"My background was the North of England, my friends and activities were based there, I liked living there - nobody should ever have the right to demand that I move elsewhere because the system we live in can no longer provide work for vast sweeps of Britain"

Nobody has ever suggested that anyone should have the right to demand that you do anything.

The "system" we live in (Or more correctly in your case lived in) in Britain is not really very different to the "system" under which you'd live anywhere else in Europe and probably a lot better than many judging by the number of people from all over racing through the countries of the EU to attempt to get into the UK.

Nowhere in Europe, or for that matter anywhere in the world, does "the system" provide work for everyone on their doorsteps (You previously claimed that as a right and you were asked to identify where this right is laid down - needless to say you failed to do so - so that claim was just thrown on top of the Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" Pile)

"At that time the North east and Northwest of Britain were permanent unemployment black-spots, the Midlands were not much better, the work was centred in the South-east which was the only place in Britain where it was readily available."

Good heavens I came from Scotland and at that time there loads of people in work. My brother worked in the Midlands, the cities of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby were collectively described as the "Diamond" triangle, they were considered to be the three richest cities in Europe.

"Your account of the Scandinavian model, based on social co-operation between workers organisations and government bodies a gross distortion of what happens there and is impractical here anyway as historically, the British establishment has refused to recognise workers representation as part of governance"

My account of what happens in Scandinavia is based on me having lived and worked there for many years - your take on it is based upon what you think you've read and understood from a paper that was written ten years ago.

Trades Unions are supposed to look out for the best interests of their members. Great pity that the bosses of the Trades Union movement in the UK forgot about that and decided that they had any role to play in the governing of the country - simply put they don't.

Couple of things about Trades Unions in Scandinavia and in Germany - they restrict themselves to looking after their members and are aware of what constitutes being in the best interests of the industries their members are involved in - Company profits are viewed by those unions as being essential to the health and survivability of the companies and industries providing employment for their members. The hand they play in the day to day life of those companies is extremely responsible - In the days we are talking about how many "wildcat strikes" were there in the UK? How many in Germany? (Give you a hint - None the term is unknown and the practice illegal). In Scandinavia prior notice must be given of any strike action and the duration of any strike is limited. Once that limit has been reached the dispute goes to binding arbitration and once the verdict is given that is the end of the matter - Again in Scandinavian countries Trades Unions have no role in the governance of the country.

"Britain has opted to force people to take whatever menial job is available"

Now where on earth did you get twaddle from? Give me an example of anybody being forced to do any job in the UK by the Government. The problem is exactly the opposite with the Government seemingly being content to shovel out billions in benefits to those who steadfastly refuse to go out and find jobs that are there. They must be there because loads of people are coming into the country from all over and are being employed in jobs that our unemployed are not prepared to do. More people working in the UK today than at any time in the countries history.

"We live in a stable society where people have established permanent identities in specific areas - we are no longer a nomadic nation and haven't been since the Neolithic period, yet twots like you would turn us into hunter-gatherers all over again.

Simple matter of choice for which the individual is responsible for preparing themselves for the adult world they will soon join. If they fail to do that then as with anything involving choices there are consequences that they must accept. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.

"We are human beings, not chess-pieces to be moved about to suit an economy favouring as small, privileged group who have become the sole beneficiary of the riches of society."

I think that you will find that this small privileged group consist of people who actually earned what they have, they worked for it usually from very humble beginnings.

Your scummy argument that those who will not revert to itinerancy to find work should be either forced to by law or starved into accepting anything, whether it suits our capabilities or meets our needs, or not - which is the logic of your argument - it is primitive and savage situation you propose.

If you wish your job in life to suit your capabilities and meet your needs, then you should appreciate that YOU must start preparing for it while YOU are still at school - It is not the governments job to do that for you, it never was - IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. If it doesn't happen because you didn't do anything about it, it is not anybody else's fault but your own. If this is not explained to you firstly by your parents and secondly by your teachers then you have been severely let down, but by the time you leave primary school and enter secondary education it should have become pretty self-evident. If YOU, yourself are not going to think about your own future why the hell should anyone else? Life is NOT fair, it never ever was and it never ever will be, prepare yourself as best you can to live it.

"You say we should move where the work is, yet you refuse to tell us where we are going to find somewhere to live in areas where accommodation costs are directly linked to employment"

You say you moved down to London to find work - did you live in - "hobo encampments, workingmens' hostels, or did you sleep rough?

Of course you didn't, neither did I, you found somewhere to live that you could afford.

Unfortunately for your argument at the time we are talking about it was a Labour Government that had introduced a pay freeze that covered both private and public sector workers and the Trades Union movement full of piss and an over-inflated sense of its importance in the scheme of things completely ignored what it should have been doing and decided to try and take the duly elected Government of the country down - for the best part of a decade they had really screwed the country up and made it an international laughing stock - that ended when the results of the 1979 election were made known and a Prime Minister entered Downing Street on a promise and with a mandate to curb Union power in this country - thankfully she succeeded.

I seem to remember not so long ago your defending military officers who, at a time when hostile forces within Britain were threatening armed violence against British citizens, declared they were not prepared to act to prevent that violence."

You mean in March 1914 when a few officers stated their right to withdraw their labour by resigning their commissions in response to a "hypothetical" situation described to them?

You of course presented this as an act of aggression, that involved half the Army - it didn't, that the men refused orders when in fact no orders were given for them to disobey, and then finally when orders were given they were carried out and complied with promptly to the letter.

Now what point were you attempting to make?