Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
peter
this is another of those carefully worded questions thus when answered giving the impression support for clarkson or people like him.
chris (sorry i mean mr precious lol)
did a good reply, which highlights much more why on the face of things we have gone backwards in accepting that even though people are working hard to get settlements, such comments from mr clarkson does little to help the cause.
It realy showed mr clarkson up to be the buffoon of the week
but freedom of speech oh yes but with it should come responsibility
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
dont know.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 21.........on the spot..........Why vote when correlation does not exist?
B, but only in the right context. There, I fell off the fence.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
B - no other comment necessary
Roger
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
B obviously
as Voltaire is supposed to have said 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Peter you might consider this answer fence sitting but its genuinly not meant to be
If it is a person in the public eye making both statements publically then A
If it is a person in the public eye making both statements privately then B
If it is a person not in the public eye who is unknown to me making both statements to me in person then A
If it is a person not in the public eye who is unkown to me making both statements but not directed at me B
If it is a person k nown to me and liked by me making the statements publically and privately then B
If it is a person known to me and not liked by me then most likely answer is A
Context of events tends to have the most effect on me . I have a long history of trade union activity but some of my best friends are bankers so that is why I have differing views given different circumstances
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sarah
thats a very well thought out reply
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Thank you Keith , I didnt want it to come over as pedantic or pernickity , as it wasnt meant to be
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have to disagree keith, after reading sarah's post i had to go for a lie down, one of my giddy spells.
Why thank you Howard , I like to know that I have an effect like that !
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
quite a regular thing with howard these days lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
A few quite interesting posts, a psychologist would have some fun here. For the record, I am a firm B.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I read the other day on SKY that the Government have promised 13 years of hard times in the UK.
Somehow I don't believe it will be possible to put public sector workers against private sector workers (divide and destroy).
As for investment/city bankers and chief execs on multi-million pound salaries, I'd go further and look at the private assets of the super-rich too.
It would be about time they underwent a one-off confiscation of about 90-99% of their private assets, which would still leave them millionaires.
For some strange reason, this proposal is considered by some as sacrilege.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I am still trying to work out post 27
I was never very good at school with maths
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - not sacrilege what it is, is:
1/ Theft
2/ Morally unjust
3/ Economically disastrous
4/ Just plain mad and it simply would not work they way you think
We are suffering as a result of having a government that was incapable of managing the finances properly, they did not eliminate the deficit and repay debt during the growth phase when their economist hero Keynes said they should, but increased deficit spending instead. So why on earth should people have their assets stolen?
You have to remember as well that the amount of debt the government has is a problem but the big problem is the vast amount by which the government still continues to overspend. A one-off theft of private assets will not solve anything and will not prevent the cuts that are necessary.
I will not go on about how such a move would rebound on the UK and how there would be many more business bankruptcies and an end to overseas investment. Pension schemes would collapse and the welfare bill would soar. The economy would dramatically shrink further and massive unemployment on a scale previously not experienced would occur.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Barry, dear Barry. I sometimes think that you have a ring-and-string in the middle of your back. All too often when the ring is pulled out pops one of only three or four stock phrases.
'massive unemployment' is not a thing for any future. It is in the here and now.
The country's present plight is often spoken of in terms of a family-budget yet the sole solution enacted on the macro scale is to cut expenditure and chatter-on about improving income. In the real world, at the family level, much would also be being done to up the income. 'Realising' the assets would be a part of that too.
While the last Government was for spending there were many who were on the 'grab', one way or another.
We can see that an additional tax on the public sector can be enacted with little of a to-do.
But!
The over-generous PFI contracts seem sacrosanct. Vastly inflated wage hikes too are never addressed, yet these will have a knock-on effect on into the pension provision of those concerned.
To threaten punishment anew while meting-out that same punishment 'smacks' of that part of Victorian values that gave Dickens so much to write about.
Parliament is clearly no more than a busted-flush. We are all 'bust' and they should all be flushed.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
It's that word Barry hates, greed. How many times have we seen and read of companies down scaling or shutting down not because they have gone broke, or are even in danger of it, but because their 'profits are down'? Last year 6 million profit, this year only 2 million profit; oh dear we are in trouble lets move to a country we don't have to pay the workers and get it back to 8 million. If only household finances had those problems.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Chris - if you knew anything at all about how companies work you would be embarrassed about your last post. Real life means that business must always be reviewing their cost base as it takes a tiny change to turn a profit into a loss. Tom- you have no idea, what we have now is nothing compared to what would happen if Alexander's idea were to be enacted. Thankfully even the Labour Party are not so foolish.
You mentioned PFI contracts. The last government's perversion of that scheme was a disgrace but contracts are contracts. If you think that the government, any government, can ignore contractual law because of foolish mistakes made by government (even a previous one) then you live in a dream world.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The only political party to advocate confiscation of wealth is the Communist Party.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson