Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

well I agree with Blandy Pete. Far too many generalisations about people. 

 

Not all Labour supporters are Trots

Not Tories are Millionaire tax avoiders. 

Not all Nurses are good

Not all Bankers are bad. 

Not all Villa fans are good.

 

I often read on here things Like I hate all Liverpool supporters they are all clearings in the woods. Does that include the teachers, as well as any in Prison. Does it include all colours and creeds. I mean if you said every immigrant who supports Liverpool is a clearing in the woods you would be rightly classed as a racist. 

 

People are just people,  good and bad in every area. (not suggesting you were implying anyones bad) just using this as an example

 

Very few Labour supporters are Trots.  Not many would even be able to describe a Trot, accurately.

 

Very few Tories are millionaire tax avoiders.  Most are much smaller scale tax avoiders (if they have the ability to avoid tax), or tax payers (if they are employed).  But curiously, though it works directly against their own interest, they tend to defend millionaire tax avoiders.  The old tory trait of deference, I suppose.

 

Most nurses are good.  (Declaration of interest: my mum was a nurse).  The ones who aren't either were poorly recruited into a poorly chosen job, or have been made less than good by pressures they can't cope with, or need a bit more training and a bit more time to do their job.

 

Most bankers are bad.  It's the job.  They get on by shitting on other people, stealing from them, lying, bribing, intimidating, silencing whistleblowers.  I use "bankers" here to mean the top dogs, not the cleaners or the counter staff.

 

As for Villa fans, I think we all know they're pretty much like other fans, don't we?

 

So yes, there's good and bad in every area.  But as a general rule, if you want to help people, you're better trying to become a nurse, and if you want to **** people over so that you destroy their entire life, you're better advised to consider banking and its "derivatives" (ho ho), or else become Tony Blair.

[tonyh29]

actually that was 2 different posters ..if you are going to try and insult some one you should really check your post for accuracy

and hiding behind " certain posters" is a bit cowardly

His post was in response to an insulting one about an unspecified 'group' of people (which you liked, Tony).

Is it perhaps a bit rum to take issue with Kingfisher's post and yet like the one with a similar m.o.?

Different IMO , Risso was clearly talking about a group , the other post was clearly aimed at 1 individual

[snowychap]

Different IMO , Risso was clearly talking about a group , the other post was clearly aimed at 1 individual

So it's okay to insult an unspecified group of posters but not one (or, more accurately, two as your post helpfully pointed out!)?

C'mon, mate.

[peterms]

George Osborne is **** tapped. At a time when such things as the NHS A&E is on its knees mainly due to a lack of funding in social care, food banks are at an all time high, disabled people are having their benefits cut or taken from them the arrogant and deluded pratt uses his speech today to talk about running a budget surplus.

 

Public services are at breaking point in this country. Public services that the poorest and most vulnerable are most reliant on and the Tories main priority is running a budget surplus. They are so out of touch it is unreal.

 

It's astonishing.  I've been trying to understand it, and I can't.  Does he really think a government saves money, tucks it away under the pillow for a rainy day?  Have his briefings been so lacking that this delusion persists?  Or is he just irredeemably stupid?  Maybe he really does understand, and is trying to foment a false sense of crisis to push through ever more extreme measures?  I don't know what to think.  Though I feel I will come down on the side of him being pretty **** stupid.

[tonyh29]

Different IMO , Risso was clearly talking about a group , the other post was clearly aimed at 1 individual

So it's okay to insult an unspecified group of posters but not one (or, more accurately, two as your post helpfully pointed out!)? C'mon, mate.

Those people know who they are though , we all know who they are .. You could even argue its kinda accepted in this thread with the stereotyping that goes on ... they would no doubt use something similar against the right wingers should they ever start getting outraged by a 2 year old story ( sorry to bring it up again MBF ) The "certain posters" tag has been used frequently in the last few days and its too easy to hide behind ... Its clear who the poster was attacking in this instance so why not say it ? ( well it would have been clear if he hadn't then confused the quotes he was attributing ) That's why I deem it different ... And probably OT but appreciate you are due a response Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29

[peterms]

 

 

Different IMO , Risso was clearly talking about a group , the other post was clearly aimed at 1 individual

So it's okay to insult an unspecified group of posters but not one (or, more accurately, two as your post helpfully pointed out!)?

C'mon, mate.

 

Those people know who they are though , we all know who they are .. You could even argue its kinda accepted in this thread with the stereotyping that goes on ... they would no doubt use something similar against the right wingers should they ever start getting outraged by a 2 year old story ( sorry to bring it up again MBF ) The "certain posters" tag has been used frequently in the last few days and its too easy to hide behind ... Its clear who the poster was attacking in this instance so why not say it ? ( well it would have been clear if he hadn't then confused the quotes he was attributing )

That's why I deem it different ... And probably OT but appreciate you are due a response

 

 

There you go again.

 

Your delight in having found someone posting an old link, thinking it was new, eclipses the issue.

 

The issue is that Westminster Council has repeatedly tried to ban soup runs over the course of ten years.

 

Do you get that?  If you do, then you will see that whether a story is two years old, or six, or ten, is no longer the issue.

 

Yes, the OP thought it was current.  Yes, he made a mistake.  Yes, he admitted it.  At that point, in my view, you let it go, as I said in similar circumstances about another poster, coming from another political direction altogether.  You "liked" that post, but now you want to engage in the repeated gouging of the wound that you seemed to despise when it was done against your allies.  I'm not sure that's how you would want to see yourself, is it?

[snowychap]

That's why I deem it different ... And probably OT but appreciate you are due a response

Rather than drag this thread through more, I'll send you a pm but I think that's pretty skewiff. Sorry.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Different IMO , Risso was clearly talking about a group , the other post was clearly aimed at 1 individual

So it's okay to insult an unspecified group of posters but not one (or, more accurately, two as your post helpfully pointed out!)?

C'mon, mate.

 

Those people know who they are though , we all know who they are .. You could even argue its kinda accepted in this thread with the stereotyping that goes on ... they would no doubt use something similar against the right wingers should they ever start getting outraged by a 2 year old story ( sorry to bring it up again MBF ) The "certain posters" tag has been used frequently in the last few days and its too easy to hide behind ... Its clear who the poster was attacking in this instance so why not say it ? ( well it would have been clear if he hadn't then confused the quotes he was attributing )

That's why I deem it different ... And probably OT but appreciate you are due a response

 

No need for an appology, I posted in haste and didn't check sources as should have and I usually do and the rsult I ended up looking a bit of a tit, but at least it lead to some light hearted banter and gentle poking fun at, or at least I hope it was light hearted, which i fully expected, if I'm so thin skinnned i can't take it I should go live under a rock and spend my days knitting yogurt.

[snowychap]

...at least it lead to some light hearted banter and gentle poking fun at, or at least I hope it was light hearted...

It's light hearted banter if you are either relatively new to the posting in this type of thread, seeking not to get in to a confrontation with another poster or seeking to hide behind a claim/supposition that it is/was such. Edited September 30, 2013 by snowychap

[mockingbird_franklin]

Well I took no offence, I've given and recieved far worse over the years, besides, did tony admit to being a raving right winger or not amongst all the multiple quoting? I've been too busy buiding a temple out of old NHS beds to Margaret Thatcher with a nice side shrine made out of old bikes dredged from the canal to Norman Tebbitt to keep up.

Edited September 30, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[peterms]

, it's odd that you place the blame on them without any explanation.

........

- evidence, or just opinion?

If only someone posted something on twitter as proof hey ..

I read somewhere a comment from a (ex) policeman explaining why the BBC were denied access to the balcony .. I can't link to it as it was a private conversation but it "could" be a plausible explanation ,him being a former policeman and all that

 

Sorry, I can make no sense of that, nor reply to it.

[tonyh29]

There you go again. Your delight in having found someone posting an old link ...: but now you want to engage in the repeated gouging of the wound

See MBF's reply below yours for the correct response to my latest post It was a joke , making fun of the ongoing discussion / banter / irrelevance / whatever from this afternoon that the original poster was happy to play along with and ended with an agreement on Toblerone As it should be ... Your post is way over the top I'm sure you'll be along next time I bring up Prescott Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29

[peterms]

Tony, your responses could be from the Tory conference speechwriter/jokewriter.  I'm sorry to heap this level of personal abuse on you, and I expect it's against site guidelines, but I thought I should point it out.

[Risso]

 

 

 But curiously, though it works directly against their own interest, they tend to defend millionaire tax avoiders.  The old tory trait of deference, I suppose.

 

 

You seemed quite keen to defend Ed Milliband's tax avoidance the other day. Is it OK if the millionaire is a Labour politician?

[snowychap]

Wasn't it you claiming it was tax avoidance and him questioning your (potentially biased) assertion that it was?

There are one or two levels of irony in all that considering your profession (of course if you wish to hide behind the niqab of anonymity then I'll retract this line of posting ).

Wasn't it you claiming it was tax avoidance and him questioning your (potentially biased) assertion that it was?

[tonyh29]

Tony, your responses could be from the Tory conference speechwriter/jokewriter. I'm sorry to heap this level of personal abuse on you, and I expect it's against site guidelines, but I thought I should point it out.

If you'd had said Ed's scriptwriter/joke writer I'd have been deeply insulted

But in this instance it's now me that is deeply confused as your post has no relevance to the previous few posts that had just gone on

[Risso]

Wasn't it you claiming it was tax avoidance and him questioning your (potentially biased) assertion that it was?

There are one or two levels of irony in all that considering your profession (of course if you wish to hide behind the niqab of anonymity then I'll retract this line of posting ).

 

Ed Milliband benefited from a bigger inheritance as a result of avoiding IHT on his father's estate.  There's nothing biased about that, it's a fact.  And if you think that's ironic, then you are Alanis Morissette and I claim my five pounds.

[tonyh29]

Wasn't it you claiming it was tax avoidance and him questioning your (potentially biased) assertion that it was? There are one or two levels of irony in all that considering your profession (of course if you wish to hide behind the niqab of anonymity then I'll retract this line of posting ). Wasn't it you claiming it was tax avoidance and him questioning your (potentially biased) assertion that it was?

Go get yourself a cup of tea as I fear we are in for a long night about house property prices and inheritance avoidance , I mean transfers Edit : Bugger Risso posted his reply before me and killed my witty foresight Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

Ed Milliband benefited from a bigger inheritance as a result of avoiding IHT on his father's estate.  There's nothing biased about that, it's a fact.

And that was the point that I was making - wasn't Peter questioning that fact rather than accepting it as fact and then defending it.

And if you think that's ironic, then you are Alanis Morissette and I claim my five pounds.

How can I be accused of thinking that something that you have said/claimed (in contrast to what I have said/claimed was ironic) was ironic? If you're claiming five pounds then claim it off yourself matey - you've conjured up some notion that the strength of the irony involved revolves around the factual veracity of any constituent parts rather than how they fit together (whether strictly accurate or not).

[colhint]

15-30