A.J.Rimmer

Power corrupts, you mean? Well I never. No doubt about that. We all know that power corrupts... and no doubt it corrupted Mrs Thatcher too. For me the difference lies in the irony of those who set out saying they will better the lot of the poor, always end up taking away what little the poor had to begin with. The Thatcher system (call it what you will) does not sound as attractive in TV sound bites, but in reality does much more for the poor than the bleating socialists.

It's not mutually exclusive. It is possible to both loathe Thatcherite economics and to loathe Blair, Mandelson et al. I'm sure you are right.

Utter garbage. altruism is not something that needs room from whatever political system, including communism. Altruism is a human trait, a persoanl trait - "yes I'll help another person". People under Communist, Fascist democratic regimes are all capable of altrusim as has been shown may times over No, the garbage is entirely yours. True, examples of individual altruism can be found at any time and in any place, although they occur less often in communist societies due to the 'post apocalyptic' economic levels that invariably prevail, thus altruism is usually unaffordable. However, on a national or government level, altruism is totally non existent. The state may shoot you to put you out of your misery, but that is as compassionate as it gets.

What you say is very true and such insticts undoubtedly played an important role in human development. However, what I would appreciate one or two people taking on board, is that I dealt with the 'people's paradises' close up and from the inside. Without exception they were rotten to the core, and the poverty they inevitably created led to at least some of the "post apocolyptic" conditions referred to above... Communism allows no room for altruism. The general dislike of Thatcherite economics ignores the emergence of the selfish gene in socialist heroes such as Blair, Prescott and Mandelson, to name but a few recent leaders. I would argue these lads are wholly representative of their particular political class. However moronic their socialist spoutings before obtaining power, once they got their snouts in the trough, the selfish gene took over and guzzle guzzle guzzle was all they could think of. Be it Ceaucescu, Mengistu, Mugabe, Ghaddafi or Blair, these boys all end up at the opposite end of the line to socialist good intentions... and they will continue to do until they can spin a web out of their arsehole and catch flies for breakfast. I apologise for repeating myself again, but that's just the way it is...

It wasn't an irrelevant point, it was a summation of what you posted (and what you keep on posting). ... and I will keep posting it until it is no longer true... that will be the day we all morph into ants.

The point you made was that some people will quite happily take advantage of a situation to enrich themselves (with little or no thought as to the consequences to others), will try to justify it (often in a pretty puerlie manner) by claiming that no one else is any different and will sneer at those whose behaviour does not plumb the depths of indecent selfishness (I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not) +1 +2. Snowy sums it up very neatly. Snowychap, Your irrelevant point may arouse the approbation of your fellow lefties, but does nothing to undermine what I was saying. It matters not whose snout is in the public purse, for we all know that little piggies like to guzzle… it is their nature. The stupidity is allowing them access to the trough… as with bankers and government money. I read yesterday that scientists now believe humans started walking on two feet in order to more easily grab and carry off a larger share of the food. These capitalist apes duly prospered, whilst their socialist brothers went hungry and died out. Like it or not we are all descended from those greedy two footers. I am merely observing how the world works… and self-interest is at the centre of it. Any system failing to allow for this is doomed.

I wouldn't be that amazed when you consider that a previous post from A.J.Rimmer said the following: The point I was trying to make here was simply this... if the government decides to pay all the overseas holidays of someone who goes on holiday every 2 years... don't be surprised if you suddenly discover they are taking 5 holidays a year. Just in case you didn't know, people tend to be like that. One sees it every day... the government pays people for not working and now we have millions of people who don't work... another smegging surprise.

There was no asset stripping of communist countries. Indeed, when communism collapsed it was because these countries had no assets left to speak of. We merely traded with them... though it must be said that something in the communist system made them endemically bad at doing business. As for sharing the rewards with the people of Britain... we must have a different definition of the word sharing. I'm afraid 98% for the government and 2% for the individual, just isn't quite my idea of fair. And whilst we are on the subject of FAIR... FAIRNESS in Hong Kong meant that everyone paid just 15% of their income in tax. You earned £100 a year you paid just £15 tax, but if you earned £1,000,000 you paid £150,000 in tax. That sounds pretty fair to me... but whether you consider it fair or not, perhaps it's time we started learning from how things are done by thoses who consistently out perform us.

John Redwood and I are not espousing a philosophy here... we are simply pointing out how the world works, rather than how people may wish it to work. Example: where I used to work we made a lot of money buying from the old communist bloc, now that really was a fool's enclosure... but even though we negotiated the entire business from London, the paperwork was all done in Lichtenstein, so the UK never saw a penny of tax. To have done this business through London, would have meant for every 100 days we worked, 98 were for the benefit of the government and just 2 for ourselves. For anyone imagining your average Joe is prepared to do this, I'm afraid the word 'fool' is hardly adequate. ... and bye the way, you're already living in the fool's enclosure. I, however, moved to Brasil in 2003, where I'm a good boy and pay my tax every month. Incidentally, Brasil has just overtaken the UK for 6th place in the world's wealth league... I wonder why.

I have read very little of this thread but wish to make a single point: During the Labour government of the 60's, income tax was at £1 7s 6d in the pound, or £1.38p on each pound over a certain level. I've met numerous people one might describe as wealth creators, who told me they spent more time working out how not to pay tax than they did making money. Hardly surprising. When Thatcher came to power, income tax was at 83p in the pound with 15p investment income surcharge... this gave an effective top rate of 98p in the pound. To the howling of the Labour opposition, Thatcher cut the rate to 40p in the pound and not only did a lot of very rich people move to London in order to benefit from UK tax rates, but a lot of famous English people from whom we never saw a penny came home, such as Michael Caine and Mick Jagger... John Lennon was also on his way but never made it. Within a year or two, the Thatcher government was receiving more money from top rate payers at 40% than they had been at 98%... well now, there's a thing! What you all have to decide is, whether you wish to collect more money by keeping the top tax rate competitive, or whether you wish to be poorer and howl like dogs because some people are better off that you are... and anyone who thinks there's a different choice is a fool. Edit: Two minutes after posting this, I switched on the box and John Redwood was giving the exact same example... though he phrased himself more delicately than me.

Sorry to be uncool, but I don't get the 'zebra' reference. However, I will add this. I live in cattle country. I kid you not, on a Saturday evening the cowboys ride into town and tie their horses to the rail outside the saloon. I can buy an entire fillet of beef for £3 or £4... but after a few days of fillet steak I start dreaming of a shoulder of lamb or a cumberland sausage... neither of which can be found for a thousand miles. The point I'm trying to make is that one always wants what one can't get... and women come even cheaper than beef.

I live there most of the time, so 'Yes'... I'll be there for the World Cup... and I've been a Brazil fan all my life. As for the picture, I turn down this kind of thing every week or so... and 'No'... I'm not gay! Edit: I misbehaved a lot when I was younger... but now I hope I've grown up and sex without purpose just doesn't do it for me anymore.

Whoops! Looks like I screwed it up... it is there though. Sorry.

I am an IT idiot and have never done a 'clicky' in my life... but this is the place where you will find a map drawn by Capt Strange in July 1916 showing the area around Mametz Wood at the southern end of the Battle of the Somme... it's an area I know well. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78472&st=50 If you look in the top left corner, ie north-west corner, you will see 2 trenches running westwards from Bazentin-le-Petit Wood (I'm doing this from memory). One trench is called Aston Trench and parallel to it runs Villa Trench.

Because they are seemingly on route to developing nuclear weapons and have a stated desire to wipe another nation off the map. I think that is an exceptionally good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to get on with it. I very much doubt we did so I'd imagine they have done it by themselves or if they have hadd assistance it has come from the likes of Russia or China rather than the UK or US. Well not having a desire to wipe a nation of the face of the earth is a good start. It is a complex arguement, it is easy to make a strong case for saying we or any nation have no right to act as moral guardians but then it is very easy to make a case to say we have a moral obligation to do so as well. Sure there are times when I wish we weren't sticking our nose into affairs abroad, especially when it results in British boots on the ground and ultimately the loss of our boys in combat. Nobody ever wants to see that. What though is the alternative? We can't as supposed developed countries sad back and allow events like those in Bosnia to happen, we shouldn't stand back and let the leaders of countries like Lybia, Syria and the like murder their own people to stay in power. We shouldn't stand back and let a country that wishes to wipe another from the face of the earth develop nuclear weapons. Sure people talk about oil and self interests and they would have a point, we do often pick the fights that we stick our nose into but we can't deal with all the problems of the world so its hardly surprising we pick the ones we have a vested interest in. Do we have a right to stick our nose in what Iran is upto? Probably not but that doesn't mean its not the right thing to do. We didn't really have a right to tell German to stay out of Poland either though did we. Don't misunderstand me... I'm not defending the Iranians... as far as I'm concerned the Israelis can nuke them tomorrow... but I'd still like a clarification. Incidentally, I'm pretty bloody certain the third of your above quotes was NEVER written by me!!!

The disgrace belongs to those who bailed the bank out... not Cameron. If I worked at a place underwritten by public money, I'd pay myself a whole lot more! Have to go out... will argue later.

Just possibly the loss would have been a great deal higher without the lads who got the big bonuses. Of course, the correct thing would have been for RBS to go bust... a course I advocated most strongly a few years back, and which has now become the accepted wisdom amongst the chairmen of those banks which did not need public funds. I am endlessly amused by the extent to which we wish to be lied to. I listened to this morning's news on the subject of Chinese and Japanese cash to "raise European fire walls" to "beef up the bail out fund" and "bolster the Euro against speculators"... yet the word "BORROW" was never mentioned. Do those who use these terms just think we are stupid, or is stupid what we really are? All the evidence points to the latter.

..... clearly I'm not the only person who doesn't know.

Yes, it was in this thread. England, Egypt and some other camel-infested places. Well remembered... started in Asmara (Eritrea)... short hop to Addis (Ethiopia)... then Cairo (Egypt) and finally Heathrow (England). PS I also posted, but definitely not in this thread: back in 2000/2001, I had a big argument with Fred Goodwin which ended up with my telling him he didn't understand the basic principles of banking... after which I closed my account. Do you think I should apply for his knighthood?

There is something I have never understood, and I'd like to know if anyone has the answer. Leaving aside what the Iranians are actually up to... which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference? Or to put it differently... did we supply them with nuclear materials or technology on certain conditions for their usage? Or have they got this far entirely on their own... in which case what right have we to comment?

Don't know if it was on this actual thread, but I think I've posted this before: I've been in 4 different countries on the same day... and they all began with the letter 'E'.

However bad had been Suarez's behaviour at the original incident, yesterday Evra's behaviour also fell short of ideal... a point acknowleged by Ferguson. This is not in any way to equate the two incidents, but two wrongs still do not make a right. I merely wish to make the point that such escalation is both deplorable and unnecessarily devisive. We all want the same thing... good behaviour at football matches, and elsewhere. Personally I would never be rude to anybody, irrespective of what I thought of them. Whatever offensive words Suarez addressed to Evra, merely went to prove what an ill mannered little fellow he is... but Evra needs to rise above it and get over it. I've travelled a lot. I know people all over the world whom I trust implicitly, just as I know English people, rich ones, whose word has no value and with whom I would never pass the time of day. I also know people with whom I would never shake hands. I do not believe that criminalising what people say, however stupid or offensive, is the right way to go. Rather we should teach people the basics of decent manners... and such problems should simply disappear. Finally, walking around with a placard announcing loudly to the world that you are not a racist, does not entitle you to demand that other people have to shake hands together. Good or bad, smart or stupid, that must be a decision of their's alone. I wish Suarez was not a ill mannered little jerk and that, leaving aside the team instructions, he had shaken Evra's hand... but, I believe it was Rousseau who said he would defend with his life his opponents right to say what they wished... I'm quite sure he would have extended that to hand shaking as well. I've said here before: I do not like witch hunts... to me they smack of bad manners.

Sorry to be dense. I nearly asked this yesterday. What is RAWK... a radio station?

I'm quite sure everyone will jump down my throat at this but am I the only person to think this has all gone too far? I've always thought that anyone behaving like Suarez did in the original incident, does more harm to themselves than to those they try to abuse. But like it or not we now have others who are also making dicks of themselves, not just Dalgleish, but Evra as well. We'll need to build more prisons if we're to charge all the scousers supporting Dalgleish and Chelseaites supporting John Terry. This jumping on the pc bandwagon comes at a price, and I'm far from certain it's the right way to go.

Great voice and very sad, even if she did pay her money and take her chance. I'm not too knowledegable on drugs, but I thought coke was the stuff to use if you have money, but that crack was the poor man's version. I just wonder why, with all that money, she was on crack. Is that not very unusual?