Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Scooter

Members
  • Posts

    1,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scooter

  1. I would gladly pay more tax if it meant that the UK lost tens of thousands of greedy, self-obsessed bigots who are fearful of any progression away from an idealised 1950s English market town.

    Well, the third quote is about something that we all know will change for the better. The other two quotes are about taxes. If the people who want lower taxation all leave the UK, then it will obviously become a better place to live.

    So assuming that those who want lower taxation are likely the ones paying the most tax currently, if they all notionally happen to leave-reducing the total tax take disproportionately-the UK will "obviously become a better place to live", although the disproportionate tax shortfall will then land on everyone else and/or public services will be cut to compensate? Did you leave your other brain cell down the pub?

  2. You're making unfounded assumptions. 'Your party' indeed!

    Whatever you or I, or anyone else, thinks about the record of this government is immaterial if the (albeit deficient ) form of democracy we hold so dear keeps putting them back in power. We are all free to stand in elections or join other political parties to help get rid of them if we feel they are failing us. Alternatively, we can sit on our @rses and moan on boards like this but get nowhere.

    p

    Your indignation puts me in mind of a disgruntled Patricia Routledge. Your post sounded pretty much like a rabid defence of NuLab to me. That said, I agree that moaning on boards is pointless-I should really work harder...

  3. Precisely what is happening. 350,000 a year buggering off and a hell of a lot more immigrants coming in. Do the maths. In 20 years this country won't be anything like it is now.

    Never mind though. Good news if you're the sort of scumbag that buys up crappy inner-city properties and lets the poor old immigrants rent them 10 to a room.

    Don't worry, I think he is the tea boy in a small EA-the property portfolio is strictly fantasy...

  4. Masked Titup,

    You may not have noticed but the General Election campaign finished months ago so why are you peddling this load of [email protected] from the Daily Fascist as if it had any relationship to the truth? Save it up for the next election campaign in 4 years' time. It might help your cause, though I doubt it.

    p

    You must be one of those NuLab activists I have read about who write into the press in support of our great government pretenting to be private citizens? I don't really like the Mail but what is untrue about the comments posted? Your party has wrecked this country...

  5. Sophistry.

    Try running a small business with 4 or 5 key employees when one of them takes paternity leave. The people who shape this irresponsible legislation have simply no idea about the impossible strain this may place on SME companies.

    Not really surprising when most ministers experience of work is as a trade union "researchers" (eg Milburn, Hain, Blunkett) plus the odd poly lecturer. Even Blair was only a barrister for a short time and this hardly gives him a view of how a normal business runs...

  6. did you see those two women who have 900 properties on their books!! They seem to be having trouble selling any! They put it down to the fact that buyers come over from uk with 'high expectations' of what they can get for their money. Funny how ALL the buyers seem to have the same expectations! It must be all that sunshine making them a bit doolally.

    Were they really EA's? They just seemed like dopey Bolton housewives....

  7. I do think global warming exists.  I also agree there is a hurricane trend - this might not be global warming.  I was talking about what President Bush might be thinking.

    As an aside, I don't care about global warming being 'discredited' (because I think it exists) anymore than I care about elephants being discredited.

    There is, to be fair, a bit more evidence that elephants exist...

  8. The UK's housing market may have turned the corner even though house prices fell for the third consecutive month in September, a leading property website said today.

    -snip-

    We may look back with hindsight and say that the summer of 2005 was the time to buy at the bottom of this cycle in the housing market,' he added.

    However, he stressed that continued 'realistic' pricing is 'critical' to keep the momentum going.

    {I bloody well hope not}

    http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050918/323/fsdza.html

    So that was it then? Biggest property bubble in history followed by a 4% acknowleged drop perhaps and then it is game on again? I don't think so...

  9. It's 2 stops from Selfridges (as my late grandmother used to say).

    To put this into perspective, it's an even more desirable area than Belsize Park, where my brother recently sold his 1-bedder for £290K.

    Personally I prefer Belsize or Primrose Hill as SJW seems a bit dull to me beyond SJW high street. Still sounds like a fairly good price for a 1 bedder there though.

  10. I have never denied Israel is a democratic state, the US and the UK are also so called democratic states. One point about Isreal though, its Arab population has lesser rights than their Jewish counterparts.

    But I'm not here to debate the degree of democracy of any given state, merely to point out that democracies will, can and do commit acts of terror. Isreal the US and the UK are complicit in commiting such acts, to deny the historical facts is to denounce truth it's self.  It is because these "democratic" states have abused the human rigths of others that we have "Islamic Terrorism"

    You are right-the Israeli Palestinian Arabs are not always accorded their full rights, although they are fully protected by the law in theory. The Druze do rather better and some reach senior positions in the army, police and business and the Bedouin are somewhere in between but suffer from poverty and lack of education, not necessarily because of differential treatment but other social factors which held them back long before 1948. The Bedouin are equally deprived in Jordan and Sinai without an Israeli in sight. I think it was probably Pvt Frazer's comment about Israel as theocratic dictatorship that caught my eye rather than your own comments. I would still contend-and I speak from experience of business in some Arab/Muslim countries-that minority groups in Muslim countries be it Shia in Bahrain, Saudi and other Sunni led states or Arabs in Iran (Khuzestan) are in a far worse position never mind Christians in Sudan and Iraq, Turkmens or Kurds who are oppressed and murdered. Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are discriminated against in favour of Malays specifically by law but none of this is mentioned by people who shout loudly against the Israelis. Not a perfect country for everyone or even anyone but they are far from the worst.

    S.

  11. And you sir attempt to use smoke and mirrors to deny the raped and slaughtered men woman and children of Sabra and Shatila lay firmly at the door of Ariel Sharon .   

    It was he who secured the camps and sent in the Phalangists.

    Article Link

    “Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, A War Criminal,”

    by Linda Malone

    Overview:

    In 1996, the Human Rights Law Institute embarked on a project to address the growing problem of impunity of individuals guilty of crimes that should be prosecuted under international law. The project culminated in the publication of “Guiding Principles for Combating Impunity for International Crimes.” The principles require criminal prosecution for grave breaches, torture, and genocide (among other crimes), and they direct all states to prosecute crimes against humanity. The principles also require the removal of individuals responsible for such crimes from public office and the military, after according the individual due process in evaluating responsibility. Nonetheless, Ariel Sharon was elected Israel’s prime minister despite being convicted of war crimes in 1982.

    Impunity:

    In September 1982, the Israeli cabinet resolved to establish a commission led by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Yitzhak Kahan to examine the facts of the massacre committed by the Lebanese Forces in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, areas in Beirut then under the control of Israeli authorities. As many as 2,000 Palestinian civilians were killed in the camps. This year, one of the individuals judged complicit by the Kahan Commission, then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon, was elected to the highest political post in Israel after having provoked a violent confrontation by his visit to the Haram al-Sharif. In 1982, he was found to have created the situation which he knew, or should have known, made the massacres a probability. The need has now arisen to bring serious attention to the moral and legal responsibility of Sharon for gross human rights violations and the impunity, and even worse the power, which he has received.

    The Kahan Commission’s report states that when word of Lebanon’s President-elect Bashir Jemayel’s assassination reached Israel on the night of 14 September 1982, then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Sharon, and then-Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan decided that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would enter West Beirut without seeking a Cabinet resolution to that effect. Although Sharon and Eitan purportedly discussed including Phalangists in the operation, the Commission determined it was not mentioned to Begin. Eitan testified that earlier that same evening, he and Sharon agreed that Phalangists would enter the Sabra and Shatila camps.

    On 15 September 1982, the entry into West Beirut began. Sharon met at the forward command post with Eitan who reported his agreement with the Phalangists for their entry into the camps. Sharon approved the agreement and phoned Begin from the roof of the command post. Yet, according to the report, Sharon only informed Begin that there was no resistance in Beirut and that the operations were going well. On 16 September, the Defense Minister’s office issued a document summarizing in two crucial controversial sentences Sharon’s instructions in this meeting regarding the entry into West Beirut: “Only one element, and that is the IDF, shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps, the Phalangists should be sent in.” That day, the massacre began. At 10:00 a.m., Sharon met in his office with Eitan and others. Eitan announced, “the whole city is in our hands, … the camps are surrounded, the Phalangists are to go at 11:00-12:00.” Eitan said that Israeli forces surrounded the Sabra and Shatila camps, and that it was agreed the Phalangists would go in at their discretion, after a coordinating session with the Israeli officials. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on 16 September, the Phalangists entered the camps, initially entering the Shatila camp from the west and southwest, as directed.

    Findings:

    The Commission determined two levels of responsibility—direct and indirect. According to the Commission, those directly responsible were only those who “actually perpetrated” the massacre itself. The Commission’s report concluded that Israel was indirectly responsible for the massacres: “[T]he decision on the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was taken without consideration of the danger—which the makers and executors of the decision were obligated to foresee as probable—that the Phalangists would commit massacres and pogroms against the inhabitants of the camps, and without an examination of the means for preventing this danger.” Israel was also held responsible for not stopping the massacre once reports came out that it had begun.

    Based on the Commission’s conclusions at least seven of nine individuals, including Sharon, should have known of the likelihood of a massacre before the Phalangists’ entry, knew or should have known a massacre was going on, and yet failed to take appropriate steps to protect the civilian population. Under the customary international law of command responsibility and the Nuremberg Principles, those individuals could be charged with war crimes. The Kahan report, no matter how well intentioned, failed to result in any meaningful sanctions, however. The Commission criticized Begin, Sharon, and Shamir, yet Begin stayed in office until he retired, Shamir became the new prime minister, and Sharon remained in the Cabinet (although without his portfolio).

    Sharon said that as long as he continues to have “some influence,” he would continue to serve in the government, according to the Jerusalem Post. To quote Jonathan Randal, senior foreign correspondent of The Washington Post: “The main culprit, Ariel Sharon, neatly dodges the spirit if not the letter of the 108-page report enjoining him to resign. Resign he did as Defense Minister, only to stay on as minister without portfolio and to join two key parliamentary commissions on defense and Lebanese affairs. Sharon made clear this was his, and Begin’s, way of rejecting the commission’s verdict of Israel’s ‘indirect responsibility’ for the slaughter.” Sharon was reported to have “lashed out” at his colleagues in the governing Herut party for denying him a portfolio in the newly formed Shamir government.

    A New Day for Consequences:

    At the very least, Sharon acted with reckless disregard of the likelihood of a massacre, according to the Commission’s findings, but the mens rea element—or the mental state required to commit a certain crime—for genocide may necessitate a finding of purpose or knowledge for that particular liability. Nevertheless, Sharon’s clear responsibility for war crimes constituting grave breaches obligates every state to initiate prosecution for these offenses. Although some courts still cling to the position that sovereign immunity may be available as a defense to war crimes and crimes against humanity, landmark decisions to the contrary—such as the Pinochet decision, the Statutes of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Treaty of Rome establishing the International Criminal Court—have unequivocally rejected immunity as a defense. International law in this area now carries with it the once missing element often cited to question its nature as “law”: the mandatory imposition of sanctions.

    Sharon’s prosecution is required by international law and is not subject to the defenses of sovereign immunity. The Siracusa Principles do not recognize the defenses of sovereign immunity and the statutes of limitations, or the defense of superior orders under the circumstances as found by the Kahan Commission with respect to Sharon.

    Israel demands punishment for crimes committed against Israelis even after the state elevated one of its most notorious human rights violators to its highest post. The successful reconstruction of civil society depends upon both Palestinians and Israelis restoring public confidence in governmental institutions and, in this case, establishing new confidence in the Israeli administration. What is desperately needed, in this worldwide epidemic of “choiceless democracies” headed by leaders no one seems to want and who represent only their own political aspirations, are morally responsible leaders who believe in the rule of law and human rights in reconciliation and reconstruction.

    Linda Malone is Professor of Law at William and Mary’s Marshall-Wythe School of Law. The above text, based on a presentation at Palestine Center’s 20 April 2001 symposium titled “The Israel/Palestine Predicament: How to End an Occupation,” may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the author and to the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine. This Information Brief does not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Policy Analysis or The Jerusalem Fund.

    This information first appeared in Information Brief No. 78, 14 June 2001.

    Thanks for that-at least I'm seeing a bit more nuance in there than just "the Jews murdered Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila and Ariel Sharon ate my hamster.." from Private Frazer

    But how come the report you quote comes from the evil theocracy that is Israel, or does it appear to have a free judiciary and democracy after all?

  12. What if Jews killed 1000s in Sabra and Chatila and in the West Bank and in Gaza ?

    What if ..... yada yada yada

    A fultile game of point scoring ensues.

    The Islamists are doing it because of economics and politics. They just happen to be of the Islamic persuasion.

    You seem very willing to play fast and loose with history. In fact the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila were killed by a Maronite Christian Arab militia called Plalangists, not Jews or Israelis.

    "What if...yada yada yada" - is that an argument?

    Presumably establishing a world caliphate and recovering Spain for the muslims is just a matter of politics and economics as well? I suspect Bin Laden et al might be a bit miffed to find you thought that their lifelong devotion to Islam was just a matter of politics and economics as well. Listen to the man and his acolytes and you might understand the motivation a bit better.

    You sound like the lefty pub bores who are a bit too prevalent in parts of North London, or back in my old home Manchester for that matter. Don't expect you to change of course-your apparent dogmatism is almost Bushlike! :rolleyes:

  13. A nuclear Israel (and a nuclear America) worry me far more than a nuclear Iran. Funny how we sort of gloss over the fact that america is the only nation on earth to drop atomic bombs on entire cities wiping out innocent men, women and children.

    all indicators point toward Iran stabilizing and shifting closer to democracy. the more the americans pressure them the less pronounced this shift will be and the more it will fuel islamic radicals

    best is to nudge them closer to democracy, as they are trying to do with quasi-facist Turkey

    now if america really want to restore human rights, stabilize the middle east and remove a theocratic dictatorship, why dont they just invade israel

    However much you dislike it, Israel is a multi party democracy with a wide range of political views from hard right to hard left and including a reasonable number of Arab parliamentarians. There are a couple of religiously based parties who compete with everybody else for votes. To describe it as a theocratic dictatorship is just ignorance.

  14. Ok, that sounds reasonable, can you explain why there is no pictures of the pentagon being hit. I refuse to believe that the amount of CCTV's around the pentagon didnt pick up 1 shot of the aircraft, either approaching or impacting?

    No idea. I suspect as possibly the most sensitive location in the US they are not that keen on people filming their site or releasing film of it themselves. I am not sure that in itself is so strange and the British or other military would probably act similarly.

  15. “Blue Ray Military/population enslavement lasers”

    “9/11 was a staged event by Bush and the Saudi Royal”

    “I wouldnt suggest the US govt want heroin production back online but for the same reason that Columbia is a very unstable violent country, it suits alot of superrich people to keep these countries unstable and poor. Or am I in tinfoilhatland.”

    This is hilarious.

    You certainly are in tinfoilhatland, but don’t worry, you’ve got plenty of friends there.

    Let me have a go!! – errrm Bush used secret CIA satellite lasers to spark off Hurricane Katrina because he hates black people!

    And the barcodes on my cans of Miller Lite spell out 666, the number of the Beast... :lol:

  16. So it's odd, really, that Bush decided to ignore the man who planned the attack and invade Iraq instead.

    Since you understand the world so well, would you like to explain why Bush has chosen to let bin Laden go free, and dramatically increase the number of Islamic nutters (and, for that matter, the price of oil) by invading Iraq?

    North Korea has nukes, Iran is getting into bed with China (at least over oil), and Bush has no spare troops. Reality trumps religious idiocy, even in America.

    How does invading Bin Ladens's base country Afghanistan ever constitute ignoring him? The Iraq connection was spurious but Bush was on a roll only after reaching Kabul...

  17. we all know people died, few argue that but it's was a staged event by Bush and the Saudi Royal. Strange most so called bombers came from Saudi don't you think.

    Maybe you would like to explain why the towers came down as other steel structures have had to endure much bigger fires than those on the 9/11

    Was the force of the planes more than that or an hurricane acting on all 100 or so floors, I don’t think so do you

    Why no film footage from the Pentagon

    Why was the towers sold a few weeks before the crash

    How can a plane impact the pentagon without leaving any damage from the wings

    Why can you see side blasts from the twin towers exploding outwards seven floors below the compacting floors if you watch the collapse in slow motion.

    Did you know Bush is being taken to court, did you know a movement is well underway to impeach him.

    It was once a conspiracy that the world was round.

    You have a brain so use it

    The towers came down so quickly because Port of NY Authority took out all of the asbestos from their many properties including WTC, fearing asbestosis suits in the mid 90s. No conspiracy, just avoiding one risk and getting hit by another.

  18. So it wouldn't be about the 'LapisLazuli' mines in Afghanistan?

    The largest and purest crystals in the world - mined by the Egyptians?

    Development of "Blue Ray" Military/population enslavement lasers and all that - far beyond HPC levels though -sorry!

    Same goes for Iraq.

    There are legends of Alien technologies buried in the Desert of Old "Babylon".

    Now there wouldn't be mines of 'other' precious crystals in Iraq are there?

    :blink:

  19. Did you read all those nutty neo-con quotes about going to war with Iraq from 2002 onwards ? Did you read that Mein Kampf like tract by the PNAC ?

    These were/are not isolated nutters.

    They included people like Rummy , Cheney and Wolfowitz.

    They are now making the same noise wrt Iran.

    You ignore these people at your peril.

    They have already invaded 2 countries in the ME after threatening them so why should i doubt they may also attempt an invasion of Iran.

    Actually they invaded the first one after an attack on NY and previous attacks on US embassies were planned and coordinated by an Islamic terrorist organisation that was in collusion with the extremist Islamic de facto government of that country. Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same in terms of justification.

  20. Hopefully I'm neither a fool nor a racist. But it's not that simple.

    In 1965 the US was undoubtedly racist. Now I'd say a better description would be divided.

    I have just returned from living in Washington DC which must be one of the most divided cities on earth without a wall (although there is Rock Creek Park which fulfills the same function). The two communities may as well be on different planets - but the separator is culture as much as wealth or poverty.

    Liberals (of all colours) are now losing patience with the traditional endless bleating of racism and demands for special treatment to absolve historic wrongs. They note that new arrivals in the US from Asia and even former slave countries in Africa do as well as or better even than whites on average. In many parts of the country meanwhile (including it seems New Orleans) African-Americans are sliding into a morass of crime and drugs (and perhaps as a consequence rather than a cause, further into poverty).

    Whose fault is this and what is to be done?

    - racist language or comment is forbidden, harshly punished, and very, very rarely heard on the street, and never in the media

    - the law is steadfastly not racist (although of course, being America, there are always absurdities and inequities introduced by the need to have money)

    - the federal government and states use affirmative action programmes to advantage African-Americans over other groups

    - black civil right leaders from the 1950s and 60s are revered, and the history taught, to all Americans irrespective of colour (including my pampered white children) and seem to be genuinely embraced as heroes by mainstream America

    Maybe, just maybe, in 2005, it could be that the African-Americans themselves have a little soul-searching to do and it may not all be the fault of the racist whites?

    All fair comments. Sensitivity to racist language is so strong that a couple of years back a public official was fired for using the word "niggardly" until it was established that the word had no connection to a similar offensive epithet...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.