The Spending Review (tackling the Socialists debt mountain)

[Wade Garrett]

I work for a private company that is unionised, and the mutual respect between union and management is what has helped the company grow, and attract millions in investment from its shareholders.

 

It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If anyone has any doubts about Trade Unionism nowadays, ask yourself why London Fireman are going on strike on Nov 5th. That tells you all you need to know about the Trade Unions.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

If anyone has any doubts about Trade Unionism nowadays, ask yourself why London Fireman are going on strike on Nov 5th. That tells you all you need to know about the Trade Unions.

 

Nothing to do with bully boy tactics from management threatening workers with instant dismissal unless they agree to new working conditions/contracts/rotas without any negotiation/talks.. then?

[Fuengirola Saint]

If anyone has any doubts about Trade Unionism nowadays, ask yourself why London Fireman are going on strike on Nov 5th. That tells you all you need to know about the Trade Unions.

 

All that tells you is that they are maximising their leverage, nothing else, If you are in dispute with someone you use whatever is at your disposal to to win said dispute.

[buctootim]

All that tells you is that they are maximising their leverage, nothing else, If you are in dispute with someone you use whatever is at your disposal to to win said dispute.

 

Nah it a scummy thing to do, playing on peoples fears. They'd gain more support by refusing to train but being available for emergency calls.

[dune]

Nothing to do with bully boy tactics from management threatening workers with instant dismissal unless they agree to new working conditions/contracts/rotas without any negotiation/talks.. then?

 

Come on Andrew, even the most millitant of marxists must agree that fireman being encouraged to strike on bon fire night is shocking.

[Johnny Bognor]

All that tells you is that they are maximising their leverage, nothing else, If you are in dispute with someone you use whatever is at your disposal to to win said dispute.

 

So why not start with a normal day and then escalate if necessary?

 

They are just being lazy on the busiest night of the year.

 

The easiest fix is to set fire to fireman's houses while they are on the picket line.

[dune]

The UK's economy grew at 0.8% between July and September, official figures show, suggesting the economy is recovering faster than expected.

 

It follows 1.2% growth in the second quarter of the year, and is double the 0.4% expected by analysts.

 

Meanwhile rating agency Standard and Poor's upgraded its outlook for the UK's triple-A credit rating.

 

Chancellor George Osborne called both reports "a vote of confidence in the new government's economic policies".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11624742

[moonraker]

A lot of the current growth can be attributed to Gov capital spending which is soon to dry up under your darling little boy Georrgie Porgie, lets see what the rate is in 12 - 18 months. I hope it is still strong but I am not holding my breath.

[Whitey Grandad]

A lot of the current growth can be attributed to Gov capital spending which is soon to dry up under your darling little boy Georrgie Porgie, lets see what the rate is in 12 - 18 months. I hope it is still strong but I am not holding my breath.

 

A lot will depend on interest-rate policy over the next 12 months. There's a lot of potential inflation out there and I think it's about time that it started to creep up.

[Fuengirola Saint]

The UK's economy grew at 0.8% between July and September, official figures show, suggesting the economy is recovering faster than expected.

 

It follows 1.2% growth in the second quarter of the year, and is double the 0.4% expected by analysts.

 

Meanwhile rating agency Standard and Poor's upgraded its outlook for the UK's triple-A credit rating.

 

Chancellor George Osborne called both reports "a vote of confidence in the new government's economic policies".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11624742

 

 

Thats because of measures put in place by the previous government, are you a bit simple? None of Gideon's measures have had a chance to take effect yet, just wait and see when they do :-0

[CB Saint]

Fireman striking on 5th November, that is a pretty low thing to do. Yes they might be using their leveage but they are playing with ,well, fire. If, god forbid, someone dies and it turns out that it could have been prevented if firemen were not on strike then they will lose a lot of the public support they do have. I suspect that public sympathy will be in short supply anyway ala BA cabin crew.

 

Whilst I have no issue with the right to strike per se, I think that there needs to be some level of exemption for the emergency services.

[benjii]

The problem is your 'views' are so bizarrely crude as to defy sensible discussion. It would be like trying to argue with a Taliban.

 

A "Talib", more than one "Taliban".

 

Don't thank me. I impart wisdom for free.

[bridge too far]

Fireman striking on 5th November, that is a pretty low thing to do. Yes they might be using their leveage but they are playing with ,well, fire. If, god forbid, someone dies and it turns out that it could have been prevented if firemen were not on strike then they will lose a lot of the public support they do have. I suspect that public sympathy will be in short supply anyway ala BA cabin crew.

 

Whilst I have no issue with the right to strike per se, I think that there needs to be some level of exemption for the emergency services.

 

I think, when they had a one day strike last week, the union had agreed with management that the firefighters would turn out in the event of an emergency.

[Johnny Bognor]

I work for a private company that is unionised, and the mutual respect between union and management is what has helped the company grow, and attract millions in investment from its shareholders.

 

It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

 

That is fair enough, but the Unions can't stop companies going bust. I would guess that there were union members at Woolworths and MFI, but a fat lot of good that did them.

 

I was making the point that there have been 1m jobs lost in the private sector and the response was they should have been in a Union. A union can't stop a private business going bust and so those jobs still would have been lost and therefore those 'victims' deserve some sympathy.

[badgerx16]

Sometimes I really don't get this socialism lark. One million private sector works lose their jobs over the last two years and the most we hear is "well they're are not in a Union, so tough ****". Maybe they weren't as lucky as you to get the education/opportunity you had, so they end up on the scrap heap. They are the very people that pay your wages (when they are working), so the least they should get is some sympathy, but it looks like they are on their own.

1) In what way is your first sentance connected to the rest of this paragraph ?

2) What makes you think that these people don't get sympathy from 'socialists' or 'the public sector' ?

3) Being in a union doesn't prevent redundancies - but it does give the staff some ability to negotiate how posts are shed, as with the 250 we have lost at my place of work in the last 3 months.

[dune]

Just watching PMQ's and I have to say that Kate Hoey really is a credit to the Labour Party.

[Special K]

Oh behave: What you've described there is the foundations on which the private sector is built on! "We will provide an inferior product, for as much sodding profit as possible and sod the mug of a consumer who walks through the door."'The public sector', the clue is in the name; it's there to help the public.

 

'The private sector' in it's truest form is there to benefit the individual only.

 

PLUS I've already said once on here that those in the private sector should unionise and received a torrent of abuse. Personally I don't see why it is so stupid; you may not have suffered as many job losses.

 

Oh dear. If this is the attitude of public sector workers generally, then please don't bother applying for any jobs in the private sector (when you have lost yours) as you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

[dune]

Oh dear. If this is the attitude of public sector workers generally, then please don't bother applying for any jobs in the private sector (when you have lost yours) as you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

 

Without wishing to personalise this, but to speak in general, I think you're right about many public sector workers having a real shock to the system if they had to work "in the real world". For the past few years private sector workers have had to pay the price for Labours incompetent management of the ecnomy with pay freezes and pension reforms, the latter compounded by Brown raiding company pension schemes, but the said private sector workers haven't voted to strike - they've got on with it. Now that the public sector are being dragged into the real world why is it any different and why are they special? For far too long public sector workers have lived in a bubble and it's about time the public sector was modernised and where possible privatised. As a taxpayer I demand that my government gets the most possible for the money I give them and there is certainly huge amounts to be saved by applying private sector principles to an outdated and inefficient public sector.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Without wishing to personalise this, but to speak in general, I think you're right about many public sector workers having a real shock to the system if they had to work "in the real world". For the past few years private sector workers have had to pay the price for Labours incompetent management of the ecnomy with pay freezes and pension reforms, the latter compounded by Brown raiding company pension schemes, but the said private sector workers haven't voted to strike - they've got on with it. Now that the public sector are being dragged into the real world why is it any different and why are they special? For far too long public sector workers have lived in a bubble and it's about time the public sector was modernised and where possible privatised. As a taxpayer I demand that my government gets the most possible for the money I give them and there is certainly huge amounts to be saved by applying private sector principles to an outdated and inefficient public sector.

 

Speaking 'selfishly' if I may, I personally on here haven't complained ONCE about increased pension contributions from teachers, or the reduction in the number of 'behind the scenes' staff from schools etc; I, personally (I won't be so bold as to claim all teachers) am getting on with it. What I can't stand is the private sector's very obvious 'chip' on it's shoulder about how they have had to bare the brunt. Credit where it is due, they have suffered far worse so far than the public sector, and I too would moan, HOWEVER, they had/have got their DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to unionise and/or oppose. If they don't want to do that, then fine it's your choice, but I don't want to have to keep hearing people bleat on about job losses when I'm struggling to find an example of the private sector opposing job losses.

 

Perhaps this is due to the nature of the markets, but I feel it is still a valid complaint.

Edited 27 October, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

And every forum have those who resort to insults when they have no counter argument.

 

As it goes I can understand why some people vote Liberal because they beleieve in civil liberties, but to vote Labour is to vote to be a slave to the Socialist system. A top heavy system layerered in buerocracy that is all about taking away civil liberties (spending power is a civil liberty so the Socialists love of high taxes fits perfectly) and dictating from above every aspect of how everyone should live their lives.

 

That is what the Socialist/Communist parties are all about.

 

How did I not notice this the other night? You've made yourself look like a doughnut again!

 

If you were to ever read Karl Marx (I've read 'Mein Kampf' so it shouldn't be too much of a struggle for you) you would see that Marx advocates a withering away of the state and law in Socialist/Communist countries.

Edited 27 October, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[moonraker]

Having spent 36 working years evenly split between the two sectors the one great myth that needs laying to rest is that private sector workers work harder than public sector workers. The reason private sector workers take the pain in the way they do is driven by one thing, profit, and the witch of the eighties ensuring that many private sector workers were denied employee rights by stealth putting them in fear of any sort of opposition to market driven greed. How many senior executives have walked away from once great companies whose downfall they were central to with enough money to keep a several normal families for life.

[Whitey Grandad]

Having spent 36 working years evenly split between the two sectors the one great myth that needs laying to rest is that private sector workers work harder than public sector workers. The reason private sector workers take the pain in the way they do is driven by one thing, profit, and the witch of the eighties ensuring that many private sector workers were denied employee rights by stealth putting them in fear of any sort of opposition to market driven greed. How many senior executives have walked away from once great companies whose downfall they were central to with enough money to keep a several normal families for life.

 

Surely your experiences will depend on the type and size of the organisations in which you worked?

[Johnny Bognor]

Speaking 'selfishly' if I may, I personally on here haven't complained ONCE about increased pension contributions from teachers, or the reduction in the number of 'behind the scenes' staff from schools etc; I, personally (I won't be so bold as to claim all teachers) am getting on with it. What I can't stand is the private sector's very obvious 'chip' on it's shoulder about how they have had to bare the brunt. Credit where it is due, they have suffered far worse so far than the public sector, and I too would moan, HOWEVER, they had/have got their DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to unionise and/or oppose. If they don't want to do that, then fine it's your choice, but I don't want to have to keep hearing people bleat on about job losses when I'm struggling to find an example of the private sector opposing job losses.

 

Perhaps this is due to the nature of the markets, but I feel it is still a valid complaint.

 

 

You make some fair points. However, can you explain how a union could stop job losses at somewhere like Woolworths or MFI for example?

 

You can't, because public sector organisations don't go bust, therefore those within them are far more 'safe' than their private sector counterparts. Yes, some of the redundancies may have been stopped / reduced where companies have cut back, but there have been tens of thousands of insolvencies along with hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.

 

At the end of the day, you can't 'oppose' bankruptcy.

[Wade Garrett]

That is fair enough, but the Unions can't stop companies going bust. I would guess that there were union members at Woolworths and MFI, but a fat lot of good that did them.

 

I was making the point that there have been 1m jobs lost in the private sector and the response was they should have been in a Union. A union can't stop a private business going bust and so those jobs still would have been lost and therefore those 'victims' deserve some sympathy.

 

I was just the making the point to the predictable union-bashers that most of us are reasonable people who want the companies they work for to prosper.

 

 

I sympathise with anyone who loses their job, and I don't believe for one minute that a socialist wouldn't, regardless of their trade-union status.

 

It seems to me that the coalition are the ones who don't really give a toss about people losing their jobs. The Tories have form on this, and the Liberals are just one election away from oblivion because of their pandering.

[Johnny Bognor]

I was just the making the point to the predictable union-bashers that most of us are reasonable people who want the companies they work for to prosper..

 

Working in the private sector, I guess you would want that to happen. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

 

 

I sympathise with anyone who loses their job, and I don't believe for one minute that a socialist wouldn't, regardless of their trade-union status.

 

Good for you. There are some 'socialists' on here who don't appear to. Could it be the case that there are two types of socialist? i.e. realist socialists (working in the private sector) and fantasist socialists (working in the public sector)

 

 

It seems to me that the coalition are the ones who don't really give a toss about people losing their jobs. The Tories have form on this, and the Liberals are just one election away from oblivion because of their pandering.

 

And Labour don't? (1 million people on the scrapheap over the last two years says different).

 

As someone pointed out on here, 8% of people leave public sector jobs every year and so by only re-recruiting 5.5%, the cuts can be made without anyone actually 'losing' their jobs. Granted that those left behind might have to work a bit harder (don't we all), but we didn't have these extra 500,000 people 6 years ago.

[Whitey Grandad]

Talking of employment, nobody has mentioned the number of jobs that have been taken up by 'immigrants'.

[trousers]

Working in the private sector, I guess you would want that to happen. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

 

 

 

 

Good for you. There are some 'socialists' on here who don't appear to. Could it be the case that there are two types of socialist? i.e. realist socialists (working in the private sector) and fantasist socialists (working in the public sector)

 

 

 

 

And Labour don't? (1 million people on the scrapheap over the last two years says different).

 

As someone pointed out on here, 8% of people leave public sector jobs every year and so by only re-recruiting 5.5%, the cuts can be made without anyone actually 'losing' their jobs. Granted that those left behind might have to work a bit harder (don't we all), but we didn't have these extra 500,000 people 6 years ago.

 

Every time I come back to this thread there is someone like your good self talking common sense.

 

Most disconcerting. I much prefer the posts that quote 16 Guardian articles at a time.

 

Talking of which...how many trees will the Government's public sector job consolidation programme save? A lighter jobs section in the Guardian could well end up saving the planet....every cloud.... ;-)

[badgerx16]

Could it be the case that there are two types of socialist? i.e. realist socialists (working in the private sector) and fantasist socialists (working in the public sector)

.

Why don't you give it a rest - it's getting boring.

[Special K]

Having spent 36 working years evenly split between the two sectors the one great myth that needs laying to rest is that private sector workers work harder than public sector workers. The reason private sector workers take the pain in the way they do is driven by one thing, profit, and the witch of the eighties ensuring that many private sector workers were denied employee rights by stealth putting them in fear of any sort of opposition to market driven greed. How many senior executives have walked away from once great companies whose downfall they were central to with enough money to keep a several normal families for life.

 

Of course private sector companies operate to make a profit, they have to in order to survive. What ****es me off is the fact that profit is seen by some as dirty and immoral. This is incomprehensible, especially if those that complain work in the public sector, if only for the fact the big pension agreements they have would not be available if the private sector were not making money.

 

I also spent time working for local authorities and saw both excellent, proactive work and profligacy on a major scale (in terms of both time and money). But i do think that on the whole private sector employees work harder and longer than public sector workers (essential service employees aside - who do marvellous work). Whether they work better is open to debate, but in my time in local government a department was set up to monitor how many rings a phone would make before being answered. The "standard" was set at 5 and all department managers had to devote over 10 hours a week to monitoring that the staff were complying with this edict (issued by a despotic CE through an expensive "working group" of brown nosers). I know who gets my vote.

[moonraker]

Of course private sector companies operate to make a profit, they have to in order to survive. What ****es me off is the fact that profit is seen by some as dirty and immoral. This is incomprehensible, especially if those that complain work in the public sector, if only for the fact the big pension agreements they have would not be available if the private sector were not making money.

 

You’re so right, profit is essential for business, it certainly is not immoral, and ironically the current government have said they want to squeeze profits on defence contracts to save money. You are also correct that the public sector is plagued by ridiculous initiatives that do nothing to add value to the service they are set up to deliver. My point was that employee for employee there is little to choose. I would take issue with your singling out essential services employees (depending on what services you define as essential) as the only public sector workers who work harder and longer. I have worked closely with the much maligned MoD for many years and whilst there are obvious examples of poor performance the vast majority of the staff, from junior clerical to the very senior, are dedicated hard working professionals, focused on providing the armed forces with what they need, don’t believe all you read in the media, many of the problems associated with big programmes can be attributed to the major defence contractors.

[sebastian firefly]

Both of whom are rich manufacuring powerhouses, governed in a pruddent and right wing way. Britain could have grown into a country like Germany if only bastards hadn't cust 100 years wealth fighting them a your bloody labour hadn't given away our beautifu empire

 

i think youl find churchill promised our empire to the us if they loaned us the wedge to continue giving hitler a shoeing

to which i think weve just paid of the last install ment quite recently

dont tihnk he was a socialist bit of a **** when not at war but not a socialist

[Whitey Grandad]

i think youl find churchill promised our empire to the us if they loaned us the wedge to continue giving hitler a shoeing

to which i think weve just paid of the last install ment quite recently

dont tihnk he was a socialist bit of a **** when not at war but not a socialist

 

The problem was that the Marshall aid that we were given (and we received as much as Germany) was spent on setting up social services instead of rebuilding industry.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The problem was that the Marshall aid that we were given (and we received as much as Germany) was spent on setting up social services instead of rebuilding industry.

 

1) You realise he wasn't talking about Marshall aid right? That came after the war.

 

2) We didn't need to re-build indsutry! Industry may have been geared on a war footing, but it could be/was easily switched back.

 

3) Atlee was the PM after the war (which he won by a landslide) because the country was up the spout from a social stand point, so of course he had to focus on services. If if Churchil had been re-elected, as a former Liberal, was one of the main driving forces behind social reforms at the turn of the century it could easily be argued he would have done the same thing!

 

4) Before Dune or someone of his ilk comes back with "He couldn't have done a good job if Churchill was re-elected", the reasons behind why Atlee lost the election at the start of the 50s was because of his performances at the post-war conferences.

Edited 6 November, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[dune]

1) You realise he wasn't talking about Marshall aid right? That came after the war.

 

2) We didn't need to re-build indsutry! Industry may have been geared on a war footing, but it could be/was easily switched back.

 

3) Atlee was the PM after the war (which he won by a landslide) because the country was up the spout from a social stand point, so of course he had to focus on services. If if Churchil had been re-elected, as a former Liberal, was one of the main driving forces behind social reforms at the turn of the century it could easily be argued he would have done the same thing!

 

4) Before Dune or someone of his ilk comes back with "He couldn't have done a good job if Churchill was re-elected", the reasons behind why Atlee lost the election at the start of the 50s was because of his performances at the post-war conferences.

 

I wouldn't dream of arguing with what is written in your gcse text books.

[solentstars]

The problem was that the Marshall aid that we were given (and we received as much as Germany) was spent on setting up social services instead of rebuilding industry.

rubbish the reason we had a big class division so big that boss,s and the unions were to busy fighting each which carried on the 1960s hence films,i,m alright jack and lots of posters on here still preach.

The Germans proudly label their economy a "soziale Marktwirtschaft ," or "social market economy," to show that the system as it has developed after World War II has both a material and a social--or human--dimension. They stress the importance of the term "market" because after the Nazi experience they wanted an economy free of state intervention and domination. The only state role in the new West German economy was to protect the competitive environment from monopolistic or oligopolistic tendencies--including its own. The term "social" is stressed because West Germans wanted an economy that would not only help the wealthy but also care for the workers and others who might not prove able to cope with the strenuous competitive demands of a market economy. The term "social" was chosen rather than "socialist" to distinguish their system from those in which the state claimed the right to direct the economy or to intervene in it.

 

Beyond these principles of the social market economy, but linked to it, comes a more traditional German concept, that of Ordnung , which can be directly translated to mean order but which really means an economy, society, and polity that are structured but not dictatorial. The founders of the social market economy insisted that Denken in Ordnungen --to think in terms of systems of order--was essential. They also spoke of Ordo-Liberalismus because the essence of the concept is that this must be a freely chosen order, not a command order.

[badgerx16]

I wouldn't dream of arguing with what is written in your gcse text books.

Is that because you didn't get that far ?

[Whitey Grandad]

rubbish the reason we had a big class division so big that boss,s and the unions were to busy fighting each which carried on the 1960s hence films,i,m alright jack and lots of posters on here still preach.

The Germans proudly label their economy a "soziale Marktwirtschaft ," or "social market economy," to show that the system as it has developed after World War II has both a material and a social--or human--dimension. They stress the importance of the term "market" because after the Nazi experience they wanted an economy free of state intervention and domination. The only state role in the new West German economy was to protect the competitive environment from monopolistic or oligopolistic tendencies--including its own. The term "social" is stressed because West Germans wanted an economy that would not only help the wealthy but also care for the workers and others who might not prove able to cope with the strenuous competitive demands of a market economy. The term "social" was chosen rather than "socialist" to distinguish their system from those in which the state claimed the right to direct the economy or to intervene in it.

 

Beyond these principles of the social market economy, but linked to it, comes a more traditional German concept, that of Ordnung , which can be directly translated to mean order but which really means an economy, society, and polity that are structured but not dictatorial. The founders of the social market economy insisted that Denken in Ordnungen --to think in terms of systems of order--was essential. They also spoke of Ordo-Liberalismus because the essence of the concept is that this must be a freely chosen order, not a command order.

 

That does not contradict what I said.

[dune]

Is that because you didn't get that far ?

 

The left wing schools sylabus taught today brainwashes children with a biased Marxist agenda.

[badgerx16]

The left wing schools sylabus taught today brainwashes children with a biased Marxist agenda.

Are you upset because 'Mein Kampf' isn't a set text ?

Edited 7 November, 2010 by badgerx16

[rocknrollman no2]

Are you upset bacause 'Mein Kampf' isn't a set text ?

 

Ha ha ha.!!!!!!!

Brilliant

[hamster]

Nah it a scummy thing to do, playing on peoples fears. They'd gain more support by refusing to train but being available for emergency calls.

 

Disagree, they are asking for our supoort. Do you really want the cutbacks to hit the fire service? No. Neither do I.

[Whitey Grandad]

Cutbacks? What cutbacks? Government spending will still be where it was three years ago.

[Whitey Grandad]

Cutbacks? What cutbacks? Government spending will still be where it was three years ago.

[Faz]

Disagree, they are asking for our supoort. Do you really want the cutbacks to hit the fire service? No. Neither do I.

 

But this dispute isn't about cutbacks is it? It's about the employers right to decide what shift pattern is needed. They curently work 2 x 9 hour day shifts, and 2 x 15 hour night shifts. 48 hrs. The employer wants 2 x 12 hour day shifts, and 2 x 12 hour night shifts. 48 hrs.

[Faz]

Disagree, they are asking for our supoort. Do you really want the cutbacks to hit the fire service? No. Neither do I.

 

But this dispute isn't about cutbacks is it? It's about the employers right to decide what shift pattern is needed. They curently work 2 x 9 hour day shifts, and 2 x 15 hour night shifts. 48 hrs. The employer wants 2 x 12 hour day shifts, and 2 x 12 hour night shifts. 48 hrs.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I wouldn't dream of arguing with what is written in your gcse text books.

 

Good, because you are wrong.

 

You really are a sad pathetic little man giving it "the big 'un" behind your keyboard. Dune, what I've said is fact, if you don't agree with it then that is your agenda, but I know I'm right. I'll say it before and say it again, when you can come back and show me your historical qualifications I will give your warped ideas the time of day. Until that point, you're going to have be contented denying the truth.

Edited 7 November, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I wouldn't dream of arguing with what is written in your gcse text books.

 

Good, because you are wrong.

 

You really are a sad pathetic little man giving it "the big 'un" behind your keyboard. Dune, what I've said is fact, if you don't agree with it then that is your agenda, but I know I'm right. I'll say it before and say it again, when you can come back and show me your historical qualifications I will give your warped ideas the time of day. Until that point, you're going to have be contented denying the truth.

Edited 7 November, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The left wing schools sylabus taught today brainwashes children with a biased Marxist agenda.

 

Any hard facts/evidence for this statement you absolute joke of a human being?

 

Paranoid deluded idiot.

Edited 7 November, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The left wing schools sylabus taught today brainwashes children with a biased Marxist agenda.

 

Any hard facts/evidence for this statement you absolute joke of a human being?

 

Paranoid deluded idiot.

Edited 7 November, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint