mockingbird_franklin

Paul Buchanan - Mid Air

Eye of the Tiger by RAA

Had to kick off with a eels cover

Time for some christmas songs https://youtu.be/gLNqmDOa-Ww

Would you explain that a bit? The creation of money (or rather currency which is what we now use as money) out of thin air, we currently pay £40+billion a year for the privilege of allowing someone else to do it for the nation, then lets consider that approximately 95% of all money created (counterfeited is a good accurate definition) is done so by private banks and not sovereign nations through the central bank and you may begin to see the problem. Consider the crazy situation that has private companies creating their own money out of thin air, then passing it off as sovereign currency and charging interest on it, of course this creation is underwriten, by the wealth (labour) of whoever borrows this currency, exactly what happens when it's created for government. The monetary policy we use effectively means that near to all money carries a liability of debt on creation, so in effect we are using debt as money rather than money, and money is debt, effectively you don't have any money in your pocket or bank account, just someone else's debt liability,there is no real positive value money in the system, and all the time someone is skimming off the top. Our monetary policy has effectively made the supply of what we now call money one huge ponzi scheme. There is a reason legislation was passed to stop banks issuing their own notes, unfortunately digital currency didn't exist in 1826, for a fuller understanding, plenty of articles and published works exist that explain in greater detail why our current monetary policy is what needs tackling before fiscal policy

The cuts have been implemented in a particularly vindictive and nasty way based on a flawed ideology (neo-libralism) by on the whole, privileged well educated but intellectually deficient politicians and in support of increased transfer of power and wealth to the already powerful and wealthy and from everybody else. All based on the false but convient premise that fiscal policy is the cause of all problems, when the real root cause problem is based in monetary policy

upload pictures free

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state. All the Scandanavian countries, Germany under Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, Australia, France under Mitterand, Canada follows many Socialist principles in its State systems. the UK, I've lived long enough to have experienced both sides of the political spectrum in power, most of the worst times have been under Conservative hedgemony. I suppose it all comes down to what you consider successful. Socialism is a Northern Europe way of thinking, and a pretty natural way of thinking for anyone who isnt a sociapath and is pretty ingrained, most people like to help others and feel empathy for others suffering and have desires to help/prevent that suffering, our historical tribal/clan system is effectively socialism on a small local scale, the biggest problem of the Labour party moving to a centre right tory-lite position is it pushed the conservatives further to the right and into the more extreme policies the country is currently suffering under, whether this was a conscious or unconscious act is debatable, but i believe it was the opportunity for more extreme politicians like Dunkin dougnut smith to move into the limelight and one they grabbed and ran with.

people who insist everyone should take up the use of new technology just because they use it.

This is quality from Sherwood. For me he is the next John Terry. so he is going to shag a team mates wife and make a little money on the side giving dodgy access to Bodymoor heath to anyone willing to pay for it. nice

Or if you prefer a picture or two. photo uploading websites image upload

Been out of the country working for a few days, been catching up on things and came across this piece in the independent which sums things up nicely http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/every-club-should-be-like-labour--you-cant-join-as-a-new-member-unless-youre-already-a-member-10428421.html MARK STEEL Friday 31 July 2015 Every club should be like Labour – you can’t join as a new member unless you’re already a member Instead of allowing their leadership vote to be infiltrated by outsiders, it would all be much easier if they just let Rupert Murdoch decide. It’s outsiders that have caused it. The only explanation for the madness that’s taken over the Labour Party, according to MPs such as John Mann, is people from outside are joining Labour, so the leadership election should be cancelled. Presumably John Mann would change the rules, so no one was allowed to join the Labour Party unless they were already a member. That should stop these scheming non-members from trying to infiltrate the party through the trick of becoming members. Then Mann should be put in charge of other organisations to keep out troublemakers. If you apply to join a snooker club, he could be there to ask “are you already a member of this snooker club?” If you said you weren’t – which is why you’d like to join – he’d say, “Get out. I know your game pal, you want to turn us into a canoeing club.” That way it would stay pure and wholesome. A section of the Labour Party, along with much of the press, has worked out the only way Jeremy Corbyn can have attracted the support he has is by groups such as Militant infiltrating the party, as they did in the 1980s. This shows how conniving Militant can be, because the most common age of people joining Labour at the moment is 18. So the last time they tried to take over the Labour Party they must have been minus 12. This shows the lengths Militant are prepared to go to, radicalising people decades before they’re born, just so they can carry out their malicious plan to commit Labour to a policy of nationalising the gas companies. You might wonder why Militant left a 30-year gap between infiltrations, but maybe they’ve been infiltrating other groups apart from political parties, such as groups of gardeners. Now there’s an allotment society in Hemel Hempstead committed to placing their courgettes under a workers and peasants revolutionary collective. One Labour MP, John Cryer, warned of the influence of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) over the leadership vote. This group achieved an average of less than 0.1 per cent of the vote at the general election, so the 400,000 people eligible to vote in Labour’s election could easily be swayed by this persuasive faction. Then the TUSC could use this influence to undermine other areas of the democratic process. Once they’ve taken over the Labour Party, they could swing the result of X Factor, so the winner is a trade union official at Darlington bus depot, singing “No to rearranged shift patterns on the 5A to Bishop Auckland” to the tune of “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road”. There are other theories as to why Corbyn is doing so much better than commentators predicted. One supporter of Tony Blair explained at the start of the election why Liz Kendall would win, then explained the first poll showing Corbyn ahead was “a ploy by the Liz Kendall campaign”. There have been three more polls since then, all showing Corbyn ahead and Kendall last, all of which are clearly ploys by the Kendall campaign. Some people have criticised her for giving answers such as “I think the economy is really important” in TV interviews. But when you’re spending all day making up polls showing you coming last as a special ploy, it doesn’t leave much time for working out answers to questions. We should be a bit more patient. Everyone sensible agrees it would be madness to make Corbyn leader, because no one could ever win an election with his policies. For example, he argues the railways should be renationalised, and you’ll never win votes with ideas like that. The last Labour leader to fight an election promising to renationalise the railways was Blair in 1997, promising “there will be a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway system under a Labour government”. Presumably he followed this up by saying, “That’s why anyone whose heart says you should vote for me needs a heart transplant.” Because the most important job for any political leader, as we’re told every day, is to “stay in the centre ground”. You could argue a true leader tries to change the centre ground, but that’s romantic nonsense. So a sensible Labour leader in the year 1500 would have said: “It’s all very well Jeremy Corbyn promising to stop burning witches, but that will lose us the election by abandoning the centre ground.” Another reason it would be ridiculous to make Corbyn leader, say his opponents, is the Tory press would be brutal towards him. This is a fair point, as The Sun and Telegraph and Mail would be scrupulously fair to any other Labour leader. They’ll never stoop to publishing photographs of Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper chewing food. It’s only fair to choose the leader Rupert Murdoch suggests, as this is far more sensible than allowing the vote to be infiltrated by outsiders. There is one other possible reason for Corbyn’s popularity, which is that it’s inspired by the same sense of outrage that swept Scotland for the SNP, and makes Caroline Lucas the most popular MP, and means the speech by the SNP’s Mhairi Black has been seen by over 10 million people online. That still can’t compete with the globally acclaimed phenomena that is Kendall’s speech called “I think the economy is really important” obviously, and there’s a rumour that Liz’s speech is to be sung by Rihanna as the theme for next year’s Olympic Games. But there are millions of people in Britain who feel the current centre ground is in an atrocious place, and they see in Corbyn someone who agrees with them. The sensible response to this is to tell them if you go through life supporting ideals you believe in rather than something that might, but probably won’t, win over accountants in Nuneaton, you’re a romantic idiot. Either that, or it’s outsiders; or Castro; or aliens; or a ploy by Liz Kendall.

few more tries in a quieter room scoring pretty consistent upper 830 to mid 840's high score of 851 counting 1,2,3,4

just given it a first try in a noisy distracting environment and got 837

Missed replying to this point, we've had a Tory Government in Westminster since 1979, just under a different name for a few terms, you don't think Uncle Rupert would allow anything else do you?

Well the independent agrees with you Rodders, it also agrees with Awol, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labours-tragedy-is-that-jeremy-corbyn-is-much-the-best-leadership-candidate-10389228.html Matthew Norman Tuesday 14 July 2015 Labour’s tragedy is that Jeremy Corbyn is much the best leadership candidate This black-hole contest distorts time; it feels like years since the shortlist was unveiled For lovers of the English tongue, there is no greater thrill than being present at the birth of a dramatic linguistic development. I refer here not to the OED’s annual list of newly accepted words. You can see the addition to the lexicon of popular slang words like “hashtag” and “omnishambles” coming. What I mean is something wholly unforeseeable, if not totes amazeballs, and for the latest contribution to this precious etymological sub-species we give thanks to Harriet Harman. The acting leader of the Opposition this week boosted the ranks of contronyms – words with definitions that diametrically contradict one another. You’ll be familiar with “cleave” (to stick to and to separate), “sanction” (to allow and to disallow), and of course “literally” (literally; and metaphorically). Thanks to Harriet’s brazen and bewildering attempt to bounce the party into backing George Osborne’s proposal to limit child benefit to two children, the verb “to oppose” may now be defined as: 1) “to oppose”; and 2) “to support”. Similarly, the parliamentary term “Her Majesty’s Opposition” might now be pithily translated as: “the political living dead who imagine that feigning agreement with the kind of regressive policies they went into politics to fight will somehow ingratiate them with the public”. The only thing that might prevent Harman being remembered less for her long and impressive career than a single act of folly at its conclusion is that the public isn’t listening. There is nothing she or the Labour leadership contenders could say that would interest anyone but a political hypernerd. If Liz Kendall regaled a hustings with her plan to make the culling of day-old beagle puppies a Labour manifesto pledge, it would float above the public consciousness. If Andy Burnham unveiled an initiative to scrap the RAF and give all the Typhoon fighter jets to fellow Everton fans in a half-time raffle at Goodison Park, it wouldn’t attract a shrug. If Sound of Music superfan Yvette Cooper declared that her priority, as PM, would be to make the failure to yodel “The Lonely Goatherd” while waiting at bus stops or on suburban railway platforms a statutory offence carrying an automatic 14-year sentence, who would care? A black hole contest like this distorts time; it may feel like years since the leadership shortlist was first unveiled. It is, in fact, precisely one month – and the only candidate with any momentum is the one who was allowed to make the cut only at the last moment by way of a satirical afterthought. Like Harman’s take on the duty of an opposition, Jeremy Corbyn’s candidacy presents a glaring paradox. He is by light years the best candidate, in that he actually believes in things and can articulate those beliefs in a way humanoid life forms can understand. He believes that limiting child benefit is wrong, for instance, since it would restrict the life chances of those who most need help to escape entrenched poverty. Harriet Harman once believed the same. Indeed she might have described it as an irreducible core belief that punishing the poor for being poor is vindictive and counterproductive. Now, her lone belief appears to be that moulding the party into an insipid, comically unconvincing Tory tribute act is the solitary option. Corbyn’s beliefs, on the other hand, have survived the passage of four decades intact, which is why he is by light years the worst candidate. Those beliefs are noble and sincere, but only about 17 people in this country share his faith in the command economy. Interviewed on Channel 4 News on Monday, Corbyn dealt splendidly with Krishnan Guru-Murthy, that laureate of preening self-regard, when asked why he once addressed Hamas as his “friends”. Corbyn, who appreciated the importance of dialogue with the IRA long before that came into vogue, sensibly replied that you have to talk to people you disagree with, and that he used “friends” as a courteous collective term. Such a trivial line of questioning, an impressively raging Corbyn went on, was purely tabloid. So it was. Guru-Murthy can be a smug twerp, and it was embarrassing to find a serious news programme indulging in babyish, Sun-style hectoring. Yet this is a tabloid world, and the thought of what the Daily Mail would do to Corbyn as Labour leader is too agonising to contemplate. While the notion that Labour faces an existential crisis has quickly become a cliché, Corbyn’s momentum and Harman’s lunacy suggests it is worse than that. When a woman who spent her entire working life fighting inequality finds herself actively supporting it, this begins to look like a post-existential crisis. For now at least, the Labour Party has effectively ceased to exist. It is as if that fiscal Dracula George Osborne sucked the lifeblood from its neck with his cunning, cynical Budget, and thus completed the vampirical process. And so, while Harman flirts with rewriting the opening lines of her obituary, the zombie leadership election plays on to deafening indifference for all but Jeremy Corbyn. In what reminds one of a stultifying dreadful fringe theatre production of a 127th-rate family psychodrama, they let the mad uncle out of the attic as a joke, but found when he came downstairs that he made far more sense than his sneering nieces and nephews. A victory for Corbyn, whose odds narrow all the time, would unquestionably be the silver bullet to end the suffering and lay the Labour Party to eternal rest. Failing that, the Night of the Undead must go on. Either way, we will not see any worthwhile opposition, in the word’s traditional pre-Harmaniac meaning, for a very long time.

Even if they are an Ugly **** slag?