Geordiecpl2001's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Geordiecpl2001

7 hours ago

Straight Male, 67

•

Bisexual Female, 63

0 miles · Tyne and Wear

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

15 May 2013

Quote by Paul80
Well, would one of the people who know this place suggest a time for meeting? And if the pub has different floors or areas narrow down a good area. As we don't know any of you, how would we spot you, short of asking everyone in the pub if they are swingers?
John & Shel

What sort of time will you be arriving in West Brom? We have very little travel so we are flexible. Could send you our mobile number. just need to remember Man united are playing West brom kick off time is 4 pm.
Rachel & paul
We get to West Brom on Sat. We'd probably be looking to have Sunday lunch in the pub, say around one pm, meet up with people around two-ish ?
J & S

15 May 2013

Dare I say that I found Bernard Manning very funny ?
John

15 May 2013

Well, would one of the people who know this place suggest a time for meeting? And if the pub has different floors or areas narrow down a good area. As we don't know any of you, how would we spot you, short of asking everyone in the pub if they are swingers?
John & Shel

14 May 2013

Weatherspoons are OK, how far is the Station from the hotel?
J & S

14 May 2013

Quote by deancannock
Question. If you could get a discount for having an on board camera in your car, would you do it? If not why not?
There are schemes for this in place and in car cameras are on the increase big time in the States. Often they can prove cases of insurance claims and on many occasions have been hugely beneficial to claimants.
Cannot see any problem and yes I have reported bad driving on two occasions over the years, where the driver was prosecuted. One was for a drunk driver who was weaving over the road, and I managed to alert a police car, and the second was when I was about to cross a busy road to see a driver almost knock a young girl off her bike, whilst he was chatting on his phone and also alerted a passing police car.
Am I a snitch then Dean?

well if a snitch is someone that tells on others...then answer by your won admission is YES...lol...however you have proved my point a little, as I guess on both occasions you did not film the incident. Indeed if you read back to my last comment I state that I myself noted the number of a car that sped off after a collision. All I an saying is why the need for cameras in cars !!
No-where did I say you shouldn't tell police anything. I am simply worried about where it will all end. Will we have people who have nothing better to do, driving round with cameras in their cars looking for those parked on double yellow lines...etc etc....and as I have stated I am mostly concerned about the use that these could be put to other than what they were intended for.
Probably it will all end with Google Glass, then all your fears will be realised !!
John

12 May 2013

Quote by Too Hot
There is plenty of footage of bad / dangerous driving on YouTube. In fact there is a viral video going around Facebook at the moment from a cyclists head camera of clear cut road rage but the driver was only cautioned. Most are unreported and frankly I doubt if the traffic Police could ever hope to deal with the volume of civilian vigilante camera footage.

Yes, your right, the traffic police might well be overwhelmed at first. But as the amount of cameras fitted in cars goes up, as I'm sure it will, would not the fear of being filmed "anytime anyplace" not cause the ones using mobiles while driving to cease, especially with a few well reported court cases?
John

12 May 2013

Quote by deancannock
oh we are all to become, the Police now are we. We also going to record those speeding...record those that go through an amber light, those that are parked on double yellow lines... Where does it stop ? I use gadgets in my car that make my life easier and more pleasant, such as a sat nav or the radio etc.....I can not see the use apart from being a big brother snoop, why would I want a camera in my car.
It can't be to record in case of an accident. Else you going to need one, on all four sides of the car. I can come out of a junction into the side of you....or not have correct braking distance and hit you from behind etc etc.......however I can also see the possibilities for abuse with this. What about a offender being parked outside a school with his car cam on recording !!
No...for me, let the Police do their job. I'll use my car for getting from point A to point B !!!!!

So on the logic of the above, if I was driving along and saw a child knocked over by a driver who did not stop, but the camera recorded the offending vehicles number plate I should not hand it to the Police so they could catch the driver ?
John

11 May 2013

I'm going to get one of those cameras that point out of the front of the car to record the journey. This is after a slight bump Shel had in her car, where it was her word against the other guy as to who's fault it was.
The question on here tho is this;
If you saw a person in a car coming towards you, (no chance of a crash and you passed them safely), but you saw them using a mobile phone while drivingand on playback of the video you could clearly see them doing it and the vehicle reg no, would you go to the Police with the video so the driver could be prosecuted???? (assuming the Police would do that on video evidence?).
Yes or No, would you shop them ?
But going on from that, if, in an effort to cut down on mobile phone use when driving the Police offered a reward for such videos, would that encourage you do it??
John

6 May 2013

My new thing is stop Denise Welsh and Helen Flanagan ever having anything else printed about them in any newspaper or magazine anywhere in the World.
John

5 May 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
I think the mass openings of all these coffee houses is a great thing, the more the merrier for me, put one in every other shop on the high street.
Would I use one, nah, I like my cuppa rosy lee, but if they want to fill up our empty high street shops and create more job opportunities then I am all for even more opening up.

Damn right !! Tea drinkers of the world unite !! So that's me, Jed, 1 billion Chinese and 500 million Indians.

3 May 2013

Quote by Too Hot
It says much about the electorate that so many votes were given to a party with no economic policy.
Those who voted for UKIP have, by default, stated that they don't care about the economy, unemployment and the deficit. Is it because they believe that coming out of Europe will magic away all of those problems?
God help us at the next election if people vote for a political party without any economic policies. Then again, we can at least be assured of some savage cuts and extreme austerity measures from UKIP - that much they have stated.

I refer you to this, which I posted on Tuesday;
All you people are missing the point about this Thursdays vote !!
It does not matter that UKIP only have credible policies about Europe and immigration.
If they do well in local elections and come a credible second in South Shields, it will not change ANYTHING in this Country as regards immigration and Europe.
But what it will do is demonstrate that a large proportion of the UK voters think that the two issues above are very important !! The other Parties will HAVE to come up with policies before the next election to show that they have taken those concerns on board. Weasel words and vague promises won't do it again, they will have to have concrete, cast iron guarantees. Such as "We promise to deport any non UK nationals who break our criminal laws".
If the large vote for UKIP forces the Cons and Labour to listen to the people (what a strange concept for them) about immigration and certain aspects of EU membership, then it's been well worth voting for UKIP.
John

3 May 2013

And next year also brings European Parliamentary Elections 22 May 2014 (date not confirmed). Pretty much a given that UKIP well do pretty well in those I'd say.
Plus you have, Elections in all London Boroughs, and 128 other English Local Authorities, are scheduled be held on Thursday 1th May 2014; but these are likely to be moved to coincide with the European Parliamentary Elections.
These just one year before a General Election !! Think May / June next year will be "squeaky bum time" for Messers Cameron & Miliband and time for Clegg to be confirming he's stepping down from leadership of the libDems to concentrate on his family / charity work / new career opening / peace envoy to middle east (delete as required).
John

1 May 2013

Quote by neilinleeds
All you people are missing the point about this Thursdays vote !!
It does not matter that UKIP only have credible policies about Europe and immigration.
If they do well in local elections and come a credible second in South Shields, it will not change ANYTHING in this Country as regards immigration and Europe.
But what it will do is demonstrate that a large proportion of the UK voters think that the two issues above are very important !! The other Parties will HAVE to come up with policies before the next election to show that they have taken those concerns on board. Weasel words and vague promises won't do it again, they will have to have concrete, cast iron guarantees. Such as "We promise to deport any non UK nationals who break our criminal laws".
So to change the topic slightly, how do you think each Party will address the above issues in the run up to the next Election?
John

It's a bit of a dangerous strategy isn't it though John? What if enough people go down the protest vote route to actually elect one of these clowns to office, either in this weeks local elections, or G*d forbid, a parliamentary seat at the next election? I wouldn't say UKIP is a bigotted, racist party in and of itself but enough reports on some of their candidates to know it has a tendency to attract complete bleedin' fruitloops who are racist bigots, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, you name it. Not the kind of people that would usually make good bed fellows for traditional Labour voters. article is old news but there's been plenty to add to it that backs up its central thrust in recent days and weeks.
Even if they get nowhere near a win anywhere in voting for them you legitimise them and give them credibility that they do not deserve. That makes the prospect of them winning seats and entering into some kind of power sharing deal with a more right-leaning Tory party come the next election more likely. Is that really what people want? You also send a message to Labour that you want them to move even further to the right of centre, the last thing traditional Labour voters would want I think, we need some effective opposition from them, not even more of this Tory-lite crap they've been peddling lately as One Nation New New Labour. Law of unintended consequences applies here I think. Again, be careful what you wish for. You might not like the results.
See the bit I underlined and bolded Neil? That's the problem !! The ordinary people round where I live, traditional Labour voters since the Party was created, feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them.
Specific example, remember Gillian Duffy ? The woman from Rochdale, who Gordon Brown called a bigot. Except from the debacle below.
Gordon Brown has apologised after being caught on microphone describing a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman".
Sixty-five-year-old Gillian Duffy had challenged Mr Brown on a number of issues including immigration and crime.
As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".
Mr Brown later phoned Mrs Duffy to apologise after the tape was played to him during a BBC Radio 2 interview.
After listening to the recording, with his forehead resting on his hand, he said: "I do apologise if I've said anything that has been hurtful."
The Prime Minister is now travelling to apologise to Mrs Duffy in person.
The comments were made after the conversation with Mrs Duffy which ended with him complimenting her and her family.
As he went to get into his car, Mr Brown told her: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you."
But off camera, and not realising he still had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard to tell an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."
Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."
Mrs Duffy said after hearing of Mr Brown's comments: "I'm very upset. He's an educated person. Why has he come out with words like that?
"He's supposed to be leading the country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's come up and asked questions that most people would ask him... It's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he's calling me a bigot."
Mrs Duffy, a widow who has a daughter and two grandchildren, said she used to work with disabled children for Rochdale council before she retired.
She had earlier told reporters she was a lifelong Labour voter and described Mr Brown as being "very nice".
So I'd suggest that Gillian, to me, represents "traditional Labour voter", but the Labour party, as shown above, no longer relates to her point of view. Of course Ed Milliband will claim he has different views to Gordon, but with Eds middle class background, do you really think he has?
John

30 Apr 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob
All you people are missing the point about this Thursdays vote !!
It does not matter that UKIP only have credible policies about Europe and immigration.
If they do well in local elections and come a credible second in South Shields, it will not change ANYTHING in this Country as regards immigration and Europe.
But what it will do is demonstrate that a large proportion of the UK voters think that the two issues above are very important !! The other Parties will HAVE to come up with policies before the next election to show that they have taken those concerns on board. Weasel words and vague promises won't do it again, they will have to have concrete, cast iron guarantees. Such as "We promise to deport any non UK nationals who break our criminal laws".
So to change the topic slightly, how do you think each Party will address the above issues in the run up to the next Election?
John

same asthey always do
..........loads of promises then serve them selves whilst in power
isn't that how its always done
That's how it's always been done in the recent past, but do you not think that UKIP, Nigel in particular, has a bit of a reputation of "saying it how it is"?
Therefore the electorate would be more likely to vote UKIP if they perceived that Labour and Cons (think Lib Dems will sink without trace) were trying to flannel them again?
John

30 Apr 2013

All you people are missing the point about this Thursdays vote !!
It does not matter that UKIP only have credible policies about Europe and immigration.
If they do well in local elections and come a credible second in South Shields, it will not change ANYTHING in this Country as regards immigration and Europe.
But what it will do is demonstrate that a large proportion of the UK voters think that the two issues above are very important !! The other Parties will HAVE to come up with policies before the next election to show that they have taken those concerns on board. Weasel words and vague promises won't do it again, they will have to have concrete, cast iron guarantees. Such as "We promise to deport any non UK nationals who break our criminal laws".
So to change the topic slightly, how do you think each Party will address the above issues in the run up to the next Election?
John

28 Apr 2013

I had a Labour supporter at my door the other day.
Him "Will you vote for so-and-so on Thursday?"
Me "No, I'm voting UKIP",
Him "why?"
Me "Remember all through the Blair and Brown years when we that were concerned with mass immigration were told we were all racists and bigots?......... Payback" !!
His head went down, he must have had loads of the same sorts of answers.
In reality I know the UKIP is not going to be a fairygodmother to the working classes, but at least Nigel says it how it is !! Not like the rest of the PC Westminster bunch.
John

28 Apr 2013

Jed,
Agree with you on this one !! What the solution is I don't know, but anything involving depriving them of their "treats" ie, unhealthy food, would surely be against their human rights.
Personally, I'd raise the tax on junk food and use the cash raised to lower the price of healthy food.
John

21 Apr 2013

Got to say, that although the Assad crew are not Mr Nice Guy and friends, that if they get toppled I have no confidence that whoever replaces them will turn out to be peaceful and fun loving.
John

20 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
So the aecond world war was about if Hitler ever planned to kill off old people and what the title of his book actually meant, ok I accept all that and believe all that is correct and I am wrong, so for me the WWII subject is all done and dusted and really quite boring so I am going to find another more interesting subject to debate, have fun with this one.

"It was you that started it" !!!
"No we didn't" !
"Yes you did, you invaded Poland" !!
Oh, just come over all Basil Faulty there.
John

19 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Well yes, there is that book by the author Adolf Hitler called Mein Kampf in which he affirms his beliefs in Darwinism, then there is the book Darwin to Hitler by Benjamin Wiker.
There is this statement from the "Centre for Science and Culture"
Darwinism inspired the Nazis. Which, in fact, it did. In Mein Kampf, Hitler used Darwinian language to make his case for racial war against the Jews.
Darwinism as I have explained was simply an observation by Darwin on the pattern often found in animals and insects to cull the herd of the weak, old and infirm. He talked about how this might effect Human Beings if we adopted the same policy. Hitler believed this to be the way forward for the Reich and the World, it was even used as a defence by some in the Nurenberg trials at the end of the war.
Hitlers support for Darwinism, the Darwinian way of life, whatever you want to call it is well documented in legal court documents, Reich Documents, Statements from the SS heirarchy and Hitler himself in Mein Kampf.
The only reason you find this part of his anialation plan difficult to believe was because for the most part it was not carried out on the scale of the other murders and I do understand that but intent is still a crime and it was clearly his intent to use this part of his "Darwin" stratedgy for the removal of those he considered a burden. As I said the only recordable instances that did occur was it's use in deciding which Jews were put to the front of the queue for elimination when the queue got large, initially it was first come first served but as the camps filled the guards used a filter system and the old, sick, infirm, disabled were at the head of that queue as has been well documented by holocaust survivors.
I am surprised that you find it difficult to believe someone you know was going mad, was exterminating men, women and children in their millions just for their religious beliefs, just for being gypsies, just for being homosexual etc would have any qualms at eliminating the old folk.

You have not cited any documents, or public speeches where Hitlers said in front of witnesses "I want to kill old people". I have not read Mein Kampf, but can you say where in that book (chapter and section please) he states "I will kill old people?" If so, at what age did people become old? If for arguements sake, he said 60 years old then your for the chop, then half the German High Command would be done for immediatly.
Also, can you imagine being German, your standing at a Nuremberg Rally, Hitler screams out about killing the Jews, people cheer and applaud as they did. Then Hitler screams, "after killing the Jews, we'll start killing the old people of every nation." Que a shuffling of feet in the audiance, them looking round thinking of their mam and dad at home.
Sorry Jed, you've really got to prove this one beyond the "Well Hitler indended to do this because he'd read a book by Darwin".
John

18 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
This one has to take us back to the "if's n but's" situation.
Morally speaking we have to believe the right side won.
The plan to murder every Jew, Gypsy, Mentaly disabled, Old person, Homosexual in the world is a very good argument for the moral stance. Who would have been next on the list ?
IF, AH had won, he would have been on the list above, his mental state was deteriorating quickly, he had many enemies within the German Nation, without him his henchman would have been on very shaky ground and probably deposed very easily.
His possible replacements were a little bit nicer, Dernitz who did suceed him for a very short time, Rommel was immensely popular especially with the Wermacht and it's Generals.
So, with a more caring leader, control of Europe, the Soviet Union, Scandanavia, support from South America and the United Kingdom (because to win we did prove he needed us to agree peace terms at the start) allies in Japan who would probably of controlled the far east, USA, Australia, India, Burma etc then it is possible the world could be a better place for many and hell for some.
The question is what would have happened if the USA had been forced to face Japan alone whilst Japan got massive German support instead of the small amount they did get and without having a base in Europe to take on Germany who would have been able to put their full military might against them instead of fighting on 4 fronts.

Got to take issue with one point Jed, where did you get knowledge of a plan of Hitler's to murder "old people"? The other groups are well documented as being victims of the Nazi, but never heard of old people outside of the groups mentioned being targeted by the Nazis.
John
This one took me a long time to research but I got there in the end.
from wiki
Action T4 was the name used after World War II for Nazi Germany's "Euthanasia programme" during which physicians killed thousands of people who were "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". The programme officially ran from September 1939 to August 1941, but it continued unofficially until the end of the Nazi regime in 1945.
During the official stage of Action T4, 70,273 people were killed, but the Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German and Austrian physicians continued the euthanization of patients after October 1941 and that about 275,000 people were killed under T4. More recent research based on files recovered after 1990 gives a figure of at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.
The name T4 was an abbreviation of "Tiergartenstraße 4", the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege, bearing the euphemistic name literally translating into English as Charitable Foundation for Curative and Institutional Care. This body operated under the direction of Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler's private chancellery, and Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician. This villa no longer exists, but a plaque set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location.
In October 1939, Hitler signed a back-dated "euthanasia decree" to 1 September 1939 which authorised Bouhler and Brandt to carry out the programme of euthanasia.
The Action T4 plan was carried out, so many mentally and physically handicapped people were murdered and on the list to be murdered that they didnt manage to get round to killing many of the old and infirm before the end of the regime but they were on the list for extermination as the paper proved. The only thing that saved them was Germanys inabiiity to kill people any quicker than they did.
Sorry, your quote above only proves that the Nazi's killed people "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". or, "200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people killed by medication, starvation". This is not disputed. Nowhere in the quote does it mention killing people because of their age.
John
The basis for this was Hitlers belief in Darwinism, he believed that the state owed a responsibility to it's people to cull the weak in order for the rest to survive and prosper. You will need to read Mein Kampf and Darwins Origin of the Species for a full explanation of Darwinism, Darwin was hypothersising and theorising in a comparison with the animal kingdom, AH thought it worthy of implementation to improve the Reich.
Following that theory Hitler believed prioritised this action, the Jews whom he believed leeched on society, the mentally disabled and physically disabled, the gypsies who like the jews leeched on society without contributing anything to the whole, Gays who he believed were an afront to society and finally to the old who he simply believed were a burdent to society, this process can be seen clearly with the extermination of the jews when the first to be selected for "special treatment" were the older jews and those who fell into other categories of darwinism, ie mentally disabled or physically disabled or older jews were exterminated first.
If you read Action T4 you will see how this was to work and in places like Langeleben, Konnigslutter many other towns in that area, OAP's homes and homes for mentally and physically disabled children were set up and people "stored" for removal to death camps when they were able to take them, fortunately for them the large numbers of jews taking up the spaces meant a lot of those policies never came to fruition, bear in mind his was a long term plan for the Reich which he expected to last a thousand years and more.
Apart from the older Jews murdered before younger ones I am not saying the policy was carried out in any significant numbers but "I am saying it was his intention" and what he believed the way forward for the German Nation, he was occupying half the world and knew that old people were a burden that he could do without in the Countries he occupied.
Don't know if Hitler had a belief in Darwinism or it was just some form of madness on his part that drove him to mass murder. I do agree with you about the catagories of people he wanted to totally wipe out. Except the old (I am not talking about specific groups here, just old people in general). I have never seen any other evidence of this theory, quote you "I am saying it was his intention", how do you know that? Can you cite any documents which show that intention?
John

18 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
This one has to take us back to the "if's n but's" situation.
Morally speaking we have to believe the right side won.
The plan to murder every Jew, Gypsy, Mentaly disabled, Old person, Homosexual in the world is a very good argument for the moral stance. Who would have been next on the list ?
IF, AH had won, he would have been on the list above, his mental state was deteriorating quickly, he had many enemies within the German Nation, without him his henchman would have been on very shaky ground and probably deposed very easily.
His possible replacements were a little bit nicer, Dernitz who did suceed him for a very short time, Rommel was immensely popular especially with the Wermacht and it's Generals.
So, with a more caring leader, control of Europe, the Soviet Union, Scandanavia, support from South America and the United Kingdom (because to win we did prove he needed us to agree peace terms at the start) allies in Japan who would probably of controlled the far east, USA, Australia, India, Burma etc then it is possible the world could be a better place for many and hell for some.
The question is what would have happened if the USA had been forced to face Japan alone whilst Japan got massive German support instead of the small amount they did get and without having a base in Europe to take on Germany who would have been able to put their full military might against them instead of fighting on 4 fronts.

Got to take issue with one point Jed, where did you get knowledge of a plan of Hitler's to murder "old people"? The other groups are well documented as being victims of the Nazi, but never heard of old people outside of the groups mentioned being targeted by the Nazis.
John
This one took me a long time to research but I got there in the end.
from wiki
Action T4 was the name used after World War II for Nazi Germany's "Euthanasia programme" during which physicians killed thousands of people who were "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". The programme officially ran from September 1939 to August 1941, but it continued unofficially until the end of the Nazi regime in 1945.
During the official stage of Action T4, 70,273 people were killed, but the Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German and Austrian physicians continued the euthanization of patients after October 1941 and that about 275,000 people were killed under T4. More recent research based on files recovered after 1990 gives a figure of at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.
The name T4 was an abbreviation of "Tiergartenstraße 4", the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege, bearing the euphemistic name literally translating into English as Charitable Foundation for Curative and Institutional Care. This body operated under the direction of Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler's private chancellery, and Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician. This villa no longer exists, but a plaque set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location.
In October 1939, Hitler signed a back-dated "euthanasia decree" to 1 September 1939 which authorised Bouhler and Brandt to carry out the programme of euthanasia.
The Action T4 plan was carried out, so many mentally and physically handicapped people were murdered and on the list to be murdered that they didnt manage to get round to killing many of the old and infirm before the end of the regime but they were on the list for extermination as the paper proved. The only thing that saved them was Germanys inabiiity to kill people any quicker than they did.
Sorry, your quote above only proves that the Nazi's killed people "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". or, "200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people killed by medication, starvation". This is not disputed. Nowhere in the quote does it mention killing people because of their age.
John

13 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Actually Endeavour was still there when they invaded though it had been scheduled to be taken out of commission there were talks going on about replacing it with a warship which some thought was less expensive and more "fit for purpose" the research ship wasn't researching much but a warship has to be patrolling somewhere, with the end of the cold war our NATO commitment was being reduced and a ship from that fleet would have been a much more cost effective and would enable a ship to patrol the area for a tour then replaced by another so as to allow maintenance, rest etc for the ship and it's crew.
Baroness Thatcher would not have been the one to decommission the ship, she might have to give final approval but it would have been an Admiralty decision to make any changes in the South Atlantic and she would have made her final decision based on their advice, you know the people who got all those medals after the war, the people who had decided we no longer needed aircraft carriers and planned to run it's navy with only helicopter carriers, had it not been for the wonders of the Harrier we would not have been able to consider retaining the islands, nor could we have done it without the aid of the Australian and New Zealand Navy who gave us substantial help with their ships.
Maggies instigation of the sale of exocet missiles to Argentina during the conflict was a magnificent strategic coup.
Sir Winston, love and respected him, was sad when he died and I remember just what I was doing the day he did, but he made mistakes as Lord of the Admiralty his ridiculous plans for the opening of a second front at Galipoli during WWI cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
The truth is all Prime Ministers will make mistakes and if we do it right we remove them from office for their errors as we should do with all leaders of big business that fail, but we should not wish them dead.

Looking it up your correct about Endevour, I thought it actually had been withdrawn rather than just talked about.
But 1982 was not the end of the cold war, it was actually the height of the cold war ! So it would have been most unlikely the Admirals would have wanted to deploy a Fleet warship to sail around the Falklands all year.
John

12 Apr 2013

Quote by funswing92
RIP Maggie xx second only to Winston Churchill xx

Churchill warned of the menace of Nazism and united the country in its hour of need.
Maggie encouraged the Argies to invade the Falklands by removing the patrol / research vessel Endevour, then gained popularity by having to fight a war to reclaim the Islands, then she devided the country like no other PM has done, still today, in death she devides the Country.
John

12 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Have you looked on You Tube, Facebook and Twitter, have you seen the gutter press focusing on the hatred, have you read the outrageous claims on here of what she is responsible before and after her reign in office.
Isolated incidents would have been bad enough but this is more than isolated incidents it says a lot more about British people than it does about her.

There is not a single "outrageous" claim !
Go on ....just name one.
Calm down, an ex prime minister has died, it`s no big deal.
OK ...my apologies ! I have read through the thread and I`ve found some outrageous claims.
1. Margaret Thatcher stood down.
2. Tony Blair was elected immediately after she went.
3. The Poll Tax was a good idea
4. She did everything for the benefit of this country and not simply for her own personal political gain.
5. We still have a personal local taxation system rather than one based on property values.
6. That people didn`t live on credit before Thatcher .....
But of course the most outrageous of outrageous claims was that I said the last one !! rolleyes

rolleyes

So yes mids, you are right, there have been some pretty outrageous claims made on this thread !
You got one thing right, an ex prime minister has died no big deal, no reason to sing songs, no reason to paint graffiti everywhere, no need to throw celebratory parties, just let it pass and spare a thought for her family.
And what you got wrong, again you didn't answer the fundamental question, if all she did was wrong why have no prime ministers since changed anything she did?
Sure there are many things that Thatcher did which have been undone, but here's a biggy, so big that it led to HER OWN Party, the ones who over the last few days have been saying how great she was, removing her as P.M.
The Community Charge (popularly known as the poll tax) was a system of taxation introduced in replacement of the rates to part fund local government in Scotland from 1989, and England and Wales from 1990. It provided for a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult, at a rate set by the local authority. The Community Charge poll tax was replaced by Council Tax in 1993, two years after its abolition was announced.
John
OK, so can you tell me the difference between Council Tax, Poll Tax and Rates, as I understand it Rates were based on a home irrespective of the number of occupants, Council Tax and Poll Tax are based on the individual living in a home no matter how many live in the house, ie 2 people living there they both pay, 10 people living they all 10 pay unlike the rates system where 10 could live in a house and only one flat rate was charged.
In a nutshell Rates and Council tax were / are based on the rateable value of a house, notionally how much it would attract if it were rented out, tho the figures bear no resemblance to reality. So leaving out rebates and such due to special cases a family of four (with the children of working age) would pay same Council tax as a family of two living next door to them in the same sort of house. Whereas with the poll tax it was based on how many adults lived inthe house, therefore the family of four would pay twice as much as the family of two.
When Maggie introduced it, there were many riots, the Tory party could see it might lose them the next election, they begged Maggie to abandon the idea. She wouldn't (the Ladys not for turning) so another Tory MP challengered her to a leadership contest. Without the support of her "loyal" Cabinet Ministers and many MPs she was doomed.
When John Major became PM the poll tax was abandonded. IE a Maggie policy was reversed.
But never forget, The Iron Lady, darling of the Tories, was shafted well and truely BY them because they were sure she was going to cost them the next election.
John

12 Apr 2013

Quote by MidsCouple24
Have you looked on You Tube, Facebook and Twitter, have you seen the gutter press focusing on the hatred, have you read the outrageous claims on here of what she is responsible before and after her reign in office.
Isolated incidents would have been bad enough but this is more than isolated incidents it says a lot more about British people than it does about her.

There is not a single "outrageous" claim !
Go on ....just name one.
Calm down, an ex prime minister has died, it`s no big deal.
OK ...my apologies ! I have read through the thread and I`ve found some outrageous claims.
1. Margaret Thatcher stood down.
2. Tony Blair was elected immediately after she went.
3. The Poll Tax was a good idea
4. She did everything for the benefit of this country and not simply for her own personal political gain.
5. We still have a personal local taxation system rather than one based on property values.
6. That people didn`t live on credit before Thatcher .....
But of course the most outrageous of outrageous claims was that I said the last one !! rolleyes

rolleyes

So yes mids, you are right, there have been some pretty outrageous claims made on this thread !
You got one thing right, an ex prime minister has died no big deal, no reason to sing songs, no reason to paint graffiti everywhere, no need to throw celebratory parties, just let it pass and spare a thought for her family.
And what you got wrong, again you didn't answer the fundamental question, if all she did was wrong why have no prime ministers since changed anything she did?
Sure there are many things that Thatcher did which have been undone, but here's a biggy, so big that it led to HER OWN Party, the ones who over the last few days have been saying how great she was, removing her as P.M.
The Community Charge (popularly known as the poll tax) was a system of taxation introduced in replacement of the rates to part fund local government in Scotland from 1989, and England and Wales from 1990. It provided for a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult, at a rate set by the local authority. The Community Charge poll tax was replaced by Council Tax in 1993, two years after its abolition was announced.
John

12 Apr 2013

Quote by Joewally
I wonder how many of you have had this one?
"I'm from E Prediction Global" and we've got a message your computer has Errors" we'd like to fix this for you,
This call has been made twice to me,
"can you press CTRL WINDOWS and R we'll remove these errors for you"
Are you in front of your computer? - yes I replied,
What do you see when you press these buttons? A black screen I tell him
No no no something is wrong; he tells me
Oh? what? I ask
What can you see? I tell him I'm looking at porn. this throws him, it's not on his list of answers.
Try again mr Wally now what do you see? the same I tell him
Mr wally , you should have a box that allows us to access your computer.
where are you calling from? I ask
I'm in Glasgow city in Scotland.....
yeah right? who calls Glasgow "Glasgow city"?
Listen here, there's no way on god's green earth I'm giving you access to my PC now PISS OFF!
the last time they phoned it was
"I'm from Microsoft you PC license is about to expire, let me fix this?"
Erm no thanks, let it expire.
IMO they wanted access to steal private files, passwords and other stuff ....
take care
x

I had a very similar phone call went like this;
Ring Ring
Me, "hello"
Him, (sort of African type accent) "I'm from Windows repair service I think you have a problem with your computer"
Me, (deciding to play along), "yes, thank heavens you've called, its been driving me crazy"
Him (in a can't believe my luck type voice) "Are you in front of your computer?"
Me "yes"
Him, "press CTRL WINDOWS R"
Me, "OK"
Him, "Have you done that? what do you see"
Me, "A dialouge box has opened up"
Him (all exicted now) "what does it say"
Me "it says WARNING YOUR BEING SCAMMED BY A WANKER"
Him..................................
Sound of phone being replaced in Africa !!
John

10 Apr 2013

Quote by deancannock
to me...its no so much that someone would buy this offer...as probably swingers already anyway.....its the fact that Wowcher are willing to promote it. As say...to me that brings swinging into a mainstream, everyday type activity !!!

And then all the fun goes out of it !
John

10 Apr 2013

What next ? Adverts for the clubs on the telly? But which "celeb" would you get to endorse them?
John & Shel

8 Apr 2013

In my view she did OK in the early years of her Premiership, but after re-election seemed to become more of a dictator and had to have her own way.
Power corrupts etc.
Like the idea of her funeral being privatised tho !!! Esp. if it goes to the lowest tender. Can just see the wheels falling off the funeral carriage then and the security should be by the same company that did(n't) provide security for the Olympics !! Maybe a few adverts on the side of the funeral carriage ??
John