Quote by Steve
Commonwealth Games ?
I'm with Usain Bolt ;-)
wb Steve :thumbup:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
GnV
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 73
Straight Female, 71
France
Forum
Quote by Katniss
Cubes you are so gonna have to give me some lessons on how to post pics in the forum, i still cant get the hang of it
But :clap: on your crush, i fancied that burd a bit as well :rascal:
You need meaty's guide...
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/56781.html
Quote by deancannock
Toots.....take a look and read again...I said anyone of any political colour or party that is found guilty of a cover up should be condemned, and face the full action of the law. Yes that includes Blair...yes I have said Blair has a lot to answer for in the Iraq war. I say that because we wait till the papers are released of cabinet meetings, to see what information he was given. At the time I myself and indeed other parties were in favour of the action based on the information we were given !!! Now IF...notice that word IF again....it is found to be true that Blair had other information that would indicate no weapons of mass destruction were there, then he should face the courts and any action that would result from that. However this is once again trying to create a smoke screen and divert attention. Maybe start a new thread if you wish to discuss the Iraq war. However I would ask you to answer my question as posed 3 times to you. If it is shown that Mrs Thatcher did cover up Abuse, by her cabinet members, then will you condemn her, and change your view that she was this all wonderful leader !! Or maybe its you that in denial.
GNV.....Saville has had his name removed from the honours list that he received. His name will not appear in any official list. Not sure if you consider this stripping him of his title or not...but it does show some action can be taken evn if people are deceased.
Max...Mrs Thatcher can't be taken to court.....but as above neither was Jimmy Saville....but surely you not going to try and defend his innocence !! And the link I gace was from The Mirror....but if you care to google it...every newspaper reported it....as did the BBC and reuters....so not an isolated case....if there wasn't a case to answer, why is Teresa May setting up an enquiry !!
Also you throw up the name of John Peel.....I have no idea about that....but whatever....two wrongs do not make a right.... !!!
Oh dear, signs of desperation here dean.
I guess Jimmy Savile is pretty gutted at having his name removed from the list (whatever list) if that has been the case.
The reference to John Peelwas not directed at you I think, it was at sansoucis who has it mentioned in his SH Forum signature...
As my old Gran used to say, none as blind as them that don't want to see :lol2:
Quote by sanssouci
had his honours stripped etc.
Oh? and where did you get that little gem from?
If I'm not mistaken, awards such as a Knighthood die with the recipient. There was nothing to 'strip'.
Remaining assets maybe, but that may ultimately be a matter for the Courts to determine unless the executors distribute the estate unchallenged to 'victims' with the consent of the beneficiaries in Probate.
Quote by Max777
Snip.......,
Maybe more importantly......you could always tell us what your view would be if Mrs Thatcher is found guilty.......I answer quite clear with my questions....But it seems others don't want to answer that !!!!
Dean, two things. Thatcher will NEVER be found guilty. She is dead and therefore can never be trialled. Secondly, you are asking people to condemn her on the say so of an article in the Daily Mirror, a rag that hates Thatcher and all she stood for.
You say you have weighed up the evidence and therefore you think it's likely she is guilty of the allegations made in the Red Top. Please enlighten me as to the 'evidence'?
c'mon Max. Dean doesn't need evidence. Tom Watson said it's true, so it must be.
No different to Bliar's lies about WMD and sexed up dossiers and Brown saying that troops were given enough personal kit for desert warfare...
The difference is, as you say, MT is dead but Tom Watson hasn't fingered (no pun intended) Bliar and Brown - yet
Typical communist; screw those who can't defend themselves and let the party elite go free
Quote by deancannock
I admired Jimmy Saville and his dedication to help those less well off than himself and help the children in the hospitals he visited, the marathons he ran for charity, I would have felt honoured to have him come to my home.
Of course I did not know then what I know now, I am sure there are many people who felt the same as me before it became public knowledge about his evil habits, I think anyone who did know and it can be proved they knew but protected him should be charged with aiding and abetting but a lot of people who did not know will be as appalled as the rest of us and regret inviting him to political and social events.
100% mids....we can all admire people....Jim'ill fix it and Rolf Harris on a Saturday was part of my upbringing...I used to love it. I used to love Gary Glitter songs....I used to think Cyril Smith was a fuuny guy !!!
However as the truth has emerged we all see them in a different light. No matter how much money Jimmy Saville raised, there will never be any excuse for his actions and abuse of children and handicapped kids. Cyril Smith may well of been a good MP....but nothing will ever excuse his actions and abuse of young boys. History will see these people for what they were.....evil child abusers. And I think anyone that knew about these things deserves to be dragged up and shamed the same. If they would of spoken out at the time, it may well of stopped the abuse of others. I think there will be many at the BBC that actually knew about the activities of Saville and Rolf Harris and others, but because they were famous decided to turn a blind eye to it all. They deserved to be shamed.
And yes....I think there are many in the corridors of power of Westminster that will know of activities that went on. They to deserve to be names and shamed...no matter how low or high ranking they are...and no matter what political colour they wear. there should be no hiding place for abusers or anyone that assisted by turning a blind eye.........and if that means us all having a total different view of someone....then that is the way it should be !!
Dean, I'm sure that the whole forum will agree with you regarding the sexual abuse of children. Where the difference lies, is that you have admitted that because of your hatred for Thatcher, you want the allegations to be true, whereas more fair minded folk are inclined to wait and see if there is any truth in the allegations before condemning.
NO....I have said...I think they will be shown to be true !! I have looked at the evidence that has been presented thus far...as in the Jimmy Saville case...(and yes I was knocked for that as well, but to me you could see it was quite clear)...I think the case will be shown to be correct. I have clearly stated above that I would condemn any person of any political colour. However it seems others are not willing to make that easy statement. Indeed are already trying to put excuses...GNV even saying it shouldn't even be investigated because she is dead and more important things around !!!
Oh dean, you do love to twist things don't you.
I did not say that it should not be investigated. What I did say is that there are surely priorities and dealing with any current or potential abuse cases as a priority to historical ones is paramount where there are limited resources in order to make every effort to protect vulnerable people who may be being abused now. Your mate Tom Watson saw to it that the most able person in the UK - appointed to do just that - was dissed and took her bat home with the inevitable delays now to be experienced as a new candidate is sought and appointed. I'm sure Mr Watson is very proud of his record.
I welcome the action taken by Police forces throughout the Country yesterday in arresting a number of suspects. However, if there is a case to answer (just being arrested isn't a reason per se to 'condemn' them) and it is deemed by the CPS as in the public interest to prosecute them - (that is the law), it is a matter for the Courts to dish out any punishment if they are convicted.
What I will not agree to is people taking of the law in their own hands such as was the case I outlined earlier in the thread. In the context of the Miner's strike, I too am old enough to remember summary justice being carried out by striking miners who hurled a 46 pound lump of concrete off a road bridge and killed a taxi driver doing nothing more than his job. If you can't remember the name of the taxi driver, it was David James Wilkie.
But, I'm sure you'll find some perverse justification for that as well as your hatred for MT.
Simply, it is not for you or anyone else for that matter to 'condemn'. That is the function of the Law in a civilised society. To interfere with the process of justice by making ill-advised claims or worse - taking precipitate action results often in the very justice that is sought being denied and that is an insult to the very core of everything that is right and decent in society.
Quote by Max777
Dean, I'm sure that the whole forum will agree with you regarding the sexual abuse of children. Where the difference lies, is that you have admitted that because of your hatred for Thatcher, you want the allegations to be true, whereas more fair minded folk are inclined to wait and see if there is any truth in the allegations before condemning.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Quote by deancannock
and while Rome burns... Nero fiddles
Shocking revelations today - again - about the appalling mistreatment of vulnerable elderly people in care homes including video evidence from a hidden camera in one old lady's room being physically and roughly manhandled by 'carers'.
Still, that doesn't count does it. Sod 'em. Must chase the dream of discrediting MT with historical abuse claims.
What is wrong with you people?
So you want people to forget abuse eh.....its okay let them suffer ?
NO EXCUSES !!
No, your mate Tom Watson is the one who wants to do that.
All you seem to want to do is chase a dream. The Police will go where the evidence takes them. That's their job.
and while Rome burns... Nero fiddles
Shocking revelations today - again - about the appalling mistreatment of vulnerable elderly people in care homes including video evidence from a hidden camera in one old lady's room being physically and roughly manhandled by 'carers'.
Still, that doesn't count does it. Sod 'em. Must chase the dream of discrediting MT with historical abuse claims.
What is wrong with you people?
Shocking revelations today - again - about the appalling mistreatment of vulnerable elderly people in care homes including video evidence from a hidden camera in one old lady's room being physically and roughly manhandled by 'carers'.
Still, that doesn't count does it. Sod 'em. Must chase the dream of discrediting MT with historical abuse claims.
What is wrong with you people?
Quote by deancannock
Openly condemned anyone that know anything about abuse and did nothing.
Where in this thread do you condemn Gilberthorpe?
See, the difference between you and me and why I won't play your game in condemning MT is that the law and justice is best left to the place where it belongs, the Courts.
The French, whose company I now enjoy more than any other, left scurrilous and petty revenge behind at the French Revolution at the end of the 18th Century having learnt it achieves nothing.
I totally subscribe to that doctrine.
Condemning people and punishing them is the job of the Courts. The word exists in the English language of course but it is in two contexts. What is certain, under the terms of the Magna Carta, is that it is not a right in English law for people to 'condemn' per se without all the evidence and a hearing within the terms and spirit of the law and natural justice. Moreover, a cadaver cannot be tried.
What you seek to do offends everything that is good (what's left of it) in the system of British Justice. There is some evidence that people have been executed by thugs on the streets of Britain because of their belief that someone was a or in some other way 'different' without a shred of proof. I think the last case was particularly horrible. A completely innocent man with disabilities was set on fire in the street by murderous thugs who had no respect for the rule of law.
If that is the sort of society to which you subscribe, then I pity you and will remain ever grateful that we will never, knowingly, have the chance to meet.
you have quoted me saying I condemn anyone that has any connection to abuse.....(..something you seem unable to do...)...Is Gilberthorpe not anyone !! I won't turn a blind eye to anyone....I also would also openly condemn anyone that would try and take the law into their own hands. But what we do know is that there are abuse going on right now, and people who know are not coming forward. This is what I condemn....and I am simply appalled that it seems others can not bring themselves to say the same.
Empty, empty words and platitudes.
Actions speak louder than words.
My apologies for readdressing this point but, Teresa May, the Home Secretary had taken action to put an end to abuse but the likes of your hero Tom Watson dissed the very able and hugely experienced retired Family and Children High Court Judge Baroness Butler-Sloss - the most able of people to get to the bottom of it and she resigned before even starting the enquiry as a consequence. I personally don't blame her. She has given a lifetime of service to the good of family values and it must be an enormous disappointment to her to be treated so badly by those who purport to be the self styled saviours of everything decent in British society and who then seek to dishonour the very proper public service of her deceased brother as Attorney General.
What point would there be to her enquiry? On completion, instead of getting on with the job of dealing with the real issues, the enquiry findings would be hidebound by the likes of Watson continuing to question the validity of it.
If your house is on fire, you expect the FB to attend and deal with the immediate problem. If you suffer a heart attack, you expect the medics to attend and deal with medical emergency right now. What you don't want is these vital services to be spending their time looking through the archives to see if your house has been on fire before or your heart has stopped before rather then getting on with the immediate job in hand. There's a time and place for looking at historical events but if there is an immediate need, it should be addressed, immediately. That is what is demanded by the now victims but your attitude is seemingly to spend time chasing shadows out of some weird fetish to do MT down, no matter what. Fuck the current victims, they are irrelevant. It's the tenuous link to MT that demands your attention. And while Rome burns...
If, as you say, it is going on now still, the enquiry was vital to stop it, NOW. I trust you are proud of your self confessed hero Tom Watson for getting quickly towards stopping the hunt for the current perpetrators.
I guess you must be equally proud of yourself for your undying support for him.
Quote by dean
Openly condemned anyone that know anything about abuse and did nothing.
Where in this thread do you condemn Gilberthorpe?
See, the difference between you and me and why I won't play your game in condemning MT is that the law and justice is best left to the place where it belongs, the Courts.
The French, whose company I now enjoy more than any other, left scurrilous and petty revenge behind at the French Revolution at the end of the 18th Century having learnt it achieves nothing.
I totally subscribe to that doctrine.
Condemning people and punishing them is the job of the Courts. The word exists in the English language of course but it is in two contexts. What is certain, under the terms of the Magna Carta, is that it is not a right in English law for people to 'condemn' per se without all the evidence and a hearing within the terms and spirit of the law and natural justice. Moreover, a cadaver cannot be tried.
What you seek to do offends everything that is good (what's left of it) in the system of British Justice. There is some evidence that people have been executed by thugs on the streets of Britain because of their belief that someone was a or in some other way 'different' without a shred of proof. I think the last case was particularly horrible. A completely innocent man with disabilities was set on fire in the street by murderous thugs who had no respect for the rule of law.
If that is the sort of society to which you subscribe, then I pity you and will remain ever grateful that we will never, knowingly, have the chance to meet.
Quote by deancannock
I'm a realist dean. I only deal in fact. There is nothing to condemn.
It's not a simple enough question and well you know it.
Demanding that people answer hypothetical questions in respect of which people can lie through their back teeth (for their own nefarious purposes) knowing full well that they cannot be challenged by the person against whom such accusations are levelled smacks of a communist totalitarian state.
I do not, in any circumstances, subscribe to or play mind games with people on that basis, nor waste valuable time awake chasing (other people's) pipe dreams.
so you think Jimmy Saville was innocent then !!! he was simply set up by communists..lol
I shall simply say I am truly shocked and that anyone is not willing to condemn abuse and anyone that has any association with it.
That is a completely different question to the hypothetical one you have asking.
In this thread, no-one has failed to condemn abuse. What people have refused to do thus far however is play out your silly fantasy that Margaret Thatcher was a raging sex monster.
Still no condemnation from you about Gilberthorpe's admission that he went in search of underage boys and watched them being abused then because he tries to finger MT?
Double standards?
I'm a realist dean. I only deal in fact. There is nothing to condemn.
It's not a simple enough question and well you know it.
Demanding that people answer hypothetical questions in respect of which people can lie through their back teeth (for their own nefarious purposes) knowing full well that they cannot be challenged by the person against whom such accusations are levelled smacks of a communist totalitarian state.
I do not, in any circumstances, subscribe to or play mind games with people on that basis, nor waste valuable time awake chasing (other people's) pipe dreams.
It's not a simple enough question and well you know it.
Demanding that people answer hypothetical questions in respect of which people can lie through their back teeth (for their own nefarious purposes) knowing full well that they cannot be challenged by the person against whom such accusations are levelled smacks of a communist totalitarian state.
I do not, in any circumstances, subscribe to or play mind games with people on that basis, nor waste valuable time awake chasing (other people's) pipe dreams.
Quote by dean
and there is no excuse for anyone that stands by and allows it to happen.
So then, why no condemnation from you about for Gilberthorpe who said he recruited underage boys for sex and stood by, watched them being abused AND DID NOTHING!
There is no credible evidence from this self confessed which links Mrs T to the horrors of this scandal other than he, allegedly, handed her a multi-page dossier which no-one else seems to know about. He was asked if there was any evidence and he effectively said there was not.
Is it just faintly possible that the reason HE has not been prosecuted is that there is NOT A SHRED of evidence to back up this fantasist's claims that Mrs Thatcher was in any way involved, informed or ever aware of the claims he says he made.
Whether the good Baroness ever cast eyes on the letter remains uncertain. A Civil Servant allegedly did (according to the discredited Gilberthorpe) and he also claims he held a meeting with William Hague but William denies a meeting of such substance ever taking place.
So then dean, evidence, not half brained suppositions based on your obvious dislike for the dear Lady.
As I said earlier and will repeat again (since you need it about 3 times before the penny drops) no-one is talking about child abuse as if it didn't matter so stop shedding those crocodile tears and get real!
What is happening now is a more pragmatic approach to ensuring it never happens again.
Both YOU and Tom Watson may want the good Baroness' head on a pike on the railings of the Palace of Westminster BUT, read my lips...
IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!
She is NOT implicated, she never was and it is only in the mind of cretins and chancers that there is any case to answer.
End of.
BTW Your quote "She has been shown to be totally power mad, and would do anything and stab anyone in the back in the process to get what she wanted."
I read recently that Bliar was described as being somewhat 'messianic' when in power. Gordon Brown described a lifelong local Labour voter in somewhat than less endearing terms.
Maybe it just comes with the job...
Quote by suede-head
Jesus ... can't believe the "arguments" here trying to deflect away from the original question.
If She knew ... and of course I think she knew, her Premiership was one based on a dictatorial nature where she worked tirelessly, then of course she should be found guilty of guilt by association.
To hide something of this magnitude, or turn a blind eye to it for fear of how it would look adds to the crime.
I feel just like the BBC both Thatcher and other politicians knew of these rumours and didn't give a rats arse about the victims ... and as said Power does funny things
I look forward to the lies coming out and history judging Thatcher for what she did both good and bad and hopefully some kind of justice being delivered to the victims if it is proved that my hunch is found to be true
It won't be. Of that you can be absolutely certain.
Quote by deancannock
Tom Watson is a tireless campaigner.....he fought against many obstacles put in his way, for the enquiry into telephone hacking.
You may not like his politics.....but you can fault his effort and commitment to the truth.
I have simply asked what people will think IF..and as I keep saying only an IF at this time...it is shown Mrs Thatcher knew and brushed under the carpet, abuse....what would your view of her be.
You seem to be saying...it doesn't matter now...she is dead...so just leave it alone. Well I for one will be glad to see the truth come out, whatever it says.
Then, IF that is so important to you, why you do seemingly defend Tom Watson dissing Baroness Butler-Sloss - the person most qualified in the whole of the UK to conduct this enquiry?
Who would you prefer? Bliar? Mandelson (I think both are a bit busy at the moment making loadsa money
) Surely not Scargill as he is so perfect... Prescott (Oh, he's already tainted with pas normale sexual predelictions isn't he)What I am saying, at the risk of repeating myself, is that importance must surely be attached to making sure it doesn't happen again. The good and decent Baroness would have seen to that but your hero Tom Watson has other agenda...
I don't rate the guy at all... a self serving hypocrite as much as the rest of them. That view has nothing to do with his politics, just him as a person. As once was said by Widdecombe about Michael Howard, he has something of the night about him...
Quote by deancannock
Jimmy saville is dead....Cyril Smith is dead........so you think we should just forget about what they did !!
I really can't believe people can talk about child abuse as if it didn't matter.
FFS dean, calm down!
No-one is talking about child abuse as if it didn't matter!!!
What is happening now is a more pragmatic approach to ensuring it never happens again. That is what is important.
What is disgraceful is the way the Labour Party have been briefing against Baroness Butler-Sloss - the most qualified of all to conduct an enquiry. Your Mr Tom Watson of course leads the fray by welcoming her resignation. A truly sad indictment of his genre.
I wonder if there are skeletons in his wardrobe and looks to see a lesser person appointed who might not go so deep....
Wasn't a very big dossier then, only 20 pages!
It could just have equally been her Christmas Card list for that year. Easy to make these allegations some years later when the facts can't be verified.
Have you ever watched the Queen accept flowers at an event? They are immediately handed back to a 'flunky' (often a Policewoman) to deal with. Yeah, like she's going to stand and read a file of 20 pages whilst she is at some event or other. Her 'bag carrier' would have taken it and she may never have seen the contents.
Who knows? The poor woman is dead - just like you are dead in the water by demanding her titles are handed back.
By the way, did you know that life peerages die with demise of the holder?
It could just have equally been her Christmas Card list for that year. Easy to make these allegations some years later when the facts can't be verified.
Have you ever watched the Queen accept flowers at an event? They are immediately handed back to a 'flunky' (often a Policewoman) to deal with. Yeah, like she's going to stand and read a file of 20 pages whilst she is at some event or other. Her 'bag carrier' would have taken it and she may never have seen the contents.
Who knows? The poor woman is dead - just like you are dead in the water by demanding her titles are handed back.
By the way, did you know that life peerages die with demise of the holder?
Quote by dean
then you post a link which shows she was personally handed a dossier showing these !!!
Proof that she was personally handed this dossier? His word against hers. Oh yes, she can't defend herself can she, she's dead :doh:
Quote by Toots
the miscreants known loosely as the Unions ( Scargill et al )
:scared:
FFS Toots, don't start him on that one again....
I'm outa here
Quote by dean
This has all come out not because of a Conservative, but because of one victim that is linked into the Saville case.
Sorry dean, the revelations about Mrs T cannot be attributed to Watson. They are from a 'left on the shelf' conservative as I said earlier in the thread.
Don't you take the red tops to the bog with you when you go for a dump
For reference:
No mention of Watson there....
Hell hath no fury like a tory toff scorned eh? :grin:
Quote by deancannock
Which 'long lasting peace' was that dean?
And as for the claims by Gilberthorpe about Mrs T in the red top.. well,words fail me. All the people mentioned are dead so he is unable to be taken to task in libel hearings. He's just nothing more than a fantasist with absolutely no real evidence to back up his claims.
Strange you should take notice of a conservative though.
Lying, cheating, self serving communists are your usual diet :grin:
GNV...they said same about Saville case, that he was dead etc.....Do you deny those allegations now and think they should not have been heard, ; swept under the carpet. These allegations of a ring that was around, it seems at about the same time in Westminster, are extremely important, and should be heard. This has all come out not because of a Conservative, but because of one victim that is linked into the Saville case. Tom Watson, one excellent MP, who is like a dog with a bone in these cases ( remembering he was the one that helped expose the phone hacking scandal) is the one who is asking the right questions, of the right people. Personally if she is been shown to have known of ring and decided to sweep it under the carpet, and walk away, then like all others involved in this, she should be stripped of any honours ever bestowed upon her.
If you honestly believe that a post war Prime Minister is fed anything other than what the 'machine' want's the Premier to know, then you are more naïve than I could possibly have given you credit for.
Some of this is recently chronicled in the recent comments by Lord Brittan. He said that he never met anyone without his Permanent Secretary present and dossiers such as he was accused of suppressing would be 'dealt' with by the Civil Service machine of Government. I can well believe it.
See, it is not the politicians per-se who run the Country but the unelected, unaccountable senior cadre of civil servants.
It is very rare that senior politicians are ever fully informed about anything. My own MP, with whom I was well acquainted, was appointed a junior minister in the early years of the Thatcher administration. His personal stories to me about life in one of the great departments of State were fascinating. Being met at the door of his department by a civil servant, escorted to his desk. His "in' tray never being allowed to be empty. Being escorted to the toilet etc etc.
The sitcom "Yes Minister" was never far from the truth.
Which 'long lasting peace' was that dean?
And as for the claims by Gilberthorpe about Mrs T in the red top.. well,words fail me. All the people mentioned are dead so he is unable to be taken to task in libel hearings. He's just nothing more than a fantasist with absolutely no real evidence to back up his claims.
Strange you should take notice of a conservative though.
Lying, cheating, self serving communists are your usual diet :grin:
And as for the claims by Gilberthorpe about Mrs T in the red top.. well,words fail me. All the people mentioned are dead so he is unable to be taken to task in libel hearings. He's just nothing more than a fantasist with absolutely no real evidence to back up his claims.
Strange you should take notice of a conservative though.
Lying, cheating, self serving communists are your usual diet :grin:
Quote by Toots
Britain really is becoming, if it is not already, and acting like a third world tin pot dictatorship raking in billions in local taxes and diverting funds to other than the common good.
Similar to this you mean?
I kind of understandand your point Toots, but I'm not sure they are are actually in the same league tbh.
Perhaps same meat, different gravy dependant upon your point of view to Gordon Brown selling off the gold reserve when at rock bottom prices but leaving people to suffer 3 weeks of smelly rubbish on their doorsteps... not even known in the most deprived places on the planet.
and oh, Jed, don't forget Bury Council who are now going to collect bins (stinking household waste) every THREE weeks...
Now that hardly stacks up as belonging to a Country which can be proud of it's achievements...
Britain really is becoming, if it is not already, and acting like a third world tin pot dictatorship raking in billions in local taxes and diverting funds to other than the common good.
Now that hardly stacks up as belonging to a Country which can be proud of it's achievements...
Britain really is becoming, if it is not already, and acting like a third world tin pot dictatorship raking in billions in local taxes and diverting funds to other than the common good.
Quote by ToshUK
I appreciate women have different aesthetic preferences but do you reckon it feels different - better or worse - for cunnilingus?
Hummmmm
Such clarity. Reminds me of the story about two schoolgirls where one talks to the other about finding a used condom recently on her aunt's verandah. The other girl says "what's a veranda?"
Quote by Chish
Toots:
OK you don't like the BBC? How about Joseph Rowntree organisation? That is where the BBC data came from.
Sorry Chish, I'm not sure that your link proves anything other than remind us about the amount of profit there is in chocolate and why your average Brit is obese from gorging on it as a 'comforter' (which increases their profits further).
Quakers are a peace loving people for sure but could there be something in the fact that they might prefer their vast profits to be distributed in the way they want (by establishing a charitable cause which reduces the amount of tax they pay) rather than entrust the tax they would otherwise pay to further the ends of corrupt and dishonest Governments to distribute as they (the Govt) sees fit?
I'm sure they mean well with the report you cite but, as I'm sure you know, you can prove anything with statistics if you are clever enough.
A small example (closer to my heart lol) is the reference to pensioner poverty. By some magic, in Table 1 of the report, the costs of housing for pensioners is reduced but that is not necessarily as a result of direct Government intervention as may be suggested. What the report authors fail to mention or take proper account of is that a significant proportion of the new generation of 'baby boomers' pensioners actually own their own houses (whereas their parents before them probably continued to pay rent until they were carried out in their box). Not having to pay rent will significantly affect the amount of available disposable funds and lift them out of poverty, statistically at least. Add to this also that pensioners, by and large, eat less as they get older so food bills decline as a natural progression. I know ours has and I'm not even a fully pledged pensioner yet.
So, the jury could still be out. Perhaps reducing pensioner poverty was really to do with Margaret Thatcher's selling off of council homes to tenants? You could realistically prove anything you want to.
Perhaps equally interesting is the fact that two of the report authors are from the LSE. Now they (not the same individuals but the same organisation) have done another study about media bias, particularly in reference to the BBC.
I'll leave you to draw your own inferences...
Quote by Jed
Some abuse our hospitality but not all not even most who come here, and that is our own fault, all we need is immigration controls and we could have even more immigrants coming here but to our benefit not detriment, we could recruit nurses and doctors and dentists and skilled workers on a greater scale that we do now, all we need is to say "you can come here if you can house yourself and pay your way" Australia does it, Jersey does it, the Channel Islands do it, Switzerland does it.
We could tell the EU that we will allow tourists, we will allow workers providing they can prove they have the ability to finance themselves whilst here, that they have medical insurance should they need help, that they can speak enough of our language to be able to look after themselves or will be living with others who can help them.
Hummm
That is basically what the rest of Europe already does... You don't need to 'tell' Europe the UK is going to do it, you just do it!
Having the political will to do it and actually doing it are entirely different things altogether! Blathering on about how great thou art doesn't make you great at all and simply shovelling shed loads of other people's money at mainly imagined problems isn't the work of the great and the good, it smacks of little more than self-aggrandisement.
Britain is currently causing France humongous problems with it's 'open door' land of milk and honey attitude (whilst its own ageing population gets shat on). Why else do people from other nations risk death in small craft in the channel or by clinging to the chassis of lorries crossing on ferries? The rewards are there - a free and easy life style in a too generous host nation.
France is doing the right thing within EU legislation by returning itinerants to the place where they entered but, just like a dog with the scent of a bitch on heat, they just keep coming back.
John Major, when PM, decided on behalf of the UK not to sign up to the Schengen accord to protect Britain's Borders thereby not allowing free passage between Member States as is the case almost everywhere else in Europe. The administration that followed screwed that up with their (now admitted) policy of welcoming, indeed encouraging all-comers with free dosh, free housing, free health care. Little wonder now, everyone else seems to get the consequential problems.
Britain isn't a great nation once again and despite the clarion call "we're all in it together", UK citizens are not. Whereas other nations unashamedly have elitism as the cornerstone of their society, the political elite in Britain shit on their electorate from a very great height and steal their hard earned cash to fund hair brained schemes that exist only to make them look great.
Easy being philanthropic with someone else's cash, isn't it.
