Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Compassion stained blue
Independent: Johann Hari: Welcome to Cameron land
Not too far off-topic; it is about housing for those who don't actually have any, plus numerous other things that this council's appalling example indicates awaits us should the Big Society slide out from under Caring Cameron.
Posted by letthemfall @ 01:18 PM (1866 views) Add Comment
71 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. mrflibble said...
If it comes down to a choice of the brutal but real Cameronland vs. the fantasy fairytale Brownland then I'll take the former every time.
Just because someone makes a tragic set of choices in life they should not be handed a nice comfy house and a weekly benefits cheque, which is obviously what 'Jane Phillips' was looking for when she knocked on the door and told her sob story. Welcome to the real world - a world that involves going to work, earning a crust and paying for a roof over your families head. The sooner we get shot of the Browns days of idiots mating with bad genetic stock and having it all laid out on a plate the better.
Sorry to sound brutal here but I'm sick and tired of going to work so others can sit on their @rse at home doing nothing useful. Having half a brain and two kids is like finding a golden Wonka ticket in this country.
2. tyrellcorporation said...
LOL! bluddy brilliant MrFlibble...
3. Nonbritishghonorea said...
can't argue with that...
4. letthemfall said...
Knew this would bring out the reactionaries, although to be honest it's hard to decide whether they are really parodists, especially as the article is about the sufferings of the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, etc.
5. alan said...
The Greeks turned a blind eye to tax evasion, earnings fraud and corruption. The result was that nobody wanted to pay for the generous social schemes of the government.
The Greeks borrowed the money to pay their daily bills and that's where it all went wrong. At the "social" where I live they tell you that if you are pregs at 19, the council will house you in a nice flat - all you need is a note from your mum to say she wants you out of the house.
Yes, I'm annoyed - firstly its my money. Secondly, I don't want to see my country go down the drain, like Greece, courtesy of NuLabour. Better that we sort out our own problems than have the IMF come in and dictate what we need to do under the terms of a "bail out"
If that means "tough love", then so be it. Everyone can't be "bailed out", although the Spanish and Portuguese are next in the international queue and may feel differently!
6. letthemfall said...
alan
Well I can see you haven't read the article - it is quite long though. It's not about bailing out anyone: it's about not leaving the poor and helpless to rot while reducing taxation on the wealthy. (Nothing to do with Greece either, btw.)
7. mark wadsworth said...
I'm an economist, not a politician.
It strikes me that the sensible thing to do would be to build a nice new council estate further out of town (wherever they can find space), shift the tenants across and then rent out the old flats for £500 a week (or whatever). Hey presto, there's loads of money coming in to pay for construction of the new flats (the first two years' rental income alone would cover the construction costs) and to pay for the carers and so on - heck, they could even employ to able bodied unemployed people to look after the elderly and frail ones.
Timmy Taxpayer would come out ahead on the deal.
Before somebody accuses me of "uprooting communities", it wouldn't be uprooted, it would shift wholesale five miles west, that's all - after WW2 there were some "German" villages in what became E Germany, Poland etc which just rebuilt themselves lock stock and barrel in West Germany, they retained their accents and everything - and I voluntarily commute 50 minutes into Central London every day, I don't think that's an unreasonable imposition on people in those flats who work in town.
8. cat and canary said...
Hi LTF, here's a different angle on the issue. I'm genuinely interested in your response:
If I remember rightly (!), the whole point of the massive swing that brought labour into 13 years of power was down to a naff NHS, poor welfare state and naff public transport.
Whether Labour have done a good job on these issues in 13 years is inmaterial. On the surface they seemed to have thrown a lot of money at these issues, some of which was admitedly wasted on quangos etc.
But after 13 years of Labour, these issues are not what people are moaning about anymore. Are they not public disorder, the economy and immigration??
This is all a bit generalisitic, but surely most of the arrows are pointing towards needing a centre right government, at least for one term?
This is one benefit of being a floating voter, me thinks.
9. alan said...
@ letthemfall,
The "poor and helpless" are not "left to rot" where I come from. Even weak cases are featherbedded. Treatment is very different in this country according to postcode.
In helping people that don't really need it, the government of the day are making matters worse, and as a nation we are living beyond our means. Just like the Greeks (that's why I mentioned them - its topical).
In any area, there are problems like the ones catalogued by the opposition councillor (mistakes, staff, misunderstandings) - they are very extreme exceptions, certainly not the rule where I live. The whole story looks like an election "advert".
Please tell me honestly, have you ever met a case like the ones in the article?
10. andrew said...
letthemfal,
The problem is that you are not taxing the wealthy, you are taxing the average,, or just above average or not so poor, however you wish to classify the ordinary person to fund the so called poor.
If it really was a case of taxing the rich to fund the poor then fair enough, but it ends up being tax the ordinary to make us all roughly poor.
Add to that the basic fact that the "poor" mostly did not get there through misfortune but because they didn't want to get off their lazy @rse at some time in their lives.
11. uncle tom said...
The key to running a compassionate society without bleeding the prudent and industrious dry, is the expectation from those seeking state assistance that they make some effort to help themselves; unless through age or genuine disability, they are unable to do so.
This government has thrown money at the public services, without proper care to ensure that good value was achieved. They have made this the country of choice for feral parents, and prospective parents, from across europe and beyond.
13 years ago they inherited an economy that was set to prosper; today we have government expenditure exceeding tax receipts to the tune of nearly £500 per household, per month, leaving our sovereign debt rating under serious threat.
Whatever your political ideals, we urgently need to get these clowns out of Downing St, and give a clear mandate to a fresh team.
12. britishblue said...
The fundamental difference between The Tories and the other parties is that in the long term the Tories will seek to transfer more wealth to the rich and the other parties will look to spread the wealth and ensure that the poor of all kinds have a safety net.
When you look at the 'Caring Christains' in the American Republican party, who were appalled that the the poor should have free health care, you have to be aware of the consequences of a swing to the right in the UK. Thatcher at least had an ordinary background in a grocers shop. Cameron and Osborne do not and have no idea of the day to day lives of ordinary people. I expect free prescriptions for those that need it the most will soon be at risk as will many other things as it becomes austerity for the poor, ordinary man and lower middle classes and a transfer of wealth to the upper middle classes and the rich.
13. tenant super said...
@MW The problem with moving communities (particularly from London) is that the cost of travelling into town makes working for low wages a worthless activity. A £4,000 PA season ticket is 40% of wages for some people. You need some people in expensive areas to work as hospital porters and refuse collectors and the cheapest way of doing this is to provide them with social housing. The alternatives are both more expensive the first being paying hospital porters higher wages so they can afford private rents. The second being Greenhalgh's proposals (in his white paper) of charging market rents for social housing and subsidising the poor with housing benefit. In fact, moving to market rents, many people will not leave their home, they will just stop working to claim full HB rather than move to Thamesmead and who can blame them?
Obviously, political opinion is divided about social housing and welfare and the guardian have wrung Greenhalghs's paper to death and in this respect it is black propaganda. The Tories angrily retort that they respect social housing tenancies. Ultimately, the tories support right to buy and now have a new policy of giving a 10 % equity stake to good tenants. The real problem is what to do with non-decent estates. In my borough, the Liberal Democrat council claim they would love to build new social housing and bring up homes to decent standard but the Labour government will neither give them funds nor let them borrow funds at a reasonable rate so they have no option but to work with private developers on regeneration projects like the Heygate or Aylesbury.
A 3% cut on council tax is not a huge amount and many higher earners would donate more than this to 'crisis at christmas', 'the Cardinal Hume Centre' and so on. Meals on Wheels are just microwave meals (my recently deceased Grandfather had a whole bunch of them delivered once a week and his home help would heat them for him). Personally, I would rather just stop taxing pensions and let pensioners keep more of their money so they can buy their own ready meals from tesco home delivery (which are in fact cheaper than council meals due to efficiency of mass production). I personally would like to help vulnerable people, but I am not sure the State machine is the best at delivering this help and whether they really have the moral mandate to enforce this.
14. braindeed said...
10. uncle tom said...
.....Vote Tory....(to paraphrase)...they'll cut red tape, and let the Bankers prosper.....too many regulations, presumabley - even managed to shoe-horn in words like 'compassionate' & 'public services', and irony of irony 'clowns'.
Dole money is about £65 quid a week.
What a scabby, self serving, and cruel bunch, the chattering classes have become.
15. a saver said...
alan @5 said ' At the "social" where I live they tell you that if you are pregs at 19, the council will house you in a nice flat - all you need is a note from your mum to say she wants you out of the house'.
That's what's wrong with our society, neither the parent, pregnant teen or her partner has any responsibility to provide a house here, the state will pay! You have a baby you're entitled to a house to yourself. No wonder half the world is flocking here.
16. tenant super said...
If the State has stoked a housing bubble through restrictive planning, low interest rates, distortive shared ownership, bank bailouts etc. so that the pregnant teen and her boyfriend could not afford decent housing even if they went to college and got £30k pa jobs each, quite frankly, rather than blame them, I think I'll join them.
17. uncle tom said...
Britishblue & Braindeed,
If Labour had been true to its calling, would the last thirteen years have seen the gap between rich and poor widen?
No, but it has, and dramatically so..
Why? - Because this has been the era of the champagne socialist; the era of the despicable political freeloader..
Serious socialists have no major party to vote for in this election; but propping up the incompetant dinosaur of New Labour does not serve the cause - let the monster die, re-visit the purer origins of socialism, and breed a new movement..
18. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
19. c'mon correction said...
BD - "Bare-faced partizan claptrap, disguised as serious comment."
And of course what you think is gospel!
" - sleazeville and city cronsim" - how many Socialist Fat Cats have become lords? Nu Labour even made 'Fred the Shred' a Lord too.
you're just another righteous leftie. Problem is the country has too many of you currently, ever influenced by the left wing media majority spouting the same old, same old. We need a new balance, I'm seriously tired of being 'told'.
20. britishblue said...
Whether you are Tory or Labour the fact is that currently in the UK the poor are amongst the poorest in Western Europe and the rich are the richest in Europe. Take a look at this link National Income distribution in Europe showing the top 10% and bottom 10% http://economicmiracles.co.uk/europeincome_distribution.htm.
21. uncle tom said...
Braindeed - or should I say Brain Dead??
If you look at my track record on political commentary, you'll see that I don't hesitate from criticising any politician, or any political party; but given the options open to the country tomorrow, it is abundantly clear that there is only one serious direction to take.
Yours are the comments of those who have an entrenched political predudice, but can't put together a coherent argument to support their case; and given the incredible Sleaze and Cronyism of New Labour, to suggest that a change of government would be a change in that direction shows how your predudice has blinded you to reality.
Get a life pal - wake up to the real world..
22. braindeed said...
c'mon correction @19
We need a new balance, I'm seriously tired of being 'told'.
Tory balance? An oxy moron surely?
seriously tired of being 'told'........and want to do the telling, it seems
I'm not pro Labour, by the way - have a look again.....tell me where I mentioned them
23. braindeed said...
21. uncle tom said...
Braindeed - or should I say Brain Dead??.....ho ho - new one there schoolboy.
given the incredible Sleaze and Cronyism of New Labour,....granted....it's just the Tory Party do it SO much better.
'it is abundantly clear that there is only one serious direction to take.'.....hung by your own petart
24. vacuouspolitician said...
@14. braindeed said...
Yes. But normally don't read anything Uncle Tom (or his kind) say...as it is exactly the same rhetoric as self-styled gobsh1te Hugh Hendry.
25. luckyjim said...
You run a small business. George Osborne applies for a job as Finance Director. Would you give him the job ?
Neither would I.
26. alan said...
LuckyJim,
As it happens, professional politicians run the country, responding to majority parties in government.
The Civil Servants at Westminster can administer any requirement - that's what career Civil Servants do!
It won't matter if Cleggie or the Greens win by a landslide - professionals will manage the situation.
27. tenant super said...
Whomever is in power, the cost of the mooters, looters inevitably fall on ordinary shoulders. Whether your biggest grumble are the underclass or the corporate class depends on political leanings which are increasingly meaningless since "Corporations are creatures of the State, created by it and having two privileges that protect them from market pressures. First, corporate liability for damages to others is automatically limited by fiat; and second, responsibility is shifted away from individuals to a fictional entity."
Most votes make little difference and it wasn't entirely tongue-in-cheek that I suggest joining the welfare dependent. This would be a valid element of agorism, the undermining of immoral governance through counter-economics.
28. braindeed said...
27. tenant super said...
Most votes make little difference and it wasn't entirely tongue-in-cheek that I suggest joining the welfare dependent. This would be a valid element of agorism, the undermining of immoral governance through counter-economics.
Oh dear, the Proles are revolting ......as anyone from Eton would surely agree.
29. tenant super said...
In my case I feel it is the pedants revolting (and perhaps revolting as anyone from Eton or even Leighton Park would surely agree).
30. mr g said...
LTF@4 "Knew this would bring out the reactionaries"
A typical liberal / leftist response to anyone who challenges their "we know best" view of the world.
31. braindeed said...
Grumpy @30 said..
A typical liberal / leftist response to anyone who challenges their "we know best" view of the world.
liberal/leftist?!!! - you're going soft Grumps - I'd have expected 'commie bedwetters' at least :-)
32. rumble said...
"You run a small business. Gordon Brown applies for a job as Finance Director. Would you give him the job ? "... not a great argument, is it?
Hang in there reactionaries, proles and grumps, braindeed might raise a point sooner or later, in one of his "serious comments". (Infinite monkey theory).
33. letthemfall said...
A wide-ranging response to an important issue. I won't be able to respond to everything so just a few more comments...
cat and canary
I think the big swing in '97 was down (in part anyway) to the shambolic Major govt and the Newness of Labour ("business friendly"). Whether we need a centre-right govt now I can't judge. What I think we don't need is one that gives an inheritance tax break to the wealthy. That says a lot for the emphasis of Cameron and co. It isn't hard to see which section of the population will tend to benefit more over time, and it won't be those poor souls referred to in the article (which incidentally I do not think is a bit of cheap journalistic electioneering as one or two have suggested above).
uncle tom makes a fair point about Labour widening the gap between rich and poor (notwithstanding min wage), essentially by following Tory ideas with respect to the city and light regulation (remember Big Bang) - Heseltine pointed this out on the radio recently. This is why in my view the best election result would be a hung parliament leading to a change in the voting system. If you think back to the sixties, what has been the common theme running through the alternating Lab/Con govts? Booms then busts, and most recently a rapidly widening division between rich and poor.
For me the most ghastly feature of this country is the gap in wealth, and the offensive determination of the very rich to hang on to it regardless. Makes me feel like I live in a S American country. It is important for us all to have a more equal society. That's not a matter of handouts to the real scroungers (who are, I suspect, relatively few - everyone needs to work for their well being) but having a progressive tax system (incentives for the poor as well as the rich) and a welfare state that looks after those in genuine need - properly looked after, not squeezed dry like the needy in the article. I don't see the Tories ever offering that.
34. clockslinger said...
WTF did anyone think the Tories would do? They want our NHS so they can give it to their shareholding cronies in BUPA. They want what's left of the welfare system so they can give it to their mates in big business as tax cuts and they want what remains of the old age pension so they can sell something worse to you, under a compulsion, through their friends in the city. Those of you too young to remember the eighties I can understand...especially with Murdochs hand up every media organ and the average TV news bulletin designed never to address any issue in a meaningful way. Those old enough to remember, well, you are clearly not going to be swayed if , after all that, you think the party of the rich will improve this divided land. To you I say the quicker it all kicks off Greek style, the better. Yes it will be like the eighties, but worse, and this time on the streets in your town in the safe south east, not confined to a few forgotten communities in the north or Wales.
35. letthemfall said...
Ah mr g
where would we be
without you.
Of course you could always join in the debate instead of spluttering blimpishly in your posts. I'll listed to what you have to say if you want to say something.
36. braindeed said...
rumble@32...said
'Hang in there reactionaries, proles and grumps, braindeed might raise a point sooner or later, in one of his "serious comments". (Infinite monkey theory)'
Serious comments?.....Order Order..it's a BLOG, rumble. It's enough fun letting the air out of windbags. Grumps has signed himself off as such, and Ms S realised that the term 'Prole' was not used in a pejorative fashion.Give the extra chromosomes a rest.
Banana anyone?
37. rumble said...
"Bare-faced partizan claptrap, disguised as serious comment." There ya go dear.
38. rumble said...
" That's not a matter of handouts to the real scroungers (who are, I suspect, relatively few" Only suspect?
"incentives for the poor as well as the rich" What do the rich need incentives for?
39. braindeed said...
Of course, I should have said "Bare-faced partizan claptrap, thinly disguised as serious comment.", sweet pea.
40. rumble said...
Shutup muppet, listen for a change.
41. braindeed said...
Too Blue for me, bully boy YOU listen for a change.
42. devo said...
43. braindeed said...
One for best articulate point LTF@33 Enjoy.
44. rumble said...
Blue? You are ill.
45. titaniccaptain said...
Uncle Tom.....just found something off topic you may enjoy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/7676520/Does-the-moon-affect-how-a-wine-tastes.html
46. Mr G said...
LTF@33 If I can take issue with you and break down the last paragraph of your comment:
"For me the most ghastly feature of this country is the gap in wealth, and the offensive determination of the very rich to hang on to it regardless. Makes me feel like I live in a S American country. It is important for us all to have a more equal society.
I don't think any reasonable person of any political persuasion would disagree with that statement, I certainly don't.
"That's not a matter of handouts to the real scroungers (who are, I suspect, relatively few - everyone needs to work for their well being)"
I disagree. I suspect there are far more scroungers than anyone realises and as far as needing to work for their well being, I consider that to be wishful "progressive" thinking. I have managed people over the years whose attitude to work and the benefit system would shock some of the more nervous or sensitive contributors to HPC (irony). That's a polite way of saying there are a lot of absolutely unemployable a**eholes in society who have no desire to work.
"but having a progressive tax system (incentives for the poor as well as the rich) and a welfare state that looks after those in genuine need - properly looked after, not squeezed dry like the needy in the article."
Agreed, that should be the norm in a civilized society.
Remember, the huge gap between rich and poor has widened significantly under a Labour government not the Tories.
47. c'mon correction said...
It's amazing anyone votes conservatives if they ONLY benefit the rich? Do rich people have a hundred votes to each of us poor people? What are we talking here lefties; Their policies are worse for bottom 90%, only benefit top 10% or bottom 80%, only benefit top 20%? Hmmm.
It's the same old, same old from the lefties. "Tories want control of the NHS, to dis-band it, give if over to BUPA", what !!! Complete guff..and.. "they only benefit the rich"..and what next, oh.."Thatcher closed the mines and distroyed manufacturing in the 80's for the fun of it" etc.
Lefties - You obviously think that more debt, taxation, big state and paying of interest is the way forward so vote Labour or Lib Dems. I will personally be voting for the Conservatives which I believe will benefit everyone 'currently' long-term not short-term(even the poor and vunerable!!! 'never' i hear you say). Borrowing £5000k a second with a structural deficit of £70 Billion plus a year is inexcusable after 13 years of power. If we have a left wing government that doesn't leave a car crash of an economy everytime they are booted out of power then I woud vote for them. Maybe Libs in 4 years time will defintely be worth a vote (after some much needed electoral reform), but for now we need some bitter tasting medicine, which only tories have a proven record on. Like it or not.
48. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
49. krustyatemyhamster said...
Mr G
"I can handle 9 million suicides, and frankly with no major wars, there’s no other way we’ll get rid of you XXXXX.
**** off and die."
Just what do you get out of life when you're mind's full of nothing but puerile hatred? For someone that's contributed nothing of substance in any of your posts on here, why do you feel you have the right to criticise others for being thick and lazy? Oh, the irony.
50. Amos said...
Mr G as explained many months ago when you first posted this hate filled crap people didn't vote labour to get cheap credit.
I wasn't sure who to vote for but you've made up my mind! I have nothing in common with your hate filled Tory view of society and the world in general.
thanks for the help!
51. letthemfall said...
Not really much to add to all this, other than to note that, with a very small number of exceptions, the "right-wing" supporters here seem to have very little to say beyond a bit of lazy cliched name-calling ("leftists" - even sounds silly) and red-faced rants. A pity more people can't bring a bit of thinking to these topics, but perhaps one cannot expect much on any internet forum.
Thanks to those who added worthwhile comments. Perhaps we'll get the Govt we collectively deserve.
52. rumble said...
Actually LTF, I believe the "bit of lazy cliched name-calling" started with "reactionaries".
53. braindeed said...
Mr g @ 47 said..
Leaving that comment on record, has negated any comment you have made, or will make in the future.
it has marked you out from what society calls 'normal' and that is an almost total sweep of humanity.
Truely beyond the pale - best thing you could do is re-register in a new user name and start afresh.
The anger in that rant needs attention - take care of yourself, seek help.
54. rumble said...
"it has marked you out from what society calls 'normal'"
-- It looks like a summary of what many people have commented on for years, boiling down to welfare and debt.
"is an almost total sweep of humanity"
-- Just because it might refer to most of humanity in no way makes it wrong, in no way means the majority of humanity is right.
55. letthemfall said...
rumble
Here's a dictionary definition for you:
reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
A carefully chosen word and I contend a fairly accurate description of you and the handful of others who can only emit a few visceral slogans at best. You remind me of someone I knew at school in the 6th form, a National Front supporter (in line with his father), full of bile and spite and no interest whatsoever in discussion.
56. braindeed said...
52. rumble said...
"it has marked you out from what society calls 'normal'"
-- It looks like a summary of what many people have commented on for years, boiling down to welfare and debt.
"is an almost total sweep of humanity"
-- Just because it might refer to most of humanity in no way makes it wrong, in no way means the majority of humanity is right.
Okay, I'll admit - you're special
57. rumble said...
Lol @ LTF. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, though not interesting. "can only emit a few visceral slogans" - presumably not referring to your repeated "cliched reactionaries" chant. You must be half asleep not to see you're describing yourself. "full of bile and spite" - no, I'm quite happy, and quite happy to have a go at things I don't like.
Now, looking at braindeed's comment - you might have a point.
58. krustyatemyhamster said...
@rumble
Wow. As lacking in insight as Mr G.
59. rumble said...
Krusty, you have made no point.
60. krustyatemyhamster said...
The fact that you think I made no point confirms it to be true.
61. rumble said...
Contrary to your apparent belief, that comment is not clever. You still have not made a point.
62. rumble said...
...and eventually, long after the "rightie" bloggers have moved on, and having run out of fuel for character attacks, the "leftie" triumvirate, like a pack of scavengers unable to make their own kill, move elsewhere to demonstrate their inability to argue issues.
So, the lefties, with people-tinted lenses, caring more about the people in the system, argue people on the blog, and the righties, with scientific-tinted lenses, more interested in the empirical functioning of the system lose interest when the argument turns to people. That's never going to work.
63. braindeed said...
62. rumble said...
...and eventually, long after the "rightie" bloggers have moved on, and having run out of fuel for character attacks, the "leftie" triumvirate, like a pack of scavengers unable to make their own kill
Kill?!!....it's a blog ...wtf is up in your head?
64. rumble said...
Braindeed, "Kill?!!....it's a blog"
And I don't believe you are actually a vulture or hyena. I don't believe you're so stupid as to be ignorant of metaphor, but that you thought it might work as a means for criticism suggests I might be wrong.
65. braindeed said...
Stated plainly, your choice of metaphor suggests you stark raving mad, thats all
66. rumble said...
Increasingly feeble.
67. c'mon correction said...
BD - you cheeky tw@t, telling me what to do again? I must re-register!! What because i do not agree with you.
Oh, holy one, should I bow down and kiss you feet!
Tit.
68. mr g said...
@braindeed
I didn't write the "dear Labour voters" critique, check the following link for the original version, I amended the years to 13 and if I remember correctly, deleted or amended certain words. No doubt you will make the connection between the Grumpier Old Men website and myself!
http://grumpieroldmen.co.uk/article.php3?id_article=953&id_rubrique=5
As for re-registering under a new name, forget that pal. I'm big enough to admit when I am wrong and to take justified criticism unlike some people who can dish out the dirt but don't like it when they get it back. A form of nimbyism, don't you think?
Let me say one final thing, you won't be getting any comments from me for a few days. Don't think you've silenced me, far from it.
To quote an old Yorkshire rhyme:
Tha can say what tha likes to a Yorkshireman
Tha can do as tha likes an' all
But tha'll gerrit all back an' more besides
So mind what tha sez, that's all!
best thing you could do is re-register in a new user name and start afresh
69. mr g said...
Come on you lot!
You can do better than this, I thought you were going for the "ton" of comments.
70. rumble said...
Mr g, surely you don't expect them to check things before, er, reacting?
71. mr g said...
@Rumble
Check things? That would be expecting too much from the self appointed HPC elite.