BS: Labour party discussion

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:16 PM

Awwrk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!!

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: 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: 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: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM

Nobody cares any more.

Apparently YOU do, Bubo.

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Raggytash
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:22 PM

Champion, I like kippers.

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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:22 AM

The statement was a fact - Virgin trains are overcrowded.

The statement was that it was "ram-packed" when in fact there were empty seats, which means it was not even overcrowded.

Rag, your apology should be directed at the victim of your abusive outburst.

300!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:49 PM

This is Virgin's stated policy on how many people it will allow on a train.

"Virgin trains admit overcrowding safety measure is that "train can't move"
By Fraser Clarke - August 26, 2016 0 87
VIRGIN trains have admitted their safety measure against overcrowding is that the train is too heavy to move.
In a series of tweets with customers, the company was asked to explain its upper limit for passengers.
The company eventually admitted there was no limit on the number of people it would squeeze into a carriage, adding: "If the train reaches a certain overall weight then the train would come to a stop."
Virgin statement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:23 PM

"but Corbyn's train had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor"
If that's what he did - that's what all politicians dohatsthe system we live under.
The statement was a fact - Virgin trains are overcrowded.
Do you think Thatcher's "Labour Isn't Working" dole queues were real?
She went on to produce the highest unemployment rates Britain had ever seen.
She lied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 02:12 PM

Mr McGrath,

Many, many apologies. I forgot myself and the opening post.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:48 PM

personal abuse and so forth in Social Media

Say it ain't so! "Social media" is a blessing, not a curse.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:39 PM

- including the admission by Virgin'r executive that the ****** trains are overrowdwd

Not just Virgin trains, but Corbyn's train had empty seats and the video he staged of himself sitting on the floor because the train was "ram-packed" was lying political propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 01:04 PM

I intentionally didn't name any names. The point was a more general one - how many times, both here and elewhere, do we see someone use pointless insults as an escape card, and a way to avoid the real issues.

Actually, isn't that just what has been happening refently with all the hoohah about personal abuse and so forth in Social Media in the context of the disputes in the Labour Party? Personal abuse in a discussion always hepls the other side, even wwhen that isn't the aim in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:49 PM

"of anyone here Teribus would be the last to need an "easy get out","
No - he just does a runner when the going gets tough
"He is quite correct on Mr Corbyns faux pas and I am dismayed that he attempted something so bloody clumsy."
Oooo you communists!!
You are sooo predictable in taking sides - and youi have ignored every point here - including the admission by Virgin'r executive that the ****** trains are overrowdwd
"we end up defending the indefencible.."
The truth - at last an admission!!!
"like the EU or Hillary Clinton"
Still can't get into her knickers?
Freud would have had a lot to say about you hang-up over this poor lady
It now takes on the characteristic of stalking - and what with your "gay plaguers - you really are a mixed up disturbo.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM

indefencible......like Hillary Clinton.

Give it up, Ake. Your BS is getting tedious.

Patronising is a descriptor of Mr.T nine-telths of the time, certainly not Kevin.


(By the way, which fence are you talking about?)

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 12:09 PM

I don't always agree with Kevin and I he certainly doesn't always agree with me, but on this occasion I think he's perfectly in order in asking that this thread be kept relatively civil. We have another one for the banging of heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 11:49 AM

I don't care who the Daily Mirror "supports." It isn't my idea of a serious newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 11:39 AM

" and in that way providing the people with whom we are arguing with an easy get-out from responding to the actual point being made."

Come on Mr McGrath that is a touch patronising......of anyone here Teribus would be the last to need an "easy get out", he is well informed and posts detailed explanations of his views.

He is quite correct on Mr Corbyns faux pas and I am dismayed that he attempted something so bloody clumsy.

I saying that, the whole sorry episode has been blown up by our lovely media.....surprise surprise.

Seriously though we should be big enough to admit our failures when they are pointed out, if we don't, we end up defending the indefencible......like the EU or Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 10:12 AM

"That is true, but no-one here has ever rejected something reported in such papers because they support the wrong faction of the Party,"
That's because there aren't too many Tories around here Keith - it's not rocket science.
There is a massive split in the Tory Party - one of the results being that Britain has a racist for a foreign secretary.
Nobody rejects statements on a factional basis, on the contrary, the fact that these reports appear in Tory bum-wipes are a confirmation that they are true.
LEAVE-REMAIN SPLIT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:38 AM

Kevin,
They certainly do. The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun all ran plenty of stuff that was very hostile to David Cameron.

That is true, but no-one here has ever rejected something reported in such papers because they support the wrong faction of the Party, as Jim just did about the Mirror story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 09:08 AM

Throwing out remarks like "an uneducated oaf like yourself" is the kind of thing that I was expressing regret about in my last post.

It requires going back over previous posts even to understand who it is directed at. Even if accurate it would be irrelevant, since there is no connection between oafishness and lack of education.

It is perfectly possible to express strong disagreement and point out failures of logic and innacuracy without getting personal, and in that way providing the people with whom we are arguing with an easy get-out from responding to the actual point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 08:04 AM

Oh there are plenty, however I've got much better things to do with my time than argue with an uneducated oaf like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:39 AM

"I take it from that, that you can produce no such examples,"
Once again you are demanding things you refuse to supply yourself
You've just been given a load which you will ignore - plenty of others to ignore where they came from
What a pair of Tory tossers!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:19 AM

"Other Parties do not have that problem."
Most parties don't have factions - they have no dividded loyalties between self interest and duty to the people who they are supposed to represent - their loyalties are overwhelmingly to themselves and the privileged - the people may go stuff themselves.
The Labour Party, down the years, has moved further and further to the right; Blair, a possible war criminal, with the help of a couple of self-serving idiots and a soft-porn journalist, confirmed that rightist position with his 'New Lablor' coup.
A principled leader, Corbyn, presented the possibility of returning the Labour Party into a decent, honest part, which now has the establishment running around like headless chickens, trying to bring him down, which is basically what this is all about - why should a pair or extreme rightists like you youd your pontificating friend bother your right-wing arses about what happens in the Labour Party otherwise.
So far, you have failed on every count, just as you are floundering here.
If you think in-fighting doesnt take place in other parties
DREAM ON
AND ON
AND EVER ON
AND SO ON Ad INFINITUM
What planet do you live on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:09 AM

Raggytash - 29 Aug 16 - 05:20 AM

Ah so Raggy I take it from that, that you can produce no such examples, why not just say so. Just more empty and meaningless waffle, like your pal with his "Rights of the Taxpayer" {Do you know what they are Raggy?}.