Hypocrisy?

[Thedelldays]

I just dont understand why us British people have to comment on every situation.

We always act so smug, like we can do what we want and say what we want.

I can see why other nations hates us. we keep getting involved in other situations which aint our problem.

how on earth are we getting involved..?

[nathan]

As much as I dislike Gordon Brown I would be even more dissapointed if he didn't comment on the Iranian situation.

[Wiltshire Saint]

I just dont understand why us British people have to comment on every situation.

We always act so smug, like we can do what we want and say what we want.

I can see why other nations hates us. we keep getting involved in other situations which aint our problem.

 

 

Sounds like Weston Super Saint.

[Deppo]

Weston Uber Spaz.

[doublesaint]

We'll be paying for it through high taxes for decades to come. Blair got lucky by inheritting a thriving economy from the Major govt. He and his bungling chancellor then went on a Socialist tax and spending spree, sold half of our gold reserves when the price was rock bottom, and left the cupboard bear for this rainy day. This is what happens under a Labour govt and is the reason why every generation learns the lesson of keeping them out of power for long spells until a new generation forgets the lessons and votes them back in.

 

Which would be a similar situation to the one in which the Coservative government sold off many of the countries assets in privatisation to the 'small shareholder' in the belief that the average person could be able to own shares, only for the majority of these small shareholders to then sell to major investors and turn a quick profit. And from theer the major shareholders also want to see a return on thier investment, resulting in for example maintenance cuts on railway systems, and fatal injuries.

 

One thing is for sure, the government has never gone on a 'socialist' spending spree, as they are not exactly socialist. For an example of how this country could and should be run, we should be following the democratic republican model of European countries such as Norway.

[Johnny Bognor]

I am further to the left than TB (that's not difficult) but who is to say how far to the left is too far? You may think so - others may disagree.

 

 

Perhaps you need a name change?

 

LTF, on the one hand you distance yourself from the War in Iraq party when it suits (as they are not socialists), then on the other, you defend them and Mr 15% to the hilt and shout about your party membership.

Edited 17 June, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[OldNick]

you cannot be for real.A man of integrity and sound moral judgement would have resigned long ago.This is the man who plotted behind the PM. He is a disgrace, but all he wants is power, period.

[OldNick]

Actually he's quite well thought of on the international stage, due to his prompt action in saving the banking system and the G20 exceeding expectations.

 

But yeah, at home he's the very image of a lame duck, which is what counts after all.

It was not him but a smart brain at one of the top accountant firms who came up with the idea.

So we have what is a case of the worlds top economies giving free money to the banks so they dont have to pay savers a fair rate. The nations taking on the bad debts that were allowed to get out of hand after GB's government got rid of the Bank of Englands power to regulate the banks from doing so.

Its great, cause a train crash and then come along with a dustpan and brush to help clear the mess up.

We as a nation and taxpayers will be using the dust pan and brush for generations.

Yes we had a government who has spent on schools and hospitals (that is great to a degree) spent our North sea revenues on social services and left us with what ?? Are the schools perfroming much better the NHs any more efficient? Not IMO, but GP's are being paid 6 figure salaries for doing less and dont have to do house calls.

Pi## up and brewery GB couldnt organise

[doublesaint]

It was not him but a smart brain at one of the top accountant firms who came up with the idea.

So we have what is a case of the worlds top economies giving free money to the banks so they dont have to pay savers a fair rate. The nations taking on the bad debts that were allowed to get out of hand after GB's government got rid of the Bank of Englands power to regulate the banks from doing so.

Its great, cause a train crash and then come along with a dustpan and brush to help clear the mess up.

We as a nation and taxpayers will be using the dust pan and brush for generations.

Yes we had a government who has spent on schools and hospitals (that is great to a degree) spent our North sea revenues on social services and left us with what ?? Are the schools perfroming much better the NHs any more efficient? Not IMO, but GP's are being paid 6 figure salaries for doing less and dont have to do house calls.

Pi## up and brewery GB couldnt organise

 

It could be seen as a smart idea to consult/appoint someone outwith inner party politics to take care or advise on such a thing, as also in the case of appointing a senior respected medical specialist to a government position.

[Johnny Bognor]

It could be seen as a smart idea to consult/appoint someone outwith inner party politics to take care or advise on such a thing, as also in the case of appointing a senior respected medical specialist to a government position.

 

 

... or indeed a celebrity entrepreneur whose catch phrase is "You're Fired" when millions are joining the dole queue.

 

They don't call him Gordon Clown for nothing, you know.

[doublesaint]

... or indeed a celebrity entrepreneur whose catch phrase is "You're Fired" when millions are joining the dole queue.

 

They don't call him Gordon Clown for nothing, you know.

 

'They' being the 24/7 media circus who turn every political event or decision into a drama or crisis?

[Johnny Bognor]

'They' being the 24/7 media circus who turn every political event or decision into a drama or crisis?

 

'They' being the people the War in Iraq party have been trying to spin for the the last 11 years at all costs.

 

Even the spinning of "getting on with the job" means that they are not actually getting on with the job, but trying to convince us that they are. If they were genuinely getting on with the job, they would have no time for spin and the media, but what do you expect when the dark lord is pulling the strings.

[bridge too far]

Perhaps you need a name change?

 

LTF, on the one hand you distance yourself from the War in Iraq party when it suits (as they are not socialists), then on the other, you defend them and Mr 15% to the hilt and shout about your party membership.

 

 

You obviously don't understand the word 'pragmatic'

[OldNick]

You obviously don't understand the word 'pragmatic'

I think that the government hope that the nation dont understand the term levy which should have read stealth tax regarding the internet they announced yesterday. as for giving some of the TV licence money to other private companies , well that beggars belief if it goes ahead.

[bungle]

I love Johny Bognor's use of the phrase the "War in Iraq Party." It's funny because the Tories were in full support and would have done the same thing. At least the Labour party had some dissenters in the ranks.

 

And, of course, one major party opposed it vociferously.

[Saint Keith]

i fear this is turning into another "Voting" thread

[bridge too far]

I think that the government hope that the nation dont understand the term levy which should have read stealth tax regarding the internet they announced yesterday. as for giving some of the TV licence money to other private companies , well that beggars belief if it goes ahead.

 

"Ministers will consult on whether 3.5% of the fee should go to ITV and other public service broadcasters from 2013."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8103321.stm

 

Did you spot the word 'consult', Nick? It means 'talk to, discuss' etc.

 

Normally people of your persuasion knock the BBC for the quasi-monopoly it is supposed to have on news (and for its perceived left wing stance).

 

Since it would appear that commercial broadcasters can't / won't provide public service broadcasting to the same degree, how would YOU propose that they are incentivised to do so to provide what you would probably consider 'balance'?

 

Your constructive solutions would be welcome.

[OldNick]

I love Johny Bognor's use of the phrase the "War in Iraq Party." It's funny because the Tories were in full support and would have done the same thing. At least the Labour party had some dissenters in the ranks.

 

And, of course, one major party opposed it vociferously.

i think that is fair, with the information given to us not in the know, it seemed very correct to do what we did.Sadly the sandal brigade would dither and not make any decision in case a butterfly got wounded

[Johnny Bognor]

I love Johny Bognor's use of the phrase the "War in Iraq Party." It's funny because the Tories were in full support and would have done the same thing. At least the Labour party had some dissenters in the ranks.

 

And, of course, one major party opposed it vociferously.

 

 

Ah, but the War In Iraq Party had all of the "Facts" at their disposal whilst the tories were only going on what they were told. You could say more fool them for falling for the WIIP spin, as with the electorate at large. But with just 15% of the vote, people aren't falling for the WIIP lies anymore.

 

...and Clown is at it again today during PMQ's - "10% Tory cuts versus WIIP investment". This guy makes Tory Bliar look like a decent and honest politician.

Edited 17 June, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[OldNick]

"Ministers will consult on whether 3.5% of the fee should go to ITV and other public service broadcasters from 2013."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8103321.stm

 

Did you spot the word 'consult', Nick? It means 'talk to, discuss' etc.

 

Normally people of your persuasion knock the BBC for the quasi-monopoly it is supposed to have on news (and for its perceived left wing stance).

 

Since it would appear that commercial broadcasters can't / won't provide public service broadcasting to the same degree, how would YOU propose that they are incentivised to do so to provide what you would probably consider 'balance'?

 

Your constructive solutions would be welcome.

Nice side step of the 'stealth tax'.

Consult, another quango set up to cost us tax payers money. Tell me why we need more local news? I may as well set up a local news channel and get my wedge. If you watch south today or meridian the news is normally on the same lines. Normally you have features about Mr Serial Claimant complaining that they have not been treated well enough by some poor nurse, or fallen off their bike due to potholes nothing to do with being drunk, why have they not got a 42in tv as the the 36in one we paid for is not big enough, Im sure you get my drift..

To be fair now and again there are truly some good causes thumpeted on the programmes but they are too similar.We dont need a second local news programme , there are so many avenues to watch it now.

[OldNick]

[quote=bridge too far;331644

Normally people of your persuasion knock the BBC for the quasi-monopoly it is supposed to have on news (and for its perceived left wing stance).

 

If you have sky there are so many different news channels to get differing perspectives on things.

[bungle]

i think that is fair, with the information given to us not in the know, it seemed very correct to do what we did.Sadly the sandal brigade would dither and not make any decision in case a butterfly got wounded

 

lol. What an idiot. I was, as were many others, proud to be against an invasion of Iraq, and I remain so to this day.

[bungle]

Ah, but the War In Iraq Party had all of the "Facts" at their disposal whilst the tories were only going on what they were told. You could say more fool them for falling for the WIIP spin, as with the electorate at large. But with just 15% of the vote, people aren't falling for the WIIP lies anymore.

 

...and Clown is at it again today during PMQ's - "10% Tory cuts versus WIIP investment". This guy makes Tory Bliar look like a decent and honest politician.

 

It is well known that senior Tories and Lib Dems were invited to discuss the intelligence along with Blair. The Tories, being in favour of war, were always going to vote for it. They are the party of war. The Lib Dems, with the same facts as the Tories, were able to make the correct decision.

[Saintandy666]

I don't understand the bashing of the BBC, it is great value for £142.50 each year(that's 39p a day). Think about what you get for that and if you take some of the funding away then you will all regret it when standards decline. Of course, all the crappy we don't like the licence fee rubbish is fuelled by Mr. 'I want to take over the the world' Murdoch and co who want **** commercial TV(another plus of the BBC) to be the norm. People who want rid of the BBC, who want to stop the licence fee, be careful what you wish for. It might just come true.

[View From The Top]

Only a 1st class moron doesn't believe that the Tories were fully behind the War in Iraq.

 

In fact, most who were aginst it were Labour or Lib Dem.

 

I'm sure Citizen Dave, a man of the people as he is, will do a sterling job as PM.

[bridge too far]

Nice side step of the 'stealth tax'.

Consult, another quango set up to cost us tax payers money. Tell me why we need more local news? I may as well set up a local news channel and get my wedge. If you watch south today or meridian the news is normally on the same lines. Normally you have features about Mr Serial Claimant complaining that they have not been treated well enough by some poor nurse, or fallen off their bike due to potholes nothing to do with being drunk, why have they not got a 42in tv as the the 36in one we paid for is not big enough, Im sure you get my drift..

To be fair now and again there are truly some good causes thumpeted on the programmes but they are too similar.We dont need a second local news programme , there are so many avenues to watch it now.

 

Fine - then the consultation will mirror your views since they are those of the common man. I only ever watch BBC News so it's no skin off my nose.

 

It will then be up to the other news broadcasters to fund their bulletins out of their own revenue from advertising.

 

Oh hang on - advertising revenue is falling fast! I wonder then how alternative broadcasting can be funded?

 

And let me get this straight - if a / the government just does stuff it's being dictatorial and not listening to the electorate but, if it does enter into consultations, it's forming a quango?

 

There's no pleasing some people

[Johnny Bognor]

Only a 1st class moron doesn't believe that the Tories were fully behind the War in Iraq.

 

In fact, most who were aginst it were Labour or Lib Dem.

 

I'm sure Citizen Dave, a man of the people as he is, will do a sterling job as PM.

 

 

That's right, most who were against it were WIIP or Lib Dem and the only people for it were the Tories (according to some on here).

 

Reality check time for the lefties.

 

How the hell can you (i.e. the lefties) blame it on the Tories when the votes went 412 for and 149 against when there were only 165 Tory MP's??????? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

That's right, without any Tories at all, the vote would have been 247 for and 149 against - I make that not far off 2 to 1 in favour.

 

Yes, that's right, the Tory vote was completely irrelevant.

 

 

The WIIP, led by Tory Bliar, voted for the War in Iraq, no matter how the lefties try and say otherwise :rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Edited 17 June, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Only a 1st class moron doesn't believe that the Tories were fully behind the War in Iraq.

 

In fact, most who were aginst it were Labour or Lib Dem.

 

I'm sure Citizen Dave, a man of the people as he is, will do a sterling job as PM.

 

The same Citizen Dave who has apparently made a xenophobic blunder?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/17/david-cameron-german-accent-gaffe

[bungle]

That's right, most who were against it were WIIP or Lib Dem and the only people for it were the Tories (according to some on here).

 

Reality check time for the lefties.

 

How the hell can you (i.e. the lefties) blame it on the Tories when the votes went 412 for and 149 against when there were only 165 Tory MP's??????? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

That's right, without any Tories at all, the vote would have been 247 for and 149 against - I make that not far off 2 to 1 in favour.

 

Yes, that's right, the Tory vote was completely irrelevant.

 

 

The WIIP, led by Tory Bliar, voted for the War in Iraq, no matter how the lefties try and say otherwise :rolleyes::rolleyes:.

 

It is quite clear you are an idiot. No-one is saying that many Labour MPs didn't vote for the war, but many also rebelled, and many publically cast doubt. The Tories were all for war, and had they been in power they would have backed war in huge numbers. Sadly, you just don't know what you're on about.

[Johnny Bognor]

It is quite clear you are an idiot. No-one is saying that many Labour MPs didn't vote for the war, but many also rebelled, and many publically cast doubt. The Tories were all for war, and had they been in power they would have backed war in huge numbers. Sadly, you just don't know what you're on about.

 

No, the lefties try and take the moral high ground, but the fact of the matter is that WIIP MPs voted in favour of an illegal war on a scale of 2 to 1.

 

This thread is about hypocrisy, which really does apply to Clown and the WIIP.

[bungle]

No, the lefties try and take the moral high ground, but the fact of the matter is that WIIP MPs voted in favour of an illegal war on a scale of 2 to 1.

 

This thread is about hypocrisy, which really does apply to Clown and the WIIP.

 

And the fact is the war party 100% backed the push for illegal war.

 

Edit: See, I can use silly names that serve no purpose too.

[bungle]

No, the lefties try and take the moral high ground, but the fact of the matter is that WIIP MPs voted in favour of an illegal war on a scale of 2 to 1.

 

This thread is about hypocrisy, which really does apply to Clown and the WIIP.

 

If you're talking about hypocricy, then how about the War Party (note silly name for your benefit) voting for ID Cards (again, when there was some Labour rebellion) and now deciding to campaign agains them! lol

[bridge too far]

And the fact is the war party 100% backed the push for illegal war.

 

Edit: See, I can use silly names that serve no purpose too.

 

Bungle, I think JB has a limited imagination and vocabulary. I've noticed that he latches onto what he thinks is a clever phrase and then uses it ad nauseam for weeks on end.

 

Let's hope someone gives him a dictionary / thesaurus soon.

[OldNick]

lol. What an idiot. I was, as were many others, proud to be against an invasion of Iraq, and I remain so to this day.

yes the liberals were, but they wouldnt fight a war anyway. That is your perogative.

The information that was wrongly put forward made it clear that there was a threat.The tories or whoever who backed it on the information given by the PM were correct IMO. In hindsight no it was wrong.

[bungle]

yes the liberals were, but they wouldnt fight a war anyway. That is your perogative.

The information that was wrongly put forward made it clear that there was a threat.The tories or whoever who backed it on the information given by the PM were correct IMO. In hindsight no it was wrong.

 

Quite happily backed action in Afghanistan. lol. Your silly theory is shot to pieces in one move. Bravo.

[Thedelldays]

If you're talking about hypocricy, then how about the War Party (note silly name for your benefit) voting for ID Cards (again, when there was some Labour rebellion) and now deciding to campaign agains them! lol

not really got a great deal about the war vote has it

[OldNick]

Fine - then the consultation will mirror your views since they are those of the common man. I only ever watch BBC News so it's no skin off my nose.

 

It will then be up to the other news broadcasters to fund their bulletins out of their own revenue from advertising.

 

Oh hang on - advertising revenue is falling fast! I wonder then how alternative broadcasting can be funded?

 

And let me get this straight - if a / the government just does stuff it's being dictatorial and not listening to the electorate but, if it does enter into consultations, it's forming a quango?

 

There's no pleasing some people

So you are saying it is correct to pay commercial broadcasters money to make news bulletins! I dont get handouts to help run my business in these hard times and so why should media companies. They sink or swim

[OldNick]

Quite happily backed action in Afghanistan. lol. Your silly theory is shot to pieces in one move. Bravo.

who the Liberals or you??? And the difference between bombing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is?

[bungle]

who the Liberals or you??? And the difference between bombing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is?

 

lolages at you going round in circles. There were quite different reasons for both wars. The Afghani state was clearly harbouring known terrorists and something had to be done. Unfortunately military action was probably the best way of trying to solve this problem.

 

No doubt you will make up another unrelated point to prove whatever point it is you think you are proving.

[bridge too far]

So you are saying it is correct to pay commercial broadcasters money to make news bulletins! I dont get handouts to help run my business in these hard times and so why should media companies. They sink or swim

 

Oh FFS Nick - stop twisting my words. Or are you so myopic that you see things that aren't there / don't see things that are.

 

I have never said this - I simply pointed out TO YOU that there was to be a consultation process and that it wasn't a done deed.

 

I then went on to postulate that ANY government is damned if it takes decision without consultation and damned if it engages in consultation. That's a simple concept - why can't you understand that?

 

I have never favoured commercial broadcasting (NB I'm not including news bulletins here), mainly because I think it's crap as a rule, and therefore I don't watch it. Commercial broadcasting is too influenced by its advertisers and owners (viz. Murdoch). The BBC retains its impartiality precisely because it is not funded commercially.

 

You see, Nick, one thing people with a real interest in furthering their knowledge do is to engage in 'what ifs'. That's what consultations are for - brainstorming. WHAT IF commercial broadcasters lose a huge portion of their advertising revenue? WHAT IF they then decide to cut programmes that don't 'make money' (such as news bulletins)? WHAT IF the population is then denied an alternative take on current affairs? Even if I don't watch it, I would be far happier if there was more than one news broadcaster.

 

Unless, of course, you think there should just be a State Broadcaster?

Edited 17 June, 2009 by bridge too far

[bungle]

not really got a great deal about the war vote has it

 

I was told this thread was about hypocricy, so I cited an example of the Tories being hypocrits. Is that OK?

[OldNick]

Oh FFS Nick - stop twisting my words. Or are you so myopic that you see things that aren't there / don't see things that are.

 

I have never said this - I simply pointed out TO YOU that there was to be a consultation process and that it wasn't a done deed.

 

I then went on to postulate that ANY government is damned if it takes decision without consultation and damned if it engages in consultation. That's a simple concept - why can't you understand that?

 

I have never favoured commercial broadcasting, mainly because I think it's crap as a rule. Commercial broadcasting is too influenced by its advertisers and owners (viz. Murdoch). The BBC retains its impartiality precisely because it is not funded commercially.

 

You see, Nick, one thing people with a real interest in furthering their knowledge do is to engage in 'what ifs'. That's what consultations are for - brainstorming. WHAT IF commercial broadcasters lose a huge portion of their advertising revenue? WHAT IF they then decide to cut programmes that don't 'make money' (such as news bulletins)? WHAT IF the population is then denied an alternative take on current affairs?

 

Unless, of course, you think there should just be a State Broadcaster?

'well that beggars belief if it goes ahead.' my wording in my initial post about the money going to media companies. If it goes ahead.

Yes more quangos for civil servants to waste more money, we are a nation of consultors. Of course you will be all for that

[bridge too far]

'well that beggars belief if it goes ahead.' my wording in my initial post about the money going to media companies. If it goes ahead.

Yes more quangos for civil servants to waste more money, we are a nation of consultors. Of course you will be all for that

 

So how would you manage a consultation Nick?

 

Or perhaps, being a supporter of Chameleon, you'd plump for dictatorship?

[OldNick]

So how would you manage a consultation Nick?

 

Or perhaps, being a supporter of Chameleon, you'd plump for dictatorship?

I would nt go for consultation Id get it sorted before publishing it.Why not put every decision to consultation if that is the way of government nowadays, lets have a referendum on it, of course that doesnt happen if there is the slightest chance they might get the decision go against them.Or just have a public enquiry behind closed doors much better, so they can have a good old cover up

[bridge too far]

I would nt go for consultation Id get it sorted before publishing it.Why not put every decision to consultation if that is the way of government nowadays, lets have a referendum on it, of course that doesnt happen if there is the slightest chance they might get the decision go against them.Or just have a public enquiry behind closed doors much better, so they can have a good old cover up

 

Probably because you and I and most other people wouldn't understand the finer points of news broadcasting and financing?

How can they have a decision go against them when they haven't made a decision to 'go against'?

God, your logic is famously flawed

[Mole]

I think that the government hope that the nation dont understand the term levy which should have read stealth tax regarding the internet they announced yesterday. as for giving some of the TV licence money to other private companies , well that beggars belief if it goes ahead.

 

The Labour Party in Stealth Tax shocker.

[Jillyanne]

This thread will get locked like the other one imho and bloody should be. I haven't expressed my views for fear of being stamped down and criticised but the usual suspects just seem to keep on and on and on and on and on and on. BORING!

[Mole]

This thread will get locked like the other one imho and bloody should be. I haven't expressed my views for fear of being stamped down and criticised but the usual suspects just seem to keep on and on and on and on and on and on. BORING!

 

You do come out with some drivel Jill.

[Jillyanne]

You do come out with some drivel Jill.

 

Once again

 

SHUT UP

[Mole]

Once again

 

SHUT UP

 

Stop shouting like a fishwife.