
I was not linking tax with geography, merely pointing out that the Control
System (Interest Rates and Tax)
is set with the majority of people in mind i.e. people in the South East who
make up the majority.
The economy of the South East of England is pretty wierd compared to the rest
of the UK and
Europe, and probably has been for hundreds of years, stuffed with at least 10
times as many people as Paris
(I hope my figures are up to date), and with a emphasis on Financial Markets
and Insurance, and nebulous
things like that, whereas South Wales, Scotland and North of England is far
more plain Industrial.
If Wales could join the Euro zone, we might find Taxation policies and Interest
Rates (and therefore
currency value) more amenable to our local economy.
> > In fact I suppose this comes around to a bill of rights. The British
> > constitution is a complete joke, and until
> > there is a written constitution, minorities will suffer.
>
> Which minorities? Are we refering to sparesly populated areas or types of
> people?
>
Both. A lot of ills would be cured by a bill of rights.
> Hey presto! the majority could'nt give a toss about the minority. Too often
> their interest conflict.
>
But this isn't a problem if the rights of the few are protected.
> > > Forced Jeff? by whom?. A free market does not force anyone to do
> anything.
>
> > If they wish to stay they have no choice, they cannot get local work that
> will
> > allow themto outbid small change from south eastern people.
>
> You've just said it :- "If they wish to stay" I can'nt and do'nt moan about
> it. Why is it that the mountain must come to Mohamed? Let's get real here,
> please.
What free market if the conditions are managed to benefit one group of
people(albeit the majority). The UK never prospered through a liberal free
market BTW,
it was an enforced closed market. (gunboats shelling Chinese ports in order
to force the Emperor to let East India Company trade heroin for silk.
So Maggie's vicotrian golden age of the free market was complete twaddle.
> > expectations? Now if you were to openly state that you're a Socialist,
> I'd
> > > understsand. If you ran your own business I would be pretty baffled. if
> you
> > > fitted into both categories:- ie. A Socialist and a Proprietor or
> Company
> > > Director, I'd ask you out for a pint to discover what I've missed.
>
> > Actually I do run my own business and I can certainly see the benefits of
> for
> > example, communism.
>
> Is your business your only occupation?
>
Yes, it is my second limited company. It looks like I might be bought out soon
andgiven a Directorship in the company that is buying me out.
> > Lets face it most people in the Soviet Union WERE better off than they are
> now.
> > (and so were we, no Russian Mafia, and no cheap Nukes floating around
> including
> > the 84 briefcase
> > sized nuclear weapons that "have gone missing").
>
> Sorry, can't possibly see how communism can be a better method of
> government. I'd vote Plaid before that lot.
>
I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying there were some good things about it,
just likethere were some good things about Hitler's regime (buses ran on time),
and some
good things about Maggie's rule (payment of National Debt).
Russians revere Joe Stalin depite the fact he butchered 20 million of his own
people, because
if they'd had a limp wrist leader, Hitler would have won and ALL russians would
have been
sent to the gas chambers. (and all welsh as it happens since we were third on
the list above Jews).
as an anecdote, after the first push by hitler into Russia in 1941 , 600,000
Russians were captured.
Within 6 months, 300,000 of them were dead. The germans had been machine
gunning them
day after day after day. Some germans went crazy (or sane?) and shot themselves
just to stop
having to do this.
> > It goes deeper than that though, everything is throwaway now, and there is
> a
> > lot of wasted energy inmanufacturing. A more appropriate attitude at this
> time
> > would be conservation of energy by having
> > designs that are easily upgradable and interchangable, but this goes
> against
> > the capitalist principles
> > of manufacturers.
>
> I've said it before, I'm a Capitalist by nature and proud of it.
>
How can you be proud of a society where, like yeast we are drowning in our own
dung (in yeasts' case thatis alcohol), in our case it is predominantly carbon
dioxide, and yet the biggest producers of dung are
revered??
> > > On that note, surely you accept that Emmigration is ok and Immigration
> is
> > > not. Someone somewhere is taking ours onboard and we have special
> > > conditions? Ok if there's a reason it's acceptable. (another pun)
> > >
> >
> > I think the levels of emigration are smaller, probably since USA doesn't
> take
> > many brits anymore.
>
> Come on Jeff. Its seems ok for Emmigration but not Emmigration
>
Didn't we have this conversation about managing net population levels (by
restricting immigration)in order to keep the economy stable?
> As plain as I can explain:- The "have nots"! will always criticise those
> previous have nots that have become "Haves" We all start with sod all,
> unless you have inherited.
>
> > > Sorry, I could'nt agree with any of Hitler's conceps and practices
>
> > Sorted out the German Economy tho
>
> What, by the massacre of millions of Jews?
I think the Romans killed a million Jews in Jerusalem shortly after the
disciples left due to a sillyinsurrection. Yet we like many things about the
Romans. Killing is wrong obviously (to anyone
with any moral sense).
However, the turnaround of the german economy from 1920s to 1940
was miraculous. There could be some lessons in there (as long as you ignore the
"final solution" and the
prior pogroms etc, which I think were unrelated to the turnaround of the german
economy).
Skinheads would of course prefer there to be a link, but i think that is
wishful thinking on their part.
> > I suppose what I'm saying is, what good is it to you to allow other
> (richer)
> > people into your countryif all that happens is you are dispossessed of
> your
> > country. The effect I suppose you are after is more
> > like a trickle down of wealth. This requires better management than we've
> seen
> > to date.
>
> Do you suggest that the richer or well off people of Wales move out?
>
You mean they don't anyway?
Llion
> Llion wrote:
> I was talking about tax rates being an additional way of controlling the
> economy in addition to therather awkward old tool of interest rates.
Obviously
> if you lower interest rates, high street spending goes
> up assuming unrestricted credit, however your currency drops in value
(people
> move accounts to
> countries with higher interest rates - to get more interest..).
I understand that Jeff and agree with it. Should I have put so many ŁK's"
into foreign shares last year or should I feel guilty?
>However, say
> you wanted to lower
> interest rates (to lower your currency), but didn't want to spark
inflation by
> causing a furious spending
> spree, you could increase VAT ie Sales Tax.
Yes and make the consumer pay more without the same rights as those
registered to claim back in a quarterly return? If you chose that option,
you might as well freeze their pay or pay them less.
> I was not linking tax with geography, merely pointing out that the Control
> System (Interest Rates and Tax)
> is set with the majority of people in mind i.e. people in the South East
who
> make up the majority.
I doubt very much whether anyone gets priority here. The problem seems to me
to be that the poorer people are more effected by these changes than the
better off. The same rules apply to all surely. If not please explain how
certain people, the Majority as you put it benefit differently.
> The economy of the South East of England is pretty wierd compared to the
rest
> of the UK and
> Europe, and probably has been for hundreds of years, stuffed with at least
10
> times as many people as Paris
> (I hope my figures are up to date), and with a emphasis on Financial
Markets
> and Insurance, and nebulous
> things like that, whereas South Wales, Scotland and North of England is
far
> more plain Industrial.
The access infrastructure is somewhat different, do'nt you think, Heathrow,
Gatwick, Luton, M1 M4, M40 etc.
> If Wales could join the Euro zone, we might find Taxation policies and
Interest
> Rates (and therefore
> currency value) more amenable to our local economy.
Ahh! on that note, do we collect our entite taxation revenue from that
point? Please say yes or no.
> Both. A lot of ills would be cured by a bill of rights.
On a universally level playing field from the onset?
> What free market if the conditions are managed to benefit one group of
> people(albeit the majority). The UK never prospered through a liberal free
> market BTW,
What's your solution Jeff? I'm still bewildered by this majority term as
though they're given preferential treatment.
> Yes, it is my second limited company. It looks like I might be bought out
soon
> andgiven a Directorship in the company that is buying me out.
Sorry for this comment Jeff, but I must say it. Not only have you a Limited
company, but two. Have I misunderstood the meaning of Capitalism here. I'll
re-iterate it's meaning anyway. No offence,. but it sounds like:- "A person
who owns capital and is based on private ownership of the means of
production, characterised: to be allowed the freedom to manage their
business for profit" By what you've told this Newsgroup, you are a
capitalist.
> > Sorry, can't possibly see how communism can be a better method of
> > government. I'd vote Plaid before that lot.
> I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying there were some good things about
it,
> just likethere were some good things about Hitler's regime (buses ran on
time),
> and some
> good things about Maggie's rule (payment of National Debt).
Jeff, Hitler could'nt die soon enough. Cancer on two legs. The lowest form
of life, ever! and whatever good anyone can claim of his achievements, were
somewhat cancelled out by his sheer evil
> How can you be proud of a society where, like yeast we are drowning in our
own
> dung (in yeasts' case thatis alcohol), in our case it is predominantly
carbon
> dioxide, and yet the biggest producers of dung are
> revered??
Dress it up how you like Jeff. After your second Directorship staus
revelation, you're in the same boat!
> > Come on Jeff. Its seems ok for Emmigration but not Emmigration
> >
>
> Didn't we have this conversation about managing net population levels (by
> restricting immigration)in order to keep the economy stable?
Yes we did and that's what I wanted to hear.
> I think the Romans killed a million Jews in Jerusalem shortly after the
> disciples left due to a sillyinsurrection. Yet we like many things about
the
> Romans. Killing is wrong obviously (to anyone
> with any moral sense).
Pretty desperate measures to improve the economy is'nt it?
> However, the turnaround of the german economy from 1920s to 1940
> was miraculous. There could be some lessons in there (as long as you
ignore the
> "final solution" and the
> prior pogroms etc, which I think were unrelated to the turnaround of the
german
> economy).
I would tend to believe that many lessons were learnt. Not to massacre
millions of Jews being predominantly in people's minds.
> > Do you suggest that the richer or well off people of Wales move out?
> >
>
> You mean they don't anyway?
No, I mean:- "Do you suggest that the richer or well off people of Wales
move out"?
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> Jeff Davies <je...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39B2EABD...@llandre.freeserve.co.uk...
> > Llion wrote:
> >
> > Why, I put cash into shares, made a bundle, and I'm happy. Things are a
> > bit too
> > wobblymarket
> > wise for me at the moment. (can't make sense of the IT market at the
> > mo.).
> > I think it was an example. I think I've lost the plot a bit here, I
> > don't know
> > where you're coming
> > from now.
>
> You should do Jeff. You quoted :- "However, your currency drops in value.
> People move accounts to Countries with higher interest rates to get more
> interest" From my interpretation under the context of an example of an
> adverse effecton "our" economy.
>
Why is this necessarily so bad? I think it is largely unimportant, since
trickledown happensless and less. We are talking about short term capital here.
Someone having their money in a
bank account in your country for 3 years doesn't make much difference no matter
how large the sum.
Often the banks invest the money elsewhere in any case.
> > > Yes and make the consumer pay more without the same rights as those
> > > registered to claim back in a quarterly return? If you chose that
> option,
> > > you might as well freeze their pay or pay them less.
> >
> > This was just an example of tax being used to control economy in
> > addition to
> > the blunt
> > instrumentof Interest rates.
>
> I know Jeff. Simply iterating that it's a pretty crap option that should'nt
> even be considered. Something you highlighted as a possible option.
>
But taxation policy is used every day in all countries to affect the economy.I
know that "captialists" would prefer a total absence of state (and tax)
ultimately.
Take for example all financial products - pensions, life assurance etc etc
these are just savings policies with different taxation regimes. Britain ties
to attract investment
by having more lenient taxation policies for corporates. To say it is a crap
option is rather peculiar
unless you are taking my example of a sales tax. VAT was a conservative
invention BTW.
> > Regional differences in economics. For whatever historical reasons,
> > certain
> > types of business
> > have flourished in certain regions within the UK. The recent high pound
> > favours
> > markets,
> > insurance etc. more than it does manufacturing. Although tax policies
> > are the
> > hard face
> > (currency overvaluation being the rock).
>
> If we can not highlight and prove that a certain region receives
> preferential treatment, should we mention the issue other than, "Ah, they're
> doing well" I'm asking you the question over and over. You still have'nt
> elaborated about this regional preferential treatment bit.
>
Yes I have. There are regional differences in business type. In agricultural
and industrial areas, namelyScotland, Wales, North of England, they have been
calling for a year for a lower pound (ie low interest rates).
However, the city will not be improved by a lower pound.
And guess what - no lower pound in sight. (Apart from the crash down to $1.40
in the last few days).
> > > The access infrastructure is somewhat different, do'nt you think,
> Heathrow,
> > > Gatwick, Luton, M1 M4, M40 etc.
>
> > As I work in Slough pretty often, and occcaisionally in Helsinki, I know
> > what
> > you are
> > talking about.
> > Heathrow is the busiest airport in Europe isn;t it?
>
> We are talking about the divisions are'nt we. North and South and the
> reasons for it. I doubt whether anyone gives two hoots about where you or I
> have been or achieved for that matter. Let's stick to the subject. This is
> becoming pretty exhaustive and on a pretty "should be" simplistic subject.
>
Masons starting the first world war?
> > > > If Wales could join the Euro zone, we might find Taxation policies and
> > > Interest
> > > > Rates (and therefore
> > > > currency value) more amenable to our local economy.
> > >
> > > Ahh! on that note, do we collect our entite taxation revenue from that
> > > point? Please say yes or no.
> > >
> >
> > ?? Don't understand sorry.
>
> Forget that I asked Jeff. Let it go. (please)
>
> > > > Both. A lot of ills would be cured by a bill of rights.
> > >
> > > On a universally level playing field from the onset?
> > >
> >
> > Well some pretty major changes happened immediately after the last
> > war.(Labour
> > goverment),
>
> Jeff, please do'nt take this personally. Can we forget the war and anything
> to do with Countries irrelevant to the thread?
>
Cool.
> > I think a reasonably level playing field has been established since
> > that, but
> > successive
> > governments have become far more tuned to the wishes of the majority
> > instead of
>
> Accomodating for the majority that voted the Party into government? I ask
> you over and over to define the characteristics of the "majority", but fail
> to receive a direct answer. (begining to feel like Jeremy paxman, but with a
> smaller audience. (five instead of 10 million)
>
Population of the South East of England with bias away from Agriculture
andManufacturing, unlike Scotland, Wales, North of England.
> > catering for all. Obviously even a benign king (dictator) wouldn't be
> > bad to
> > live under,
> > just as socially responsible democratically elected governments ...
> > however, to
> > have
> > rights established in a bill would protect all when non-responsibles
> > were in
> > power.
>
> Relevance to thread? Are we on the same subject Jeff?
>
Masons starting the first world war? I think the thread had drifted anyways
before I came along.
> > > Sorry for this comment Jeff, but I must say it. Not only have you a
> Limited
> > > company, but two. Have I misunderstood the meaning of Capitalism here.
> I'll
> > > re-iterate it's meaning anyway. No offence,. but it sounds like:- "A
> person
> > > who owns capital and is based on private ownership of the means of
> > > production, characterised: to be allowed the freedom to manage their
> > > business for profit" By what you've told this Newsgroup, you are a
> > > capitalist.
>
> > I do what I have to do to survive, just like I would do in a Kingdom or
> > a
> > Socialist Republic.
> > If I were to call myself a capitalist, I would essentially be saying
> > there is
> > no other way, and
> > no lessons to be learned from any other form of human structure.
> > But I prefer to look at all types of government and see what is bad a
> > good in
> > all.
>
> Jeff, like I said, dress it up (like you have) any way you want, you are a
> Capitalist. I've only one Company and therefore less of a Capitalist than
> you are. I admit it. what's the difficulty? Come on Jef you can do it. Say
> it after me:- "I do'nt want to admit it, I would love to be perceived as a
> Socialist with sympathy for Communism, but I'm "unfortunately" a
> Capitalist". You can do it Jeff, I'm right behind you, honest!
>
Karl Marx was married to Jenny von Hapsburg (blue blood). He still had a hand
in setting up the firstcommunist state (Paris) despite being bankrolled
by Engels.
My attitudes don't necessarily have to be reflected in the way I have found to
stay alive.
(another example might be folks on top of the andes eating friends to stay
alive).
> > The principle employed in Germany to reverse the economic decay was to
> > source
> > as much as
> > possible in country. You see this in Ireland now, by the way. If they
> > can, they
> > buy local, or if there
> > is no local business, they start a local business to supply them.
>
> Hergest is something I must seriously consider! Thats's a Gwynedd looney bin
> BTW.
>
> > Other than this, Hitler was a complete lunatic, and a vegetarian to boot
> > (this is a joke - I was vegan myself for a few years).
>
> Really, a vegan? TTP
>
> > I think it is wrong to condemn Hitlers, Saddams etc as depraved
> > lunatics. If
> > you try to understand why
> > they were like they were (sometimes they might just simply be depraved
> > lunatics), perhaps we could get
> > some fore-warning as to the next one who is likely to loom up. (and lock
> > them
> > up).
>
> Jeff, do'nt want to speak on behalf of any group but, I could'nt give a fuck
> about Hitler or Saddam or any subject that includes them. If you want to
> include them, perhaps you could start the relevant thread.
>
> > > Dress it up how you like Jeff. After your second Directorship staus
> > > revelation, you're in the same boat!
>
> > Individually all we can do is talk. If enough talk, we can maybe change
> > things.The seeds of change are
> > there, even in california, there is a law whereby all new cars
> > must be zero emission by 2015. I don't know if this is motivated to
> > reduce
> > reliance on
> > oil from the south east.
>
> I am now completely convinced that you are taking something that I'm not.
> Can I try some?
>
> > > Pretty desperate measures to improve the economy is'nt it?
>
> > Yes I would in no way condone anything that is immoral, as killing is.
> > All I
> > was saying was that
> > despite the massive killing engaged in by the Romans (Jerusalem,
> > Carthage,
> > Sicilly, Spain etc etc),
> > we can still look at Roman remains, even Ampitheaters (with the horror
> > often
> > practiced within their
> > walls), and marvel at their architecture.
> > Britain invented the Concentration camp, but there were good things
> > about the
> > British Empire.
> > It is not easy to find examples of pure, spiritual people who do no evil
> > things
> > (even King David
> > of Israel did some awful things).
>
> I understand that you enjoy displaying your knowledge of history, but I
> doubt whether this has any relevance to this NG, any more that me going on
> about SHF units and Travelling Wave Power Amplifiers.
>
It was following our "thread" of discussion which was not necessarily the one
in the subject line.The thread had deviated before I joined the discussions. I
wouldn't really have commented on
"Masons starting the first world war".
> > > No, I mean:- "Do you suggest that the richer or well off people of
> Wales
> > > move out"?
> >
> > I can't remember ever saying that, or anything like that.Anyway,
> > I am enjoying these discussions.
>
> It's a question that you have declined to answer. Simple as that and I ask
> it again. Please answer. Yes or no. Or ignore it and thus answer in the
> indirect way.
>
Ok the answer is "No". But I can't understand the relevance of the question to
masons starting thefirst world war.
Llion
> Why is this necessarily so bad? I think it is largely unimportant, since
> trickledown happensless and less. We are talking about short term capital
here.
> Someone having their money in a
> bank account in your country for 3 years doesn't make much difference no
matter
> how large the sum.
> Often the banks invest the money elsewhere in any case.
I understand that. Just wandered from your previous posting what your point
was. Maybe I missed the point.
> > I know Jeff. Simply iterating that it's a pretty crap option that
should'nt
> > even be considered. Something you highlighted as a possible option.
> But taxation policy is used every day in all countries to affect the
economy.I
> know that "captialists" would prefer a total absence of state (and tax)
> ultimately.
Come on Jeff, I doubt whether increased taxation will improve anything for
anyone. Increase it, the pay packet of the norm decreases. Consumers pay
more for goods, etc... Granted the likes of the NHS, Policing, education and
so on should thereafter improve and that's a big "should" Look at Uk fuel
taxation, highest in Europe and effects everyone and for the worst if I may
add.
> Take for example all financial products - pensions, life assurance etc etc
> these are just savings policies with different taxation regimes. Britain
ties
> to attract investment
Inward investment, which in turn generally provides jobs.
> by having more lenient taxation policies for corporates. To say it is a
crap
> option is rather peculiar
Not really. You know full well that the Limited Company (Corporate) taxation
is at 20% at the lower and of the scale. Should companies become
partnerships and go for the 40% tax bracket at somewhere in the 30K per
annum bracket? Would'nt call it lenient. I'd call an increase to the same
as "Crap". It's an incentive for Companies to develop and be "able" to
employ people. It certainly aids and provides a limited platform from which
to become founded and established as well as lessening a burden on everyones
security from the Company itself to the security of the employee. Screw the
Company and the employee will also suffer. You should certainly be aware of
that.
> unless you are taking my example of a sales tax. VAT was a conservative
> invention BTW.
I realise that and like many others I hate collecting it for free for
Customs and Excise every quarter. Torries also invented the Small Firms Loan
Guarantee Scheme. Without it I would'nt have a Company. Do'nt claim to be a
Torry, but from what I've seen so far and to catch up on them on buisness
matters, the other Parties have a long way to go. In fact, some Parties I
could mention should really attend elementary lessons.
> Yes I have. There are regional differences in business type. In
agricultural
> and industrial areas, namelyScotland, Wales, North of England, they have
been
> calling for a year for a lower pound (ie low interest rates).
> However, the city will not be improved by a lower pound.
> And guess what - no lower pound in sight. (Apart from the crash down to
$1.40
> in the last few days).
Still fail to see places gaining preferential treatment
> Masons starting the first world war?
Fair point. I think that we were drifting a bit when some bizzare places on
the globe were mentioned.
> Population of the South East of England with bias away from Agriculture
> andManufacturing, unlike Scotland, Wales, North of England.
What can I say? That's Life. Different places. I doubt whether anyone
deliberately provides preferential treatment towards these areas. What is
there is there.
> Karl Marx was married to Jenny von Hapsburg (blue blood). He still had a
hand
> in setting up the firstcommunist state (Paris) despite being bankrolled
> by Engels.
> My attitudes don't necessarily have to be reflected in the way I have
found to
> stay alive.
I can see that. that's the baffling bit.
> (another example might be folks on top of the andes eating friends to stay
> alive).
rather an extreme analogy?
> It was following our "thread" of discussion which was not necessarily the
one
> in the subject line.The thread had deviated before I joined the
discussions. I
> wouldn't really have commented on
> "Masons starting the first world war".
I understand that Jeff and apologise for that statement. However, we were
discussing economics and immigration and it's effect on Wales. I simply
failed to see the relevance of taking a trip back in time and going on a
round the World cruise.
> Ok the answer is "No". But I can't understand the relevance of the
question to
> masons starting thefirst world war.
It does'nt Jeff. The "No" would suffice.
Regards,
Llion
Jeff Davies
> > But taxation policy is used every day in all countries to affect the
> economy.I
> > know that "captialists" would prefer a total absence of state (and tax)
> > ultimately.
>
> Come on Jeff, I doubt whether increased taxation will improve anything for
> anyone. Increase it, the pay packet of the norm decreases. Consumers pay
> more for goods, etc... Granted the likes of the NHS, Policing, education and
> so on should thereafter improve and that's a big "should" Look at Uk fuel
> taxation, highest in Europe and effects everyone and for the worst if I may
> add.
>
Well our economy is booming supposedly. Long term it is a good policy to
tax
fuel.
Say for example OPEC tomorrow doubled the price of crude oil. USA
economy would
collapse
since it is based on cheap energy. In the UK we could alleviate this by
just
reducing tax. Quite
sensible really. (and maybe we might be more conservative with it as
well).
I think Maggie might have been motivated with oil in the Falklands war,
and
maybe closing pits in UK
is one way to keep our coal for later.
> Not really. You know full well that the Limited Company (Corporate) taxation
> is at 20% at the lower and of the scale. Should companies become
> partnerships and go for the 40% tax bracket at somewhere in the 30K per
> annum bracket? Would'nt call it lenient. I'd call an increase to the same
> as "Crap". It's an incentive for Companies to develop and be "able" to
> employ people. It certainly aids and provides a limited platform from which
> to become founded and established as well as lessening a burden on everyones
> security from the Company itself to the security of the employee. Screw the
> Company and the employee will also suffer. You should certainly be aware of
> that.
>
I know what you mean actually. At the low end it's not too good.
I meant I think corporate taxation islenient in the billion pound
companies (or
so I am led to beleive).
> > unless you are taking my example of a sales tax. VAT was a conservative
> > invention BTW.
>
> I realise that and like many others I hate collecting it for free for
> Customs and Excise every quarter. Torries also invented the Small Firms Loan
> Guarantee Scheme. Without it I would'nt have a Company. Do'nt claim to be a
> Torry, but from what I've seen so far and to catch up on them on buisness
> matters, the other Parties have a long way to go. In fact, some Parties I
> could mention should really attend elementary lessons.
>
It would be nice if there was no VAT, and all was collected by "income
tax".
Corporate Tax shouldn't startuntil around 10K or so.
> Still fail to see places gaining preferential treatment
>
Perhaps I phrased this wrong. What I mean is the taxation conditions
favour
certain regions of the UK
as opposed to those biased towards agriculture and manufacturing.
> > Karl Marx was married to Jenny von Hapsburg (blue blood). He still had a
> hand
> > in setting up the firstcommunist state (Paris) despite being bankrolled
> > by Engels.
> > My attitudes don't necessarily have to be reflected in the way I have
> found to
> > stay alive.
>
> I can see that. that's the baffling bit.
>
I'm actually catholic, so I can't be too socialist. On that note, I'll
leave
you have the last word..
It's quite nice (in a bizarre way) having this kind of conversation,
don't you
think?
Jeff Davies
David Currie
> Llion wrote:
>
> > > But taxation policy is used every day in all countries to affect the
> > economy.I
> > > know that "captialists" would prefer a total absence of state (and
tax)
> > > ultimately.
> >
> > Come on Jeff, I doubt whether increased taxation will improve anything
for
> > anyone. Increase it, the pay packet of the norm decreases. Consumers pay
> > more for goods, etc... Granted the likes of the NHS, Policing, education
and
> > so on should thereafter improve and that's a big "should" Look at Uk
fuel
> > taxation, highest in Europe and effects everyone and for the worst if I
may
> > add.
If you look at the total cost of motoring you find a different story.
Llion
> Llion wrote:
> Well our economy is booming supposedly. Long term it is a good policy to
> tax
> fuel.
How can you say that when an attempt to follow the French protest is
imminent? No claim to be a prophet. Just seems pretty obvious in due course.
> I think Maggie might have been motivated with oil in the Falklands war,
> and
> maybe closing pits in UK
> is one way to keep our coal for later.
Do you really believe that's the motive?
> I know what you mean actually. At the low end it's not too good.
> I meant I think corporate taxation islenient in the billion pound
> companies (or
> so I am led to beleive).
What's the average by population of those effected? do'nt know about the
leniency bit Jeff. tend to believe that major corporates support major
staff. Major staff contribute to a major impact on the economy.
> It would be nice if there was no VAT, and all was collected by "income
> tax".
Agree with that 100% Unfortunately the scrapping of the same would make
thousands redundant. Mind you, I'd still press the button to end it all. As
you are aware, the people being really ripped off are the general product
consumers, i.e the general public.
> Corporate Tax shouldn't start until around 10K or so.
Is there a point being a Limited Company at that threshold?
> Perhaps I phrased this wrong. What I mean is the taxation conditions
> favour
> certain regions of the UK
> as opposed to those biased towards agriculture and manufacturing.
Yes, very probable. I'm just wandering whether it's a case of:- that's where
you are and that's the effect , or you live over there and we'll take extra
care of you. I just doubt very much whether it's the latter. After saying
that, I still believe there is a North \South divide on the distribution of
wealth. Yet again, there are reasons for it, with population being part of
the overall equation.
> I'm actually catholic, so I can't be too socialist. On that note, I'll
> leave
> you have the last word..
> It's quite nice (in a bizarre way) having this kind of conversation,
> don't you
> think?
A Socialist, Communist and Capitalist has surely it's place. How unbalanced
it would be to have just any one of the lot. Last word? all yours. Nice
conversation? Yup, I think so.
All the best.
Regards,
Llion
Llion
David Currie <davidc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8p6fkg$fhk$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> If you look at the total cost of motoring you find a different story.
Please elaborate?
Regards,
Llion
gerryan...@hotmail.com
I'm not of the political type, just as the the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes aren't.
My father was a member of the RAOB until his untimely death at the age of 53 due
to a cerebral aneurism, an ex policeman.
I really wish that critics of both organisations would look further into them before laying blame at their feet.
My dad -when I asked him where he was going -to which he replied- "The Buffs",'We help people'.
Many years later, I joined "The Buffs" in his memory and the elders sort of gave me advice(I was unemployed in the '80's when I joined)as to which local firms were looking for staff. A bit like a friend in the pub, saying, "I've heard...."!
Both movements are not in the least clandestine or culpable of inciting social unrest.
They just want to help their immediate neighbours, raise money for transport to hospital for the elderly, unpaid visitors to anyone in need, provision of food and/or assistance with heating appliances for the elderly, paid for out of the member's own pocket if they can afford to do that. If not, they hold a conference, and pool their finances in order to fund heating payments for those less well-off.
I may be one of those members(though I can't attend meetings, due to kiddies)trying to help others in less fortunate circumstances, as do the "Rotary" Club, the, "Lions' Club in Devon and elsewhere in this land.
Regards, Gerry E.Poulson
P.S. "FF"'s "Take me out"