Quote by old_arse
Am I the only one who's willing to consider that this global financial fiasco has been deliberately engineered??
Have a chat with Guls........he'll tell you all about it
Dave_Notts
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
TUC Congress: Public will back us against cuts - Barber
Quote by Stevie J
So far, it hasn't really dawned on the public what is going to happen.
You think the public are really that stupid that they do not know what the future holds?
Quote by Stevie J
Instead, they have been tut-tutting at the slew of stories about how apparently bloated, wasteful and overpaid the public sector is.
It is
Quote by Stevie J
They've read shock horror headlines about skilled Chief Executive and Directors responsible for thousands of staff and a budget of hundreds of millions of pounds having the audacity to earn more than the PM.
They are in charge of one council, of which there are many. The PM is responsible for the running of the country....can you really I mean honestly, not see a difference ?
Quote by Stevie J
And they've talked in pubs up and down the land about the man with nine kids who's earning £30k on the dole, and how the welfare budget can be slashed by billions because it must mean most claimants are on the fiddle.
Can you supply the evidence where they think MOST are on the fiddle? We all know it is only a few but that few need to be stamped out.
Quote by Stevie J
But it is slowly dawning on ministers that there isn't that much excess to cut.
Oh I think you will find there is plenty to cut.....watch this space.
Quote by Stevie J
That some quangos do actually perform a useful function.
One or two may...the rest are a complete waste of money. Prime candidates to be abolished.
Quote by Stevie J
That councils employ far fewer people than they used to.
They used to employ far far too many people, now they just employ far too many.
I can only guess what kind of work you are in.
Cuts WILL be made but if you want anyone to blame, then take a look at Labours spending over the last decade. The welfare budget alone is out of control....hugely out of control.
Your comments above are the exact scaremongering the unions are trying to scare the public with. Yes there will be cuts....yes we will all suffer....we will all have to get used to it and the cuts can start with over bloated councils and quangos.
The union leaders in their minds have not had the power that they once had, and they hate that fact. Now they are seeing an opportunity to try and get back that power. The same power that nearly destroyed Britain in the 70's and the 80's.
IF people want to see this country destroyed beyond repair then let the unions call all these strikes, but the people who will be striking will be the first ones to lose their jobs.
Instead of all the scaremongering around at the moment, let us wait and see where the cuts will come from, and exactly what will be hit, but the unions are now hell bent on trouble.....they are like demons rising from the ashes of the past.
I did hear that only one in four are now members of a union....so they are a minority now and would be a good idea to remember that point.
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Just so that I am clear on what is happening here?.............
The Unions fight an election and yet fail to get their choice of government elected because the rest of the country see's the need for change. Now that the scale of the previous governments disastrous policies which failed miserably by "spending" have been exposed, the new government is faced with the reality of making very harsh cuts. The Union bosses see an opportunity to take on a weak government and re-instate themselves as the force that they once were in the 1970's when they all but destroyed the UK manufacturing industry.
If this is the case then I see clearly that the Union bosses who are paid 6 figure salaries and who will not lose a penny will probably revell in the chance to take on the government and bring the country to its knees by calling ridiculous and iappropriate strikes in the name of the public sector workforce.
Bollocks - wake up and smell the coffee - when the going gets tough the tough get going and we are in very tough times.
:thumbup::thumbup:
what he said^^^
Quote by Dave__Notts
Just to clarify - I wasn't talking about 'your' motives. I have no idea if you were of that mind-set and no reason to assume anything other than what you have said about yourself. I said 'some' of the flying pickets. 'Some' does not mean either 'all' or 'you'.
So how do you know if any of my friends, relatives and marras had the motives you impute to them?
The motives of the pickets that killed a taxi driver going about his lawful job could be brought to the fore, as can the security forces who hit out indiscriminately.
There were terrible scenes during that time and history shows neither side can take the moral highground.
Dave_Notts
The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.
Quote by kentswingers777
That some quangos do actually perform a useful function.
One or two may...the rest are a complete waste of money. Prime candidates to be abolished.
Including the anti-poverty one where they were living it up in expensive hotels all at the tax payers expense.
I'm sorry the is to the daily wail, but I'm sure its true all the same.
Interestingly though, our 'arriet, "interim leader" of the Labour party, said at the TUC yesterday that they have seen a significant increase in their membership since the General Election and that many are disaffected members of the LibDems.
I just wonder how true that actually is.
Quote by awayman
The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
A very fine line indeed. I don't know the case in detail, but there must have been some interesting discussion in the trial about the "guilty mind" - mens rea - state of these two as they heaved the concrete block into the air and cast it down on the taxi. Did they just think it might break the car's aerial, cause a bit of collateral damage? Was the concrete block transported by them to the scene or was it just "handy"?
In this case, I guess it was judged to be manslaughter only because of the lack of premeditation; that it was an act "in the agony of the moment" but either way, they killed some poor sod going about his lawful business.
Sex God
I'm told of a petition at gravesend council for support against cuts and support of the local council
its been running for a month and has a whole 11 public signatures :violin:
its been running for a month and has a whole 11 public signatures :violin:
Quote by GnV
In this case, I guess it was judged to be manslaughter only because of the lack of premeditation; that it was an act "in the agony of the moment" but either way, they killed some poor sod going about his lawful business.
How can the throwing of a brick into the path of an oncoming car which results in the death of someone not be murder is unbelievable.
Still I am sure the law knows best...........not.
Yes they did kill that poor soul going about his daily business, and in my mind they were reckless thugs,and whilst that may not have been an intentional act to kill, it was certainly an act to wound.
I wonder what the family think of that act and the reasons behind it?
Sex God
Quote by awayman
Just to clarify - I wasn't talking about 'your' motives. I have no idea if you were of that mind-set and no reason to assume anything other than what you have said about yourself. I said 'some' of the flying pickets. 'Some' does not mean either 'all' or 'you'.
So how do you know if any of my friends, relatives and marras had the motives you impute to them?
The motives of the pickets that killed a taxi driver going about his lawful job could be brought to the fore, as can the security forces who hit out indiscriminately.
There were terrible scenes during that time and history shows neither side can take the moral highground.
Dave_Notts
The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.
No one of coarse has any evedence of what was in peoples minds as we can not read minds. But we can all read and make our own minds up about things.
*Quote*
Arthur Scargill described what happened next:
"Some of the lads… were a bit dispirited… And then over the hill came a banner and I’ve never seen in my life as many people following a banner. As far as the eye could see it was just a mass of people marching towards Saltley… Our lads were jumping in the air with emotion – fantastic situation… I started to chant… ‘Close the Gates! Close the Gates! And it was taken up, just like a football crowd."
The game was up. The Chief Constable ordered the gates to be closed. Within days fuel supplies were so low that many companies were forced onto a 3 day week. The Tories were forced to back down. To escalate the situation, through the use of troops for example, would have been disastrous. As the Home Secretary Reginald Maudling admitted to the cabinet:
"Its enforced closure represents a victory for violence against the lawful activities of the gas board and the coal merchants. This provides disturbing evidence of the ease with which, by assembling large crowds, militants could flout the law with impunity because of the risk that attempts to enforce it would provoke disorder on a large scale."
The Tories were panicked; they set up a court of Inquiry under Lord Wilberforce to settle the dispute. After an extremely rushed “Inquiry” the NUM were declared a “special case” and picketing was suspended when the Inquiry recommended a 20% rise. Cabinet Minister Willie Whitelaw admitted that ‘Even then further concessions were exacted by the NUM in Downing Street talks before a settlement was concluded.’ (The Whitelaw Memoirs, , London 1989)
It was a humiliating climbdown for Heath. The miners had smashed the pay restraint policy and had won a 21% pay increase together with concessions on overtime rates, shift allowances and transport.
From here
Sex God
Quote by GnV
ahem... your quote is 1972, the miners who killed the taxi driver was 1984....
Your quote also refers to the Heath Government but the real strike, the one that was broken, was when Margaret Thatcher was PM.
Or did I miss something?
That was a quote I dug up Gnv, just to show that the mind set for violance was set in stone way back in the 70s
Sex God
Quote by GnV
So, it wasn't Margaret's problem then...
I reckon it goes back to the Jarrow marches :scared:
All those Geordies tossing their caber down the A1
Boys and their toys eh?
Goodness me no!
Sex God
Quote by Kaznkev
ahem... your quote is 1972, the miners who killed the taxi driver was 1984....
Your quote also refers to the Heath Government but the real strike, the one that was broken, was when Margaret Thatcher was PM.
Or did I miss something?
That was a quote I dug up Gnv, just to show that the mind set for violance was set in stone way back in the 70s
A mindset for violence or a refusal to sit quietly and know their place?
As a pacifist even i believe some things are worth fighting for.
GNV the jarrow crusade was peaceful,closer to the actions of Ghandi than anything else.
Not my words Kaz, Arther Scargills;
Its enforced closure represents a victory for violence against the lawful activities of the gas board and the coal merchants.
This provides disturbing evidence of the ease with which, by assembling large crowds, militants could flout the law with impunity because of the risk that attempts to enforce it would provoke disorder on a large scale."
In edit... I agree some things are worth fighting for, I have marched, but always within the law. As Dave said earlier, no one had the moral high ground, but clearly Arther thought violence and fear of mass disorder was the way to tackle things.
The miners were looking for a fight, and it was never going to be a peaceful one.
The longer it went on the madder the miners and their leaders got, until they knew Thatcher was never going to cave in.
Then the real violence started.
Imagine for a second what it must have been like to have been a police officer, faced with that much hatred and anger.
I do not think for a second that it was anyones fault but the miners, being led by a donkey in Scargill.
History now tells us this too.
The longer it went on the madder the miners and their leaders got, until they knew Thatcher was never going to cave in.
Then the real violence started.
Imagine for a second what it must have been like to have been a police officer, faced with that much hatred and anger.
I do not think for a second that it was anyones fault but the miners, being led by a donkey in Scargill.
History now tells us this too.
Quote by Max777
.........snip
Much of the spending actually kept people employed by the private sector - major construction projects such as schools, hospitals. What's more these are public facilities that benefit us all.
I think you will find that many of these schemes were actually financed by PRIVATE money under the Private Finance Initiative and therefore the debt is "off-balance sheet" and not included in the Government's deficit.
It is generally a mix of part public, part private. Hence why the government cancelled the school buildings programme.
Quote by kentswingers777
In this case, I guess it was judged to be manslaughter only because of the lack of premeditation; that it was an act "in the agony of the moment" but either way, they killed some poor sod going about his lawful business.
How can the throwing of a brick into the path of an oncoming car which results in the death of someone not be murder is unbelievable.
Still I am sure the law knows best...........not.
Yes they did kill that poor soul going about his daily business, and in my mind they were reckless thugs,and whilst that may not have been an intentional act to kill, it was certainly an act to wound.
I wonder what the family think of that act and the reasons behind it?
You know better than the House of Lords then. Interesting...
Quote by GnV
The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
A very fine line indeed. I don't know the case in detail, but there must have been some interesting discussion in the trial about the "guilty mind" - mens rea - state of these two as they heaved the concrete block into the air and cast it down on the taxi. Did they just think it might break the car's aerial, cause a bit of collateral damage? Was the concrete block transported by them to the scene or was it just "handy"?
In this case, I guess it was judged to be manslaughter only because of the lack of premeditation; that it was an act "in the agony of the moment" but either way, they killed some poor sod going about his lawful business.
You should have googled the case report, or the subsequent ones that cite it. You'd be better informed then.
Quote by Stevie J
.........snip
Much of the spending actually kept people employed by the private sector - major construction projects such as schools, hospitals. What's more these are public facilities that benefit us all.
I think you will find that many of these schemes were actually financed by PRIVATE money under the Private Finance Initiative and therefore the debt is "off-balance sheet" and not included in the Government's deficit.
It is generally a mix of part public, part private. Hence why the government cancelled the school buildings programme.
It would be very interesting to see the make up of that mix.
The amount of PFI debt is truly frighrening, as are the long term costs of servicing that debt and will further impact upon NHS funding......according to the Gruniad no less.
Kentswingers777 wrote:
old_arse wrote:
It's only relatively recently I've become interested in anti-capitalism.
Ah right...so that is the reason for the conspiracy theories then?
You obviously have a lot more to learn.
Like the way you infer knowledge of myself without ever meeting or engaging in debate...(ish)!!
If you look at the message I FREELY admitted I have a lot to learn on the subject.....but note....INTEREST does not equate to BELIEF!!!......My own personality is such that I need to be interested in a subject in the first place to put in the effort to do the research......didn't help at school or uni......but it's how I am.
Quite how you make the jump from such an interest to the 'theory' is beyond me......though it says a great deal TO me!!
The 'theory' is clearly labelled 'willing to consider'......in my experience it takes rather more than that to postulate a theory......I was merely playing devil's advocate in that.....to my mind...far too many posters were accepting the line that the TUC is led by self serving dinosaurs.......and I consider it no more laughable to consider equal self interestin the corporate/political spheres to be behind the financial crisis.
I'm under NO illusions as to how complicated it would be to organise such events......but I have personal knowledge of some of the extent that far right influence travels, which....for my own protection, I can't expand upon ( A perfect opening to a charge of 'paranoia', I'm sure!! :sad: )......my 'theory' merely taking it to the same, absurd, level as the 'theories' re:the far left influence on the union movement......which I find objectionable in that it neatly bypasses the fact that there are many intelligent,reasoning individuals within the movements.....to say nothing of the abilities of the membership to think for themselves.
Abuses DO exist within the union structures.......most blown out of all proportion by the media ( Whose interests do they serve?).......It's also true to say that abuses also exist within the corporate and political spheres......I don't believe that any fair minded poster would disagree.
old_arse wrote:
It's only relatively recently I've become interested in anti-capitalism.
Ah right...so that is the reason for the conspiracy theories then?
You obviously have a lot more to learn.
Like the way you infer knowledge of myself without ever meeting or engaging in debate...(ish)!!
If you look at the message I FREELY admitted I have a lot to learn on the subject.....but note....INTEREST does not equate to BELIEF!!!......My own personality is such that I need to be interested in a subject in the first place to put in the effort to do the research......didn't help at school or uni......but it's how I am.
Quite how you make the jump from such an interest to the 'theory' is beyond me......though it says a great deal TO me!!
The 'theory' is clearly labelled 'willing to consider'......in my experience it takes rather more than that to postulate a theory......I was merely playing devil's advocate in that.....to my mind...far too many posters were accepting the line that the TUC is led by self serving dinosaurs.......and I consider it no more laughable to consider equal self interestin the corporate/political spheres to be behind the financial crisis.
I'm under NO illusions as to how complicated it would be to organise such events......but I have personal knowledge of some of the extent that far right influence travels, which....for my own protection, I can't expand upon ( A perfect opening to a charge of 'paranoia', I'm sure!! :sad: )......my 'theory' merely taking it to the same, absurd, level as the 'theories' re:the far left influence on the union movement......which I find objectionable in that it neatly bypasses the fact that there are many intelligent,reasoning individuals within the movements.....to say nothing of the abilities of the membership to think for themselves.
Abuses DO exist within the union structures.......most blown out of all proportion by the media ( Whose interests do they serve?).......It's also true to say that abuses also exist within the corporate and political spheres......I don't believe that any fair minded poster would disagree.
Quote by awayman
The two lads involved in the taxi driver incident weren't flying pickets; they were miners from the local pit. Their motives were examined in some depth at the resulting trial, where it was clear that the court accepted that they weren't just thugs looking for a fight - don't take my word about it, think about the difference between the mes rea required for a manslaughter conviction as opposed to a conviction for murder.
I'm not fighting for the moral high ground; I'm exploring the poster's evidence for imputing low motives to people whom I stood alongside. So far no evidence other than prejudice is forthcoming.
The evidence has been supplied by you, someone who was there during the strike so I can take as an authoritive speaker. The men you stood side by side with (metaphorically as they were in Wales and not the Midlands), killed a man and were found guilty and imprisoned for their illegal actions. That is low motives in my book.
Dave_Notts
Quote by awayman
You know better than the House of Lords then. Interesting...
Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?
Quote by kentswingers777
Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?
Ever been there? No. Really know what goes on there? No. Ever seen a debate there? No. Ever met anyone who's a member? No. But ever willing to comment on something you know nothing about? Yes.
You are the epitomy of 'man in the pub' politics. The local bore who has a scant knowledge of most things yet still spouts their ill informed views to anyone in the vicinity.
You've done this nearly 8,000 times on this forum and moan you have no spare time! Is it any wonder?
Quote by Stevie J
Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?
Ever been there? No. Really know what goes on there? No. Ever seen a debate there? No. Ever met anyone who's a member? No. But ever willing to comment on something you know nothing about? Yes.
You are the epitomy of 'man in the pub' politics. The local bore who has a scant knowledge of most things yet still spouts their ill informed views to anyone in the vicinity.
You've done this nearly 8,000 times on this forum and moan you have no spare time! Is it any wonder?
Now now........
Don't want to get your first strike now................do you?
Or just maybe you already have
But just for the record is this woman also " ill informed " ?
Or what about the very valid points from other " bores " at the end of the article? Or could it just be possible that you know very little about the Lords and it's workings?
You have a nice day now.;
Quote by kentswingers777
Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?
Ever been there? No. Really know what goes on there? No. Ever seen a debate there? No. Ever met anyone who's a member? No. But ever willing to comment on something you know nothing about? Yes.
You are the epitomy of 'man in the pub' politics. The local bore who has a scant knowledge of most things yet still spouts their ill informed views to anyone in the vicinity.
You've done this nearly 8,000 times on this forum and moan you have no spare time! Is it any wonder?
Now now........
Don't want to get your first strike now................do you?
Or just maybe you already have
But just for the record is this woman also " ill informed " ?
Or what about the very valid points from other " bores " at the end of the article? Or could it just be possible that you know very little about the Lords and it's workings?
You have a nice day now.;
Kenty - day in, day out you are on this forum dishing out insults to other members and people you have never even met. But then when someone makes a reasonable observation about you - based on your 8000 (count them!) posts - you threaten them with admin. Can you hear yourself? If you are going to air such strong and offensive views, at least be prepared to take some criticism like a man, instead of behaving like a whining schoolboy. It is absolutely pathetic.
You my friend should do yourself a big favour and read this....
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/324334.html
As obviously you are not that clued up on the new rules.
May I point you to the bit that says....
" I'm going with c) for now, I'm going to see how many more complaints I get with regards to posts made after this one, any that I count as wrong will be one strike, when anyone reaches 3 they are out ".
Check the date and time of that post matey, for I would love to answer you but the new rules do not allow me too in the way I would like.
Have a very nice day.
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/324334.html
As obviously you are not that clued up on the new rules.
May I point you to the bit that says....
" I'm going with c) for now, I'm going to see how many more complaints I get with regards to posts made after this one, any that I count as wrong will be one strike, when anyone reaches 3 they are out ".
Check the date and time of that post matey, for I would love to answer you but the new rules do not allow me too in the way I would like.
Have a very nice day.
Sex God
Quote by Stevie J
You are the epitomy of 'man in the pub' politics. The local bore who has a scant knowledge of most things yet still spouts their ill informed views to anyone in the vicinity.
You've done this nearly 8,000 times on this forum and moan you have no spare time! Is it any wonder?
I thought there was a pretty good debate going on there, now whilst you may not agree with the comments made by another member, there is no need to start posting comments like that.
Feel free to debate the subject, but lets not make it personal.
Something I knew already....
Does not take a genius to work those figures out.
Then you have this Socialist union leader trouble maker Bob Crow saying trouble making comments like this....
He talks and acts like a football hooligan of the 70's.
He is one of the worst offenders of causing trouble and will not be satisfied until his members come out on strike, so he can justify his obscene wages.
Shame that whilst any strike action is called for, that he does not give away his salary to charity and survive on strike pay....but he won't though.
The paper The Morning Star, is nothing more than a newspaper inciting trouble makers to do exactly that....cause trouble. That is a worse paper than the Daily Sport and the only difference being is that the Sport has more readers.
Read this nonsense..
Wow a 100 people attended....it is like taking a bad step back in time.
Does not take a genius to work those figures out.
Then you have this Socialist union leader trouble maker Bob Crow saying trouble making comments like this....
He talks and acts like a football hooligan of the 70's.
He is one of the worst offenders of causing trouble and will not be satisfied until his members come out on strike, so he can justify his obscene wages.
Shame that whilst any strike action is called for, that he does not give away his salary to charity and survive on strike pay....but he won't though.
The paper The Morning Star, is nothing more than a newspaper inciting trouble makers to do exactly that....cause trouble. That is a worse paper than the Daily Sport and the only difference being is that the Sport has more readers.
Read this nonsense..
Wow a 100 people attended....it is like taking a bad step back in time.
Quote by kentswingers777
You know better than the House of Lords then. Interesting...
Is that the same house full of old twits, who only turn up to collect their 180 odd quid, and then fall asleep?
The House of Lords is an out of date and out of touch place, where the people only got their through dodgy hands shakes....fuck even old fatty Prezzie is there.
You do not really expect me to take that place seriously..........do you?
No it's not.
