I'm a teacher and I'm no fuckin' Blair babe. You sir, however, are a cock!

Maybe you misread him. It is possible he was saying if you are not an reality-depived civil servant, then you are copulating with a teacher. So I guess what you probably really need to consider is whether your wife is a teacher. If so, then perhaps he's right.

ASBOS need to work because this is just appalling.

Does anybody actually thing that if a child survives this kind of brutality they'll emerge from the experience keen to be a law abiding productive member of society?



My father keeps on about all the wonderfull things that have been done by NEW Labour over the past nine years. I can't argue that many of the reforms to and introductions of benefits are welcome. What I cannot stomach is that at the same time as appearing to be caring and compassionate the New Labour administration will make an illegal war and treat difficult, unruly and deeply disturbed children little better than detainees at Abu Graib.

This government has also overseen a dramtic improvement in puctuality on the trains and an increase in road building.

oh deary me "dramtic improvement in puctuality on the trains and an increase in road building. " ur grasping at straws to defend this crap govt there arnt you?

as for you father, you should remind him labour has reinforced the position where many people are incentivised to not bother working, because the extra money from long hours and travel is marginal or none existant when travel costs etc are taken into account

trains have been fucked throughout this and previous govt, just different degrees of fuckedness

increase in building, but surely you remember prescott famously went all high and mighty and promised massive car reductions, very misguided that was, but they were elected to do that and have failed massively, and are late in the day realising how important the roads are so lately been forced to open the road building tap a little, however still massively persecuting the soft underbelly of easy targets (drivers) with stealth taxes cameras etc

as far as i remember labour at each blair election has been elected primarily on "education education education" and NHS

on education the have increased the dumbing down, put more overheads between the teachers and the funding, removed much chance of genuine poor clever kids getting a decent higher eductation, and overall massively let the country down

on the nhs it is clear even the labour govt itself thinks its a fucking shambles, so reality is somewhat worse

so im not with you at all

and yep id like to see a poll of all people on the board and see how many are public servants of one kind or another, ever smaller proportion of the population is expected to fund an ever bigger public service, this cannot continue indefinitely, even in labour fantasy land, you need to make priority calls and decide better where to spend the money

?

No it hasn't.

You just think it has, Or you've been told it is so by the Sun or by some fuckwit from the BNP or UKIP.

My problem is with a government, an administration that attacks a foreign country, kills hundreds of thousands of its people and says it did so to promote freedom and democracy. FREEDOM. ?

So they can have freedom but they can fuck off if they think they can come here?

Incidentally, instead of whining about the immigrants who come here "and take your job and your home off you" Perhaps you might think about prosecuting all the business owners who benefit by employing them at illegally low levels whilst knocking out their products and services at the going rate.

Maybe YOU think it isn't because you've been told that by The Independent or some F*ckwit from the Home Office.

This week the former home official Steve Moxon ,who exposed the Beverly Hughes scandal.States that not only is there poor management, and dreadful a understaffing problem within immigration and deportation departments,but more seriously,there is a institutionalised and systematic POLITICALLY MOTIVATED neglect and inaction in regard to the removal of anyone that the courts have instructed should be removed.

Staff have written instruction from management , not deal with or get involved with any deportation,unless that person has already been refused asylum by the home office.Reason: Because if that person already hasn't been refused asylum.He/She will just claim it and launch a human rights court action.So staff are told to ingore those people.

What Moxon is basically saying,is that the immigration department is staffed mainly by people like yourself Martyn.Those with no political will, to actually carry out the governmnets or the courts instructions.

Er, no. The following sentence reveals what a revolting specimen you are:



Such irrational prejudice is beyond debate.

I've made no secret of my utter contempt for humanity on this board.
The planet would be a far better place if homo sapiens became extinct tomorrow. But since it's unlikely to happen and since I have no other planet to go to or the means to travel there, were one to become available, I'm stuck.

Whilst here though I've decided that I like the views, opinions, lifestyle choices and value systems adopted by the political left, the ecologists, the greens and those opposed to war, fascism and hatred.

I think the views and opinions expressed by the far right are repugnant and evil.

Humanity will eventually bring itself to an undeniably undignified and tragic end despite our alleged intellect. Our huge brains will not save us from oursleves.

In the intervening decades or centuries I trust that those with compassion and peace in their hearts will prevail whilst those like yourself, billybragglefties, will be consumed by your own hysterical poisonous bile or better still see the error of your ways and find some way of accepting that we all breathe the same air, live under the same sky and can only avoid catastrophe by loving one another.

It seems pertinent at this point to draw attention to a recent decision taken by ministers of Tony Blairs government, sworn to protect her majesty's subjects btw, to hold off banning PFOS.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_brit...ticle362095.ece



Why spend money to provide a healthy alternative supply when you can just ignore the health risks and leave a future administration to pick up the pieces when it all goes tits up.
Perhaps it is this sort of ministerial attitude toward the population that is at the root of the problems facing working class people in this country rather than the perceived threat from ethnic and religious minorities.

However, supporting and voting for the BNP will not prevent Perfluorooctane Sulfonate being ingested by the people of Hemel Hempstead. Indeed, it is unlikely that many BNP supporters and members could say or spell perfluorooctane sulfonate let alone have the intellectual wherewithall to know how to go about banning it.

Martyn.Have you ever thought that some peoples cynisism and mistrust,are directly related to the lack of compassion and peace in their hearts of the criminals,rapists ,muggers,murderers who live amonst us in our daily lives.Its only natural some people will become bitter and resentfull.

I've always said that the bad side of human nature will always ruin the ideals of Socialism.The criminals and 'bad barstards' that are hundreds of thousands amonst us, use your tollerance and compassion (gullibility and doged denial of whats staring you in the face) to damage and destroy the very society you purport to care so much about.

Well, I for one am getting pretty tired of the "nazi" "racist" "facist" card being played-------- TOO OFTEN. It's enough to turn a person into a tory. Those words are becoming ineffective because they have been used too often and improperly. Although people are quick to distance themselves from "political correctness", they often present us with classic specimens of PC fascism. You can usually tell this when they fold whatever views they have into an unctuous solicitude for a penalized minority.

What some liberal yahoos of the New Left who have a ready store of social causes that require no thought and confers instant moral authority on all those who profess to champion them need to understand that it is they who have become closet fascists posing as 60's liberals.

The left these days does have a monopoly on travesty of benevolence, asinine unction, and clammy compassion. I'll give them that much.

I notice george orwell's ghost popping up on a lot of political sites ... everyone ought to realize that this really is orwell's century-- sad to say. And the public is getting massacred by both The left and the right. The New Left has really excelled though in creating new categories of THOUGHTCRIME. The right has been content to exploit people, but at least they leave them alone in their misery with a little bread and some circuses to stave off boredom. It is hard to say who is worse.

I really would like to get the left back, but I fear that the patient has become terminal at this point. It's sad.

I think a fair debate about immigration is needed in britan ... the british people are being asked to open up hearth and home, and they are getting tired of being bashed by the PC Thought Police and Goon Squads. It is really sickening what liberals have done with immigration and multi racialism in britian and I urge everyone to reject the new tyranny of "political correctness" and Neo Liberalism.

"The revolution is as revolting as the everyday life of conformance and submission" Henry Miller

For those socialists who rejoiced in May 1997 after Blair's reforms had transformed the party and made it electable calling them Tory simply isn't a powerful enough insult. Blair is after all a tory and proud of it. It is probably this more than anything else that is the source of the friction between him and Brown.

When I started this thread I'd just read about Blunkett – and I'll come to this creep in a second - locking up children who, so far as I could make out hadn't actually committed a crime, been charged with anything or found guilty of anything. I could use the excuse that the thread was booze fuelled since I'd just had a goodly slug of JD and, bearing in mind that I'm pretty much tee total most of the time, I was Nolan'd.

It was bad enough that a tory had hijacked the Labour party. What I couldn't get over was that the home secretary, supposedly a socialist, had seemingly abandoned all the principles he'd espoused thus far in his career.
Clearly his only motivation was the furtherance of his own political career and the acquisition of power. Making the life of anybody else any better was simply not on the agenda.

But for me this was a side issue. One of particular nastiness to be sure but a side issue nonetheless.
The big issue was the inexorable move to war, to an invasion of another country that posed no threat, even to it's nearest neighbours, to the deaths of thousands, theft, torture, murder and the lies and distortions that were employed in an as yet unfinished campaign to justify it all.

Mick H has calmly laid out the argument in support of Blair's administration. The evidence for the progress made since new labour came to power is clear. Life could have been so good. Blair however, refuses to acknowledge his crimes, to admit that he made mistakes, to apologise for the errors of judgement. His supporters try to maintain the myth that he entered into his unholy alliance with the 2nd worst president in US history (Bush only has to get below 26% approval rating to be officially the worst) in order to deflect Bush's invasion plans or temper their impact. I don't buy it for a second. Literally millions of British people marched in the streets to protest the invasion but in our free democracy our voices were ignored. Those of us who repeatedly argued the case that WMDs did not exist i numbers if at all were ridiculed as naïve and stupid by none other than our present home secretary when he was secretary of defence. The same man incidentally who brought the BBC to its knees and is probably the person most responsible for the suicide of a government official. Like Blunkett, Blair had only one thing in mind.
The acquisition of immense power and a place in history as some sort of mega statesman.
The lives of his own electorate meant little, but not as little as the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
They have been condemned to decades of poor health care, poor education, poor job opportunities, lives led in constant fear of death at the hands of uncounted numbers of disparate extremists. Worse still for women who may well find that an incoming religious administration may not have quite the same ideas of where they fit into a free and democratic society as does Tony Blair.

So to call Blair, Blunkett, Straw, Reid and the rest of the self serving, pompous, arrogant shit bags is, for me, aside from being wholly accurate, inadequate. They're fascists, in the same way the Thatch was a fascist and their foreign policy decisions prove it.
(Interesting to note that Straw in attempting an inner lefty revival just recently found himself in no doubt as to the true nature of the current UK political administration – an object lodged very firmly up the arsehole of America)

Rather gratifyingly, just to affirm that the world hasn't gone completely wonky, David Cameron has just been on the radio explaining why he thinks it might be a good idea to repeal some aspects of the Human Rights Act.
New Labour is scum. The real Tories are even scummier.

What, the principle of being week on crime,and letting the thugs rule society? Bastard!


Many many more millions did NOT march.Maybe the voices of the silent majority were heard.As was confirmed by every survey before the event, and during time of the march.


But martyn,you are just as fascist as they ever were.The fact that your fascism is derived from the polar opposite to their beliefs,is irrelivent.Liberal-fascists are no different to right-wing fascist,apart from policy details.


Martyn, seriously. I do not feel that Britain or America are the right countries for you to live in. It seems to be making you a very angry person, by doing so.Why not abandon the trapings of the evil capitalist West that you hate so much?You've whinged about every Prime Minister and President since the beginning of time.You will no doubt moan about every single one in the future.As long as Britain and America remain capitalist and powerful in world politics ,you will always be in angst.That situation will not change in our lifetime.

Lets face it.You will never be happy or satisfied with the political make-up of Britain.EVER.Why beat yourself up,in the quest for this unobtainable utopia you dream about.You political ideoloies are in a very samll minority.As such, no one with your beliefs will ever gain power in Britain,so why not chill out and find a simpler , more peaceful life somewhere other than the two countries you hate most in the world?

You know what KLF? I've thought for along time that a lot of what you come out with is utter bollocks and wondered for almost as long why it is that you feel compelled to hang out on a web forum populated by so many people who hold such opposing political and ideological views from your own. I've even felt that fellow members have been unnecesarily rude to you. But for goodness sake man, give it a rest.

I'm a pacifist and a socialist and a feminist and most emphatically not a fascist of any shape or size or complexion.

You get upset when members accuse you of being racist. Yet you continue to espouse views and opinions which can barely be distinguished from those held by racists.



I want no part of any political movement that could be described in the manner above. It's why I felt uncomfortable in the late seventies and early eighties as a member of the trades union movement because it was clear to me that there were too many people in positons of power within the T&G, for instance, that were evil scum bags using the union for their own ends and with little or no regard for the members or the hands into which they were playing. It has taken over 30 years and meeting Itsmebarabra to understand what they were about at the time and that these arseholes are everywhere and in the US are know as porkchops. I knew something was wrong but not what it was exactly. More importantly I didn't know what I could do about it. It still rankles today for whilst I support the rights of workers to form and become members of trades unions my own experiences have been universally negative. Two nights last month I stood and sang at the top of my lungs "There is power in a union" but all the time feeling a little like the way I do when I'm in church and people are around me praying. Hypocritical.
The Thatch Knew what to do. But her ideological dreams were our socialist nightmares.
One type of dictatorship replaced by another.



Economically powerful countries in the 21st century do not need to invade other countries militarily and kill their populations. Support for this kind of behaviour is just wrong. I could easily support the UK and the US if they spent trillions of tax dollars on domestic and foreign education and healthcare.

I may be many things. Deluded or naive. Even a hypocrite by my own admission but a fascist. Never in a million years. I really want to say to you what Beryl the peril has said many times but I'm trying hard not to be rude right now.

yea you know facist is an emotive word what with what hitler and his mates did and all that

martin i think youre a nice guy from what i know, and klf in a funny sort of way similar

but its certainly true there are more than a few ideologues on this board who will stick to their world view even if a space ship lands on their head with absolute evidence they are wrong, theres not much debate and people giving way and changing their view in the light of other peoples experience

my view is more cynical than all of this i dont actually think politics changes much, there is much more influence in murdochs hands than any mp including tony, there are ever more badly educated people in this country (despite what their exam grades say we all know they are yet another corrupt govt stat) who will vote for whoever the media tells them, and it saddens me that we still have masses of the country that just vote as their parents did without thinking

but i do believe in the ordinary folk having as much of the power as much of the time as possible, decide to do what they want with their own money rather than the state deciding, as much as anything because i think it leads to much more efficient decisions when the real people have the buying power

as to both conservatives and labour i think they have both become, in parliament, pretty unbalanced and less representative of ordinary folk, there maybe more women (and even more if cameron gets his way), but these are over-represented by people who have spent their careers in public sector, teachers, local govt staff etc, still too many lawyers, and way more public school boys in high office than i remember at any time in my lifetime, this leads to bad decisions and lack of contact with ordinary folk

I could almost have said that myself. Actually what I will say is that I think there is as much if not more influence in the hands of multinational corporations than those of politicians. They're in each others pockets- hands, pockets, did you see what I did then, , for the most part each feeding off the other.



Here we differ because when it comes to spending it's difficult to legislate for abject stupidity. Where would the line be drawn? How many cyclists and ramblers would be happy with "their" money being spent on motorways for instance. I exepct most members on the BBF would like to opt out of spending on Trident or the proposed replacement. If enough people opted out of the NHS in favour of private health care then the system would collapse leaving most people with no healthcare at all. The state has to decide where our money goes. If it were othewise I don' t think we'd actually have a state in the accepted sense.



If by this you mean they are out of touch with reality, I'd agree. Cameron is banking on the electorate seeing him as some sort of shinier, fresher, greener, non presidential version of Blair. He'sworking hard at it except that the electorate has seen this show before. The curtain went up in 1997 and it's still on. We can see the strings now, and we notice the walls wobbling. When the curtain falls I'd like to think that the electorate will be reluctant to see the show again even if it does have a younger lead.

Well, I agree with you martin about Iraq ... at the time I too didn't believe that the WMD's were a threat (I was right) and I also felt that the war in Iraq would be a quagmire for the US and Britan (I appear to be correct about that too).

I also believed and still believe that going into iraq in the fashion we did would create 1000's of new enemies against the west in the islamic world of 1.3 billion people.

I do believe that the united states, britan and the west needs to fight a strong war against islamic fundamentalists terrorists ... but I disagree on how that war has been conducted. I don't have much sympathy for the folks who believe the United States "deserved" the terror attacks on 9-11. Nobody likes war but sometimes civilizations must fight them. As Ghandi said, "it is better for men to fight wars than to be slaves, if that is the choice".

It is very difficult to be a pacifist in the world today. I respect people who take this position but I also ask them to respect my position which I feel is based on some of the stark exigencies and realities of life. My personal belief is that sometimes you need to fight. We should go to great lengths to avoid it, whenever possible however.

re "Here we differ because when it comes to spending it's difficult to legislate for abject stupidity", well we disagree within a spectrum we are not in total disagreement i feel

i certainly wouldnt want children being used as chimney sweeps or a modern equivalent, and therefore i feel the state is important for setting some basic ground rules

however it gets carried away and sets too many rules, and enforces far too few of them

re "then the system would collapse leaving most people with no healthcare at all" in lots of practical ways the system has already collapsed and is dropping ever further down the pipe of unacceptable service - the british people will pull the plug on it one way or another sooner or later, and just like trabants its a failed experiement in the state telling the people whats good for them rather than letting the people decide, there is a difference between the state funding basic health care in extreme for those that need it and a state which takes all the meaningful decisions, the former could be justified and organised the later leads to waste and inefficiency and poor service

yea multinationals to some degree i agree, there are ways this could be improved, such as all the big pension companies etc allowing their individual policy holders to decide how the votes of their shares being held in trust are cast, stuff like this wouldnt be too hard to set up in the internet age, and would again give real people real power rather than being left in the hands of a few fund mangers

i know a quite a few ramblers, and as far as i can see they all use the motorway network, i dont see why they should object to contributing to it

the state needs to organise defence, police, justice, some groundrules, and put safety nets in place for people, but it should always try and let the people decide as much as possible the detail

abject stupidity is my point about the wastelands of badly educated people in different language? yep this is sad in this day and age, but brought about largely by a left leaning party controlled by public school wankers as far as i can see

i would like to see more compasion for the truely needy, and less dogmatic approaches, if someone can show they have been forced to wait for more than X months in the NHS just write them a bloody cheque, and reduce X over the years, let the patients take their cheques where they can get good treatement, this will inevitably lead to cheaper more efficient health care for us all

nope dont agree the state has to agree where our money goes at all, except for a very small percentage for defence etc

there are many injustices in the uk, mostly against the hard working undebelly of tax payers, who are just too busy working to fight back, they are taken for a ride big time

Throughout history states have found themselves in conflict with their own citizens or subjects. Perhaps if George the Third had had aircraft carriers and a fleet of A400 troop carriers and the EU had been in existence so that the UK wasn't at war with France all the bloddy time the traitorous rebel George Washington might not have been able to break away from Great Britain to form the United States.

The former leaders of the apartheid regime of South Africa must be kicking themselves that Al Qaeda didn't come into being 20 years earlier. The "war on terror" would undoubtedly have ensured the subjugation of all black South Africans for at least another half century, possibly longer.

Why do we have to fight agaisnt Islam? What is the threat from Isalm that makes its adherants so dangerous? Ordinary muslims are probably as supportive of Islaminc fundamentalists as ordinary catholics were of the IRA.



Nor do I. However I am prepared to accept that beligerance, ignorance and a flagrant disregard for cultural and religious sensitivites on the part of the west, most specifically the US directly resulted in the rise of the terrorist groups under the Al Qaeda umbrella. Moderate statesmen from Islamic nations had been warning of unrest for years. It wasn't something of which the CIA, for instance, were wholly unaware. Yet succesive administrations maintained a steadfast policy of supporting Isreal, despotic tribal monarchies and fascist dictatorships in the middle east in order to secure an uninterrupted supply of cheap oil. The US undoubtedly did not deserve the outrage that were the attacks on New York and the Pentagon but for numerous analysts around the world it came as no surprise. The surprise was that it was so long in coming.



Fight who, where and for how long?

Saddam Hussein didn't put troops ashore at Newhaven or Bude. He was not supporting Al Qaeda. Indeed Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam almost as much as he hated the oppressors of Islam in the west. Saddam was their puppet. A fascist that supressed religious freedom and fostered secularism. Al Qaeda must have rejoiced at the invasion of Iraq even more enthusiastically than Bush supporters in the US.

And indeed we should go to great lengths to avoid conflict yet the current US and UK administrations did everything they could possibly do to ensure that conflict took place sooner rather than later.

The War on Terror can never be won. Without communism and the Soviet Union the Military Complex had no raison d'etre so a new one has been created. All the essential ingredients exist. Fear, Ignorance of your "enemy" engendering hatred, but with the advantage of the enemy being absolutely anybody at all you fancy having a pop at for whatever reason.

On top of all this military insanity we now suffer from having hundreds of years worth of hard won civil liberties stripped away under the false pretence of it being for our protection against terrorist attack.

So, whilst it is undeniably true that terrorists exist and operate in numerous countries in attempts to achieve various goals the "war on terror" has only one aim; to suppress freedom of expression and political and economic dissent in hitherto free and democratic countries.




The NHS is in danger of failing but not for the reason you state.
It might eventually fail, I fear, because it has been so spectacularly successful. The investment by the state has led to innovation and technolgical advances. Highly complex interventions have become commonplace and all this has led to levels of expectation amongst the population that is rapidly becoming economically unsustainable, particularly when you take into consideration the general extensionn in lifespan we're enjoying at the same time as the drop in birthrate. The NHS can never make money, only spend it.
The more medicine advances the more people want and the more it costs.
Giving the populace no choice at all about the funding is the only way to sustain universal healthcare.
The moment people are allowed to opt out of parting with a proportion of their income that goes to fund the NHS will be the beginning of the end.
The wealthy, whilst currently able to pay without noticing and still buy private healthcare obviously won't notice very much difference if teh NHS goes. The middle classes, will eagerly opt out in the misguided belief that they'll be served better only to realise too late that they were mistaken and rapily becoming poor. Whilst the poor will be doomed to abject misery instead of the dull grinding misery they encounter everyday at present.

They would be "the truly needy" but who would decide exactly who they are and what they are going to be offered and at what cost?

[quote name='the klf' date='May 13 2006, 12:42 PM' post='174483']
[quote]Lets face it.You will never be happy or satisfied with the political make-up of Britain.EVER.Why beat yourself up,in the quest for this unobtainable utopia you dream about.You political ideoloies are in a very samll minority.As such, no one with your beliefs will ever gain power in Britain,so why not chill out and find a simpler , more peaceful life somewhere other than the two countries you hate most in the world?
[/quote]

haha... He can always go live among the poor in venezuela or in zimbabwe ... those countries are are embracing socialism and communism and the people are excepted to be miraculously lifted out of poverty to a bright shining path now that the evil shackles of the west have been removed... it's expected, so they tell us, any day now.

He could also go live in india where 1 in 6 people is born into slavery ... but I hear that the people of that country are more "spiritually free" than in the west.

For me, I will be having cocktails at the Connaghaut in the Captains Lounge, should anyone care to reach me.

It might eventually fail - it is failing, i've seen very ill people walk out of A & E and go home in agony because they just couldnt stand the wait, the dirty conditions, or the attitude of the staff, ive seen people sell everything theyve got to get an operation privately that the nhs should have got done quickly but didnt, etc

I fear, because it has been so spectacularly successful - bollocks, the health industry worldwide has moved on by leaps and bounds, precious little innovation has come from the nhs, unless you count spectacular ways to waste money

The investment by the state has led to innovation and technolgical advances, the money spent by uk govt has largely gone on waste and inefficiency, innovation and tech advances are now mainly done elsewhere and the nhs catches up if at all several years late, the nhs cannot even get the cheap things like cleanlisness or proper triage right

Highly complex interventions have become commonplace, time moves on,car engines are more complex, dont mean we wait in shit holes waiting for our car to be serviced does it?

and all this has led to levels of expectation amongst the population, as much as anything people have travelled and can see how good hospitals are abroad compared to the nhs

that is rapidly becoming economically unsustainable, correct, but not because we are not putting enough in, rather it is being spent inefficiently because of who controls the money

particularly when you take into consideration the general extensionn in lifespan, no thanks to the nhs

we're enjoying at the same time as the drop in birthrate, is this right? plenty of extra population from immigrants and their high kiddy count

The NHS can never make money, only spend it. - hospitals should make money it would incentivise them to do better and inovate

The more medicine advances the more people want and the more it costs. not necessarily, dont think so, and if people want to add to what the basic levels of funding are they should be allowed to without having to opt completely out of the nhs

Giving the populace no choice at all about the funding is the only way to sustain universal healthcare. Well I agree basic state care in the UK should be funded from tax, and that this should be compulsary, where we differ is that i think its obvious when it comes time to get the money back out of the system the patient should just be given a cheque (or voucher or whatever) and be free to spend it wherever they like - including taking it to a foreign hospital, thereby placing the providers in a competitive position and forcing them to get their act together

The moment people are allowed to opt out of parting with a proportion of their income that goes to fund,
yep with you so far,
the NHS, nope they should pay into a pool of money but when they are entitled to a payout they should get the money and the buying decision, and not the local nhs trust

the sooner the end of the nhs as it is comes the better

its a fucking disgrace

Just to get the thread back ON Topic, not that discussing the pros and cons of the NHS isn't a worthwhile passtime, I offer more evidence that the current UK administration will dilute civil liberties to the point at which they are meaningless and may juts as well do away with the criminal justice system as it stands.

What kind of political system is it that can allow a goverment to simply choose which laws it is going to follow?
Why bother with the two methods of making law when clearly one,



...is a complete pain in the arse for politicians with an eye on the history books of the future.

Let's just stick with...



and do away with judges, barristers and solicitors altogether.

While we're at it lets dispense with the ball ache process of actually debating bills and just introduce tehm whenever we feel like it.
Oh wait...we're already doing that. It's called the Legisaltive and Regulatory Reform Bill

Of course if anybody decides they don't want to go along with any of this we'll want to know exactly who they are and keep an eye on them. Perhaps we might arrest them as enemy combatants, imprison them and deny them access to representation or even the knowledge of what they are accused.

So let's introduce biometric ID cards.

T. Blair, Labour Party conference, Brighton, 1995.

Aaah but we're at war now, eh Tone?

New Labour - New Nazis!

its easy when they pass a law requiring id cards just tell them to piss off and join the mass non carrying of cards that im sure most normal folk will take up

they carnt lock us all up

fuck em

Our Leader is losing it.

Blair sparks new deportation row



Seems Tony is comfortable with the deaths of a few deported criminals in return for a higher popularity rating.

Nice man.

Blair is clearly a desperate man. His time is up.

YOU seem comfortable with the death of a few of OUR citizens, as an inevitable consequence of failing to deport dangerous foriegn nationals

Whos the crackpot? Putting the safety of dangerous criminals with no right to be in this country,over the safety of the public at large?

Sounds like the perfect description of the PC-FarLeft.You've taken the piss and surpressed debate for too long.The people have had enough.The fightback to reclaim our values,justice and fairplay has started.The ball is rolling.Common sense is back in fashion, over draconian blinkered ideology.And arn't yourselfs and The guardian throwing your toys out of the pram and spitting the dummy,as a result. In being greedy and wanting it ALL you way.The backlash will leave you with nothing ,but a Tory government.Don't say you wern't warned.

Won't happen anyway - Britain would have to leave the EU first.

Not to change our Lawlords 'interpretation' of the exisiting laws.
Yes, we would have to leave the EU to abandon both Acts.But as Blair has said previously.There are mechanisms in place to opt out of parts (or sections) of any given Act.Although that would be a last resort,IF overhualing our own Lawlords doesn't redress the balance.

John Reid looks like he has started on the road to either watering down the id cards or scrapping them altogether, so not very like the nazi's who have sewn yellow stars on strippy uniforms.

And cancelling police force mergers somewhat unlike forming a totalitarian state.

I expect that Gordon Brown will sucessfully complete House of Lords reform before the next election just a tad different to burning down the Reichstag!!!

So what does this mean then?
From the BBC Tuesday, 11 July 2006, 19:11 GMT 20:11 UK


Is it, as my cynicism suggests, a fucking lie to keep the ID card supporters happy and the left wrong footed whilst he shelves the whole godawful scheme forever?



This would be due entirely to the solid opposition and potential non cooperation from Chief Constables all over the country faced not just with possible demotion, salary reductions or the sack,but loss of power.



Well about fucking time!
I voted for Bliar in 97, just like I'd voted labour when I turned 18. And just like I voted Labour at every election, local and general since then, except the last. I did so in the belief that the house of lords would either be shut down or stripped of much of it's power. It hasn't happened yet and Bliar's been in office since May 1997.

Look, whatever excuses you, Mick H or my Dad, bless him, can come up with to justify Blair continuing in power I simply respond with "Illegal War in Iraq, Blair is a War Criminal same as GWB"
And it's all working out so well. What with stable new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and Muslims throughout the world, especially India, jolly and happy with the way the west treats them and their natural resources. The Lebanese must be delighted with the surprise State visist from Isreal this evening to their international airport in Beirut.

Mart,

The reason that I keep coming back to this post is it's an ugly lie. I don't want Blair anymore I never said I did. I have defended the Labour party/government from ultra left carping, as I am a centre left social democrat and domestically labour has delivered many things record spending on health and education, record levels of public servants who are buying houses and spending their wages in supermarkets thereby boosting the ecomony, Remember the minimum wage/surestart/new deal/various tax credits designed to make work not benefits the attractive option.

Civil partnerships and a ban on fox hunting/equalization of the age of consent and repeal of section 28, I have a list of about 500 proggressive things I could list but I suspect you get my point by now.

Internationally labour has been great for Africa with debt relief and aid, it's pushed this agenda so it's disapointing about Iraq but remember that more Labour MPs voted against the war than LD/Con/SNP.

I hope and expect that Brown will abolish charitable status on public schools that the Lords reform will be finished and the funding of political parties will be seriously reformed. I do however expect that Brown will "balance" this by some kind of "privatisation" or further "public sector reform"

Not socialist but not Tory or Nazi either

Just a point on Mick's post.
Banning fox-hunting progressive? I would have thought it depended on your point of view.
I like foxes and all animals. But I thought the hunters should have been allowed to continue their bloodsport.
What harm did it do really?
Does that make me 'unprogressive?'

Because fox hunting is barbaric, stupid and entirely unneccesary. They kill less foxes than roadkill yet claim they "have" to do it to keep numbers down. The ones they do kill are done so in an extremely cruel way.
Fox hunters shouldn't get anything more than a kick up the arse in my opnion and certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue "their" blood"sport".

We've had this conversation many times on the forum and I believe Toby may well have banned us from talking about the fox hunt ban after the last one got slightly heated so that is all I'll say on the matter.

Probably about as delighted as Israel were, when the Lebanese killed and kidnapped some their soldiers.

What is?

The New Labour New Nazi thing?

I've sort of but not quite apologised for this more than once using the excuse/reason that I was the worse for at least two, possibly three, generous glasses of Jack Daniels the night I started the thread.

I've also acknowledged the well made points about the achievements that have been made since 97 in relation to the NHS, the poor, the low paid and lots of other stuff. Now I'll have to admit that since the demise of Blunkett the overall complexio of the home offie has changed somewhat since it was his evil minded influence that had me so excersised in the first place. This doesn't, however, alter my still strongly held belief that many of the measures introduced since 9/11 by a "socialist" government have been so radically authoritarian in their scope and malevolence that only those introduced by the National Socialists in the Germany of the thirties can compare.

For my own part I've jumped somewhat from the frying pan into the fire by moving from Blairs UK to Bush's US. But I continue to insist that support for the US in Iraq was and is not only Immoral but Illegal and that the welter of new measures and laws being introduced, seemingly daily, to deny ordinary people freedom of movement and speech and legal representation, smacks of nothing less than overt fascism.

My suggestion is that if they look and smell like nazis, then they are nazis. They don't have to wear black uniforms with lightning flashes on the collar. Armani suits cannot disguise their intent. That of absolute control tolerating no dissidence. Blairs recent response to the latest news concerning ID cards is a case in point. We're wrong, he's right. Who are we, the electorate in a democracy to question his judgement on these matters? He gets angry and is clearly, truly irritated by the workings of the democratic process and the judiciary ( see also the former afghan hi-jack case and his response). Would that he could do away with such nuisances.

Imagine what could have been achieved for Africa, the NHS and Europe had we not been embroilled in his ludicrous illegal adventure in Iraq with the worst president the US has EVER had.

If the Lebanese were genuinely surprised at the Israeli incursions, then they must be really fucking stupid.
I've no doubt that they are mighty pissed off, but I don't think they are surprised.they knew what they were doing.

I don't doubt for a moment that they weren't surprised. The worlds media perhaps was. It was my little joke. These visits to foreign nations by world dignitaries are often described by the media as "flying" and "surprise". I expect the folks in the green zone knew GWB was going to be there a few weeks back but it was a "surprise" to the rest of us wasn't it? Isreal's visit was unarguably a flying one if not a surprise. Isreal chooses, like the US, to conduct its foreign policy in a robust fashion and never mind how many civilians get whacked so long as the message is clearly delivered and the civilians are arab.

Since we're on the subject of Isreal in a thread about neo nazis: How much like the people who tried to destroy their culture, faith and race does a society have to become before they see it themselves?

Yeah, the Nazis would have allowed uncontrolled mass immigration into their county. They would have allowed the European courts to rule and overrule most of their policy making. They would not have intervened in Zimbabwe .They would have let Ken Livingstone ride roughsode over their Capital. ..etc..etc

GET REAL.New labour new Nazis.???Anyone who seriously believes that,or even has the cheek to write that phrase, is totally AWAY WITH THE FAIRIES

Was gonna post this on the "Okay people, lets hear it then...Criminals" thread, but this one seems about right:

Tony Blair's Top Fundraiser Arrested

Is this big news over there ?

It's news, but not massive news.It might becomes massive news if charges are forthcoming.
I just don't know what the fuck needs to happen before people wake up to the fact that the honours system is no fucking way for a modern democracy to operate.

Bit more fuss at the mo' with a few back - benchers getting a bit peeved that Blair has 'agreed' to hand over to Brown in a style that is more 'the passing on of the crown' rather than a Democratic election of a new leader.

Interesting that gordon brown junior had a "normal birth" and was delivered by a consultant, consultants NEVER deliver normal births in the nhs, rather ordinary folk get to share a midwife, the rank pulling implied by Mrs Gordon Brown being attended to by a consultant in the nhs shows much worse corruption than anything Prescott has done

Total disgrace

Interesting that in 1984 when my then wife ws giving birth to our son Chris, she was rushed from the delivery room to theatre and he was delivered by Neville Barnes Forceps by a Mr.,not a Dr., a consultant obstetrician.

Not a disgrace.

And don't we have a thread in which a small minority of those with an axe to grind vis a vis the NHS can do so without cluttering up a thread devoted to why I think New Labour lost all semblance of being a left wing socialist party and began to resemble an extreme right wing national socialist party?

Should we have a seperate 'Nutters' thread for anyone who seriously believes that?

re "she was rushed from the delivery room to theatre" exactly, consultants only ever get to see the births which need intervention or with complications, i repeat normal births never get delivered by a consultant, unless dad is gordon brown

and if you dont think this is bad corruption i think u r mad

Mrs Brown did lose her first baby Jennifer, so lets not be too fast to condemn, Do you think the hospital may have acted off it's own back, I bet the family never asked for a consultant.

Mart,

Didn't the nazi's kill babies/children they considered not up to scratch? A far cry from Labour who... (etc etc etc)

Mick

that'll be like blair never asked to jump the queue for his heart treatment? he knew he was being jumped to the front of the queue - that is enough for me