Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

The Real Cost of The Jubilee Celebrations and the Olympics?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-23 of 23 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Jun 2012 18:24:56 BDT
Pipkin says:
Pass the sick bag, it's Jubilee time
By Alan Hughes

It's been a bad year so far. A really bad year. What with the old-Etonian-led Coalition Government hell-bent on destroying the welfare state - including our treasured NHS - benefit cuts, high unemployment, tuition fees through the roof, hardly any affordable housing, school budgets slashed with teachers leaving in droves, Doctors striking and Margaret Thatcher still breathing we had to endure the Diamond Jubilee `celebrations' and now the Olympics.

And though we are constantly being told that in this age of `austerity' we have to take the swingeing cuts to public services on the chin, the cost of putting on these events is phenomenal.

The cost to the taxpayer for the London Olympics could hit 11 billion ($17.4 billion), rather than the expected 9.3 billion ($14.7 billion), according to a recent government watchdog report.

Apparently it might not end there as the assistant commissioner of the Met, Chris Allison, admitted a few weeks ago that he has no idea how much it's going to cost to keep the Olympics 'secure' - which has already increased from 600 million ($947 million) to 757 million ($1.2 billion). And, to add insult to injury, DOW CHEMICALS is sponsoring the games.

For those of you who don't know, on 3 December 1984 in Bhopal, India, more than 25,000 people died after inhaling poisonous gas that leaked from large tanks from the nearby plant containing the lethal pesticide methyl isocyanate. Tens of thousands innocent victims have subsequently suffered, and continue to suffer, appalling injuries and birth deformities. UNION CARBIDE, the company responsible for the mishandling of the tanks, is now OWNED by yes, you guessed, DOW CHEMICALS!!!
They are responsible for the dire medical and environmental situation in Bhopal and only they can make proper restitution to the more than 570,000 people affected. Dow Chemical's Olympic sponsorship legitimizes its abnegation of responsibility for the health and wellbeing of Bhopal victims, thereby perpetuating the denial of basic rights to thousands of suffering people.

But ''who cares'' when the great British public is being given the chance to ''feel good'' about themselves, and ''proud'' to host - and pay for - the Olympics?

Then there's the Jubilee. Ah, the monarchy. How much that lot have cost us over the years has yet to be calculated. And the total cost of this current Jamboree is not easy to find either - but the Department of Culture Media and Sport has estimated that the extra Jubilee bank holiday alone is likely to cost the economy around 1.2 billion ($1.9 billion), although in an impact assessment it noted that this figure could be as high as 3.6 billion ($5.7 billion).
And all this not including money being spent by central government and local councils. Indeed the total cost of royal travel alone (in 2011) much of it funded by the government, was 7 million ($11 million). This when many people can barely afford one family holiday a year....
North Tyneside Council is facing a budget cut of approximately 17 million ($27 million). One of the poorest regions of the UK is having to cut back considerably with all the appalling social consequences this will bring, but we're still throwing millions of pounds at one of Britain's wealthiest families for a few holidays and a boat (Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has ''proposed the public donate a NEW ROYAL YATCH to the Queen as a mark of respect during this year's diamond jubilee celebrations).
It gets worse. The recent Queen's Diamond Jubilee 'lunch' at Windsor Castle included a merry mix of TYRANTS and DICTATORS among those invited, one of which being the despotic ruler of BAHRAIN, Hamad Al-Khalifa who our reject Yates managed to secure a job with as soon as his cover was blown here. Human Rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: ''Inviting blood-stained despots is a kick in the teeth to pro-democracy campaigners and political prisoners in these totalitarian regimes.''
Furthermore, Sarah Waldron of Campaign Against the Arms Trade declared the Queen's invitation, along with SUPPLYING THE AL-KHALIFA REGIME with arms, sends a message that the British monarchy APPROVES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.
Now there's a surprise!!!!
I couldn't care less that the pampered Mrs Windsor has lived to a ripe old age. And I resent having to pay for her and her family who imo are a bunch of corrupt, outdated, hypocritical parasites who belong to the dustbin of history not in a modern, democratic society. Instead her `subjects' continue to fawn over them, help pay for them, touch their metaphorical forelocks and wave their silly little flags whenever the opportunity arises.

Pass the sick bucket. I'm going to puke.

Kinda hits the mark. IMO

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 21:28:02 BDT
The REAL cost of these events can be measured in the increasing levels of the "herd instinct"....the flags, the bunting....the cheering "our athletes"...so the real cost is lower level thinking becomes more the norm...idiotic worshipping of symbols becomes the "thing to do"....more stupidity....

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 08:51:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 10:57:50 BDT
Molly Brown says:
http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/send-message-queen

Would you like Her Majesty to know what you think of her, officially, that is, Margaret. You could remind her about D-Day Anniversary on the 6th June this year, strangely attracting not one mention on TV that I can recall. If we are to commemorate what this country should stand for it was on that day, when 2,700 British lost their lives on, fighting for "their Queen and Country", and for freedom, and a better world for all to live in. Sadly, even for most of those who survived, has never been fulfilled, and never will be, until we dramatically reduce the elitist class system we have. The first on the list, would be the Monarchy.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 13:57:19 BDT
TomC says:
Hi Margaret,

That vastly understates the cost escalation - the original estimate when the bid was made was 2.4bn, although I think it's safe to say that nobody ever believed that figure. The govt finally came clean and increased it to 9.35bn in 2007. Note the implied precision: by saying 9.35, as opposed to 9.34 or 9.36, they suggest that they are able quantify costs down to the nearest 10 mil.

Now they're saying that it might rise to 11bn. Does anyone - including themselves - really believe this? The latest investigation suggests that costs may rise to 24bn; considering that the events haven't started yet, that may be optimistic.

The truth about all such projects is that they operate on the principle of the gambler's fallacy; once there is a certain amount of money on the table, nobody wants to throw in their hand and admit that they made a bad bet. This is ruthlessly exploited by those who stand to gain from it, and the "investors" - who are of course betting our money - are encouraged, one step at a time, to throw in more and more to justify the previous expenditure. It never ends well.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6453575.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092077/London-2012-Olympics-cost-spiral-24bn--10-TIMES-higher-2005-estimate.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/04/price-of-london-olympics

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 14:23:15 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Hi Margaret,

The peripheries of this island are suffering appalling cutbacks and yet the richest region in the whole of the European Union swells even more with the influx of cash from the Jubilee, Olympics, Third Airport and London Cross Rail system.
Donations for a new Royal Yacht I find especially galling - bless all the misguided souls who will dig into their pockets for such a worthy cause!

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 16:04:21 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Moll, Thanks for the link.
Yes I would like to tell Liz what I think of her, and I will. I would like her to know how bl**dy fortunate she is that we all 'tolerate' her and the rest of the clan. They sailed too close to the wind with the Diana business, and she knew it....
Fortunately poor old Fergie was there to take the focus away with her stupidity, she was a Godsend for them. Even today, they still disclose her mistakes, when there's some chance of the spotlight being on 'them.' I believe that she and Andrew still live together, don't they? But we arn't supposed to know?
I keep expecting a knock any day for the 'truths' I've told Hague I objected to his warmongering rhetoric, and sent him the Black Ops info and the Syrian Timeline, and the US and British Oil Imperialism, then asked him to check out the scripts that had been used for Iraq, Afghan and Libya and asked if he could see they were the same, then asked him if he thought we were all stupid? Obviously he doesn't get to read them - but his 'aide' did and we had quite a heated discourse. I also write to Ca'moron' and his lackey Clegg, who is also my local MP. God forbid! About the NHS, Care Homes, Abuse of vulnerable people, and Education. I don't know how or when I found time to work previously?
What makes me see red, is that it's all a game to them - bug**ring about with our lives.
Instead of robbing the 'poor' to pay the fat cats; What is so bl**dy bad about them paying tax that they owe? How can they be allowed to have accountants who ''get round the system.''
I used to quite admire Baroness Warsii, and was absolutely disppointed to see that she is just as bad as all the rest: shame on her! I can't think for the life of me why I thought there would be anything to choose between them?
Do you scan round the other sites? I posted about the Greek 'Sortition.' Which I think may be the way forward?
Just thinking: I wonder if it would be acceptable for me to begin my letter to Queenie - Dear Lillibet? :-)
I can't wait to get started.... I may be gone for sometime???????
Mx

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 16:06:02 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Tom C,
Thanks for this information..
I can't make my mind up about you. I thought you were agin me?
It seems we agree on more than I at first thoguht.
Mx

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 16:12:56 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Simon,
At least they accomodated those who were going to be sick...
''Following on from the huge success of Lydia Leith's royal wedding sick bags last year, the artist has developed a receptacle for those who over-indulge on Jubilee jelly with Coronation Chicken ice cream. Her "Bling it up" sick bags cost 3. (www.lydialeith.com)''
3.00 for a small paper bag with a flag on it? I bet they did a roaring business...and what a name ''Bling it Up!''
As you say the real cost to all of us, is that 'idiotic lower level thinking' becomes the norm......
M

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 19:23:58 BDT
I should just like to dispel a slight myth about what the queen gets paid for and for what: The queen receives on a yearly basis a sum of money called 'the civil list', this is a historic exchange between the monarchy and parliament, and she doesn't get it for free. The exchange was that the monarchy trades in all the rent it gains from the land it owns, in exchange for a regular income, however the rent from crown lands has far exceeded the money given to the monarchy for the last few monarchs, so the institution of a monarchy actually operates at a profit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw this explains it quite clearly, so we dont really pay for them. And secondly the Jubilee was funded by private donations, as was the call for a new Britannia yacht. However i agree with the waste of money that the olympics is, but do also bear in mind the bid was put in in 2003 well before austerity.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 19:43:37 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi GR
Thanks for that information.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 20:01:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 20:06:45 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Really that isn't the full story though,
The crown lands and property are a huge portfolio worth over 7 billion and date back to the time of the Norman Conquest when quite literally the ruling monarch took a huge chunk of the country's assets for themselves'
This dates upto the present day - except now the profits from these estates are mainly funnelled into state coffers- so in reality these crown lands belong to the state and the idea that the Monarchy are somehow paying their way through these assets is like saying the profits from the Royal Mail pay for Prince Andrew's airmiles.
The actual money that it costs for royalty is disputed with an official figure of 41.5m in 2008,
However this does not include costs for security, Palace grounds maintainence etc and the true figure with these costs included is estimated to be as high as 130m - 140m,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

As regards the royal yacht I dont think anyone who has posted on this thread suggested that the taxpayer is picking up the money for this item only that people are amazed that there can be calls for the public to dig into their own pockets to fund this unnecessary luxury.
Most of us are feeling the squeeze and to think money which would be better off being donated to far worthier causes is actually being used for a yacht is laughable,

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 20:11:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 20:11:52 BDT
Completely agree that it is absurd to donate to someone who is already rich. But i disagree with the idea that in this trade off the lands become the states so the monarchy is still not paying their way, that is slightly more on the side of semantics. I only wished to tell people that she isn't robbing us of our tax, as these forums online can get awfully self perpetuating and self conformationary. Also i was un aware of the other costs, thanks :)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 20:17:34 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
No prob Mr K - I suppose you are right about the monarchy not cheating on their tax,
In fact I think Prince Charles pays about 50% on profits from his land, although I believe it is entirely at his own discretion - no tax investigation if the tax office thinks otherwise :)

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 20:38:35 BDT
Spin says:
So the Jubillee was basically a celebration of the taxes the Royal family pay into the ailing government coffers? I see...

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 20:45:27 BDT
And for my twopence worth on the 'republican' debate, I think the likening of the monarch to a head of state in a republican system is like comparing apples and oranges. The head of state in a republic is voted, and hence there are those who did not vote for them, and is therefore divisive. Whereas a monarch is (im not sure whether they're required or not but they are) politically neutral, then there is much less division. And our monarch isn't a head of state in the modern sense as she has no political leverage in our democratic system, so the worries of a mad king Nero further down the line is really nothing to worry about. Also there has been some criticism of the mindless flag waving, but I think thats what is great about the monarch (hear me out here!), the jubilee was not so much a celebration about her, more about Britain itself, case-in-point: do you think the queen would have chosen most of the acts at her concert?. As a monarch she is a common symbol we can all share, regardless of political persuasion, creed or colour, something that I feel an elected 'head of state' could not achieve. Call me a monarchistic apologist, and I know there are faults, some blaring, but there is a case for a monarch. Again though, each to their own opinions!
Your reply to G. R. Knowles's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 21:44:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012 21:47:16 BDT
TomC says:
Hi Margaret,

You're welcome to that. I am certainly no fan of monarchy, nor of prestige projects which were only ever intended to benefit an elite, and I will argue strongly that they are not appropriate to a country which aspires to be a modern democracy. To that extent we agree on a lot.

However, I find those arguments, based on what I read in the papers and see in the news, sufficient to justify my position. It requires no great insight to see that when a group of individuals are living in a style attainable by very few, and the rest of us are told that we are privileged to have the duty of supporting them, that we are being taken for a ride. I don't find it necessary to go digging into a lot of dubious stuff which smears by association or asserts secret conspiracies by Jews, Freemasons, or mysterious financial cabals to bolster it further. A case is better made on the basis of information which at least has some relation to observable facts, rather than assertions which by definition cannot be shown to have any basis in reality.

Seriously Margaret, if it makes you happy that's fine, but you must know that people can't take it seriously, and I rather think that in the long run it can encourage you to lose your grip on reality, rather than grant you the clear-sighted vision that you seek. You know what happened to Don Quixote, don't you?

All the best

Tom

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 06:38:36 BDT
Molly Brown says:
I doubt whether your message will get through the censor, the Queen doesn't do reality. BTW, how could you have thought Baroness (how? why?) Warsi was a decent sort! She is an absolute beach, just how many MPs and Ministers does it take who are on the take for the British people to stop voting for these Tory bustards. It was interesting the other day, and god I must have been bored, but I watched the 2nd part of the complete election of 1987, it was fascinating to hear the Tories promising things, i.e. telling total lies, of what they were going to do for this country. Inner Cities, Housing, social cohesion. We've had them now for 30 years, and it seems, things will never change. They have totally ruined this country, and it's hard to see how we can ever get it back again.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 15:36:35 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reply, and I'm glad that we agree on more than we disagree on, and can be civil at least.

It has never been my intention to go searching dubious material, but sometimes when a phrase is put into the search engine and gives info I had previously not known, I will post it to see what others think.. I posted the piece about the Royals being decended from David, because I thought it was interesting, and something I had never heard before. Nothing to do with semitism, anti or otherwise. That is all in some people's minds.....Who delight in argument for argument's sake.
I agree that any case is better made on the basis of information which at least has some observable facts based on reality.
That is why I posted about Syriah and the Black Ops. Nothing to do with imaginary, but fact. If you carefully compare the MO's: then you will see that what is happening in Syria, and Lybia, Afghan and Iraq before, appear to be exactly the same script...
I totally agree with you that people are loathe to take seriously anything that contradict the line drawn by Government Propaganda - it's called Cognitive Dissonance, and who do I think I am, that I should try to open their eyes?
The thing is, that because I was a Youth Worker most of my life and a SW Support Worker, I feel somehow duty bound to try and inform and empower people, to seek for themselves, by balancing what they read in their newspapers and see on TV, with that which has to be sought out elsewhere, and verified by comaprison. How else are we to function? Just sit there waiting to be fed any old rubbish, and believe... or be labelled and ridiculed?
The 'Lavon Affair and USS Liberty' are two ''conspiracy theories'' which despite many 'ridiculed rumours and speculations' turned out to be true, after the classified documents were released 25 years later. These are just two of many other ''Conspiracy'' theories which have also been verified later.
Fortunately, I have a very tight grip on reality...up to now. I have lived a 'long' time and experienced many things, and thankfully have a fully functioning memory and retain a miriad of both useless and useful information. Clear sighted? I may not always be... that is why I rely on others like you, Molly, Dave and Simon etc., to inform me and alter or confirm my view.
Yes I know what happened to Quixote, but I don't believe that I have or will, lose my mind 'foolishly pursueing imaginary protagonists' or that I will be 'tilting at any windmills' any day soon.
The threat to my small Grandson's future is very real; should this War Mongering continue. It could well be that he will be conscripted to go and kill or be killed in the pursuit of 'oil, gold, minerals' or whatever else takes the fancy of the Monied Elite.
But thanks for the warning anyway.....

Kind Regards,
Margaret.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 16:30:43 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hya Moll,
I based my judgment of Baroness Warsii on a few appearances on Question times, where she seemed to be very down to earth, and spoke more like a labour MP than Conservative. But as you've said before, they are all liars. Just saying the first thing that comes to mind to apease us and get votes. Without any intention of following through.
Like you, I can't see how we can ever get things back on track. They are all paid by the same puppet masters, or should that be 'Muppet Masters.'' There isn't a hair between them.
Did you have a look at what I wrote about 'Sortition.' I heard a chap talking about it on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago, and it looks like a good idea, though I don't know how we'd release the stranglehold from the 'Club.'
I can't imagine why you would put yourself through the 1987 elections again! I am normally quite level headed and calm, but I'm afraid when I so much as see Thatcher, never mind hear her voice, a red mist decends and I want to kill her. SHE ruined and bankrupted this country. Let all her cronies ship their businesses abroad because child exploitation cost less than a decent living wage. (And they talk about Human Rights...don't make me laugh)
She stole milk from our kids, closed the Steel and Coal industries down. Privatised all the Utilities so her pals could make a killing. Privatised Transport, closed Railways to stop us mere mortals being able to get around. And the Poll Tax was an absolute disgrace. She alone was resposible for reducing the workers of the country to nothing more than worthless plebs....
My Husband was a Grinding Engineer. The knowledge he has will die with him, because for the past twenty years he didn't have an apprentice. We have people ringing him up all the time to help them, because they don't know how to use the machinery. So he is now a Part Time Consultant.
The worst thing I ever experienced, was when he was working, we were invited to his Boss's Silver Wedding (We were supposedly freinds, only becasue I was in business at that time?) Whilst at the bar getting drinks, someone asked the Wife what my husband did, because they were having such a good chat. My Husband was behind her - when she said ''Oh, he only works on a machine.'' Imagine where the moron would have been without my Husband? Needless to say, I encouraged him to get out of there, and years later the Husband told me that my Husband leaving him had casued them to go bust. My reply? You should have valued him when you had him!!!
That is why the country is on it's knees, because the idiots have undermined the workers to such a degree that a lot of them now think, why bother.

Husband's just informed me that Brown has just put another spoke in the wheel at the Leveson Enquiry, saying that Labour wouldn't play ball with Murdoch, but the Tories definitely did!!!!
Perhaps if they ever manage to cut the head off the snake or tame it, we might get an unbought/ unbiased press? We can hope.

George Osborne and Gordon Brown at the Leveson inquiry - live* Osborne: cabinet secretary suggested Hunt take BSkyB role
* Brown: Brooks texted my wife to undermine Tom Watson
* 'No evidence' his aides briefed against Blair, says Brown
* Brown denies he said he had 'declared war' on Murdoch
* Sunday Times criticised flat deal but it was advertised in paper
* 'No question' of explicit permission for Sun story on Brown son
* Brown: Murdoch speech showed 'quite breathtaking' arrogance
* Leveson: don't politicise the inquiry; cross-party support is vital
* News Corp's Sky bid is 'small but significant part of the story'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/11/george-osborne-gordon-brown-leveson-inquiry
O.M.G. BBC news 16.30 Hague likens Syriah to Bosnia!!!! How about that for emotive.
Mx

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 07:06:07 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Hi M
Just had to look up your word. Sortition. "In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the primary method for appointing officials, and its use was widely regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy. It is commonly used today to select prospective jurors in common law-based legal systems."

Not sure about that one, but you can see why democracy can never really work, just imagine it!! Who selects the candidates? There is always corruption, it's everywhere. That's not to say it wouldn't be any worse than what we have now. Perhaps we wouldn't end up with a PM who leaves his young daughter in a Pub on her own, and didn't even notice? I did that once with our Labrador, tied her up outside the newsagents, then walked home without her. Oh the shame! I've also done the same thing with my bicycle, but NEVER with a small child in my care.

Missed the Leveson yesterday, forgot. Would have liked to have seen Georgio tell us more about how he found the solution, more importantly when he decided on his solution for the choice to replace Vince Cable, and perhaps a damning e.mail/text between him and the "stingers". Can't understand that one though, it was the Telegraph, who vehemently hate Georgio and Davina, and who also had an interest in Newscorp. NOT taking over BSKYB? Weird. Why expose Cable, other than to weaken the coalition I suppose.

Have looked briefly at clips of Gordon vs Rebekah, and Gordon vs Rupert, now I know Gordon Brown doesn't have a lot of admirers on this forum, or anywhere really come to think of it, but I am pretty sure who I believe on the two matters. The link shows short clips of the above, that Rebekah and Rupert eh....honest as the day is long (in a Swedish Winter), and morally about as pure as the driven slush!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18393929
Leveson: Conflicting evidence of ex-PM and Rebekah Brooks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18393927
Leveson: Brown and Murdoch give conflicting evidence

As regards Syria, I don't have a furkin clue who is telling the truth, but I do know that Hague and the Hawks in Washington certainly don't have any humanitarian reasons for their rhetoric!

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 17:18:10 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Moll,
You gave me a giggle about your Labrador and your bike. As for the PM's child. He probably forgot he had one, after all the nanny does all the parenting?
I thought it very strange that the National News last night was ALL about Syriah which has nothing whatsoever to do with us!!!!! But not one mention of the Leveson Enquiry..... Odd?
The reason Cable was removed because he was anti the bid, and Ca'moron' had already agreed the deal, in exchange for a supportive press toward his campaign to be PM!!! Although he is adamant that he made no deal with Rupert and James..Of course he didn't? He made it with ''Rebekha.'' Strange how the liar colours up, and is having to have more and more makeup to cover it up. I do hope Leveson picks up on that one. I feel like writing to them!
Most of my family males have been Coppers and one is a QC, so I am inherantly suspicious at the best of times, and this case has the hairs on the back of my neck up all the time.
Fact....Another piece of the jigsaw puzzle of Government Corruption was that Ca'moron's first task when he came into power was to ''change the cross media ownership laws'', to enable Murdoch to buy BSkyB, which would have given him even more control the greater percentage of what goes out in the media.. . Just as War Criminal Blair gave ''Independance to the Bank of England'' ensuring that he would recieve plenty of 'work and back handers' from JP Morgan and others. and Clinton ''Cancelled the Glass Stegal Laws'', to get rid of and enable the selling of their Toxic Debt disguised as Triple AAA, which has brought the world to its knees. The deals have been done for years, in all parties.
Yet no one seems to care??? Except you and me.
And what greives me more than anything is that people keep falling for it over and over, voting for the same Eton, Harrow and Oxford elite. Red White or Blue... When will they come to their senses and start voting for people who give a damn about them. Someone 'like' the guy from UKIP, or George Galloway who despite adverse publicity: speaks as he finds. What makes him even more appealing to me is that the press villify him, which to me makes it appear that he is too close to the truth, for comfort.
Just about to get the riot shield out? :)
I did post an article about Syria by Patrick Seale of the Guardian, on ''There are no Conspiracies - All is well!'' thread.
To give you an idea of the apathy - there are only five participants ....
I've written four times to Hague. The last three - no response? Surprise surprise.
I totally agree that ''Humanitarian Reasons'' have nothing whatsoever to do with Grinning Ninny Hague, or Clinton's motives. Clinton has already said her ultimate goal is to topple Assaad. What bloody reason has she got? If not to get her pals a foothold with ''Their banks'' perhaps??
I will post it again if you want?
M

Posted on 14 Jun 2012 16:27:53 BDT
Charlieost says:
Interesting that the monarchy versus president of a republic to represent a country gets an airing again. Personally I am sick of so called leaders who represent me whether I have any choice or not. Lets put Dobby Higgins and Her Maj in a a ring and let them slug it out. At least that way we could get a little entertainment out of them.

Don't follow leaders and watch the parking meters.

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 09:00:03 BDT
Molly Brown says:
"A consultation on changes to the way poverty is measured will be announced by Iain Duncan Smith today as the latest sets of official statistics are published. The Work and Pensions Secretary will insist the Government remains committed to a Labour target - enshrined in law - to eliminate child poverty by 2020."

"The number of children living below the poverty line in the UK has fallen slightly, but the figure remains stubbornly above two million, official figures showed today. Some 18% of children were living in households in the UK with incomes of less than 60% of the median average in 2010/11, equating to 2.3 million children, according to figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-announces-plans-to-change-the-way-child-poverty-is-measured-7851068.html

That's right IDS, the easiest way make your figures look good and reach those targets is to make sure that the median average wage keeps going down!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xa80f57e0)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  23
Initial post:  9 Jun 2012
Latest post:  15 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions