Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
sexyslut79
Over 90 days ago
Bi-curious Female, 46
Straight Male, 66
0 miles · Bristol

Forum

Quote by Dave__Notts
To claim that it was thanks to Churchill that the students have the right to protest is frankly absurd. Firstly, Churchill attempted to bring in legislation that outlawed protests-not least those of the miners. Secondly, Britain did not defeat Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States of America did, and it took both of these powers together to do so because the Nazi war machine was the most formidable the world has ever known. Nazi Germany put only one fifth of its military might into attacking Britain and four fifths into attacking the Soviet Union (the second most formidable war machine the world has ever known), and historians are unanimous that had this been reversed, Britain would not have stood a chance.

Depends which historians you study.
The ones whose work I have read say that the likelihood of a German invasion prior to 1943-4 was highly unlikely. Even then, without knocking out the Royal Navy, it would have been a blood bath for the Germans.
The only reason they done so well in the east is because they had land borders. Once they had a sea to deal with that is where they fell short. They had a good army but weak navy and only a tactical air force where they needed a straegic one to defeat Britain. The main reason Britain did not fall was because of the Channel. If it wasn't because of geography then history would have been different
Dave_Notts
Well it was what I was taught at University, but I am prepared to accept that views have changed since then. But my main point was that Britain did not win the Second World War-whatever the Daily Mail might like to think!
Quote by gulsonroad30664
an increase in tax equals a decrease in cash in circulation unless there is a corresponding increase in credit creation greater than the increase in tax. simples.
wake the fuck up, stop watching x factor, coronation st. and east enders and agent provocateurs smashing windows dressed in balaclavas.
this is a contrived demolition of the economy. greece, ireland, next spain and portugal, possibly then italy, in whatever order and the u.k. next ! but hey, i talk a load of bollocks.

A good point. If people spent less time vegetating in front of the television and more time reading, then we might have more informed discussion.
Quote by Bluefish2009
To be honest Browning. Churchill was just a politician so I do not give two hoots about what they done to his statue.
I do agree with you about the cenotaph and the Union Flag. That to me is the same as a graveyard and the desecration is uncalled for. I hope she is charged as the lad who urinated on one in the summer and she gets community service like him.
Dave_Notts

Churchill was just a politician?
Thanks to people like him, the students have the right to protest!!!
Yes, he was a politician who sent thousands of men and women to war that never came back. They are who I am proud of, and they are the ones that gave the ultimate sacrifice so these students can protest ...........not the politician.
Dave_Notts
That was not the fault of Churchill, the country was responding to a threat not made by Churchill.
The Statue is a piece of art which should not be denigrated, never mind who or what is at the top.
To claim that it was thanks to Churchill that the students have the right to protest is frankly absurd. Firstly, Churchill attempted to bring in legislation that outlawed protests-not least those of the miners. Secondly, Britain did not defeat Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States of America did, and it took both of these powers together to do so because the Nazi war machine was the most formidable the world has ever known. Nazi Germany put only one fifth of its military might into attacking Britain and four fifths into attacking the Soviet Union (the second most formidable war machine the world has ever known), and historians are unanimous that had this been reversed, Britain would not have stood a chance.
Quote by GnV
So, there it is. The premier item on France's principal lunchtime TV news program TF1. Images of yobs attacking the Royal couple as they go about the lawful business attending a Royal Gala performance at the London Palladium.
Can there now be any wonder why FIFA gave the World Cup away to Russia?
What sort of message does this totally unacceptable behaviour give to the world about coming to London with the Olympics not so far off?
Those yobs are lucky to be alive (hopefully in a prison cell) this morning because in Russia, France and many other countries of the world, the protection squad would have just shot them and asked questions later.
And these yobs then complain about Police behaviour! The Police showed remarkable restraint in the face of immense terror at the hands of a mob - schoolchildren or not. The rioters were a bunch of cowardly morons and have shown beyond question that they are in no way deserving of funding for their education.
The decision taken by the democratic process yesterday is now shown to be the correct one in every respect.

If we are going to talk about 'yobs' then would it not be more appropriate to focus on the drunken neanderthaals who make town centres no go areas for the decent majority every weekend . And if we are going to talk about cowardice, should we not focus on those people who don't have the courage to go out onto the streets and demonstrate against something but instead grumble to their friends over their fourth mind numbing pint of beer?
As far as funding is concerned why should students NOT be funded? By undergoing a course in higher education, these people will eventually contribute far more to society than pea-brained yobs like Wayne Rooney who are not capable of anything beyond kicking a bag of wind around a piece of grass (and then, not very well, which is why the English football team keep losing).
With reference to the FIFA decision to award the World Cup to a country other than England, it is hardly surprising when England's representatives were two upper class twits and a lumpenproletarian who can hardly string a sentence together in his own language never mind someone else's language.
The term "Burma" is a British made moniker based on the majority ethnic group, the Bamar. The country was called "Myanmar' by the natives at least as far back as Marco Polo's time and was formally renamed Myanmar by the government in 1989 because it is more inclusive of all the ethnic groups who live there and to distance it from the colonial period. Every one of the several locals (including members of the Bamar ethnic group) to whom I spoke in the three months I was there told me that they did like their country being referred to for these reasons.
I am no defender of any government frankly, but I have travelled extensively in Asia and South America and I have seen and experienced many things which totally changed my perception of a great deal and as a result have formed many conclusions. The world, it seems, is split in to two camps. One is led by America and includes Britain and the rest of the EU and several other countries such as India. This camp is the camp of international capitalism and "freedom of the individual" (what a misnomer).The other camp is led by China and includes North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Syria and the other 'rogue states'. This is the camp of so-called socialism.
The two camps of course loathe each other and this is reflected in the media of the countries concerned.
We are, for example, told by our media all kinds of terrible things about Myanmar, and all kinds of nice things about own experiences (and I have been to India twenty times, each time for several months) don't corroborate what the media tells us India I have seen things which would make some Westerners Rajahstan, for example a group of Untouchables, living among the carcasses of dead camels and buffaloes which they skin for a living. They are not allowed to come into town because their work is 'unclean' and whilst they open their doors onto bloodied fly-infested carcasses, a few miles away, rich Indians develop Western neuroses about being overweight and spoilt rich kids spend a fortune on imported cosmetics. In Bihar, a sixteen year old girl with scars where her nipples once were because one of the sixty men who gang- her bit them off, her crime being to have a romantic dalliance with a boy from another caste. Filth and squallor everywhere, and children with horrible afflictions sleeping on the streets and keeping themselves warm by burning piles of plastic. In Myanmar, on the other hand, I saw schools for the deaf, dumb and blind, and teachers taking children with Downs Syndrome on outings to the beach-none of that in that great democracy India, I can assure you. And I saw no filth and squallor anywhere. But they have forced labour! Our papers scream. Yes, in that villagers have to "beautify' their villages once every so often by painting their houses and keeping them clean, and yes in that convicts have to work. But what's wrong with 'village beautification"? and don't convicts have to work here (or do 'forced labour' in the form of Community Service?
With regard to China, yes, they execute people (and I witnessed the execution there of a convicted murderer and ) but so does the USA. But the difference is that the Chinese don't execute people under 18 whereas the Americans regard to Tianamen Square, we were told that 'the people' were 'rising against communism'. They weren't. Some students were demonstrating because they wanted some reforms, and when someone tipped paint over a bust of Mao the student leaders themselves handed him over to the PSB (the Police). Some students died, as some demonstrators in this country have such as Kevin Gately in 74 and Blair Peach in 79 and I do not condone this,but I can tell you that any traveller in those days would have said that China was the safest country to travel in-especially for women.
Incidentally, the Police in Calcutta take bribes from all the Western paedophiles who work for the Mother Teresa PSB in China shoot paedophiles.
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Not claiming to be any form of ecomonics genius. But it appears that when people are saying that there is only one way to fix the problem and that is the way the so called "experts" are saying then it is a bit like the "Kings new clothes"
In the fable, fraudsters persuaded the king that his new (but none existant) clothes were wonderful and when the King agreed they were wonderful then all the people had to say they were wonderful too.
It took a child to point out that the clothes did not exist, but once the bubble was burst it all came tumbling down.
Ah yes, you say, but its a fable couldn't happen in the real world........................could it not?
Look at North Korea, the people have been so brainwashed that they believe that they live in a paradise and the outside world wants to invade to take all they have..............Just like the Kings new clothes.
So I for one am not so quick to say Gulsonroad has it wrong, maybe he is the one who can see the Kings willy !
John

As you obviously haven't been to North Korea, your knowledge of that country and what happens there will be based on what you read in newspapers or see on the television and you clearly think that what you read in British newspapers or see on British televison is accurate and reliable.
I was at Tianamen Square (remember that?) and saw with my own eyes what happened.I then spent three months travelling around China, and I can assure you that what was reported in British newspapers and on British television, and what was actually taking place were two very different things. I have also travelled in Myanmar (which the BBC still call Burma despite the fact that the people of that country find this insulting) and the reality of that country is very different to the perception of it that people here have of it.
I am not defending North Korea, China, Myanmar or any other country, and neither am I claiming that the media in those countries are more accurate and reliable than our own. What I am saying is that I have learnt through my travels that our own media is as bad as that of those countries. Both are full of propaganda.
Quote by GnV
and Mrs Thatchers legacy is.....Race Riots in the streets.....

I don't recall race riots...
Quote by deancannock
Industry sold off or closed down....to the point where we no longer have a manufacturing base.....

It was the unions who closed the industry and manufacturing base in the UK, not the Thatcher government. It just happened on her shift, so to speak. The unions made UK workers unaffordable so industry champions went elsewhere. Remember "Red Robbo" at the Austin plant in Birmingham and dear old Arfur Scargill?
Quote by deancannock
riots in the streets over the Poll tax....the sight of Yuppies shouting loads of money to the unemployed..... she drove a wedge in this country between the have and have nots. Her own party saw her as a liability and kicked her out.

The "yuppie" culture was an inevitable development following the Union sponsored decimation of British Industry taking the Country closer to a "serviced based" work culture. These young thriving service companies saved Britain from certain death at the time but, of course, was the forerunner to the later collapse of the banking industry (allegedly). As for her departure, like Bliar it was time to go. Three terms in office is unhealthy as the isolation from reality that comes with high office takes its toll.
Quote by deancannock
Whilst we talk about the legality of war......was the direct ordering by Mrs Thatcher of the sinking of the Argintinian boat " The Belgrano " legal????. It was clearly outside the war zone waters......and as was later found to be no more than a cargo ship with innocent sailors on !!

Hmmmm The UK used merchant ships too for troop carrying but that didn't stop the argy bargies firing Exocet missiles at them! During WWII the German U Boats attacked the Arctic Convoys between Russia Iceland and the UK.
Quote by deancannock
We can make a case for and against any leader. I was no great fan of Blair's either....but if you still have to accept he won three elections.....and was never actually defeated at the polls. He introduced the national min wage...he introduced human rights act and freedom of information act....he helped to oversee and bring peace to Northern Island.

As did Margaret Thatcher of course and she was never defeated at the polls either wink
As for the FoI Act, he was also the one who denied the people the right to peaceful protest. A good record on Human Rights? Very debatable that one.
Quote by deancannock
As say..always two sides to every story !!!

Edward Heath didn't agree that it was the unions who 'closed down British industry' as his autobiography makes clear. But he wouldn't would he? After all he was a leader of that pro-trade union, Left wing party, the Conservative Party.
Sometimes three :lol2:
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Not claiming to be any form of ecomonics genius. But it appears that when people are saying that there is only one way to fix the problem and that is the way the so called "experts" are saying then it is a bit like the "Kings new clothes"
In the fable, fraudsters persuaded the king that his new (but none existant) clothes were wonderful and when the King agreed they were wonderful then all the people had to say they were wonderful too.
It took a child to point out that the clothes did not exist, but once the bubble was burst it all came tumbling down.
Ah yes, you say, but its a fable couldn't happen in the real world........................could it not?
Look at North Korea, the people have been so brainwashed that they believe that they live in a paradise and the outside world wants to invade to take all they have..............Just like the Kings new clothes.
So I for one am not so quick to say Gulsonroad has it wrong, maybe he is the one who can see the Kings willy !
John

Well unless you have been to North Korea,or at very least have studied the country, it is hard to see how you can know whether or not its people have been brainwashed. Perhaps it is you who have been brainwashed !
Quote by deancannock
slightly aside really....but what gets me....is this government tells us we are massively in debt.....and is cutting public spending to the knuckle....meaning many hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs.......but somehow they conjure up six billion pounds to help out the irish economy ??????????.....so where did they find that from ?

Britain's debts following the Second World War were far larger than they are now and were indeed only finally fully paid off in recent years. The Conservative Party want to dismantle the Welfare State and the debts of today are used by them to justify doing so.
Quote by neilinleeds
My thoughts were more along the lines that if every protest has to be so highly policed the cost will rocket and police will be tacken from doing there proper jobs.
If protest remain peicful then police numbers could be much lower

Ha ha ha ha ha. Come on Blue, you're having a giraffe? Do you seriously believe for one minute that the police see this kind of protest as anything other than 'a good thing', given that they are facing cuts to their manpower, and are already using this kind of absolutely trivial civil disturbance to argue against a reduction in their numbers? confused Look at their tactics on the last couple of demos, the first where they were almost completely absent, the second where they were all riot geared up, and then ponder on whether they are after reducing costs? rolleyes
N x x x ;)
It is a part of a police officer's duties to police demonstrations, as my father, a retired Chief Inspector in the Metropolitan Police will tell you, and occasionally getting hurt on a demonstration is as much an occupational hazard for him as getting shot is for a soldier.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I don't think many people really condone violence. what I would like to know or put to the discussion is. If people's peaceful means of demonstrating go unheeded by government, just brushed aside and ignored, changing nothing. How then after all peaceful protests have failed?

Thankfully, we live in a democracy where we are governed by the rule of law and the ballot box not by the gun or by mobs roaming the streets.
There is a democratic process by which Government is held to account and it everyone's right to make their voice heard - peacefully. It is an unfortunate fact of life that one man's meat is another's poison and so it is impossible to please everyone all of the time. The Students were perfectly entitled to voice their concerns in a peaceful way and to lobby their MP to try influence his understanding of matters in the hope that he might vote in the opposition lobby. The debate in the chamber of the House and in Committee also provides opportunities for the legislature to make up their minds before the matter is voted on. It then goes to the upper House before receiving Royal Assent. The Lords have in the past sent legislation back to the lower House to think again and so it is that democracy is served.
In the end, the legislature is bound to do what is best for the Country, not just sections of it. Some people will naturally be disaffected but that is the way the Rule of Law works here. The more vociferous few should not necessarily overrule the silent majority and it the purpose of Parliament to champion the cause of right as much as any other.
How many people discussing the violence on the demonstrations have ever been on a demonstration? Those of us who have been on many know all about police violence towards demonstrators. Kevin Gately in 1974 and Blair Peach in 1979 are but two of us who haven't don't because their information comes only from the media which withholds information of this sort.
In 1977 I took part in a mass picket outside Grunwicks .We were all against throwing missiles at the scab buses .One day a demonstrator next to me threw a brick at a scab bus. I and those demonstrators around him berated him for this and then saw him run down the road and get on to a police bus.I saw this happen with my own eyes. The next day, all the papers screamed about how the pickets at Grunwicks had thrown bricks at the scab buses. Those of us who don't believe that this kind of thing doesn't happen are naive.
I have been on 3 large demonstrations in London and dozens in local towns, These were when the countryside came to town.
Presumably you weren't on the violent demonstration by the Countryside Alliance in London a few years ago then.
Quote by GnV
I don't think many people really condone violence. what I would like to know or put to the discussion is. If people's peaceful means of demonstrating go unheeded by government, just brushed aside and ignored, changing nothing. How then after all peaceful protests have failed?

Thankfully, we live in a democracy where we are governed by the rule of law and the ballot box not by the gun or by mobs roaming the streets.
There is a democratic process by which Government is held to account and it everyone's right to make their voice heard - peacefully. It is an unfortunate fact of life that one man's meat is another's poison and so it is impossible to please everyone all of the time. The Students were perfectly entitled to voice their concerns in a peaceful way and to lobby their MP to try influence his understanding of matters in the hope that he might vote in the opposition lobby. The debate in the chamber of the House and in Committee also provides opportunities for the legislature to make up their minds before the matter is voted on. It then goes to the upper House before receiving Royal Assent. The Lords have in the past sent legislation back to the lower House to think again and so it is that democracy is served.
In the end, the legislature is bound to do what is best for the Country, not just sections of it. Some people will naturally be disaffected but that is the way the Rule of Law works here. The more vociferous few should not necessarily overrule the silent majority and it the purpose of Parliament to champion the cause of right as much as any other.
How many people discussing the violence on the demonstrations have ever been on a demonstration? Those of us who have been on many know all about police violence towards demonstrators. Kevin Gately in 1974 and Blair Peach in 1979 are but two of us who haven't don't because their information comes only from the media which withholds information of this sort.
In 1977 I took part in a mass picket outside Grunwicks .We were all against throwing missiles at the scab buses .One day a demonstrator next to me threw a brick at a scab bus. I and those demonstrators around him berated him for this and then saw him run down the road and get on to a police bus.I saw this happen with my own eyes. The next day, all the papers screamed about how the pickets at Grunwicks had thrown bricks at the scab buses. Those of us who don't believe that this kind of thing doesn't happen are naive.
Quote by Too Hot
The "actions" are being supported by current students. Previous students who have now moved on in life realise that there realise that is no free ticket and we look on with fondness remembering how it felt to be a student activist protesting about - Apartheid and Nuclear Disarmament.
But then - we grew up and took a broader look at life.
No problem kiddo's - you want to study media politics or Equine studies for three years - just make sure that at the end of it you can pay for your wasted three years of life.

The UK has the fourth widest gap between rich and poor in the entire developed world. This situation exists partly because the English are the fourth most badly-educated and uninformed people in the European Union and are consequently often not even aware of this state of affairs, and because even if they are aware of it, they are too cowardly to do anything about it other than grumble to each luck to the students who have the courage to do something.
Quote by Kaznkev
Except it was totally one sided and based on friedman,an economic theory that fails to hold it was a polemic,and therefore does not need to be balanced,i would have liked that made clearer though.

At last, someone who has heard of Friedman!
Quote by jimba7
Hi all
I'm new here and part of the reason I am here is due to having a massive smoking fetish. Am I one of a small, select group who enjoy seeing girls smoke or is it more widespread?
Any thoughts?

How bizarre! We know a chain smoking woman we could introduce you 'd have to like them big though, because she's in the building trade and drives a digger!
Quote by GnV
Is it me or as far as I can remember the Tories have not been in power for how many years?
All the fuck ups in the last decade have been the Socialists fault, in particular bollocks face Blair and his sidekick the muppet Brown.
Mind you though should not be suprised as people are still blaming thatcher, for todays problems. lol :lol: :lol:

In all their years of power, the labour front bench continued to deride Thatcher even though most of the more recent problems were of their own making...
go figure, as the yanks say
It was Thatcher who changed Britain's economy from an economy based on what we produce to an economy based on what we spend.
It was Thatcher who deregulated and privatised. Major, Blair and Brown simply continued along the course she had they Bolsheviks then they could have changed this course and re-regulated and re-nationalised, but they are not Bolsheviks, just mere Social Democrats, and cannot, for example, seize control of privatised industries such as the rail system, but have to buy it, which they could not do because they didn't have the money.
Because of the deregulation and privatisation which Thatcher started and her successors continued, Britain now has the fourth greatest gap between rich and poor in the entire developed world , the second highest property prices in Europe, an education system which according to the UN has resulted in the English being the fourth most badly educated and ill-informed people in Europe, and a health system ranked at number 13 in those of the developed world.
We fucked up, as a nation...........................
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Fair points.
Is food cheaper and more available in the 21st century?
I seem to recall as a child that a fish and chip supper and a bottle of coke were beyond us.

No, it's more expensive, but the rich and the well-off are much better off than they were forty years ago, whilst the poor are much poorer in relation, but all have credit cards. Good old Milton Friedman eh?!?!
Quote by kentswingers777
that's settled then all fatties are wino`s :silly:

Well that is a new one on me Rob?
What are the kids excuses for being fat then? Are they also on the booze?
Of course not yet we have a massive ammount of kids that are way overweight and it has nothing to do with alcohol, but everything to do with what they eat, no different to adults.
I would like to know that if some people think drink is the reason people are fat, then why are kids fat, or is there a different type of
obesity?
Apart from not eating the right kind of food, they don't do enough exercise. When I was young, schoolchildren cycled or walked to school. These days, their parents drive them to school.
Four years ago, a study commissioned by the EU revealed that British children were far more likely to be knocked down by a car than their counterparts elsewhere in Europe. Our government were surprised by this, because according to other studies, the british are the second safest drivers in the EU (after the Swedes), so they commissioned research into the reasons. The researchers came to the conclusion that because so many parents drive their children to school these days, British children don't get the chance to develop their skills in road safety like they used to. Interestingly, it seemed the reason so many British parents drive their children to school is because thanks to the media, they are paranoid about paedophiles, despite the fact that our rate hasn't changed since records began, and is lower than those of many other countries in Europe such as Germany, France and Belgium.
Is there a link here to other statistics which show that the English (not the Scots) are the fourth most badly educated and ill informed people in the EU, and that the gap between the rich and poor in Britain is the fourth biggest in the entire developed world?