Should MPs be required to hold down a job prior to standing for election?

by tlttf Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:17 pm

First topic message reminder :

ED MILIBAND LEADS LIST OF 90 MPS WHO'VE NEVER HAD A 'REAL' JOB

There’s a gulf between politicians and the people, the government and the governed

Former independent MP Martin Bell
20th July 2012
By Daily Star Reporter

LABOUR leader Ed Miliband is one of 90 MPs who has never had a job in the “real world”.

A whopping one in seven members have worked only in politics while others, including Deputy PM Nick Clegg, have done only brief stints as lobbyists or PRs.

And Labour, heavily backed by trade unions, has twice as many MPs who have never worked outside politics as the Tories or Lib Dems.

Former independent MP Martin Bell said the shock figures, in study by the House of Commons Library, were ‘‘a very dangerous development’’.

He added: “There’s a gulf between politicians and the people, the government and the governed.”

by Bunnyrunner Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:37 pm

Er... "your average self centred and greedy Brit." was a product of the Thatcher years. The "I'm alright Jack" Essex man who was told "Greed is Good".
Then along comes Teflon Tony, promising "Things can only get better"...which of course they didn't. Nu-Labour moved so far to the right it left the Tories nowhere to go and lead directly to the shower we have now. Did Blair do this simply to gain power? I think he did and went on to cynically use that power to his own advantage, his own personal advantage. (In case you hadn't guessed, I don't like him). :albino:

by Mel Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:10 pm

Bunny, I totally agree with you regarding the Witch Thatcher, However, under Tony things got a lot better for everyone.

I can give you many many examples of things that got better, can you give me your take on what did not get better for you?

by Ivanhoe Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:25 pm

Mel wrote:Bunny, I totally agree with you regarding the Witch Thatcher, However, under Tony things got a lot better for everyone.

I can give you many many examples of things that got better, can you give me your take on what did not get better for you?

Mel, pardon me for interjecting here, but as far as the gtting better for "everyone" under Tony Blair, to quote yourself, I would actually disagree with you.

Fundamentally, under Tony Blair Thatcher's free market remained. The rich and poor divide got wider.

by betty.noire Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:38 pm

Ivan wrote:...
What is a shame is that some people have such little understanding of politics that they think fascism must involve Germans, goose-stepping and concentration camps.

From your OP Are the Tories velvet glove fascists?

Post by Ivan on Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:21 pm
In my opinion, the UK under our extreme right-wing government is rapidly degenerating into velvet glove fascism.

Like all fascists, Hitler was against trade unions and socialists. Similarly, Michael Gove vilified primary school teachers and dinner ladies, many of whom went on strike for the first time in their lives on 30 November last year, as “militants itching for a fight”. Gove has plans for military cadets in every school (Cameron Youth?) and a return to children sitting in rows reciting lists of kings and queens in history lessons, rather than learning to think. Hitler also realised how important history was to indoctrination when he ordered the mass burning of books. Tories close libraries.

Hitler made sure that he controlled the media. The Tories have cowed the BBC by threats of fragmentation and sharing the licence fee with others, such as Murdoch. The BBC, which was required to be impartial, has become just another mouthpiece for Tory propaganda. As soon as they came to power in 2010, the Tories instructed every minister to repeat over and over again the whopping lie that Labour, not Tory bankers, caused the global credit crisis. We have the repeated lie about everyone in the public sector getting “gold-plated pensions”, when the average is only £5,600 per annum. As Goebbels said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Cameron has proved over and over again that he’s a pathological liar.

Hitler divided and ruled the German people by scapegoating Jews and gypsies. The Tories are demonising those who receive benefits, one result of which is that disability hate crimes are increasing. Duncan Smith went on breakfast television on 27 May 2010 and made the chilling remark: "Work makes you free". That's an exact translation of the sign which used to hang over the entrances to concentration camps.

The Tories have plans to force 50,000 disabled youth to work for companies such as Sainsbury's and Tesco's unpaid. Cancer patients are being made to undergo work assessments while being treated with chemotherapy, and wounded soldiers are being sacked. (Osborne is willing to take money from the disabled and cancer patients, but not prepared to veto Hester's bonus from the largely state-owned RBS.)

The police are being trained to shoot people with rubber bullets and will be issued with water cannon, yet the Tories were so keen on helping Arab rebels in North Africa. Two unknown Scottish teenagers made a joke on 'Facebook' about organising riots, and they both received four years in jail. A prominent Tory TV presenter (and personal friend of Cameron) made a tasteless joke about murdering trade unionists on prime time television; nothing was done about it and the BBC continue to pay him £1 million a year of our money.

We don't have any concentration camps in the UK, but the principles are the same - propaganda, indoctrination, and divide and rule by demonising a section of the population. While Hitler gassed Jews, the Tories clearly don't care if benefit claimants starve to death. Even payments from the Social Fund, for those in the most desperate need, will no longer be available from job centres but will be at the 'discretion' of local councils, who will not have to ring-fence the money. All the ingredients of fascism are there, but it's just being handed out to us in a more genteel form than Hitler used - in velvet gloves.

by **Ivan** Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:17 am

betty.noire Thank you for your pointless post. Fascism doesn't have to involve Germans; I could have used examples of the behaviour of Mussolini, Franco or Pinochet to demonstrate that point. However, since Nazism is the first thing that most people think of when they hear the word fascism, I chose to start the thread on that subject in that vein.

In other words, not all fascism has emanated from Germany, and I've never intimated that it did. However, one sort of fascism, Nazism, certainly did.

by Bunnyrunner Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:39 am

Ivanhoe wrote:
Mel wrote:Bunny, I totally agree with you regarding the Witch Thatcher, However, under Tony things got a lot better for everyone.

I can give you many many examples of things that got better, can you give me your take on what did not get better for you?

Mel, pardon me for interjecting here, but as far as the gtting better for "everyone" under Tony Blair, to quote yourself, I would actually disagree with you.

Fundamentally, under Tony Blair Thatcher's free market remained. The rich and poor divide got wider.

Well...
PFI was used to keep government spending off the books. The effects of which are being felt just now and will continue to plague the nation for years.

The Banks and The City were given free rein to stitch up the countries finances thanks to "soft" regulation.

The Trade Union movement was all but driven from the land.

Socialism became a "dirty word".

Parliament and the people were lied to as a means of justifying a war which is still costing lives, for no measurable benefit.

Oh...and when he saw the writing on the wall, he handed the party to a man with even less charisma than John Major. :albino:

by Mel Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:30 am

Hello Ivanhoe,

"Fundamentally, under Tony Blair Thatcher's free market remained. The rich and poor divide got wider."

Sorry to disagree on that point. The fact is that the rich got richer, agreed and the poor also got richer, therefore, the "divide" stayed the same.

Would you care for my list of the many things that got better under Tony??

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:07 am

The topic heading also prompts the question of whether The People are still served by a four-hundred-year-old system of Government. Electing representatives was obviously necessary when a Constituency could be five days ride away from Westminster, but there now exists a technology which allows for instant decisions directly by the electorate.

by Ivanhoe Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:12 am

Mel wrote:Hello Ivanhoe,

"Fundamentally, under Tony Blair Thatcher's free market remained. The rich and poor divide got wider."

Sorry to disagree on that point. The fact is that the rich got richer, agreed and the poor also got richer, therefore, the "divide" stayed the same.

Would you care for my list of the many things that got better under Tony??

How exactly did the poor get richer Mel ?

by bobby Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:52 am

Ivanhoe wrote: How exactly did the poor get richer Mel ?

What Tony Blair did was to bring politics into the 20/21^st century. He knew that the days of the rich and the workers each having their own Government where unworkable, as today’s excuse for a Government is proving.

In the Labour Party Manifest of 1997, 80% of Labours/Blair’s policies where implemented during the first term, Blair was elected due to his opposition of Conservative policies, so how anyone (and some do don’t they Ivanhoe) can now say let alone believe Tony Blair to be anything other than Labour is quite frankly beyond me. Some on these boards, and you know who you are don’t you Ivanhoe are living in the past where Socialism meant everything for the workers at the expense of the bosses, not realising that those self same bosses had to earn the cash in order to pay for the demanded higher wages, increased holiday periods, 12 months maternity leave, health and safety measures in many unsafe factories.

What Blair did was to create the conditions whereby companies where able to continue earning, then pass some of it down to the employee’s by way of wages and other benefits. Blair called it The Third Way, and it was his Third Way that gave the UK 10 unprecedented years of growth. As for The so called illegal war, it has been proven that it was totally legal. Had Tony Blair still been the Labour leader in 2010, Labour would I’m certain still be the Government.

As Mel said their are lists of Blairs achievements, and they have been produced time and time again, yet some people are so blinkered by the Iraq war, they can not see beyond that.

by Ivanhoe Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:29 pm

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote: How exactly did the poor get richer Mel ?

What Tony Blair did was to bring politics into the 20/21^st century. He knew that the days of the rich and the workers each having their own Government where unworkable, as today’s excuse for a Government is proving.

In the Labour Party Manifest of 1997, 80% of Labours/Blair’s policies where implemented during the first term, Blair was elected due to his opposition of Conservative policies, so how anyone (and some do don’t they Ivanhoe) can now say let alone believe Tony Blair to be anything other than Labour is quite frankly beyond me. Some on these boards, and you know who you are don’t you Ivanhoe are living in the past where Socialism meant everything for the workers at the expense of the bosses, not realising that those self same bosses had to earn the cash in order to pay for the demanded higher wages, increased holiday periods, 12 months maternity leave, health and safety measures in many unsafe factories.

What Blair did was to create the conditions whereby companies where able to continue earning, then pass some of it down to the employee’s by way of wages and other benefits. Blair called it The Third Way, and it was his Third Way that gave the UK 10 unprecedented years of growth. As for The so called illegal war, it has been proven that it was totally legal. Had Tony Blair still been the Labour leader in 2010, Labour would I’m certain still be the Government.

As Mel said their are lists of Blairs achievements, and they have been produced time and time again, yet some people are so blinkered by the Iraq war, they can not see beyond that.

Or to put it another way bobby, Blair continued Thatcher's fundamental right wing policies.

I voted for Labour in 1997, thinking we were going to get "traditional" Labour back, After 18 years of right wing Tory rule.

I believed in traditional Labour's fair spread of wealth and higher income tax on middle and high earners.

I did not vote for the continuation of the unjust council tax, ie Thatcher's poll tax. I did not vote for the continuation of linking State pensions to inflation and the continuation of means testing pensioners on a pittance of a State pension. I voted for a national re-newal of this country, the same as after the second World War.

But we didnt get this did we, we got more of the same Thatcherite dross.

by Ivanhoe Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:41 pm

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote: How exactly did the poor get richer Mel ?

What Tony Blair did was to bring politics into the 20/21^st century. He knew that the days of the rich and the workers each having their own Government where unworkable, as today’s excuse for a Government is proving.

In the Labour Party Manifest of 1997, 80% of Labours/Blair’s policies where implemented during the first term, Blair was elected due to his opposition of Conservative policies, so how anyone (and some do don’t they Ivanhoe) can now say let alone believe Tony Blair to be anything other than Labour is quite frankly beyond me. Some on these boards, and you know who you are don’t you Ivanhoe are living in the past where Socialism meant everything for the workers at the expense of the bosses, not realising that those self same bosses had to earn the cash in order to pay for the demanded higher wages, increased holiday periods, 12 months maternity leave, health and safety measures in many unsafe factories.

What Blair did was to create the conditions whereby companies where able to continue earning, then pass some of it down to the employee’s by way of wages and other benefits. Blair called it The Third Way, and it was his Third Way that gave the UK 10 unprecedented years of growth. As for The so called illegal war, it has been proven that it was totally legal. Had Tony Blair still been the Labour leader in 2010, Labour would I’m certain still be the Government.

As Mel said their are lists of Blairs achievements, and they have been produced time and time again, yet some people are so blinkered by the Iraq war, they can not see beyond that.

"""""Blair called it The Third Way, and it was his Third Way that gave the UK 10 unprecedented years of growth""

It is not "growth" Britain needs bobby. It is a fair spread of existing wealth, not means tested handouts for the lesser mortals with tax cuts at the top.

Thatcher created a massive rich and poor divide in this country during the Tory years. Blair and Brown lengthened it. And Cameron with Clegg, is now making things a darn site worse by continuing to remove the role of the State in favour of privatisation and charities.

Blair's Third Way, was no way. A complete waste of 13 years in Government sticking to the same old tired Thatcherite ethos. What a waste of a whopping mandade to govern' from the British electrate in 1997.

by betty.noire Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:05 pm

10 years of boom based on a the tax receipts on a property boom, cheap imports from China and cheap labour from Eastern Europe, and then it all went bust

by polyglide Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:14 pm

Hang on a minute, just how much wealth do you think Blair made for himself and his obnotious wife, the latter making millions from the Human
Rights Law and he from companies and speaches etc;

He had the chance through the Social Chapter to make things far better for the working class but he turned it down, some Labour representative.

We do not know the findings of the enquiry into the war but the vast majority believe he is a liar

The best that could happen is to turn Blair over to be tried by the people who suffered because of his lies.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:44 pm

"...the vast majority believe he is a liar"

The evidence for this fanciful assertion is probably as skimpy as any suggestion that its author is a complete nitwit...

"...turn Blair over to be tried by the people..."

...although the evidence for the latter becomes more compelling by the minute... Very Happy

by **Ivan** Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:18 pm

10 years of boom….and then it all went bust

Same old, same old, from betty.noire – “It’s All Labour’s Fault”. That excuse for the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the global credit crunch which followed, doesn’t cut much ice these days, especially in view of the failed policies of the inept cocaine-snorting friend of a callgirl who poses as our Chancellor of the Exchequer - just because he’s Cameron’s Bullingdon Club chum.

polyglide. Getting involved in Iraq was a disastrous move for the Labour Party, but Blair only won the vote on it with support from the Tories; a large group of Labour MPs voted against. Even so, anyone would think that Blair was entirely responsible for the war on Iraq and that it had nothing to do with George W. Bush.

I’d like to see Thatcher handed over to the relatives of the 323 people she killed on ‘The General Belgrano’, when it was outside the exclusion zone and sailing away from the Falkland Islands.

by Adele Carlyon Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:37 pm

I was dead against the war in Iraq, I also totally agree re the belgrano! If people keep talking about Blair being done for war crimes then that crapbag maggot thatcher should be dragged out of her dotage and done too!

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:17 pm

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote: How exactly did the poor get richer Mel ?

As Mel said their are lists of Blairs achievements, and they have been produced time and time again, yet some people are so blinkered by the Iraq war, they can not see beyond that.

Apart from that trifling incident, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the Play?

by betty.noire Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:34 pm

[quote="Ivan"]

That excuse for the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the global credit crunch which followed, doesn’t cut much ice these days, especially in view of the failed policies of the inept cocaine-snorting friend of a callgirl who poses as our Chancellor of the Exchequer - just because he’s Cameron’s Bullingdon Club chum.

Goodness knows what Brown was snorting / smoking when he stripped the Bank of England of its job of overseeing the rest of the banking sector, selling off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices , removing of tax credits on share dividends, cutting the value of retirement pensions by £100 billion

by Mel Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:49 pm

Ivanhoe, "How exactly did the poor get richer Mel ?"

We have come way off heading topic.

If you wish to discuss Blair with me. please go to the History
Channel Re- Tony Blair best PM ever, 2nd page.

by Guest Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:14 pm

I know little of internal UK politics. My comments are necessarily limited to what I know.

1. Tony Blair: Anyone whose myopia is so acute that she/he is unable to see Tony Blair’s profound understanding and superb practice of world geopolitics needs to find a new eye doctor ASAP. Iraq? Saddam the beast Hussein stole Iraq from the Iraqi people decades ago; the honorable Mr. Blair exhibited moral courage by acting to liberate Iraqis from the beast, and its “beat-lings”, which had Iraqis by their throats. Tony Blair is a hero of the 21st Century.

2. MPs: The US Constitution sets out citizenship, residency, and age requirements for US Representatives, roughly equivalent to Members of Parliament (House of Commons). Al other “qualifications” are left to the people of individual congressional districts (roughly equivalent to constituencies) to determine, with the final determination occurring in individual voting booths. In my opinion, that’s the way it ought to be. If your constituency doesn’t care one way or the other about your MP’s employment history, the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, if they should dare interfere with your right to vote for whoever you damned well please, should be shown the lake to jump into and the bridge off of which to jump.

by astra Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:46 pm

that's fine Roc

Come to Britain, and look at the places in the UK that were visited 70 years ago by Goebbels and his chum. Ask the people there what they think Blair did for THEM!
Yes London was bombed out, so he gave them the 'Dome', the Olympics are there as well, for 'regeneration' of the area. Obviously the Dome as a cunning plan did not work!

It's like every one of the Presidents of the USA saying that ONLY DC deserves any regeneration from the various slumps.

He DID do a you say, but his FIRST occupation was s'posed to be Prime Minister of Great Britain!! NOT PM of the rest of the world and leave us (in the 'Provinces') high and dry!

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:55 pm

betty.noire wrote:

Goodness knows what Brown was snorting / smoking when he stripped the Bank of England of its job of overseeing the rest of the banking sector, selling off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices , removing of tax credits on share dividends, cutting the value of retirement pensions by £100 billion

Ahh. Not quite so middle-of-the-road as previously represented. That's a text lifted verbatim from MSN "Tory Boy" contributions circa 2010.

1. The FSA was created to police the City of London. It's hardly the Chancellor's fault that everyone (at the time) thought that you could trust a Bank.

2. Gold has little value buried in a vault, where it must be constantly guarded and insured, subject to fluctuations in the market value, and actually quite difficult to sell at a profit - there's lots of it still in the ground, just waiting to be mined.

3. Removal of tax credits from share dividends. Why not tax shareholders?

4. Cutting the value of Pension Funds - completing the process begun by Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

George Brown's place in the History books is assured by his determination to keep Britain out of the Eurozone.

by Guest Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:58 pm

Astra,

I confess ignorance of internal UK problems.

by betty.noire Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:27 pm

oftenwrong wrote:

2. Gold has little value buried in a vault, where it must be constantly guarded and insured, subject to fluctuations in the market value, and actually quite difficult to sell at a profit - there's lots of it still in the ground, just waiting to be mined.

So does the worthless Euros he swapped it for . Must take up more space as well, paper being lighter than gold

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:20 pm

The worthless Euro has not always had that description applied to it, though of course it's useful to have the benefit of hindsight or prescience in financial transactions.

If I had known last week that I was choosing the wrong numbers on the Lottery, I could have saved myself a couple of quid.

by Mel Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:18 am

Better to have sold gold at a knock down price in time of need and disaster, rather than sell off or privatise everything in sight ( the countries silver).
Thanks Thatcher!!!
The Darford crossing is earmarked for SALE as an example, money goes to money, profit before service. Feed the already full at all costs, Tory ideology.

Betty, can you find us a good word for Gideon, seing as you seem to like bashing Chancellors? Or are you waiting untill he is out of office before slating him off? Perhaps you think he is wonderful. Do please enlighten us.

by tlttf Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:01 am

Excuse me, but in the words of Ivan, "can we please get back on topic".

As a liberterian, I believe that everybody should be allowed to win or fail (as happens) based on their ability (or lack of). To stand for parliament somebody should have outside experience to understand what the man in the street (regardless of ability) goes through and should experience this for a minimum of 5 years, then when he stands as an mp he/she should be paid at the level of a good manager in industry.

by Mel Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:18 pm

I find myself surprisingly in agreement with that view. Shocked

by Ivanhoe Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:58 pm

tlttf wrote:Excuse me, but in the words of Ivan, "can we please get back on topic".

As a liberterian, I believe that everybody should be allowed to win or fail (as happens) based on their ability (or lack of). To stand for parliament somebody should have outside experience to understand what the man in the street (regardless of ability) goes through and should experience this for a minimum of 5 years, then when he stands as an mp he/she should be paid at the level of a good manager in industry.

As much as I would love to agree with this view concerning "the man in the street". The major problem is that largely the "man" in the street is not educated into the subject matter, if "one" considers the sales of the Murdoch press that is.

The average Brit is terrible loyal to his soaps, his soccer, his beer and cigarattes, even now the Olympics, but when it comes to politics ?, forget it.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:40 pm

Should MPs be required to hold down a job prior to standing for election?

Current events suggest that there should be a job-description that hopeful candidates for Parliament should be required to match:

1. Some knowledge of Politics but not acquired IN politics.

2. A wide knowledge of The World, but not too blasé for that to be any longer useful.

3. Sufficient personal wealth not to be tempted by bribery, but not so much money as to provide indifference to the less fortunate.

4. Not to have a family resident three thousand bloody miles away, Mrs. bloody Mensch, or hadn't you noticed until recently?

by polyglide Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:55 pm

Phil Hornby would be well advised to see the dictionaries explanation of a liar and then study all the evidence regarding Blair.

He could also learn from what the German warmongers are facing and after many years.

It matters not wether the war was right or wrong Blair lied on several occasions and he should suffer the consequences.

Blair may be a good politician but you can have the best doctor in the world who has saved thousands of lives but if he kowingly kills just one pacient then he is just as guilty of murder as Blair is of being a war monger and a liar.

I do not expect the former to understand the implications [Phil Hornby]
he is obviously sadly lacking in the brain department.

by Mel Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:38 pm

They all lie poly at some time or another, including Churchill.

What's new anyway?

"Blair may be a good politician " Yes, correct and the best we have had.

Churchill, Thatcher, Roosavelt, and many in the past have been "war mongers". When your country MAY be threatened with the kind of violence seen at 9.11, then if you are a good caring PM, you may well take action and lie to boot if the threat is a great possibilty. A PM has to rely upon his intelligence Officers and will act accordingly.
In the case of Iraq, they had ignored warning after warning and had shown their true colours in proven mass murder of their own people.

"Should MPs be required to hold down a job prior to standing for election?"

Yes, getting back on topic, but it will never happen and you know it.

by LWS Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:57 pm

Mel wrote:They all lie poly at some time or another, including Churchill.

What's new anyway?

"Blair may be a good politician " Yes, correct and the best we have had.

Churchill, Thatcher, Roosavelt, and many in the past have been "war mongers". When your country MAY be threatened with the kind of violence seen at 9.11, then if you are a good caring PM, you may well take action and lie to boot if the threat is a great possibilty. A PM has to rely upon his intelligence Officers and will act accordingly.
In the case of Iraq, they had ignored warning after warning and had shown their true colours in proven mass murder of their own people.

"Should MPs be required to hold down a job prior to standing for election?"

Yes, getting back on topic, but it will never happen and you know it.

Couldn't agree more. No one of the government front appears to have had a proper job prior to becoming MPs. This applies to the other party as well. The calibre of these people or lack of it is one of the reasons the country is in such a mess.

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:29 pm

polyglide wrote:Phil Hornby would be well advised to see the dictionaries explanation of a liar and then study all the evidence regarding Blair.

He could also learn from what the German warmongers are facing and after many years.

It matters not wether the war was right or wrong Blair lied on several occasions and he should suffer the consequences.

Blair may be a good politician but you can have the best doctor in the world who has saved thousands of lives but if he kowingly kills just one pacient then he is just as guilty of murder as Blair is of being a war monger and a liar.

I do not expect the former to understand the implications [Phil Hornby]
he is obviously sadly lacking in the brain department.

Evidently Christian beliefs are not necessarily the progenitor of Christian attitudes. The inevitable sign of a lost argument is when the attack becomes personal.

But there's undoubtedly a passage somewhere in The Holy Bible that contradicts that.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:51 pm

" I do not expect the former to understand the implications [Phil Hornby]
he is obviously sadly lacking in the brain department. "

It's always a chastening experience to be found out so comprehensively - and by one so knowledgeable. Accordingly, I may not sleep soundly for several minutes... Very Happy

by Mel Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:19 pm

POLYGIDE, this comment is unecessary---- Quote--"I do not expect the former to understand the implications [Phil Hornby]
he is obviously sadly lacking in the brain department."

And could not be further from the truth and an apology is necessary.

Thank you.

by polyglide Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:52 am

SORRY AND ALSO FOR THE LOSS OF SLEEP, HOWEVER JUST READ WHAT COMMENTS WERE MADE AGAINST ME, YOU CANNOT ALLOW ONE TO MAKE DEROGATORY COMMENTS AND REFUSE THE OTHER.

by polyglide Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:00 am

There is no excuse for anyone to lie, to excuse one because another does is nonsensenicle.

Is it also alright to commit murder or any other crime just because someone else does?

But to get back to the topic.

It matters not if someone has held down a job or not, what matters is if the person concerned is aware of all the implications of the nation as a whole and the people as a whole and is not affiliated to anyone or anything in particular does the best he/she can for the nation as a whole.

by Mel Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:04 pm

"does the best he/she can for the nation as a whole."

Like Cameron and Gideon for example poly??

"There is no excuse for anyone to lie, to excuse one because another does is nonsensenicle."

The same applies to posters retaliating with "derogatory" remarks either.
Sarcasm is also the lowest form of wit.

If as you say you are experiencing abuse, then you should according to the rules of this forum, report to the abuse to the Moderator of that board.

by Stox 16 Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:13 pm

polyglide wrote:Phil Hornby would be well advised to see the dictionaries explanation of a liar and then study all the evidence regarding Blair.

He could also learn from what the German warmongers are facing and after many years.

It matters not wether the war was right or wrong Blair lied on several occasions and he should suffer the consequences.

Blair may be a good politician but you can have the best doctor in the world who has saved thousands of lives but if he kowingly kills just one pacient then he is just as guilty of murder as Blair is of being a war monger and a liar.

I do not expect the former to understand the implications [Phil Hornby]
he is obviously sadly lacking in the brain department.

O dear just one more anti Blair post to go with all the rest of them from the right wingers. all this because the Tory party last three times to him. well now you know what it was like when we had to put up with maggot wining

by Sponsored content