BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 11:30 AM

MPs voted 461 to 89 to invoke article 50 before April.
Since when can you vote on something a couple of months before it was voted on?
More ****** nonsense - almost as stupid as honest politicians.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:21 AM

and more importantly their colours are nailed to the mast for when the main brexit vote occurs. That could cause embarrassment should they then defy the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 09:05 AM

MPs voted 461 to 89 to invoke article 50 before April.
Most were against Brexit.
Since always they must respond to the will of the electorate or lose their lovely jobs Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

"Since always Jim."
You re joking - even you and your dozy mate have admitted the dishonesty of politicians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:25 AM

I think the voting percentages and what they mean have been done to death previously on this forum, unless there is something radically different to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:20 AM

The other 67% majority might be said to favour the status quo, as they either voted for it or not at all

Or, non voters might be fully in favour of leaving, or fully in favour of remaining.
Since they did not vote it is irrelevant anyway.

The referendum was held and a result achieved. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: daithi
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:12 AM

Seems to me that an honest and unbiased appraisal of the situation regarding the actual voting would be this:
37% of the electorate voted to leave. The other 67% majority might be said to favour the status quo, as they either voted for it or not at all. When such a large majority do not vote for change, the usual protocol is not to then rush off and implement that change.

As regards the Act which facilitated the referendum, section 5 does indeed indicate that it is advisory. Whether you agree with these objective points or not will, I expect, depend on whether you are in favour or not of Brexit. Therein lies the problem - mostly we are just trying to advance our own political preferences in these debates - not look for facts. Because if we don't like the facts, we ignore them. So truly impartial and honest debate seems impossible.... Just my two penn'orth :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 08:02 AM

Since when has any politition had to respond to the will of the electorate

Since always Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:40 AM

"May was anti-Brexit until the referendum."
So what - she is now doing what I described she is doing - and doing it using little Englander terms.
"She has responded to the will of the electorate."
Since when has any politition had to respond to the will of the electorate and she doesn't have to do anything by humiliating the British people by using terms reminiscent of being on an Orange Lodge parade - such stuff are television comedies made of.
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:34 AM

Who is the he that should have done all these things? Have I not already pointed out that the article was written by one Louise Trethowan a "middle-aged family woman and lifetime Conservative voter". She also mentions that she has "no history of political activism or agitation". I think she would rather get her information from her MP than any of those other sources anyway. Other than that quite significant point I really do think that I have nothing to add without repeating myself. Once again, to save the thread from terminal decline, I invite PMs.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:25 AM

Dave,
I believe that MPs should listen to the concerns of their constituents, you do not.

That is not true.
I consider it a jewel of our system that constituents can take relevant concerns to their MP even if it is the Prime Minister, but some concerns are just not worthy of any MPs time, e.g. obscene cloud shapes and old arguments about Brexit.

He could have got the answers to his questions from any one of us. We have been over it enough times and we do not have a country to run.
He could have gone to his local. Everyone has seen those questions put and answered many times. You do not need to waste any MPs time when others are waiting with real and relevant concerns.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:16 AM

You recall wrongly Stanron.
Guardian 3 Feb.
"Theresa May has indicated that she is prepared to campaign in favour of Britain's membership of the EU, boosting David Cameron hours after Brussels tabled proposals for a new settlement following months of talks with the UK.
The home secretary, at one time considered as a possible leading figure in the no campaign, described the proposals as the "basis for a deal"."

That was before any campaigning and long before any buses.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Stanron
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:07 AM

Keith A of Hertford wrote: May was anti-Brexit until the referendum.

As I recall it May started on the leave side and then changed to remain after bus-poster-gate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:07 AM

There is no further point in boring other people with our discussion, Keith. I find the article worrying, you do not. I believe that MPs should listen to the concerns of their constituents, you do not. There is no common ground. If you wish to continue please feel free to PM me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 07:01 AM

If I was concerned about obscene cloud shapes and took my concerns to my MP, it would be a waste of their time.
Also if I took my concerns about Brexit to them.

Jim, May was anti-Brexit until the referendum.
She has responded to the will of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:38 AM

Not a lot of the time, Iains. Yes, the party whip can be used and should a party member vote against it they will be censured or punished in some way. There are many times when the party whip does not apply and, if I had my way, it be removed from parliamentary procedure altogether to allow the MPs to genuinely represent the wishes of their constituents.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:37 AM

"Then why did you not challenge Steve when he said,"
Because they are different issues.
Being someone's "delegate" is a mile from representing all of the constituency, or the country.
May's 'Drumbeating" statement is little Englander writ large especially as she is in the forefront of the move to restrict travel for British people seeking work in Europe and the ending of uninterrupted passage across Europe that membership of the E.U. gave it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

Does an MP not generally do what the whips tell him to?(something to do with the little black book the whips keep)
It saves them being torn between the wishes of their electorate and their lobbyists. Such is the true working of democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 06:26 AM

Most MPs hold surgeries in their constituency to give people an opportunity to meet them and discuss matters of concern. MPs usually hold surgeries once a week and advertise them locally or online. A MP may take up an issue on a constituent's behalf.

Taken from

MPs surgeries

I think it is traveling down a slippery slope when we begin to deem someone else's concerns as a waste of anyones time or less important than others. But that is just me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:42 AM

Speaking to one of them should never be considered a waste of time

Of course it can.
This one just wanted to rehash stuff that has been hashed(?) interminably everywhere for over a year.
That is not what MPs surgeries are for.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:32 AM

The best use of any MPs time is serving his or her constituents. Speaking to one of them should never be considered a waste of time

Once again, I am not my brothers keeper. But I would point out that Mrs May is a very high powered MP who should be challenged over such statements while Mr Shaw is a sandal wearing, left wing, hippy ex teacher who has no power to affect my life in any way shape or form. Other than buying me too much beer. Chance would be a fine thing...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:22 AM

It is worrying that a member of parliament is happy to use the phrase that she is "not obliged to be the voice of her constituents."

Then why did you not challenge Steve when he said,
"Well I don't want my MP to be my delegate. I want him (mine's a "he," a Tory one unfortunately) to dedicate himself to being a damn sight more knowledgable about the intricacies of the issues of the day than I am so that he can come to better decisions than I could. That's his job, not to make relatively uninformed opinions his priority in judging how he should proceed. "

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

I can not agree.
Those were all old questions already thrashed out ad nauseum.
No wonder she grew impatient.

It was not the best use of her time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 05:10 AM

It is worrying to me that a person with so many people to advise her can just spout media sound bites and party line to answer genuine concerns. It is worrying that a person who wields such power can seem "petulant, defensive, tired and rattled" with the actions of a "Random Australian punter". It is worrying that a member of parliament is happy to use the phrase that she is "not obliged to be the voice of her constituents." It is worrying that the prime minister of a world power can lose her temper enough to point her finger into the face of a constituent and then try to excuse it by saying people do it to her.

There is plenty to worry about in the article itself but my final worry is that anyone would consider the questions as a waste of time and not being as pressing or real as anyone elses issues. BTW, for those who dismissed the article so quickly that they did not notice, it was by Louise Trethowan a "middle-aged family woman and lifetime Conservative voter".

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 16 - 04:47 AM

What was worrying about that Dave?
Those questions have all been put many times before.
He should have known the answers and was just wasting her time.
There will have been constituents with real, pressing problems waiting.

Steve, you will have agreed with her about not being a delegate.
You have argued that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 02:35 PM

I'm not surprised. She doesn't get on very well with other Tories either. Cameron regarded her as a whingeing pain in the arse. Bloody useless without the spinners by her side. Actually the full stop came six words too late in that sentence. And how long have we known all this?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

Getting back to the question in hand. A rather worrying encounter with our PM in the New European

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 03:51 AM

Interesting, and a sign of hope, that the extreme right got their arses kicked in Austria, after a second attempt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 16 - 02:25 AM

Interesting to see what the referendum result in Italy will lead to.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 12:49 PM

"I don't intend to waste any more time on your education Jim,"
You don't have to Ake - you have already educated me as to what you are - and you have been proved to have lied.
I don't intend wasting my time on you either - other than to respond directly and honestly to your extremist right wing postings
"nothing about gas chambers.
Another lie
I didn't claim you did - I said your views are the same as those which filled gas chambers - which they are
The "hate" speaks for itself in many of your postings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:45 AM

I don't intend to waste any more time on your education Jim, some things you just have to work out for yourself, if you don't like it feel free to rant lie and misconstrue to your hearts content.

I'm sorry you feel so aggressive as you possibly have a good side, try to calm down we are old men we wont change anything at this juncture......the best we can do is be honest with ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:40 AM

Regarding the "immigration" posts, what I said five years ago is exactly what has happened ....a backlash against the "liberal" elite.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:33 AM

Yes I posted all these, nothing about racism, nothing about hatred, nothing about gas chambers.

Just a vain attempt to explain the situation to someone who had got the wrong end of the stick.

How can you be so foolish.
Next?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:31 AM

Your offerings on why Breivek murdered all those young people
Jim Carroll

24 Jul 11 - 12:19 PM
I think Teribus has it about right. To start with, the guy must have been seriously deranged to perpetrate such an atrocity.
Secondly he appears to be an extreme Nationalist who has been driven over the edge by the policies of the Norwegian govt.
(Please dont try to mis-represent that statement)
As western economies worsen and living standards, pension rights, public services come under further attack,expect to see a backlash against the policies pursued by goverments in Western Europe over the last couple of decades.
Perhaps we may yet see Mr Powells "rivers of blood".....I certainly hope not, but action needs to be taken now to reverse some of the policies which have created the "time bomb

24 Jul 11 - 02:42 PM
These are the actions which often occur when a people lose their voice, or are unable to make their feelings known.
Example the use of words like racist, homophobe, bigot here on Mudcat to shut down debate.....and most here are reasonable, intelligent, sane.
How do the less literate come to terms with these problems?
There are great numbers of people in our society and in the US who disagree strongly with the policies of parties which are to all intents and purposes indistiguishable from one another.
For years they have been ramming through poisonous policies against which the ordinary folk have no redress.
Example..a couple of years ago anyone who suggested a cap on immigration here was branded a racist and a bigot.....now this has been accepted by every party as necessary.
We now need to tackle the failed notion of "multiculturalism" along with many other social idiocies.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:22 AM

"the last posing was the first you posted"
The penultimate one was the one you first posted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 11:17 AM

Your vociferous defence of forcing Asylum Seekers to wear identification bands – after the right-wing press had compared it to "Jewish Yellow Stars" and it had been abandoned as a dangerous practice.
The list is in reverse order - the last posing was the first you posted
Jim Carroll

08 Feb 16 - 04:28 PM
As far as I am concerned there was nothing wrong with the colour of the doors, the house number plates, or the wristbands.....these people are seeking asylum, they will be receiving benefits, food, and a newly refurbished house, something our own young people can only dream about.   Try to get a grip on reality, the media sniffed a human rights story and dived in feet first....rather than take them on as they should have done, the housing agencies backed down.

08 Feb 16 - 03:44 AM
Jim..."armbands" were wristbands, the difference has already been explained.
The "red plaques" were door numbers, why do you continue to call them "plaques"......does it sound more in keeping with your CT?
The "red doors" were company policy, just as the doors of our council houses were at painted green......of course the Rangers supporters thought that was a conspiracy too!! :0)
I am amazed that you can continue this nonsense.

30 Jan 16 - 06:52 AM

"It is a way of tagging people and it has been proven to have put people at risk yet our star super-rights continue to defend the use of compulsory markers to identify foreigners - why am I not surprised"
Rubbish! It is a way of identifying those who have entitlement not "foreigners"....the majority of immigrants don't have entitlement.
Get a grip, or give it a rest.

30 Jan 16 - 06:42 AM
The "red plaques" Jim,   You forgot to mention that they were house number plates newly fitted on specially refurbished property.
hat colour of number plate would be acceptable to you....the wristbands were pink by the way.
This whole pantomime carried out by the media is getting beyond a joke!......Who is actually running this country?

Jan 16 - 05:26 AM
Exactly.....Even! George Galloway on TV this morning was unable to condemn it, saying that it was common practice at Rock concerts and other public occasions to differentiate between those who had paid for entry and those who had not.

29 Jan 16 - 02:59 PM

Jim, don't you realise that this whole petty charade has been orchestrated by the media and they will make a meal of it.
Nothing they print on this non issue has any credibility.
For once in your life use your own brain to work things out.
Keith is perfectly correct, but the media hounds are on the scent of a story, politicians are running scared and truth and common sense are abandoned.

29 Jan 16 - 06:57 AM
It would seem to me that the wristbands were used in case of language difficulties, to aid communication?
That would seem the sensible answer to the dilemma.....but who cares about common sense when there is a political point to score!! :0)

28 Jan 16 - 06:56 AM
Jim, I know you are not stupid,
so I can only presume that you are being disingenuous.
Of course I don't support attacks on anyone, but I am not "surprised" when they happen under the circumstances and I do not believe that door colour has anything at all to do with it....I'm sure there are millions of red doors on letting property all over the country behind which dwell all sorts of people.

28 Jan 16 - 06:11 AM
I think a sense of perspective is required.
We assisted in the "democratisation" of the Middle East and North Africa so our government have a duty to clear up a part of the mess incurred......do not act so shocked or surprised if a large section of the population react against this, given the austerity they are being asked to suffer due to a failure of the current economic system.
The uniform painting of the exterior of rented property has never been a means of discrimination, simply business practice.
The response on this forum makes me shake my head in disbelief at the capacity of so many people to absorb media bullshit.

27 Jan 16 - 02:17 PM
On BBC last night, they were saying that there hade been no attacks on houses or persons in that vicinity.

27 Jan 16 - 02:14 PM
I don't believe for a minute that any commercial enterprise would deliberately encourage vandalism of their property Jim, that argument just doesn't make sense.
Additionally I'm sure everyone in the town knows where the ASs have been housed, they do not need to rely on door colour to find them.
Perhaps you are suggesting that foreign AS should be placed amongst local people one or two per street, but I'm sure that would be very difficult to organise and would involve the decamping of local families.....I don't think the AS would be very happy either as they would probably feel isolated.
As far as I can make out, the houses were empty, then bought and refurbished specially to accommodate these people, that is why there are so many AS housed together.
Do you believe in "bogey men" Jim?

27 Jan 16 - 11:06 AM
But why would they want their property damaged?

27 Jan 16 - 05:00 AM
Jim it pains me to say this, but you are acting in a deranged manner over this....no one is defending anything, there was a reason why letting agencies wanted all their property to remain uniform externally.    Public taste. Some people have weird ideas on how their houses should look, and if they are not in a conservation area and they own the property that is fine....however if they do not own the property they will normally not be allowed to tamper with the outside decoration or dictate what colour it should be.
Additionally what would be the purpose of "identifying asylum seekers", to the letting agencies? this could cause trouble and damage to the property.
Are you seriously contending that this was the letting agencies intentions?.......I think you are being disingenuous, you don't believe such a thing, but find promoting the idea as beneficial to your "liberal" agenda.
The whole episode is a nonsense a symptom of a society which no longer has any cohesion or belief in itself.....and I am sorry to say that it is people like you and others on this forum....who have made it so.
"The politics of the madhouse"

26 Jan 16 - 05:13 PM
If anyone painted their doors or walls another colour, they were censured and had to pay for repainting.
Tenants rights are confined to the inside of property in regard to decoration......Landlords are responsible for outside maintenance, unless tenants offer to do it at their own expense, then their request will be considered.

26 Jan 16 - 05:02 PM
I used to live in a council house, the doors a walls were painted every couple of years by council workers.
Tenants were not allowed to decorate the OUTSIDE of their houses.
There were no asylum seekers in our scheme.
Exterior decoration is probably covered in the terms of lease.

26 Jan 16 - 11:06 AM
Perhaps something to do with language difficulties? Was there any additional information on the wristbands?
If the people were from Syria or Libya I don't suppose racists would require wristbands to identify them.

6 Jan 16 - 10:28 AM
What a joke, they're painting the doors four different colours, but there is a problem ....they have only one colour of undercoat :0(
They'll need to slap the gloss on quick!!
You folks need to get a bloody life, the lady was right it's about economics.....the council used to paint all the doors green because they bought a bulk lot.

26 Jan 16 - 05:02 PM
I used to live in a council house, the doors a walls were painted every couple of years by council workers.
Tenants were not allowed to decorate the OUTSIDE of their houses.
There were no asylum seekers in our scheme.
Exterior decoration is probably covered in the terms of lease.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:53 AM

You are seriously suggesting that you said none of those things?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:47 AM

If so, it's a deficiency I shall treasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:44 AM

ludicrously incomprehensible.

I have never had any problem comprehending Ake.
Perhaps the deficiency is with you?

"Incomprehensive" to self-inflicted illiterates, maybe

I think you have it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 10:41 AM

OK Jim, how about everything in the post "Jim Carroll 3 Dec 16...12:31 pm".......I have identified them you prove they are true.

Or even that I actually wrote them.   None of your crooked quotes either, if you please.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:58 AM

You fail to answer my questions and you fail to identify the lies you claim I have told
The game's up Ake
"Incomprehensive" to self-inflicted illiterates, maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:50 AM

Your standpoint on almost everything you "write here about" (pompous sod) is ludicrously incomprehensible. You live in your own unprickable little bubble.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:22 AM

Another thing Jim, I could go through your whole list of complaints and explain my meaning and my stance, but I don't write here for you alone. I expect a certain degree of comprehension from the membership of this illustrious forum.....a degree which you either do not possess or which you prefer not to use?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM

"The reason of course is that conservatives see the world as it is and actually believe what they espouse, we on the other hand see the world as we would like it to be and only a tiny minority understand or truly believe in our stated views."

I Jim, am one of that tiny minority.....you as far as I can see are definitely not.
You strike me as a "committed liberal" believing exactly what the establishment want and expect you to believe.

Someone above, it may have been you, mentioned "caricature" and I suppose that just about covers it really.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 16 - 04:55 AM

"A whole ream of misrepresentation and outright lies Jim, breath taking in their viciousness."
Then you put them up and I'll knock them down Ake - which of the things I have describe have you not subscribed to?
"I have always stated"
What you have stated is irrelevant if it does not coincide with what you actually say.
"I am strongly opposed to the capitalist economic system"
Yet yor arguments echoe those of the most right wing supporters of the system A reminder
"conservatives see the world as it is"
"socialist, of whom I am one, are hardly ever right."
Straight out of the Norman Tebbit Handbook of Class Politics
I ask again, what's your opinion on the public ownership of the means of production and distribution?
Let's see if you anser this time and is your answer ties up with other statements you have made on the subject.
Have you not used the term 'benefit culture"?
Have you not described the problems the Health Service is undergoing as being down to misuse by patients?
Did you not say that mass murderer Breivik had something to say worth listening to?
If nothing else, your continuing contempt for Liberalism puts you on the extreme right - yoiu are almost as obsessive on this as your hatred for homosexuality
These are all signs of your extreme political position and however you describe yourself, it's what you are.
You are like the old joke about the American who tried to avoid conscription by faking his eye test - until a young nurse in a very short skirt walked into the examination room and bent over the filing cabinet.
The examining doctor said, your eye test may be telling me one thing, but your prick's pointing strait to West Point
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 04:04 PM

"Kinnock led the Labour Party to a surprise fourth consecutive defeat in the 1992 general election, despite the party being ahead in most opinion polls, after which he resigned as leader and from the House of Commons. Three years later he became a European Commissioner. He went on to become the Vice-President of the European Commission under Romano Prodi from 1999 to 2004. Until the summer of 2009, he was also the Chairman of the British Council and the President of Cardiff University."
      definitely getting his snout in to the european gravy train, in my opinion he is a disgrace and a traitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:44 PM

As Teribus has amply proved, you have "no balls at all".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:24 PM

I must say, you must have bloody big balls to be able to post that utter rubbish. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:15 PM

A whole ream of misrepresentation and outright lies Jim, breath taking in their viciousness.

I have always stated that I am a social conservative, most real socialist that I have encountered have been so.
I am strongly opposed to the capitalist economic system which in my opinion must be scrapped and replaced by something sustainable.
I think our expectations have been pumped up by the system without providing the means to make these expectations achievable.

I stand up for change in the political and economic system, not the "liberal neverland" inhabited by you and your chums. Your ideology is actually an inhibitor to real change.

I disagree quite strongly with many political views expounded by K and T, but I have the quality that you do not seem to possess, in being able to process other views and amend my own where I think it necessary.

The rest of your post is simply a disgusting rant which I wont dignify with a response.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM

Ake
I've asked this before and got no answer
You constantly refer in abusive terms to 'The Benefit Culture'
You have put down the problems of the National Health Service and being abused by the users of that service.
You are disparaging of people's "rights"
You oppose the ownership and control of the means of production on the basis that we are not ready for it.
You recently say that "socialist, of whom I am one, are hardly ever right" and "conservatives see the world as it is"
As all of these more or less cover the aspirations of Socialism, which particular parts of socialism do you actually support?
I think the last time I asked this, you responded on the basis that you wouldn't respond to insults (though none were made)
Jim Carroll