Thetownend.com

I see he's been getting a slating this morning. I dont know whats worse, him making the mistake or the mother selling her story to the sun?

The letter just looks more like he's just got bad handwriting, than any real careless mistakes. Something that's not really that surprising considering he's half blind.

I thought it seemed like quite a nice letter.

Lets see if David Cameron does a better job when he becomes PM. BTW I detest Gordon Brown.

[url width=666 height=1491]http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d35/flammableben/brown.jpg[/url]

My favourite thing is that just above the circled "security" towards the end, it looks quite a lot like he's written "huge cunts".

he's unfit to be prime minister because he's got bad handwriting and dodgy eyesight.

I think Tans called it right, I have every sympathy for the lady, but she is bang out of order in selling her story.  I listened to a handwriting analyist on the radio yesterday, he basically said there is very little wrong with it except damned bad handwriting!!  As for spelling her son's name wrong, just look at his signature. you'd be struggling to make Gordon out of that!!

Doesn't he write in marker pen or something?

I'm sure its a berol broad pen
[url width=250 height=250]http://image1.euroffice.co.uk/_image/item/_large/282680_0.jpg[/url]

Im glad someone brought this up

The mother is coming across terribly in my opinion - very bitter and twisted -Im not a huge supporter of the PM but If Mr Brown had typed the letter - that would have been wrong - too impersonal - but he tried his best to wrote a heartfelt letter at a sad time and yes he should have had someone proof read it but he didnt - hardly the end of the world - and as for taping the call.. well I sincerley hope she didnt receive any payment from the Sun for it

And of course now the Sun has gone all tory they will take any swipe at labour that they can - newspapers should be non biased instrad just report the news, ok if Brown is doing a bad job then report it equally Cameron, but don't be biased towards one party.

If he turned up and saluted the boys back at Lyneham or Bassett, he wouldn't have to write any letters and instead speak to the parents personally.

i bet you she did...

i like the way she put the phonecall on loud speaker and then recorded it..

Turning something which should be a respectul event into a political circus seems a bit of a blair/cameron style thing to do. I think the personal notes, which up until now nobody had made a big deal of him writing, seem much more considerate.

You can understand the mother wanting to lash out at the people she feels are in part responsible for her son's death. But for a newspaper to manipulate a mother's grief like that for the sake of cheap point-scoring is quite sick. And wholly in line with the Sun's previous form. Despicable shower of shite.

i find the mother quite disgusting in all this that she has made a big deal about it all and even more so the sun for following it up.

Would she rather GB not bother writing a letter at all.

I know he's not the best PM but give the guy a break. so what if he can't spell properly and his hand writing is shit

I normally let these threads pass by, but FFS disrespectful?, is it hell, at least he tried and didn't get some minion to type a letter up, so what if he cant spell. She's the disrespectful one selling souls for cash.

Absolutely agree.
Sorry for the woman losing her son, of course I am, but she is making a bit of a show of herself dong all this.

Is she fit?

No.

If you like craggy, rough, acient old hags?

get in

Maybe she doesn't look at her best when her son's just died

but if your going on national TV??????? surely.......... OK maybe just me then???

Don't forget the Sun would want only the best - and they organised all the interviews - make her come over as the woman who has received a letter with "spelling" mistakes regarding the tragic death of her son.

Think the Sun may have dropped a bollock here, though. It's clear they're trying to smear Brown, but this could see him win a lot of sympathy.

I agree with most of you. To take time out from running the country to write a handwritten note appeals to me far more than getting an assistant to type the usual shit.

Whether you think he's a good PM or not, there are far bigger issues to discuss than his fucking handwriting!

The issue with bad handwriting is that it makes it look like you've put no care into what you've written. My handwriting is rubbish whether I put care into it or not so I can sympathise in that respect.

It does look a bit like a back of a fag packet job though.

Huge sympathy for the mother.  She must be going through hell.  But when her feelings have had time to take some shape, I think she will regret having carried out her grieving in public.  As Paul and others have said, the Sun is manipulating an unstable woman for profit, and she possibly doesn't see this.  She will.  'Outrage' is becoming a devalued commodity.

Lets put it this way

Whilst the mother must be in an absolute terrible state, my blame does not rest with her.

This whole situation has been stirred up by the hacks at the Sun and the N.O.T.W who quite blatently have hung their hats on the Tory campaign.

Expect to see a lot more of this in the next 6 months


EDIT :  Ooops sorry Juddie, just read your post

Agree somewhat with this. there will be people saying, atleast he has taken the time to contact the family etc. which to his credit he did so.... as Fred said, watch this space really...

aside from the whole handwriting non-issue, i don't understand how someone could allow themselves to be so obviously manipulated. she's grieving and should do it in private for the sake of herself and her family, surely?

Shes angry...but the Sun episode dosnt reflect well on her as a mother in my opinion...it stinks of cashing in...

Quiet dignity and the stiff upper lip has given way to emotional incontinence.  It's the 21st century way.

eugh shes on Sky news now - Barely a tooth in her head!

I can understand her being upset about the letter. But taping the phone call when he rang to apologise and then giving it to the Sun is way out of order.

As much as you may hate gordon browns policies he i believe deep down is a decent bloke, I think this will backfire on the sun in a major way and could actually win brown some support for the humility he is trying to genuinely show.

I can't... handwritten personally by the PM, whats her problem?

Yes, but whatever your opinion on Afghanistan and Iraq, and no matter how important the loss of lives in combat is, getting Gordon over to Wiltshire once or even twice a week to talk to grieving parents is not the most important thing our government needs to be doing right now in my opinion.

It's fucking diana's fault. Silly bitch.

Apparently Crippen was a decent bloke.....not that ime saying that GB messes with acid....then again that handwriting.

Of course he's gonna have crap handwriting, he can't tell how far away the page is!!!


This woman needs to shut the hell up. She's just as bad as the sun in all this

Worse in my opinion..

Despicable behaviour by this woman in my opinion.Alll GB's "m's" look like "n's".Its obvious he's writing about her son so whats the problem if he's spelt it wrong anyway.Absolutely cynical to tape the call,hope she donates her fee towards a new helicopter.Just seen her on the news"I hope he has sleepless nights about this" she said.Well I'm sure he had plenty of sleepless nights when his own daughter died-at least mrs Janes knew there was a risk of a soldier dying in a war you dont expect your new child to die.Sorry-I do respect the servicemen who die in any conflict but this woman has really riled me up.

The government should expand the armed forces and the services they provide. Sign up all the old manufactoring base and use them to make our own helicopters. Offset the cost with the decreased spending on buying expensive private built helicopters and by selling our helicopters to other countries. Maybe expand into other areas. British built eco-cars, stadiums, cancer drugs, schools, cigarettes, food, etc.

Any extra cost could be provided with by printing extra money, or quantitative easing, or whatever it's called now. Limit the risk of high inflation by making the new currency take the form of cigarettes. Smoke inflation away.

Wouldnt it just be easier...less expensive and no heartache at all if we didnt send our troops to fight wars that arnt our problem.
Pesonally if i was to die as a soldier i would want it to be defending my own country.
These young lads are dying for no other reason than following the yankee trend.

The only way to make soldiers safe is not to send them.

I've just read the "Junior Officers Reading Club" (put it on your christmas list if you haven't read it yet) and in his view, all the "we've haven't got the right kit" stuff from politicians and parents is embarrassing to them.

And yeah, this woman is being played and it's a shame and the sun should be ashamed.

I was against the Afghanistan war to start off with, but I think that pulling out now would be worse that going in in the first place. History says that it's a difficult area to occupy, but we (us and the US and the UN) haven't made it easy for ourselves: Badly handing the the Heroin production. Rebuilding the infrastructure of the country through outside contractors instead of using Afghans who could do it. Making the existing civil service of teachers and doctors unemployed over night and then trying to re-do everything through 'aid'.

Pulling out now would leave Pakistan exposed to some big(ger) de-stabling. It would be like some modern day vikings trying to liberate the horrible land of Essex, giving up, and expecting the slightly less horrible land of London unaffected. Or something. I'm not sure that really works. Maybe Cornwall and Devon would fit better.

Back on subject, it is pretty low from The Sun, but sort of expected. Wasn't it back in '92 that they "won" the election for the Tories? It's not in their interest to show the decreasing importance of themselves ant the rest of the British Press. Solution? Heavily back the party which is almost certainly going to win whatever happens.

As Juddie and a few others said, this won't damage Brown, it will help him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is all a carefully choreographed publicity stunt. The whole letter thing that is, i mean spin doctors are intelligent people and i've read enough marketing shit and buyer psychology crap where they state that typos, spelling mistakes and poor punctuation work to great affect when used correctly...

It's all used to bring that which is considered of high authority, down to the level of the generic reader and stoke their empathy glands. I mean look at it from that perspective, it's pretty much a home run. If it wasn't planed it is the luckiest thing to have happened to Mr Brown in my opinion.

Considering how many of Brown's PR stunts have been a bit of a disaster, I think that purposefully taunting a grieving widow, via use of an opposition supporting tabloid, might be a spin doctoring to far. I do love the cynicism though Baz.

As I said earlier, I'm more surprised that it hasn't been made a big deal of that he writes personal notes to the families earlier. There's been lots of angry relatives, and I doubt this particular one was especially bad. Slow news day for the Sun?

I love this. I have this picture of a spin doctor stroking his chin, saying "you know what we need, the PM looking like a spaz in front of a grieving mother. Reverse psychology innit."

If Brown's spin doctors are that good then Cameron is fucked. Maybe there is hope after all?

Well you have a few good points. Brown has certainly never had anything clever or intelligent displayed by any PR guru who may be working for him. I just get a bit excited sometimes. And although i'm often very cynical, lets not forget that little is beyond the limits of low to which politicians will go. Also, using an opposition tabloid would be totally what they'd need, it removes any doubt from someone that it's a stunt, because they conclude the feelings on their own, not because an opposing paper told them "isn't it nice".

He could have sent many, many letters of that style, to many, many grieving people all on someone's advice, all in the hope that just one gets printed in an opposing paper. Papers on his side wouldn't print them, so they just have to sit back until someone like the latest person sends it to an opposing paper. Game on.

The number 10 spin doctor room:

Spin Doctor: So the plan is to write letters of condolence, by hand, until one of them gets pissed off and goes to the Sun.
Brown: Won't that be a lot of effort? I've got a shit load of stuff to do. Did you know all the banks are fucked?
Spin Doctor: No, it's genius. You just have to write five hundred, maybe a thousand, hand written letters over the course of two years in order to buy you maybe one or two days of bad publicity.
Brown: I liked doing it. I thought it was low-key and respectful.
Spin Doctor: No. It's revese psychology innit.
Brown: Why don't I just spit in someone's face?

It's not reverse psychology. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else personally thinks of Gordon Brown, the fact is nearly everyone will hold him, in their minds, in a position of power, a position greater than there own and someone to be feared. This makes them untouchable, beyond the realm of regular people. It means you find it difficult to empathise with them and even more difficult to understand and take on board anything they say, because, they are so far removed from regular reality. They're simply just not part of the people, or general population.

By spelling badly and writing badly, it hits a cord with everyday man. A lot of people can't spell, alot of people don't write good. You instantly feel a connection. It brings Brown, a feared man, well above regular man, down to the level of Mr Normal; one of the people. It makes many people see him as like them, because they worked that out on their own, in their own minds from reading something already emotionally charged, the death of one of the people.

Or something like that. :)

I'm normally a cynical fuck too, but the fact that none of his PR people have highlighted that he hand writes letters to the war dead whilst he's been in charge makes me think that:

A) That like you it was a crazy long game, it would come out eventually and work in his favour.

B) Just a nice thing to do.

C) A combination of the two, maybe doing something nice can be just nice, and worth good PR without getting all cynical about the reasons.

I'm not a big brown fan. Actually that's not completely true. I disagree with his Thatcherite new labour policies as much as I did with Blair, but I think he's a better PM. His problems stem from the fact that he bottled calling an election soon after he got in charge. Fractions in the party betwen Blair-ites, Brown-ites, and Old Labourists, leave him with not enough power to control all of them and he's been left a bit impotent.

He must seriously regret not calling that election, at worst he would have got a hung parliment, but at least he'd have had some actual support to back himself up with.

It seems unlikely that it will happen, but I'd prefer a renewed Gordon, with a real mandate to rule than the tories.

I think that the labour dissatisfaction is nothing compared to the dangers of a David Cameron desperate to get Euro-Sceptics onside. That and (bigger) public spending cuts worry me.

Saying that I'll probably vote lib-dems. It depends on what sort of libdem is running here. They're a party also split, with them it's between social + market libertarianism and just being socially liberal.

Wait and see I guess. There's months to go.

I want Brown to win. Camerons a smug twat, whereas Browns a loveable oaf.

Everyone loves a loveable oaf.

Oi Jacqui James

i iz well sorri for dat letta innit.
just wan2 let u kno ur son woz sick in helmet prison
an woz fiteing for a gud cauze

safe

Gordon Brown

Tb x

Sadly the UK has a large population of working class morons, told what to think and who to vote for by the Sun. Sadly they will vote for an old Etonian personally worth about £40m and his rich pals to run our country for their own benefit.

The Sun = Scum. Good to see them showing their true colours at last.

Brown is a ****, definitely an oaf, totally out of touch with the general public and close to being one of the most hated PMs of all time.

I think you're exaggerating there.  There is nothing remarkable about the way the public feels towards Brown.  Just a text book case of the Labour Party having been in for too long and the electorate being ready for a change.  This doesn't even come close to the way sections of the public were baying for Thatcher's removal 20 odd years ago.

The man is an non-elected baffoon. Total exaggeration on the 'most hated' bit. Maybe I just hate the man, and, I have not once heard a positive or likeable comment ever made about the bloke by the general public.

I loved Maggie Thatcher by the way.

well if Cameron gets in, god help all of us.

This country's f*cked which ever way you look at it. All politicians are cnuts.

There's a big problem with the whole concept of democracy, in my view.  Politicians are held in such low regard by just about everyone - so who would now want to become one?  In time (and this is probably happening already), a lot of the talent that may have considered public life will simply not bother.  The calibre of elected politicians in 30 years from now is likely to be lower (yes, lower) than it is now.

I actually feel quite sorry for Brown.  Blair was basically hounded out of office because he was found out.  People were sick of the focus on spin & presentation and the lack of substance.  Brown comes in.  For a few months it's like a breath of fresh air.  He's an old fashioned type of politician with very little time for the presentation side of things.  He's more of an intellectual and just wants to get on with the job.  Slick?  Not a chance.

So what is he being attacked for now?  Lack of 'empathy' and presentation skills...the very things we disliked about Blair when he spent to long focussing on them.  I think the public needs to make its mind up.

I have never loathed a politician as much as I do Brown. I probably dislike him as much as some dislike Margaret Thatcher.
However, I do think that the Sun was wrong to publish the transcript of the letter. All it does is show that hios handwriting is bad.  I don't blame the Mother, she is lashing out at Brown & Co in the only way she can. (And it was revealed that she WAS not paid for it). She sees him as partially responsible (with some justification) for her son's death.
They should instead have focused on what she was saying, ie. the questions on lack of equipment & support for our troops in Afganistan. Particularly when you consider that last week the goverment gave the banks 3 x the amount of the annual defence budget yet at the same time still haven't sent the extra troops requested or the helicopters etc etc.

ardiles makes a good point. Who would want to get into politics, such is the distrust of every party?

Hypocrisy times a million.

[url width=858 height=832]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4907/thesunmistakecrop.jpg[/url]

OMG!!!! is that real?

Did she inform the prime minister that she was doing this? if not, she is breaking the law!

i was going to say more or less this.
it's a 2 horse race between brown and cameron.i will be voting labour in the next general election

The following lyrics sum it up for me. Not a lot has really changed in the last 50 years has it

It was just before dawn
One miserable morning in black 'forty four.
When the forward commander
Was told to sit tight
When he asked that his men be withdrawn.
And the Generals gave thanks
As the other ranks held back
The enemy tanks for a while.
And the Anzio bridgehead
Was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives.

And kind old King George
Sent Mother a note
When he heard that father was gone.
It was, I recall,
In the form of a scroll,
With gold leaf and all.
And I found it one day
In a drawer of old photographs, hidden away.
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His Majesty signed
With his own rubber stamp.

It was dark all around.
There was frost in the ground
When the tigers broke free.
And no one survived
From the Royal Fusiliers Company C.
They were all left behind,
Most of them dead,
The rest of them dying.
And that's how the High Command
Took my daddy from me.

Woot! A thread on politics :D

I completely agree Juddie. You have to be a cunt to want to be in any position of power over others. Evil, corrupt and disgusting, politics attracts that type of personality.

And we should never have been in Iraq or Afghanistan either. Total madness.

On another note I found it rather ironic that today I observed two minutes silence for the hundreds of thousands of men and women who died to keep Great Britain a sovereign independent nation, when on 1st December we lose our sovereignty because of the Lisbon Treaty and become part of the European super state. The politicians have sold us out. Germany won after all.

They died in fucking vain.

http://albionalliance.org.uk/ (http://albionalliance.org.uk/) for anybody who gives a shit about their country and lifestyle.

And I give you Clarkson at his very best as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6907747.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6907747.ece)

Fucking hell, just in case you hadn't realised who was really running the country http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/11/mandelson-tipped-as-information-minister

The last Information Minister I remember was the Iraqi one, who was hilarious. I'd like Mandelson to do something like that "We are not behind in Polls, Gordon is simply waiting for the opportune moment to crush the usurper Cameron!"

Respectfully, this is all a bit numpty-ish. And I'll apologise in advance for any offence caused, because I'm going off on one.


This is insulting to those who died. World War Two was a choice between freedom and fascism. The Germans aren't fascists anymore, so by any reckoning, it looks like we won.

To describe WWII as being primarily about British Sovereignty is a pretty sad and defeatist way of looking at it.

We threw the kitchen sink at the Nazis in WWII. We got to the stage where we knew we had given everything - in people, in wealth, in effort - til there was nothing left. They knew, even when they were still fighting, that when we won Britain would be so knackered that it meant the end of the Empire, the end of our place at the top table in the world. And given that choice, we said "bring it on".

Britain broke itself on the wheel, knowingly and bravely, in order to win the war. Because we had to win and we never give up.

Not for some shitty "little englander" mentality, but because we had to, to save the world. And we know we did and we can suck it up and take everything else on the chin.

That's the thing to remember.

Also with respect, tell me the difference between this country being run by the unelected and unaccountable and (to be honest) oppressive and dictatorial:

- Napoleon Bonaparte
- Kaiser Wilhelm
- Adolf Hitler
- EU Commissioners

None. Whatsoever. The principle is the same. The EU and state socialism is on the same plane as any of the others - if you don't believe that see how your life is being turned into one that communism or Nazism would be proud of: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6865282.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6865282.ece)

You can't see any difference between Adolf Hitler and the EU commissioners? Oh really.

PS I wasn't decrying the efforts of WWII soldiers/national intent (or WWI come to that). I am saying that the purpose was to keep this country sovereign. And now it is game over. The cunts in power have signed away everything those people died for.

No. Do you know what their intent is?

If you're struggling to see a difference between Hitler and the EU then I suggest you ask a jewish person for a clue.

I am fairley certain the EU commisioners aren't too keen on the 'blonde hair blue eyes' idea

Ask all of the muslims in Europe what they think of the EU in ten years time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/muslim-soldiers-first-world-war?showAllComments=true

Love this....also did you know more Aussies died during WW1 than British soldiers......Indian,Pakistani,African,Jewish....you name it they faught for us,many of these were from Britain......maybe Mr Griffin wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for them...the fat racist sleazy twat.

i think i can see where this thread is going...

You're a complete idiot. I don't know where to start.

We are entitled to our opinions. Wait and see.

The Commissioners are appointed by the Heads of National Governments and I believe have to be approved by the elected European Parliament (one of the few things the Parliament actually can do.) As such, you're not going to get a nutty Commissioner unless there is indirect democratic approval.

So no, I do not know any of the Commisioners personally, but as the British one is a Labour Peer who is married to the guy who founded YouGov, I doubt she's a raving Nazi.

You are indeed, entitled to your opinion. Other people are entitled to call you a loony.

Ah ok. "Appointed by the Heads of National Governments". You are wrong about being approved by the Parliament, it has absolutely no power whatsoever. So you think that Gordon Brown, Andrea Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy and the rest of the (quote Juddie - "cunts") career power mad politicians in Europe have your best interests at heart?

Fondlebum Mandelson was a commissioner. Need I say more?

You delude yourself my friend if you think that it is all fine and dandy. The massive concentration of power in Brussels after 1st December is going to affect you more than you think. Way, way more.

For a taster that we are now but an off-shore outpost of the the new state, have a read of this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6913017.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6913017.ece)

No. Cameron - under huge national pressure - repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (as amended) and get us out of this fucking mess. Then the dead soldiers will stop spinning in their graves.

Please stop talking about the soldiers like you have some sort of trademark on them. You don't.

Please stop talking about the EU in the same terms as the holocaust. It isn't.

No I won't.

Please start expanding your mind and going outside of the box.

Please start THINKING.

Sounds like a Phil Smith team talk.

Open your mind. Let us begin our quest

it's nice that we have our own resident nutjob on here

Ime sorry.

it's okay, i enjoy your posts.

but i'm bored of seeing everyone being called ignorant, blind, closed minded, stupid, blahblahblah because they don't agree with alan.

Talk Talk makes me feel more confident in my own sanity

You know your argument is in trouble when it descends to crappy management jargon. "Expand my mind" and "think outside the box"? Seriously?

It's like being lectured by David Brent. On a subject about which he knows nothing at all.

He does at times raise some valid points, just probably not in the right manner. The trouble is TalkTalk raises his points with such vitriol that it's hard to read it without having some kind of opposition to his points.

But whatever, i'm completely apathetic and i really couldn't care less about ours or any other government. Plus, my only source of current affairs is the TEF, so i'm not far off as ignorant as they come and actually have no right to have an opinion on something i know fuck all about. :)

I appreciate arguing with you is as useful as teaching an Iguana the offside rule, but I feel I must correct a few things which are patently wrong in what you say.

Firstly, I don't think that the heads of state have their best interests at heart- few Politicians put anything apart from their own interests first, but the fact is that every single EU state has an elected Head of Government (apart from us, but that's not the EUs fault) who appoints that commissioner, so unless one member state chooses a Commissioner with somewhat nutty views, we're not going to be living in a Fascist state.

Even if one Head of Government did end up being a bit suspect (and some of the Eastern European ones do tend a bit towards the extremes) the parliament does have a vote on the appointment of the commission and HAS used this in the past to get those with unusual views removed- I can't remember his name but there was an Italian chap with some interesting views on Homosexuality that was blocked.

I'm not an Europhile or anything like that Alan, but some of the stuff you come out with is plain wrong.

The most perceptive and intelligent comment from the last dozen posts. thank you Barry.

'Nutjob', 'insane', 'David Brent', 'knows nothing at all'. Yep, carry on, it is water off a duck's back.

Barry is right, I am vitriolic because so many people are blind and have closed minds on what is going on in the world and it drives me nuts. Or insane. Or whatever you want to call me. Most people have been brainwashed to accept their lot (re. that is what state schools are there for) and not to dare think beyond the status quo - and we all get shafted up the arse by government/those in power because of it. Worse still, if you voice an opinion that is outside of the acceptable mainstream then the natural instinct of the brainwashed is to attack the attacker.

We cannot continue to live like this. Self destruction is only a few years away.

Meh.

The only way this can change is through philosophy, reason and evidence. Not 'democracy'. Not politics. Not through any adjustment to the current system because it is fucked beyond hope.

Nut job. Yep. I will happily take that.

i'm happy with my lot.

i don't want to listen to you telling me otherwise.

you only have to read it here

I thought it was an innate facet of reptiles that they instinctively knew what the offside rule was? See you are wrong already. :-p

Nemo, with respect you seem to believe that there is some wonderful thing called 'democracy' at play in Britain and Europe that ensures that the elected 'representatives' pass legislation that reflects the wishes of the majority of the countries/super state.

Let me ask you a few questions.

- How many of the 3,000 odd laws that have been introduced in this country in the last ten years were you consulted on, agreed to and were happy with?
- How many of the EU commissioners did you actually vote into power?
- Were you ever asked if you wanted to be part of a European super state (as opposed to membership of a European trading association)?
- Did you personally agree or were ever consulted about 85% of the laws that apply in this country are now generated in a foreign country?
- Did you support soldiers going into Iraq or Afghanistan or were you ever asked?
- If it is ok for this country to invade Iraq with paid murderers (for that is what our soldiers really are), is it  ok for me to pay a Mafia hit man to come round your house and murder you? If not, why not?
- If it is fine for MPs and MEPs to take money from you and I under threat of prison (aka taxes) and spend it on themselves without fear of retribution, why can I not go round their (expensive) houses and at the point of a gun insist that they give me money to clear out my moat/install a new kitchen/pay for my brother to run my affairs? If not, why not?

Didn't you stand as a local councillor a few years ago?

No, as an independent MP for South Swindon. I got 193 votes.

Going through that experience made me realise how corrupt and self obsessed politicians are and pushed me in the direction of thinking that I now have.

So no, I'm not a hypocrite Sam.

At least you didn't come last Alan.

 :D

I stood on a platform of having no policies whatsoever (and I got laughed at by the LabLibCon candidates), my aim was to represent the electorate through listening to what they wanted and putting those desires forward in parliament. Which is what I thought democracy should be about?

What I learned is that the current major parties have so much money and want to preserve their positions/troughing/status quo so much that the chances of anybody outside the system having one iota of success are remote. The 'electorate' are so disenchanted with politicians - and so they should be - we have little effect on what they decide. Europe is just a bigger and more powerful/richer instance. And hence more attractive to the worst in society.

I'm through with it. But standing was a great eye opener and learning experience. Nope, voting makes no difference, they are all the same. Labour, Liberal, Conservative, UKIP, even the BNP. All in it for themselves. They do not represent us or even care about us. One day in the not too distant future we will all realise that we don't need them in any shape or form and they will be gone. Not in my life time though.

I'm not about to take a side here or even lend any weight to Talk Talk, but he hints at questions i asked myself before i decided to withdraw from propagandist media. I find it really puzzling that no one is even slightly intrigued about any of this.

I don't really care about it as such, but does nobody ever wonder about what REALLY goes on? I don't know anything and i don't profess to, but surely most people's knowledge is based on hearsay and a media that has been fed by the very political parties they want to vote over?

I'm being honest here and am honestly taking no sides, I just, you know, wonder? Does anyone ever wonder exactly what really is happening behind the scenes? Because I do not have the slightest clue and am aware i'm unlikely to ever have a clue. I find the whole thing a bit mind melting and caring about it a bit too much like hardwork if i'm honest.  :)

when you make a post like that, you actually make very valid points that i admit to finding myself agreeing with.

i just don't understand why you feel the need to come on here and basically insult us all?

On one hand, I continue to find someone who can't tell the difference between the holocaust and the EU both offensive and ignorant.

On the other hand, these last couple of posts are childlike. It's so sweet. He has absolutely no conception of how the world works and his only hope is that it will go away.

Yeah, I know James. I really do.

It's just...

I know a fair bit about psychology and I do understand my personality. What I have problems with is supressing my frustration with all that is wrong in the world and it comes out as anger. It's a real bugger.

Mainly because I know that if I stick to logic and reasoning and evidence and the Socratic method (i.e. philosophy) then others might take note and my position might be understood without antagonism and perhaps I could influence people.

I know of others that have gone through the anger thing and now speak intelligently and clearly without emotion colouring their persona. I will get there I think. In the mean time I apologise.

The other group of people who have this issue? Toddlers.
The way they deal with it? They grow up.

Right then, tell me how the world works. Answer these questions if you would be so kind.

- If it is ok for a police officer to stop and search me in the street, why can I not go to that police officer's house when they are off duty and demand that they allow me to search them?
- If letting the public have guns means that they will become more violent, why do we let soldiers and police officers have them? Do they become more violent? If not, why can't we have them?
- If forcing me to give money to the unemployed and the sick (through tax and benefits) is acceptable, why can't the unemployed or sick come round your house personally and insist that you give them money and if you don't you will go to prison?
- If drugs are 'bad' and they might lead to harmful excess and should be banned, why shouldn't everything else that might lead to excess be banned? How about exercise - it might result in compulsive physical activity? What about credit cards, they might lead to excess debt? And what about eating - it might lead to obesity?

All of the above are simple examples of universal moral principles that the state thinks that they are not subject to.

I know how the world works. There is 'us' who agree on what is right and wrong and there is 'them' who break all of our principles.

Nice one.

It might help Alan if you didn't act like you had some kind of monopoly on the truth and treat anyone who hasn't SEEN THE LIGHT as fucking idiots. And if you didn't cite right-wing knitting circles, swivel-eyed US bloggers and Jeremy Fucking Clarkson in the name of all that's holy as authoritative sources.

I'm not quoting 'authoritative sources' Paul. Sheesh, they aren't even vaguely peer reviewed. They are purely suggestions for an alternative view that the main stream media and the politicians do not reflect. Because they won't.

I don't profess to know 'the truth'. All I understand is that other theories about what is going on and how we are being (badly) used and abused by the powers that be ring true with me. As opposed to being brainwashed by the BBC et al that I think Barry was referring to.

You're as uppity as me really, ain't ya?  :D

If you're an old fashioned socialist, who should you vote for now because I'm struggling. Who actually represents the good old fashioned working man, which weas traditionally Labour's turf. There were 4 things I said I'd never do in life. Eat tomatoes or any derivative, support the Scum, engage in sexual relations with another man or animal and vote Tory. At the moment I'm seriously in danger of compromising the last one. As i want out of Europe I can vote UKIP but I'm bloody confused.  

What's your view on David Icke?

There's always Arthur's lot (joke - as in this post is, and they are)

Shit keeper

Probably something to do with the scaly attachments he masqueraded as arms

All your questions are more or less variants of the question "why does the state have the rights it has over individuals and what are the limits of those rights". These are interesting questions.

As a member of a community, you give up certain things in exchange for things better delivered as part of group. Security is the obvious thing. Insurance is another - risks are better managed when shared by a big group of us. This creates a logic for healthcare and a welfare state.

But it's important to always test the balance of rights between individuals and groups. Either through democratic institutions (like elections) or civil society (like protests) or civil disobedience.

From a political philosophy point of view, you would be at home (I'm being presumptuous here) with Robert Nozick, whose "Anarchy, State and Utopia" is an interesting rebuttal to Rawls' "Theory of Justice". I think he's a bit batty, but at least it's closely argued. Personally I like Amaryta Sen's "Development as Freedom" and his ideas on capabilities but you should read that as a counter to Nozick. Put 'em on your christmas list.

I have honestly never slept with him.

No seriously(?), the man is deranged beyond help I am afraid. If you took a twelve inch ruler and put the mainstream at zero and someone like me who is considered 'alternative' or more likely 'difficult' or probably 'a nut job' at a quarter of an inch, Icke would be somewhere at 11". Only God, Paul Davies and the tooth fairy live at the full foot.

The tomatoes thing is a bit weird. Care to elaborate?

Thanks, I will have a look.

Fuck it, You have done it now. I'm off to bed. Even I can't take a CS diatribe against tomatoes. Bloody Tomatoist.

I'm glad you don't find the other things weird. Its an unatural neurosis of mine ( not shared by many ) I've spouted on here a few times.
For once I agree with TT and i won't go into diatribe mode.

It winds me up when people do that. Like I or anyone else would know what thousands of dead people would think.

More of a general observtion more than anything aimed at anyone. I think it's one of those expressions which sometimes gets used in too serious a context.

I'm not convinced the entire British public is brainwashed, there are plenty of political parties which people can and do vote for; Open to influence and suggestion perhaps. Regardless, if the political system itself was so imbearable then there's always the option to move. It's quite ironic how a lot of people move to Britain to get away from political oppression. In that context things here really aren't that bad.

Speaking of brainwashing, a snipe over the Prime Minister's handwriting and spelling is hardly going to bring his downfall.

I blame Victoria's government for nationalising the East India Company in the late 19th Century - should have left the Empire to the companies - would never have got in this mess (apart from Afghanistan of course)

I haven't even read the last 3 or so pages of this thread, but I'll throw an oddson bet that I'll disagree with talk talk.

All this talk about Brown sending personal letter has got to give you some respect for Thatcher. She'd pen letters to Falklands widows with ink from her own dark teats. Dennis would suck out the lumps and mix it with his own saliva, then Margaret would dib her pen in his mouth.

Help help! I'm being opressed

Talk Talk has made some good points though. We have been bounced into a European Superstate run by an army of unelected officials for their own ends & to suit Germany & France. They are also a bit like new labour who seem to make laws merely to justify their own existence. Another common denominator is the willingness to lie. eg.We were promised a referendum by Brown & Co & that promise was broken.
I suspect that their love for europe is because it promises untold riches for failed politicians like Mandelson, & the Kinnocks where they can't be booted out by the electorate. Similar if you like to the House of Lords but with more money.
It's easier to answer the question of what is right about Europe than what is wrong, & probably the answer to that is the concept of free trade. (This is what we voted on in the 70's, nothing else (Thanks to the lies of Heath)).
Why can't we be like Norway, be a trading partner, but be independent. They are doing very nicely thankyou.



I look at Norway, & how well they have done by rem
 

Yes we were. In the 80s by Thatcher and Major - the damage was done by Maastricht, Lisbon just ties up the bows.

[ducks]  :)

I am afraid you are glorifying Norway's role a bit there. Norway is a trading partner through the EEA, which is an agreement for countries not wanting to be a part of the EU. The decision to join this agreement was made by the Norwegian parliament in 1992, and through the agreement, Norwegian sovereignty was handed to the ESA and the EFTA court. Norway still has to obey to several EU laws, and can only oppose them by using their veto- and Norwegian politicians are generally piss scared of using it, because they fear sanctions from the EU and being kicked out of the trading community.

Basically we're standing with one foot inside the EU and one on the outside, having to obey, but without actually being able to shape the decisions being made. To be honest, Norway's position in Europe is not something to envy- trying to be independent in Europe is, sadly, quite impossible, and the countries trying to stay independent have turned into a "rich man's club" (Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein...) They may seem "independent" but they are under the control of the EU and other NGOs as well, it's not something to envy, nor is it something to be proud of.

Mrs Sonic

you've changed sonic.i like the new you.you're less angry and arguementative.love has calmed you down i reckon.

What are you wearing

A towel. What are you wearing?

The EU Superstate was born with the Rome Treaty, way before our public voted to join in based on some words without checking the writing.  This is why votes are rubbish, a fair chunk of people are too thick to understand and a similar amount don't bother to understand.

I get Talk Talk's posts, I just can't be bothered to be too worried about the whole thing (and that includes Europe).  I suppose if my life was ever in threat I might reconsider, but until then I'll continue to avoid politics - and no, I don't complain about the Govt because I didn't bother to vote for anyone in the first place.  It's not that I am apathetic, more that I think they mean jack shit and it's the multi national companies that run the place now.  Sure, they let someone take the flak of running the country publicly, but let's not underestimate their power and influence (over the MP's, Commisioners and even us)

Couldnt have said it better myself.
Funny though talking about politics etc....my sis was getting heavies,bailiffs around her house about an unpaid council tax bill.....she had paid it but the council had messed the records up...i got in touch with the Freshbrook councillor who took it up with the leader of the council....hey presto job done...

I voted against staying in at the 1973 referendum.  The argument was that our European neighbours would aid us in time of economic need.  I didn't see pigs flying over the poll station in Stratton.         

In politics the first victim is the truth, the next victim is the person stating the truth. When Cynthia Payne ran in the 1988 Kensington by-election, she said on election night to the BBC that politics was a lot dirtier than the business that she had been in.  Gawd bless her candor.       

I'm watching the Glasgow East by election coverage on the Beeb and the turnout is 30% ish. That's a bit worrying. Also, the candidates include Mikey from (I'm told) Big Brother and John Smeaton, the guy who duffed up the Glasgow Airport Terrorists whilst they were on fire.

Well....these pages are a lot more fascinating than the average debate on STFC!  Who said interest in politics was dead??? Just to go back, for a moment, to the Gordon Brown letter, which is in so many ways symptomatic of the state of the nation.....
1) GB is a decent man.  I can say that from personal experience.  He believes in justice, and without his determination over 12 years, we would not have addressed even half-heartedly some of the major world issues that we have.
2)  He is a control freak.  His views (which are actually a lot nearer old Labour than he is credited for) are strongly held and with integrity, and because they are not necessarily 'populist' (as the Blair regime always tried to be) he has developed that iron determination to pursue them come what may - but it does make him appear impervious either to good advice, or to public opinion, or to media pressure (which for most politicians today is the number one priority!)
3)  He inherited a government that had actually been very successful in many respects, but which in key areas - Iraq, terrorism, relations with President Bush being the most obvious ones - had lost the respect of the people.  Yes, it was a gross mistake not to call an election, and he has held his hands up to that, but in those key policy areas, he was left an appalling mess - Iraq has more or less been dealt with, Afghanistan is a much more difficult situation from which to exit successfully. 
4)  He will have decided for himself to write those letters, probably against advice, from a genuine compassion for  bereaved families.  As someone who has worked in a ministerial private office, I can tell you that there will be an adviser who has got it in the neck for providing him (twice - he made the same mistake in PMs questions soon after the soldier's death) with the wrong name.
5)  If you think GB is bad, and that Blair was bad before him, just wait till Cameron arrives....Vacuous?  You ain't seen nothing yet!

Hi Gordon !

Interesting. A friend/relation of mine who works in the City and is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun was invited to one of these Tories in the City fundraising dinners. At which he spent some time with George Osborne and also met Cameron (although didn't spend so much time with him). He went to the dinner an ardent enthusiast of the next Tory government, he came away horrified, especially at the prospect of Osborne as Chancellor. "I wouldn't leave these people in charge of their own bowels, much less the nation's economy" was his considered opinion.

On the subject of the letter, he was right to write them. Hand written too was the way to go. The mistake was in allowing the letters to either go out unchecked for spelling etc, or if it was checked employing someone who hasn't done their job properly.

For me I can't blame the woman. She has lost her son, in part due to his mistakes (In her view) & GB can't even get her name right. I also hesitate to be critical of the paper because she provided the letter free  & thats what they do. It also matches up with their campaign & editorila stance that the Government aren't really taking the war in Afganistan seriously.

The problem is that for a long time now the government have continually cut defence spending. Sure it was the same before the Falklands & before the second world war too, but what really grates is the fact that they do this & lie about it.
They also give the appearance that they don't care, by appointing idiot ministers to run it & general mismanagement. It's my view that the MoD is like the home office "Not fit for purpose".
A goverments first duty is to protect the nation ie Defence. Any one can make a mistake but to continually do so is incompetent.

The problem with defence is not the total amount of spending, but what we spend it on.

Our defence setup is still fundamentally based on Cold War principles. We don't need Trident, we don't need bloody great big aircraft carriers and we don't need Eurofighter. Turn that spending onto what we need and you're playing with a much bigger budget. 

Billions of pounds of spending on defence are basically about posturing and keeping up with the Jones', rather than a realistic assessment of threat.

If what we need is force projection and the ability to fight "three block wars", then we need small numbers of highly trained, brilliantly supported infantry. Relative to Trident and Eurofighter, that costs nearly nothing.

Too much defence industry at stake to cancel Eurofighter and the carriers, and why would we give up a nuclear deterrent ?

You can't go basing defence spending on what we actually need - that would run counter to 50+ years of well-established defence procurement principles. It's all about big shiny expensive (and of course obsolete on delivery) not about what the troops need. Honestly, it's like Yes Minister never happened

I agree Trident is not needed, but we DO need the carriers to have defence capability & the ability to "project force".

Procurement is also a joke. Takes too long & because of constant changes of mind costs way too much. (Bit like the new Wembley), & half the time won't do what it is supposed to do.

Back to a fundamental though. Why is a soldier paid less than a civil servant, traffic warden etc etc. ?

Do they? Even when you take into account benefits and stuff?

Or when you say "a civil servant" are you just picking out one civil servant in particular and haven't a go that he's earning too much?

On a related note, why do Bin Men and Sewage Workers get paid less than Fire Fighters? I reckon it's a fairly safe argument that a break down in refuse collection/sanitation systems would cause more deaths than if we got rid of the fire service.

Some good points have been raised concerning the MOD,especially when it come to procurement.
There are some facts that you might be interested in.Firstly,the MOD employs 85,000 people.

Secondly,a few years ago the MOD purchased Chinook helicopters directly from Boeing,but thought
they'd be clever by purchasing at a cheap rate,with the flight software to be written by firms such
as BAE Systems.As a result,they've hardly ever flown,because they can only fly in perfect weather
conditions and the MOD refuse to go back to Boeing,because of the loss of face.The MOD also tried
to develop a new torpedo system at huge expense,it's now been scrapped,after poor results.

It isn't only the British MOD who massively overspend,the US Government spends 7% of GDP on
defence.I was told by a friend this week that it costs $250,000 for every US Soldier in Afghanistan.

In general the civil servants that are working in the UK at say Abbey wood are earning more than thge front line soldiers.  The benefits you refer to ?  Soldiers are charged for food & lodging except when actually in theatre. They both get final salary pensions, based on their salary.
Why does it take approx 80,000 civil sernants to support the armed forces that are just a few more in number ?

There's over 200,000 active personnel and as many reserves?

Oh, never let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned tabloid shlock horror story. Clearly we should send civil servants with highly sharpened pencils out to Helmand and make them fight to the death with the Taliban. It probably wouldn't be terribly effective militarily, but it would be an effective way of reducing the MOD budget without frontline cuts.

i was disappointed that we're not talking about norway anymore. i had to put the dogs of war back on her leash.

did you see the norweigan simpsons the other night? i thought of you.

i didn't know such a thing existed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcodSNjb7is

Phil, please remove your head from the sand (or at least from the over-zealous headlines you've read in the Sun, Telegraph and other populist media in the last two days). Its such a complete non-story its untrue, but obviously Mr Murdoch and other media tycoons obviously made a nice tidy profit from sensationalist headlines yesterday. Its also fair to say that the 'defence' put forward by the Home Secretary did absolutely fuck all to sway popular opinion.

I'll just get back to pushing my pen round my desk while drinking coffee and pocketing my substantial bonus then......

Yeah, you profiteering bastard. Virtually stole those helicopters out of our boys' mouths so you could buy your luxury yacht. I know all about your sort, I read about you lot in England's premier taxdodger Viscount Rothermere's Daily Mail

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not paying any taxes at all. In fact I dream of the time when that will be true.

I disagree with lots of taxes, yet agree with others.

Fascinating eh?

Bad: VAT (Tory Favourite), Fags, Booze, Petrol, Licence Fee.

Good: Inheritance, Income.

NAAAAAAAHT! It's an EU tax. It all goes to Brussels to be redistributed to the unfortunate Irish, French farmers and the starving MEPs.

If it is ok for the EU to take money from me (or any other state body come to that) and if I say no they will lock me up, why can't I do the same thing to you Ben. I might pop round your house in a bit actually. Apart from the fact that you haven't got any dosh, obviously.

Don't be silly Talk Talk, the EU is ace, and I benefit from it's awesomeness.

In terms of services you offer me fuck all apart from giving me somebody to drunkenly argue with and taking snappy photos when I'm in a state on trains. And whilst I honestly appreciate both, I wouldn't pay for them.

Would you pay me if I got you a job?

Depends what it was?

Will you?

More likely to hit you

Another thing Norway did (I think) is they actually invested some of the North Sea oil money. We pissed it up against the wall. (Tory & Labour).

Shame about the Norwegian weather really.

yeah, the weather here today is beautiful  :)

Ace, you can take the boat out whaling.

[url width=504 height=472]http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/song-chart-memes-politicians-promises.jpg?w=504&h=472[/url]

Ok, ok, I will stop posting these stupid graphs now  :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DxPnjOBlRI&feature=player_embedded

youtube is a propaganda tool of the proleteriat, it must be supressed

Most stuff from the "Taxpayers Alliance" is nonsense on stilts. The EU costs £2,000 a year?

The UK's Net EU Contribution more like £15 a year per person. Even the moronically anti-everything Daily Express only claim it's c.£250/year. But I suppose we can't let the facts get in the way of some good old anti-EU hysteria.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/taxpayers-alliance-to-screen-myth-laden-eu-video-attack/ (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/taxpayers-alliance-to-screen-myth-laden-eu-video-attack/)