kenny dalglish
-
Posts
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by kenny dalglish
-
-
Somewhere in the recesses of your mind, you know what you're trying to say but it just comes across as gibberish.
So I have strong feelings about Brown.......and your point is that "i'm not impartial"
Well spotted.
Now watch my lips - after 13 yrs of this govt, can you guess WHY I MAY HAVE strong feelings?
Take your time...
No, I'm no more right or wrong than anyone else.
Are you trying to take the moral high ground because you think you're impartial?
By the way, I've been through your past posts - suprised you haven't posted more during the time you've been registered (but then I suppose this account is your troll account, whilst you argue the toos properly with your other one?)
and your posts just seem to be antagonisit and anti-everything except Labour.
Hello Gordon.
I'll be honest, I don't understand half of what you have posted above
-
If positive discrimination is the panacea to all social ills, why has it resulted in the elevation of the likes of Harman, Smith, Blears, Scotland, Uddin, Vaz, Malik, Ali Diazei, Sharon Shoesmith and a myriad of other public servants who are either corrupt, incompetent or both? Can you name me one MP who is female, from an ethnic minority and/or gay, whose career has been assisted by a positive discrimination mechanism and who has been placed in the 'angel' category in the expenses scandal? Can you name me one prominent public servant or business leader (not including those in the equal opportunities industry) who is female, from an ethnic minority and/or gay, whose career has been assisted by a positive discrimination mechanism and who is widely considered to be a leading professional in their field, purely on merit?
You are just repeating yourself now, you clearly have not understood my previous reply, that doesn't suprise me, it brings in the notion of "grey" into the debate, and is not simplistic enough for you. I won't repeat my previous email (at the risk of boring other posters) would suggest maybe you try re-reading it.
-
Oh, so I have to be totally impartial do I?
If so, I'm going to have a really hard time casting my vote on Thursday !
Has it occured to you WHY I hate Brown?
"Oh, so I have to be totally impartial do I?" - err...you really do condemn yourself with your own words..perhaps there is a middle ground ? perhaps - try hard to concentrate now - there is maybe a whole spectrum between "totally impartial" and "Destroy Brown", no, I have lost you haven't I ? simply doesn't compute. Your slack jaw and glazed eyes tells me that to you it's one or the other...
<b>Has it occured to you WHY I hate Brown?</b> - Again, "hate"...doesn't suggest that perhaps you are going to be the most balanced of posters, but don't let that stop you, your hate is surely reason enough to post isn't it ? of course it is. if you feel strongly enough about something, you must be right, right ? phew, glad we got that sorted
-
Perhaps we can explore what dire things the Tories did in govt. They did do some bad things but I think people are rewriting history, or seeing the same two events in a different light
For example Maggie Thatcher had 3 million unemployed - result -riots
Blair/Brown now have as much, if not more than that - result - pure silence.
The 80's were not the terrible time that everyone 'remembers' them to be. We had privatisation, unemplyment and some pit closures. Some people describe that period as akin to living in Austwichz.
We had poll tax riots in 1991, which all sounds very worrying doesn't it? When you consider that people were getting their knickers in a twist over a tax, which is more less fair than council tax, you realise that we're living in two different eras.
Your poster name gives you away. You can't call yourself 'DestroyBrown' and then pretend to be even-handed. Good grief where do they come from ?
-
No - it boils down to 'don't give jobs to gays, blacks and women for no other reason than because they are gay, black and/or a woman'. Give them jobs and elect them to office if they can get there under their own steam and without the need for social engineering. My point is that the fact that Labour has given so many jobs and ministerial positions on the basis of positive discrimination to people who are just not up to them is likely to provoke negative discrimination in the future.
You are right, it's so simple, prejudice never gets in the way of advancement, the best always rise to the top ! Just look at the top 100 companies in the UK / Western world, where there is a proportionate allotment of women and ethnic minorities in the top jobs and that there is not a propsensity of white over 50 males who happen to have gone to public school and propogate an old boys network. God you are so right ! There cannot possibly be anything of merit with the notion of positive discrimination, it really is such a very simple issue, thank you for putting us straight on somethin that has vexed some very intelligent people for a very long time.
Please, do continue, share your thoughts on other simple topics such as pro-life/pro-choice, the world waits with baited breathe for you to simplyify what were hitherto such complex and nuanced problems.
-
The Belfast Agreement was signed in May of 1998. John Major opened the talks with the IRA when he took office in 1990 leading to the Downing Street Declaration in 1993 and a ceasefire in 1994. He did the groundwork for the Good Friday \ Belfast Agreement until he left office in 1997.
Mo Mowlam was a fabulous woman who demonstrated real guts and integrity in her finalizing of the Good Friday Agreement, however she didn't become Northern Ireland Secretary until after the 1997 election. So in fairness, whilst she knocks spots off the other women in the Labour party (and was clearly there for ability not positive discrimination), Labour cannot take full credit for this process which had been nurtured for several years under the previous government.
This is precisely why I mentioned her and John Major together in my earlier post - credit where it's due!
Yeah whatever mate, she' still a labour politician, without labour the peace accord would never happen, your credibility is shot, be quiet now, grown-ups are talking....
-
Does anybody know of a property discussion site that has not been taken over by UKipers/BNP/Little englanders ? where the level of debate rises (even momentarily) above the puerile and moronic ? I truly despair that I am sharing the same planet with the ill-informed, ignorant and bigoted half-wits that seem to scrawl all over these boards. See if you can understand this, when you think that you have the answer to complex questions, just stfu, chances are - and these boards prove time and time again - that not only do you not understand the question, you also do not understand that there is a world of difference between having something to say and having something worth hearing.
-
That was Mo Mowlam and John Major - Labour just put the cherry on top and took the credit.
Oh sorry, was Mo a liberal democrat ? you see the idiocy that we are up against ? this stopped me reading any more of your drivel
-
Your first two were nothing to do with them.
Most of the others are just examples of entrapping people into state dependancy, and they have certainly achieved that.
So Northern Ireland peace would have been achieved if Labour had done nothing ? right ? if they had just left the work started by John Major, it would have "sorted itself out" ? UK as the second largest member of NATO, committed a proprortionate amount of troops and it is on record that Clinton was not keen on intervention until Blair persuaded him. That presumably again would have happened by itself. You typify many on this board, when the evidence conflicts with your one-sided view of the world, you simply try to change the evidence. good luck with that sort of thinking, I can almost picture the boorish individual you must be. Do yourself a favour, read a bit, use the computer a bit less and try to mix with other people.
-
Stupid question. No government is all bad, all governments make mistakes. Your question just shows ignorance on your part. On the off chance you are remotely serious...
- intervention in the Balkans
- Northern Ireland peace achieved
- minimum wage
- Sure start initiatives and yes family tax credits
- massive injections into NHS, resulting in lowering of waiting lists
- devolution
- statutory holiday for all workers
- winter fuel allowances
- scrapped clause 28 and introduced civil partnerships
- New deal initiative
- free nursery nurse places
They are achievements whether you personally appreciate them or not !
-
Yea. I did already say I take some umbridge against it in my post. At the risk of repeating myself just doesn't seem fair that some can and some can't, those who can't pick up the slack (you're not going to hire someone for just one day) etc.
Great if you have a family, but if you don't the option of a day off a week isn't even open to you in most cases.
But you've still dodged the question. What do you mean nobody pays for it? Is it good for a companies bottom line or not? If it is, then yea, why can't we all be allowed to do it and adopt that continental approach you seem keen on.
Not dodging the question, the "question" answers itself (as much as it's a question). There is no reason that working from home cannot be productive, equally people can be unproductive on site. Even if it were productive to the bottom line, many employees still would not do it, because they are stuck in old working practices/methods and ideologies. They would rather have staff be on site and be less productive where they can keep their eye on them, than have them be at home and have them be more productive. Some employers get it, many don't.
-
So another Friday passed at work and the place once again was like a Ghost Town. Apart from being aggrieved that I can't take arbitary days off or "work from home" all that happens is my work load doubles or triples at a time when I'm stupidly busy anyway. How can a company allow people to take an entire day off each week and not have it effect the bottom line? This was happening even when orders were booming.
With regard to allowing people working from home, are people just as productive at home and if so, why is it fair that one group of people get to have a lay-in or miss the rush hour traffic and another group don't? If your answer includes one of the following words: Broadband, Blackberries, Remote Access to email, VPN or Video Conferencing Facilities then please explain why a role that doesn't require a person to be physically at a company cannot simply be outsourced? On the Top Employers For Working Families Website is it no mean coincidence that many of the employers are based in the Public Sector with no real worry for the bottom-line of profit?
As there is no such thing as a free lunch, who actually pays for all the paternity/maternity cover? Should we not all be tightening our belts and making sacrifices at the moment instead of dumping workloads onto others?
You seem to be on one had moaning about flexible working hours and at the same time moaning about not being able to do it. Funny how you see employers that are "good for working families" as a bad thing, you have no idea of how brain-washed you have become by robber barons, truly I pity you. No-one "pays" for it, try in your mind - if you can - imagining a world where flexible time was the norm, so that people worked to live, not the other way around, no forget it, your post clearly shows that you lack the gumption for envisaging such a world....you have enslaved yourself my friend, no-one else
-
All smart solutions are simple. This stuff I've outlined isn't even hard, it's totally basic. It's interesting that so far I've taken plenty of flak but not a single explanation as to why any of that wouldn't work. I guess it's just alarming to folk.
Yep, you a re a real maverick, a real out-of-the-box thinker.....
-
I'd venture to suggest I know more about effective use of assets than you'll learn in your lifetime.
Or you could explain why the proposal won't work...................
Difficult to know where to start really, so I won't bother. Oh and you can venture to "suggest" all you like, you know nothing abut me, whereas you have plainly shown your hand and it appears that you have a simplistic mind favouring simplistic solutions....
-
Oh look.
People who haven't got a clue about how to run a bath are offering advice on how to run the country.
Priceless!
The best post on this thread. Ignorant people pontificating about subjects they know nothing about, really sometimes these boards read like talk radio...
-
VOTE CONSERVATIVE
Really had enough of all this sh!t with Labour. FTBs see sense. Saving £2k is nothing compared to paying an extra £100k on an overpriced property.
I am going to take a wild guess, that you are under 40 years of age. If you were older, you would remember the last bunch of tories. Those of us that do shudder at the prospect. As somebody has already said, the sort of corruption you see now, will be small beer by comparison. Their is something deeply corrupt about people with a built in sense of entitlement. To answer your question, yes things can get worse, much worse.
-
i am looking to retrain from scratch into something new. i am thinking about perhaps carpentry or building related.
if you were starting over, what would you train to be in preparation for tomorrow's UK?
serious replies only !
world's your oyster. Depends how long you have, what your bent is. What will be future proof will be jobs that need to be done physically and will always be needed, this will range from plumbers (you can't sub-contract that to china or to a call centre) or right up to being a medical doctor. I believe that within 10 years, 90% of office jobs will be done in the sub-continent...
-
I am quite a distance right from the centre.
I think that we should pay teachers and specialists (beyond the GP level) more than they get now.
I think that we should limit local government worker pay to the pay for equivalent national government worker. Surely a council Chief Executive should not be paid more than the PM. A police commissioner should not be paid more than the Minister of Defence.
We need to get rid of quangoes and other non jobs. We can shrink the size of the state without any of the users of state services noticing any difference. The shrinkage will come at the expense of all of those doing "non-jobs".
We need to give more to those whose ability to contribute to wealth will not provide them with an acceptable standard of living. We need to give much less to those who are not contributing as much to national wealth as they could.
We need to be honest with ourselves and bring the PV of all state obligations onto the books when we try to determine our actual fiscal position.
My argument about the appropriate size of the state is more arithmetic than ideological. We simply cannot carry on the way that we are going. The survival of our social safety net demands a complete re-examination of how we spend every single penny and a ruthless reduction in waste.
All reasonable points, but this like many threads on these board miss the point. The thread is debating the wrong issue. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I am not) I would say that if certain priveleged members of society, should ever stumble onto these boards by mistake, would be very relieved to see that it's business as usual and the masses squabbling amongst themselves, rather than turning their eyes to the real cuplrits. "It's a bloated public sector", "it's dole scroungers,"it's poor goverment econmic policy..","Maggie had it right","Lenin had it right",<fill in your own favourite slogan here>. There are very few threads on these boards that seem to debate the real issue, that money has been perverted.
Money is just a tool, a tool for everyone, not just a few. It is intended as a way for us, all of us, to be able to exchange our labours with others for theirs. Originally you would have swapped me a chicken that I had raised with a rabbit that you had raised. I would have fixed your roof, you would have fixed my well. Money is just a symbolic representation of that exchange. It saves me having to have huge pockets to carry all my chickens around in !
That's not what money is now, it's control which was intended to be for the benefit of all has been hijacked by thieves and crooks. It really is a very strange state of affairs when you think about it. The precise reason that a banker is able to pay himself a huge bonus is because his job is to do with controlling the money supply ! Not tricky that. He isn't more creative,more clever or more productive than you or I , he simply has been given the job of looking after the supply of this asset, which belongs not to him but to everyone. The money he is awarding to himself is the promise of labour that he could not possibly earn in a hundred lifetimes ! and that's because it's your labour and my labour that he is taking and our childrens labour.
When I see more threads discussing this I will know we have made progress, till then I can't bear to watch the strings being pulled....
-
This is not really a Left-Right issue. The guy's takings have dropped say 30% because his debt-soaked customers can no longer afford to borrow and spend money they don't have. His personal tax bill is going up 3% because some temporary tax cuts (in a country with one of the lowest tax burdens in the OECD, especially for the wealthy) are expiring. Sure, maybe the effort he puts into his business is no longer worth the reward, but is it because of the 30% or the 3%? Thing is, he can see where the 3% is coming from and not the 30%, so he moans about the one he understands.
The rightwingers on this thread need to wake up. You can cut taxes on the rich until the cows come home, but it won't make that 30% drop in demand from consumers go away. The tax burden now is not really that different from 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950, maybe a few percent higher or a few percent lower depending on which decade you compare it to but there's not a lot in it. It's not taxes that are strangling the US, the UK, and every other developed country. It's debt. That burden has gone up several fold. You want your customers back? Raise interest rates and bring on deleveraging. When they're done paying back (or maybe even defaulting on) the banksters they will start buying from you again.
Dorkins you really don't get it, do you ? This is not wha these threads/boards are about. They are about bashing certain sectors of the population single mums, people on the dole, gypsies, people who are not white etc using tired arguments that do not bear close scrutiny. Please take your reasoned and balanced arguments elsewhere...
right everybody now where were we.. oh..yes..boo to dole scroungers/single mums etc !
-
you will find a bazillion of these folksy,"no-nonsense","common sense" "real-life" mails all over the web. Usually in the US, usually adhering to a left/right wing agenda. Simplisitc and primitive but effective, hence the chatter on these boards. When you start to read about "single mum's", that's when you know it's got some frothing republican's dabs all over it....
-
I am looking for a house in Torquay Devon for between 200 and 300K, I am a cash buyer. Here's today's properties on rightmove...
Property bee tells me that nearly half of these properties were either under offer, but they fell through and they are back on the market or they have dropped their original asking price or both. Interestingly many have dropped by just 5000 pounds, which may be blanket advice given by EA's. I am curious what other people are seeing in their areas. Here's my take...Prices are still too high, in the two years I have been looking down here I can count on just one hand the number of houses - out of the literally hundereds I have seen on the web - that I would say are bargains ie good value for money and I am not the only one that thinks that also, as these bargains have all been sold. The vast bulk range from so-so but not really good value to the totally unrealistic. Here's the catch though, prices are too high, does that mean that they will come down then ? I am not convinced. Selling your house is a strange business and in my opinion not based on logic. I believe that what will continue to happen is that the only real bargains that are going to come up are those where people have to sell. I genuinely belive that people would rather have their houses on the market for years at an unrealistic price and have it's value come down not numerically but by inflation, than be realistic and accept that they made an 80% increase in the good years rather than a 120% increase. I am seeing many houses on the market for literally two years now and in some cases the price has not dropped a penny ( the penny hasn't dropped with them either by the look of it). I cannot see anything that is going to make this crash happen, other than the sort of catastrophe that would be so severe that if it did happen, buying a new house would be the last thing on your mind. We have decided to settle for a mediocre house rather than wait indefinitely,,,,
-
I am looking for a house in Torquay Devon for between 200 and 300K, I am a cash buyer. Here's today's properties on rightmove...
Property bee tells me that nearly half of these properties were either under offer, but they fell through and they are back on the market or they have dropped their original asking price or both. Interestingly many have dropped by just 5000 pounds, which may be blanket advice given by EA's. I am curious what other people are seeing in their areas. Here's my take...Prices are still too high, in the two years I have been looking down here I can count on just one hand the number of houses - out of the literally hundereds I have seen on the web - that I would say are bargains ie good value for money and I am not the only one that thinks that also, as these bargains have all been sold. The vast bulk range from so-so but not really good value to the totally unrealistic. Here's the catch though, prices are too high, does that mean that they will come down then ? I am not convinced. Selling your house is a strange business and in my opinion not based on logic. I believe that what will continue to happen is that the only real bargains that are going to come up are those where people have to sell. I genuinely belive that people would rather have their houses on the market for years at an unrealistic price and have it's value come down not numerically but by inflation, than be realistic and accept that they made an 80% increase in the good years rather than a 120% increase. I am seeing many houses on the market for literally two years now and in some cases the price has not dropped a penny ( the penny hasn't dropped with them either by the look of it). I cannot see anything that is going to make this crash happen, other than the sort of catastrophe that would be so severe that if it did happen, buying a new house would be the last thing on your mind. We have decided to settle for a mediocre house rather than wait indefinitely,,,,
-
You sound like a dullard. You can't imagine a world where you are not enslaved and pacified by bread and circuses. Some of us welcome less time spent working. I myself now work part-time as does my wife, we choose to do this to raise our only child, we see that as a worthwhile and rewarding option. Yes we have down-sized, yes we live very modestly and we do not buy any luxuries. We are happy with this choice. IMHO we are at the stage in human evolution where everybody could be clothed, fed and sheltered and could then perhaps have a balance of work/endeavor and the ability to maybe ponder the deeper meanings of life, it's purpose, the nature of reality and the quixotic nature of experience and consiousness. These really are the bigger questions and I believe one day all humans will explore these questions and learn about themselves and the world/reality they inhabit. I believe also that this developmental path is being deliberately blocked by those in authority, who see the masses as a resource to be simply expoloited, to be scared,cajoled and enslaved to ensure that the status quo is maintained. The fact that you sneer at even a suggestion of something different , tells me 2 things, 1) they have done their job well 2) That depressingly even in your most lucid and aware moments it has probably never even dawnned on your tiny mind that there could be another way....
-
Not a dig at craft per se: But Cadbury is a profitable company that employs lots of people, pays them well, gives them good benefits and working conditions. As a result they contribute their taxes to society are good consumers and keep their wages sloshing around the system thus circulating the money. They will now be swallowed up by Kraft who will sack a sizeable proportion in order to achieve a quick gain...
Who benefits ?
- shareholders. big boost on share price
- Cadbury's board and upper echelons
- Kraft board and upper echelons
- bankers and financers who brokered the deal
Who loses ?
- the staff that get sacked
- the staff that stay, they have to work harder for same or less money. Conditions deteriorate and beenfits shrink
- the tax man, takes less revenues from those made unemployed and this will not even be offset by extra bonuses to bankers who will have "creative" acccountants
- dependants of those made unemployed
- government agencies - and by implication the rest of us that are working - who will be paying more money to support those thrown out of work
The gain to the shareholders will be brief also. In fact in the price will usually come back down to it's pre-takeover price, but in the meantime, overworked and demoralised staff usually means an overall drop in production and competitiveness in the long run. ie there is really no net gain and the stats for takeovers do actually bear this out.
So perhaps a dozen maybe more people who are considerably wealthy already, become wealthier and benefit whilst literally hundreds if not thousands become poorer directly or indirectly. The dozen or so people have added absolutely no benefit to anybody or anything, to the company, to the community, to society as a whole. They have simply used clever numbers to rob value from something they never created, never built and never added to. Stole it from all of us.
If this is taken to it's logical conclusion (and I can see absoloutely no barriiers to it). We will simply end up with fewer and fewer people in work and those that are will be heavily taxed too support those that aren't. Wages will be at a subsistence level and in the meantime we will be controlled by an elite that will ensure that its stays this way. if anybbody can explain to me the checks and balances that will stop this from happening, i would really like to hear it ?
Bbc Reporting A Lab/lib Coalition
in House prices and the economy
Posted
nice to see that voter dissatisfaction did not translate to bnp support as many on these boards predicted (or tory landslide come to that). It's almost as if the rest of the country doesn't share the view of the cranks and loons that litter these boards. I guess many here must be scratching their shaven heads this morning...