BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:42 AM

My apology was to the OP, McGrath of Harlow, as he requested that such posts should not occur here. I am correct to apologise to him. I make no apology to the other party as none is merited.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 05:49 AM

"The statement was that it was "ram-packed" when in fact there were empty seats,"
The example given in the e-mail from an executive was of someone who spent a 150 mile jouney standing up outside a lavatory
Filling trains to the extent that they can no longer move, which is Virgin's policy - is "ram-packed, by any description.
Virgin's attempts to prevent competitive lines from encouraging customers to use their trains is an indication that they are happy to see travellers treated like cattle, as long as it is on their trains.
Sir Richard is no more than a tax dodging profiteer using the British people to add another billion to his fortune - and pay no tax while doing so.
The Labour Party has him bang to rights.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 09:36 AM

Corbyn's train was not ram-packed.
It had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:07 AM

Raggy of course under your rather warped reasoning no apology should be made for your unnecessary, insulting remark made from a position of pure and total ignorance of fact. I would expect nothing else from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM

No, no apology is required for an aggressive, belligerent, bellicose, argumentative bully who lacks even a basic education and believes if he shouts loud enough and violently enough he will "win" an argument.

Life ain't like that ....... fortunately.

Sorry Mr McGrath but it had to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:00 PM

I'd back my education against yours any day Raggy judging by what you have posted so far. Anytime you have attempted to challenge me on facts (Remember "conscription" and the "Derby Scheme" you have come off decidedly second best.

The following comment is based upon total ignorance - ".....who lacks even a basic education" - is what Raggy posted about me on this thread for all to read.

This however is another of his comments about me:

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

That is what you said to me in private wasn't it Raggy?

You are a two faced hypocrite Raggy and as such beneath contempt, so henceforth I will call you "Kipper" - two faced and gutless.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM

Champion, I like kippers.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:38 AM

So the polls are saying that Jeremy Corbyn will get 60 plus percent of the vote. What happens next? Split or splints?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:01 AM

I dont know about the polls but it is worth checking the bookies' odds. You don't win much betting on a Corbyn victory.

My guess is that there will not be a split but the sniping will continue especially if Corbyn support has fallen (even if is only a few percent and still miles ahead)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:24 AM

There's a lot I don't get about it all. The main one is they don't appear to care about getting elected, so what's the point?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:36 AM

"It had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda."
Virgin policy is to pack their trains to the gunnels until they can no longer move - they have admitted that fact.
That Corbyn chose to use a 'politicia's' method to underline that point is immaterial - that's how politicians work.
It would be "lying" and "hypocritical" if what was drawing attention to was not true - it is, and the fact that you choose to not comment on it is a sign that you know it is true - making you a liar and a hypocrite.   
Simple question - is this not the stated policy of Virgin
No answer - you are a hypocrite
A denial - you are telling lies.
Game over
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: theleveller
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 11:20 AM

"Corbyn's train was not ram-packed.
It had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda."

If you had the honesty to look closely, you would have seen that most (if not all) of the seats that were unoccupied had reserved tickets on them. I assume that you don't travel much on Virgin Trains. I do. If you buy a ticket in advance, some fares require you to have a seat reservation. You can't use the ticket without the reservation and you can't sit in someone else's reserved seat without the appropriate ticket and reservation. This is the bane of anyone who travels regularly with a season ticket. Some conductors are more relaxed about this, some aren't. I don't think the headline "Corbyn took my reserved seat" would have gone down well. The fact is, it was Virgin who staged its illegally-posted video.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:03 PM

It would be "lying" and "hypocritical" if what was drawing attention to was not true -

Other trains may be crowded, but his had vacant seats so the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because his train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

There were many reserved seats, but he himself admitted there were empty, unreserved seats but he wanted two together!
He decided not to mention that while sitting alone on the floor, so the video was lying political propaganda which you people would not defend if it was by anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:39 PM

Give it a rest, Keith. You're making a fool of yourself. Nobody cares any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:46 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Except you it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 05:25 PM

I'm only trying to help Keith out of his problems, you know. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Apparently YOU do, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:27 PM

"Other trains may be crowded,"
Which was the point of the exercise - prove beyond any doubt by the admission of Virgin executive statements.
Never mind Keith - i'm sue there will be other occasions when you will be able to defend the good name of billionaire tax dodgers
Are you on commission from Virgin- my a season ticket to a square foot of free standing room for a year on one of their trains!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:55 PM

And apparently Jim does!

Jim, his train had seats.
His train was not "ram-packed"
The video he staged of himself sitting on the floor of his train, supposedly because his train was "ram-packed," was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:09 PM

Are you a parrot, Keith? Or is it just lack of imagination? You appear to be repeating yourself an awful lot on TWO threads now. Beats debate, I suppose...😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:16 PM

Awwrk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 04:46 AM

Just stating facts Steve.
They are not debatable, as Corbyn himself has acknowledged that they are true.


Give it a rest, Keith. You're making a fool of yourself. Nobody cares any more.

All my posts on the subject have been in response to posts form you and Jim supporting or denying Corbyn's lying.
You would not do that for anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:24 AM

"Jim, his train had seats."
Back into repetitive Dalek mode again Keith.
Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded
Virgin's policy encourages that overcrowding
Virgin's attempts to quash opposition means that are happy with their cattle transporter attitude as long as the cattle-trucks are theirs
Richard Branson is a tax dodger
WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS UNTRUE?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:46 AM

If Corbyn has really been on an overcrowded train, it would not be lying political propaganda for him to pretend to be on one.

According to you, he should have had no trouble finding one.
I have no opinion on Branson or Virgin although their trains have to carry many more people that there predecessors ever did.
All our services and infrastructure are being overwhelmed by our ballooning population.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:11 AM

"Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded
Virgin's policy encourages that overcrowding
Virgin's attempts to quash opposition means that are happy with their cattle transporter attitude as long as the cattle-trucks are theirs
Richard Branson is a tax dodger
WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS UNTRUE?"
Jim Carroll

"Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded" - WHAT??? ALL OF THEM?? - Idiotic generalisation completely demolished by the CCTV of Corbyn on his trip to Newcastle.

"Virgin's policy encourages that overcrowding" - What policy? That rolling stock is matched to services based upon average utilisation by the public. Never known commuter trains to be anything other than crowded at peak times and that goes back over decades to when the Railways were in public ownership.

"Virgin's attempts to quash opposition means that are happy with their cattle transporter attitude as long as the cattle-trucks are theirs" - Attempts? So they haven't been successful then? So what is your point?

"Richard Branson is a tax dodger" - Untrue, he's way and by far, far too high profile to be a tax dodger. Is he resident in the United Kingdom? No he is not. Is he domiciled in the UK? No he is not. So who and where is he dodging tax from? Having scuttled off to the west coast of Ireland Jom does that make you a tax dodger? You do pay UK tax on your UK pension don't you Jom? I mean you did get the maximum pension didn't you?

Stand by for the usual multi-coloured spittle-flecked rant in response.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:37 AM

"WHAT??? ALL OF THEM?? -"
Vigtin's policy is to ram pack all of them to the point they can't move.
V"irgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move"
By Fraser Clarke - August 26, 2016 0 87"
Branson is a tax exile - his tax evasion goes back to the 1970s when he was "quickly caught, confessed and put on probation; promising to pay the taxes over the following three years."
Horse's mouth confession
As far as I am concerned - I paid tax all my working life - I retired and moved to Ireland, though I continue to pay the relevant demanded taxes here (community charges based on the value of our home and water charges)
My state pension (£135 per week) is below the amount I am required to pay tax.
Next!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 10:47 AM

Ah but Jom:

1: Was the plain simple statement that "Virgin trains are grossly overcrowded" - they are not your statement is an idiotic generalisation that is untrue, which is what you asked.

2: "Virgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move" - Again untrue the safety measure is based on total carriage weight so does not necessarily have anything to do with passenger numbers, as it would be based upon individual passenger weigh + the weight of their luggage.

3: Branson is a tax exile Ah so he is now a tax exile NOT a tax dodger as you originally stated so I was correct in pointing out to you that your original contention was UNTRUE thank you for admitting that error on your part. Nothing wrong at all in him being a tax exile, he paid tax on his UK earnings and apparently still does according to the article you linked to, which by the way Jom made no mention of him evading tax as your post seemed to imply.

4: Sir Richard Branson pays what tax he has to as do you. Technically you are no different. Sir Richard Branson has to watch and keep track of how much time he spends in the UK, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:57 PM

It's all gone quiet again so how about this;

Do all you dedicated lefties support the proposed 5 day strike by the junior doctors, and if so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:32 PM

Well you tell us first what a "dedicated leftie" is when it's at home. Alternatively, try to grow up, and see the issue squarely from both sides of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:56 PM

" they are not your statement is an idiotic generalisation that is untrue"
You've had company policy.
If they aren't overcrowded then the company is inefficient, because that's what they aim for - fill 'em till they can't move.
"Sir Richard Branson pays what tax he has to as do you"
Branson has moved abroad to dodge paying tax - he continues to profit by overfilling his trains in Britain - he is depriving Britain of the tax on what he is making - he is a predatory prick whether he a "Sir" or not
If one of us did it we'd be one of your "scroungers, ruining Britain"
Your double-standards are what has created te ever increasing gap between wealthy and poor - the rich predators get a knighthood and the less well-off are told to "get on our bikes" by cap-doffers like you "yer 'onour".
Long live patriotism eh?
"junior doctors", are facing pay cuts of over %30
They and those who work in the Health service are entitled to what they can get in the unfair society we live in.
The fact that their work is important to Britain should be a reason why their living standards should not be eaten away - instead it is given as a reason why they should not defend their livelihoods and take whatever their employers choose to dole out - seems a bit arse-about-face to me.
If their job is important, that should be reflected in their pay and conditions and not be at the mercy of whatever this appalling society throws at them.
Good luck to them.
Maybe Virgin, Starbucks and Apple, Shell, British American Tobacco, Lloyds Banking Group, Vodafone, SABMiller, AstraZeneca, Facebook....... and ALL THE OTHER PREDATORS can contribute from the money they're saving by not paying tax
Patriots - who'd have 'em?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:45 PM

Jim Carroll wrote: "junior doctors", are facing pay cuts of over %30

Junior Doctors are now being paid more for working less hours than they ever had to work before. The only way they could earn 30% less is because they are now no longer required to work 90 hours a week. It's gone down to 70 something hours a week. One of their complaints is about overtime pay. When you look at their basic pay it's way above the police and teachers and police and teachers don't get the oportunity to do massive amounts of overtime. Doctors have special allowances and conditions and they still want more.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:55 PM

Cor, only 70 hours a week! Lazy bastards!

What planet are you on? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:46 PM

Back in the seventies I worked as a scaffolder. It was target based work. You got paid for the amount of scaffolding you erected. It was commonly known that the jobs that had the best conditions and the best opportunities to earn money went to the men who had families and mortgages. It wasn't hidden. It was positive policy. I agreed with it.

My point is that it was possible to earn 70 hours plus if the conditions were right and no one argued with family men with mortgages getting the best jobs. No one could earn 90 hours a week. If I had had the opportunity to do that back then I would have had a go. People are representing 70 or 90 hours a week as a penalty but doctors are being paid fot this. They are getting paid the money.

On my less than £7000 a year state pension I might dream of such wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 09:54 PM

And these are 'junior' doctors.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 03:30 AM

"Junior Doctors are now being paid more for working less hours than they ever had to work before."
So - is not their contribution worth it?
The world we have had created for us is a dog eat dog one - why complain when working dogs manage to fight to retain what they have gained.
Change the world and you may have a point, but don't turn on the ones who do make a contribution to our lives.
I can recall exactly the same arguments being put forward about the "overpaid" printers working in the media.
They did well for themselves though being well organised, so their bosses, with the aid of the politicians, managed to turn the public against them.
Don't let it happen here.
The greed is at the top of the heap and it will stay there while they manage to focus the attention away from that fact.
"Cor, only 70 hours a week! Lazy bastards! "
My feelings exactly.
I started as an apprentice working five and a half days a week - 49 hours in all minus dinner break, back in the mid fifties.
Gradually and with a lot of hard, bitter argument, that was knocked down to 44 and then 40.
70 hours per week is medieval.
It's not as if their jobs aren't vital to our well-being.
To say their jobs at too important to allow them to take industrial action is crude blackmail and has been used against train and bus drivers... and virtually every group of workers who give a public service.
When bankers greed cocked up our economy, not only was the damage to the state paid for from our taxes, but the cockers-up paid themselves obscenely massive bonuses to put right the damage they had done.
It's a fine old world if you were born with enough silver spoons in your mouth!
More power to their elbows!
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 03:40 AM

Spoken like a true capitalist Jim.   why do you profess socialism?

I never hear you promoting a change in the socio economic system

I think you are just a "liberal" living in a fantasy world.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 04:31 AM

"Spoken like a true capitalist Jim.   "
No I don't Ake - I speak like someone who demands the best for all workers under the prevailing society and will do so as long as it remains.
"I never hear you promoting a change in the socio economic system"
You are joking, of course.
I have said from the beginning that the society we live under is "no loger fit for purpose" and needs changing - you, on the other hand, say it will never happen because "the British people will never stand for it".
Your "socialism" is a national one, with all the historical implications that brings.
Until society s changed, workers living under capitalism have a right to anything they can get
The idealists of this world believe they should sit on their hands and take what is given until "we educate them" (strange patronising attitude for a "socialist" to take) to think differently.
You really need to sort out your bizarre view of the class structure
By the way - a "capitalist" is someone who lives solely from invested capital, it's not a philosophy, it's an economic system in which none of us here are part of (to my knowledge) - you should know that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

Yes Stanron, they are junior doctors. I strongly suspect from that comment that you don't know what that means. It doesn't mean recently fledged ex-student medics, guys and gals still in in their twenties, apprentices, trainees or probationers. I suggest that you inform yourself before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:02 AM

The Huffington post describes Erdogan as "an elected dictator."
That is not "uninformed" or "a lie" but a view widely held by people who know a lot more about it that you two.

The Guardian,
"The attack on the judiciary is especially worrying in the light of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's contempt for human rights and the rule of law."
That is a description of a dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:12 AM

So sorry!
Wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 08:56 AM

Steve Shaw wrote: I suggest that you inform yourself before posting.

Why so tetchy Steve? I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers. There was no suggestion that they were not actually doctors. My point was that in the seventies there were loads of people in the building trade who would have welcomed earning that much overtime.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:17 AM

Good explanation of the dispute

"I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers." - spot on Stanron - Tell us all Shaw what was it that you used to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

""I got flashbacks to being told off by sarky school teachers." - spot on Stanron - Tell us all Shaw what was it that you used to do?"
I presume this is irony!!
Well done Mr Quelch!!
On to the stupid step with you Shaw Minor
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 09:24 AM

Sarky my arse. The post was a straightforward suggestion that he checked the facts about what he was going on about before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 10:28 AM

Great pity then Shaw that you don't follow your own advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:22 PM

Stop copying bobad. Cheap sniping is beneath you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 12:55 PM

Cheap sniping is beneath you.

Mr T? Bwaa-haa-haa-hah-ha-ha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:07 PM

It is perfectly possible to have vehement disagreements without descending into personal abuse, shaming people or exhibiting bullying behaviour. Forcefully made points and criticisms of the political views of others are totally legitimate, personal attacks are not.

Anybody disagree with that quote from the Labour Party's new policy statement on netiquette? I suggest we should try doing it that way for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Sep 16 - 01:45 PM

Yes please.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Sep 16 - 02:17 AM

So we get to the eve of the results of the vote and things are looking as many predicted. It seems the only doubt about a Corbyn victory is how large it will be. Owen Smith and last night Liz Kendall on Question Time are both saying how important unity is and they will work for it, while simultaneously refusing to work with Corbyn and making it clear the only unity they are interested in is unifying around the position they hold.

Looks like we continue as we are, then, until candidates are selected for the next election. Unless you think differently?