john mutton (32 Viewers)
- Thread starter covcity4life
- Start date
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
I thought Tories were trying to take the high morale ground about 'respect' for Thatcher being part of 'civilisation'. Stringing people up or injecting them aint really that 'civilised' in 2013 is it???
Point one is something that can and will be debated forever. I am uneasy with the idea of capital punishment, on one hand do people like Huntley deserve to live? Probably not but he will be imprisoned for the rest of his life which some might argue is worse than getting hung, electrocuted or the lethal injection as death is the 'easy way out'. Others will argue than capital punishment infringes Huntley's 'human rights', whether a child killer deserves those basic human rights again is an argument in itself. What if the wrong person get's convicted for a crime he/she didn't commit and is sentenced to death? Nowadays crimes can be solved years after the event thanks to modern day DNA and forensic technologies available. Someone who is later found innocent then has the opportunity to at least live some kind of life after enduring time spent behind bars whereas if they are later proven innocent but they were sentenced to death for their 'crimes' then their death is unjust.
I myself look at capital punishment from different angles, situations and scenarios.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Good point - after all lets not worry about the morality of state executions or the innocent people who would go that way when we could save a few quid for "the tax payer".
We could put the money towards something useful like replacing Trident.......
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Or they could get the red arrows for the Thatcher funeral... red, white and blue smoke, a couple of dozen tanks with guns lowered, and a missile or two on lorries. Hey Dave you lookin at this??:wave:
And yet it was Thatcherite financial deregulation that laid the ground for the economic disaster in 2008, by enabling large scale fraud and bad investment behaviour.
Meanwhile inequality was increased by creating a new class of finance sector high earners while the lower and middle class share of UK income fell.
Plus we basically lucked out on North Sea oil revenues that were used during this time to balance the economy. Other oil producers made sovereign wealth funds to properly look after their oil money - where's ours?
which of these points are 'bollox', as you so eloquently put it? If you can come up with a counter-argument to each of my points then I am willing to listen as that what a debate is all about but your dismissive tone indicates that you aren't capable of a debate.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
So good it was worth repeating.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Can you please reveal the source for all the items listed as many of the quotes attributed I actually cannot find. Half of them I suspect you made up.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Yeah, the politicians use smoke & mirrors to move the source of taxes around, NI was much lower when Income tax was at 33% (http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/National Insurance rates.htm) and Geoffrey Howe increased the standard rate of VAT from 8% to 15%.. so really the lowering of income tax was compensated for by NI an & VAT hike.
The bottom line is death and taxes (unless you live in Greece) are inevitable.
Again Grendel quotes a fact & ignores the realities of the bigger picture.
Last edited by a moderator:
OR if you happen to have a Caymen Islands account.
davebart
Active Member
She was re-elected with 38% of the vote.
made them up? I have neither the time or inclination to dream up false facts about anything. It's all basic political history, the information is out there for all of my points. It's not my fault that you cannot find information about some of them, maybe they're not on Wikipedia. You are accusing me of lying just because you cannot find the answers, shows up how pathetic your arguments are most of the time. I suggest you go the library and read some books on British political history or, better still, stop spouting utter nonsense without knowing the facts.
shropshirecov
New Member
Towards the end miners were earning decent wages for mainly sleeping and playing cards. It's no wonder they were angry when confronted with the prospect of getting a real job.
Having a communist leader of a city council, and the city centre resembling that of an 70's Eastern European country is no surprise is it?
Power to the people!!
Having a communist leader of a city council, and the city centre resembling that of an 70's Eastern European country is no surprise is it?
Power to the people!!
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The manufacturers of Donkey Jackets did..
PS he was wearing a coat bought at Harrods.. not a donkey jacket..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7361078/Michael-Foot-and-the-donkey-jacket-that-wasnt.html
Much like the producers of that awful Macintosh which by the way was'nt a Macintosh ,that Harold Wilson used to wear.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Gerrymandering helped.
davebart
Active Member
you forgot about the champagne dinners and days out at Cheltenham
Surely prodoc it is down to you to substantiate your Statements as it is very easy for people to make comments without any proof as to whether they are true or not. Your comments to me mainly reflect your Opinion.
Regards.
Might just do again ,if and when the Scots vote for Independance.:thinking about:
A lot of the bullet points I made is stuff I've learned over the years through taking an interest in British politics over the years and some of my studies at college. It would take a considerable amount of time to go through each point in detail, if I get the time (IE a few spare hours!) I will address each point. The facts are there to support an anti-Thatcher argument, just as much as there are facts readily available to support a pro-Thatcher argument (nowhere near 42 bullet points but still!). I was merely posting the 42 bullet points as I have read a lot of pro-Thatcher fluff on this thread, mainly from Grendel, so that is why I posted those bullet points to counter-argue his views. He is the first poster to shout down to anyone who disagrees and I get the impression he thinks he knows more about everything than anyone else. The way he talks down to people without often knowing any facts or having any substance to his arguments is very annoying. Then if he can't google or Wikipedia anything to prove you wrong he accuses you of lying, which is very low indeed.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Bit of an arsehole statement mate. Like everyone on here says...Show us the proof!
For the 3rd time of saying on the forum about this subject.....Come down to South Wales, or go up to the North East and say that to their faces, and see if you get back to where you live in one piece. Total bollox is what you're spouting matey...Total bollox!:facepalm:
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Mr Hugo Chavez ran a dictatorship? What evidence? He was elected, he had a mandate to rule unlike this coalition (if the Liberals voted who to partner with, their followers would've went with Labour), the people also did not vote for a coalition. Here's a quick comparison with Venezuela:
-UK has unelected Head of State, Venezuela does not.
- UK has an unelected second chamber, Venezuela does not.
- The UK parliament is dictatorial with the whip system and with a large majority, whoever is in power could effectively pass what they like, hence the term Elective Dictatorship, coined by Lord Halsham.
- UK constitution is not written, and can be changed easily via passing of statutes, Venezuela, on the other hand, has a written constitution outlining basic human rights there, in the advent of a rogue government, UK citizens would/could see their 'rights' severely undermined.
- Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998, died in office 2013, he was elected to stay in office, in fact, Maduro, his successor, has just won the election called because of Chavez's death before he was sworn in!
- Some dictatorship!? :thinking about::facepalm:
The Venezuelan politics is organised like US politics.
No, you, and Grendel are totally wrong, Venezuela is a more democratic than the UK, in fact, the UK, I would say the UK is a 'limited dictatorship', quick example, biggest protests ever (nearly 1m?) in UK before declaration of war v Iraq, what did Blair do? 3-line whip to muzzle his opponents within the party and didn't listen to popular sovereignty, democracy?
How is the comparison ridiculous!?
Just to add to the above, the USA and Chavez's opponents plotted a coup against Chavez in 2002, Chavez was removed from office, but strikes were so widespread he was reinstated. If the same thing happened to Thatcher in 1982, would the people push her back in? Would they strike to see the ConDem reinstated, we of course don't know, but I would be more inclined to say no.
Obviously psgm1 and Grendel have nothing to say back to that.
Long live the Bolivarian Revolution!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I bet they were all getting them.
Bluegloucester
New Member
Wilson wore a Gannex mac, not sure on the spelling.
Mr Hugo Chavez ran a dictatorship? What evidence? He was elected, he had a mandate to rule unlike this coalition (if the Liberals voted who to partner with, their followers would've went with Labour), the people also did not vote for a coalition. Here's a quick comparison with Venezuela:
-UK has unelected Head of State, Venezuela does not.
- UK has an unelected second chamber, Venezuela does not.
- The UK parliament is dictatorial with the whip system and with a large majority, whoever is in power could effectively pass what they like, hence the term Elective Dictatorship, coined by Lord Halsham.
- UK constitution is not written, and can be changed easily via passing of statutes, Venezuela, on the other hand, has a written constitution outlining basic human rights there, in the advent of a rogue government, UK citizens would/could see their 'rights' severely undermined.
- Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998, died in office 2013, he was elected to stay in office, in fact, Maduro, his successor, has just won the election called because of Chavez's death before he was sworn in!
- Some dictatorship!? :thinking about:
The Venezuelan politics is organised like US politics.
No, you, and Grendel are totally wrong, Venezuela is a more democratic than the UK, in fact, the UK, I would say the UK is a 'limited dictatorship', quick example, biggest protests ever (nearly 1m?) in UK before declaration of war v Iraq, what did Blair do? 3-line whip to muzzle his opponents within the party and didn't listen to popular sovereignty, democracy?
How is the comparison ridiculous!?
Just to add to the above, the USA and Chavez's opponents plotted a coup against Chavez in 2002, Chavez was removed from office, but strikes were so widespread he was reinstated. If the same thing happened to Thatcher in 1982, would the people push her back in? Would they strike to see the ConDem reinstated, we of course don't know, but I would be more inclined to say no.
A well researched post SBT.....not surprised that the usual suspects have had little to say on the matter.
American geo-political ambition is covert imperialism under the guise of "Combatting the war on drugs" or some other guff.
You'd have to be pretty thick to think that this is in any way laudable......but Thatch didn't mind cosying up to the yanks, deplorable bitch.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Where would you prefer to live?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Psgm brought a quote, that was an opinion from I can only presume, a western rightist newspaper, no factual basis, and in fact, you look at the political system in the UK, it is outdated and is no longer fit for purpose and until it is reformed, we won't be as democratic as the US, France, Venezuela and most modern democracies.
Oh I forgot to mention:
- FTTP voting system over represents Labour + Tory and in the UK, you can form a majority government with a minority of the votes, whilst FTTP voting has strengths, it isn't particularly democratic in a sense, e.g. UKIP got 900k votes, they get no representation, LibDem got more votes than past elections, yet lost seats. In Venezuela, no majority of votes = reelection as they use a form of PR.