Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Even the graun is onto to it now..




Labour trio can't stay silent on this paedophile claim

Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey should not be the subject of a witch-hunt over the NCCL and PIE, but tell their version


Barbara Ellen


The Observer, Sunday 23 February 2014


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt-pie-nccl-paedophile-claims

but they and all their other colleagues are positive angels compared to the party opposite - just ask them!

Manuel,

Before you indulge yourself have a look the torrid party's past history and even some of its Old Etonian forebears. Also some the indulgences at Eton and many other schools and the age of said "consent".

Also relate it back to Libertine period of the 60s, 70s and 80s up and till the present change is "sexual" habits and the challenges to "sexual" and "social" restraints.

Relate it to some of the fanciful and early schools of psychotherapy of that period and reforms made.

I won't attempts to label one party against another "hedonistic" behaviors are found it in all strata and groups within society.

But of course it appeals to the more salacious papers and the more salacious readers.


But read the following descriptive passages extracted from :

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-dirt-book-how-the-sexual-abuse-of-children-is-used-for-political-gain/


""The Dirt Book: How the sexual abuse of children is used for political gain

In 1995, the BBC showed a Michael Cockerell documentary called Westminster’s Secret Service about the role of the chief whip, whose task it is to ensure MPs attend important debates and vote as the party leadership desires. It was revealed that the chief whip kept a little black ‘dirt book’ which contained information about MPs, and this was used as a method of political control.

Tim Fortescue, who was Ted Heath’s chief whip from 1970-73, said:

For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, I’m in a jam, can you help? It might be debt, it might be…..erm……erm, a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which, erm er, a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points……., and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more.

In short, the chief whip would cover up any scandal, even if it involved “small boys”, child sexual abuse, child rape, whatever you want to call it. They wouldn’t report the crime to the police, although they may use their contacts with the police to make sure to make sure the matter went no further. This means that a paedophile would be the ideal candidate for promotion within the party, easily blackmailed and bought, loyalty and discretion guaranteed.

An example of how the dirt book may have been used is the case of Sir Peter Morrison, who was Conservative MP for Chester from 1974-1992, as well as being Margaret Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. Morrison has been linked to a notorious paedophile ring that sexually abused children in North Wales care homes. Chris House, who worked as reporter for the Daily Mirror, twice received tip-offs about Morrison being caught abusing underage boys which resulted in just a police caution, but libel threats stopped the newspaper from running the story. Peter Connew, the former editor of the Sunday Mirror, said “such was the hush-up that nobody could get hold of a log of the arrest”.

Edwina Currie, who was a Conservative MP at the time, said “Peter Morrison has become the PM’s PPS. Now he’s what they call ‘a noted pederast’,’ with a liking for young boys; he admitted as much to Norman Tebbitt when he became deputy chairman of the party, but added, ‘However, I’m very discreet’ – and he must be!”""


Max,

Before chucking the mud around and insinuating "tis or tat" have a look at some of the Membership and associates (past, present and reported) of the UKIP party. Many think it membership is akin to the affiliates of the "Loonie Party".

I wonder if Cameron will be arrested as a terrorist when he crosses the Scottish border tomorrow, or will he go on ducking and weaving in the heather.

He should watch out for bad weather!

Fred.

I don't doubt ukip have their share of wrong-uns. Just as do the cons, noo lab and the ever so cuddly dim/libs (remember Cyril smith?)

I am looking to ukip to break up the cosy arrangement between the three main parties whereby we will never get meaningfull change, especially on €urope.


To date:

Cameroon has promised a referendum. ... it wont happen, he is lying!

Millibandus has promised nothing. ... and that is probably what we would get out of him.

Cleggy has promised more €U ..... You can see the problem.



Whats left?

Raving looney party, at least you get what it says on the tin.

What on earth is the point of a EU referendum for Britain ?......

To allow people the choice (in or out)


what else?

Ridiculous....we trade with our partners in the common market...it's the blinkin' Maastricht treaty with free circulation within the common market we should never ever have signed up to....there should be a crack-down on immigration within the EU....

But they wont, cos they have different rules.


And now theres only one way out...all the way.


Then we can go back to trading on a rational basis.

Crazy...that's what I call it...do they know what they are doing in the corridors of power in England and Scotland ?....I'm having doubts...

The voters had their choice.

Watch the barriers go up and the investment down.

Also, watch businesses move to the EU.

Easier for them.


--------

You can't refuse to play and take you ball away like spoilt children every time you don't get you way.

Besides I have a feeling the drivers of the out brigade is more to do with the thought of the EU taking stronger moves to eventually tackle tax evasion and the "slush" money going through the city.


---

From wicki

The United Kingdom referendum of 1975 was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. Labour's manifesto for the October 1974 general election promised that the people would decide "through the ballot box"[1] whether to remain in the EEC. The electorate expressed significant support for EEC membership, with 67% in favour on a 65% turnout. This was the first referendum that was held throughout the entire United Kingdom; previously, other referendums had been arranged only in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greater London and individual towns. It remained the only UK-wide referendum until the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011.

The February 1974 general election yielded a Labour minority government, which then won a majority in the October 1974 general election. Labour pledged in its February 1974 manifesto to renegotiate the terms of British accession to the EEC, and to then consult the people on whether Britain should stay in the EEC on the new terms if they were acceptable to the government. The Labour Party had traditionally feared the consequences of EEC membership, such as the large differentials between the high price of food under the Common Agricultural Policy and the low prices prevalent in Commonwealth markets, as well as the loss of economic sovereignty and the freedom of governments to engage in socialist industrial policies, and party leaders stated their opinion that the Conservatives had negotiated unfavourable terms for Britain.[2] The EEC heads of government agreed to a deal in Dublin by 11 March 1975; Wilson declared "I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved", and that the government would recommend a vote in favour of continued membership.[3] On 9 April, the House of Commons voted 396 to 170 to continue within the Common Market on the new terms. In tandem with these developments, the government drafted a Referendum Bill, to be moved in case of a successful renegotiation.

WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT! WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT!


WE ARE BRITISH!


AND


WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://bogpaper.com/clegg-prepares-to-kick-farages-arse/



Clegg prepares to kick Farage’s arse!


February 23, 2014 by Kevin Marx Leave a Comment

MARX ON MONDAY

Kevin Marx – a view from the left



I was enjoying a few days skiing last week at the millionaire’s playground resort at Klosters in Switzerland when I foolishly decided, after a good lunch, to ski off-piste to get back to my chalet in Davos. Half an hour later I was caught in a blizzard and freezing to death. I looked around for a St Bernard wearing a barrel of brandy and, whilst no rescue dog could be found, I was fortunate to see the lights of a nearby chalet through the gathering gloom. I skied towards it and was astonished to find that it was an astounding 20 bedroom skiing villa valued at £7 million. It was obviously owned by a Russian Oligarch and as I knocked on the door I cursed myself for having only a couple of words of Russian. I needn’t have worried. The door was opened by a dashing looking man who enquired in perfect English, “can I help you?”

I explained my problem and he invited me in for a cup of tea, and as he came in from the kitchen carrying two steaming mugs I gasped as I realized it was none other than the Leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg.

“Nick,” I stuttered, “what are you doing here? I thought this place belonged to a billionaire Russian Oligarch.”

“No it’s daddy’s,” he put me straight, “I’ve come here to get some peace and quiet whilst I prepare for my EU debate with that drunken pleb Farage.”

“Pleb?” I was shocked to hear Nick use such a term, “but I thought you both went to London public day schools?”

“You’re not seriously comparing Westminster, one of the finest public schools in Britain, with that second rate minor public school Dulwich?” Nick scoffed.

“Is that how you’re going to attack him on Europe?” I asked. “By pointing out that he went to a minor public school, or do you have more substantial arguments?”

“Let me be absolutely clear: leaving the EU would be economic suicide. You cannot overstate the damage it would do to British livelihoods and prosperity.” Nick replied. “Three million British jobs are linked to the Single Market – three million. As a member we are part of the world’s biggest borderless market place, made up of 500 million people. It’s now the largest economy in the world – ahead of the United States – and it’s where we do around half of all our trade.”

“But haven’t UK exports to non-EU countries grown by more than 40 per cent over the past five years while sales to Europe have risen by just 3.1 per cent,” I played Devil’s advocate, “and hasn’t the UK deficit on trade with EU countries risen by £1.5billion to £15.4billion in the last three months while the deficit with the rest of the world was £1billion lower.”

“We may run a massive trade deficit with the EU,” Nick conceded, “but who is to say that it won’t be even larger if we leave?”

“But before we joined the EU in 1973 didn’t we have a small trading surplus with them,” I asked, “and if we leave won’t it be possible to negotiate a limited membership of the EU like Switzerland have, which costs them only £6 million a day, compared to our membership cost of £50 million a day, even though the EU imports three times as much from Switzerland as it does from us?”

“Why would the EU agree to that,” Nick scoffed, “what would be in it for them?”

“A trade agreement akin to Switzerland’s would allow the EU to continue exporting £60 billion more of goods every year to the UK than we export to them,” I said, “it would be economic suicide for the EU to cut us adrift.”

“Kevin,” Nick shook his head ruefully, “you’re arguing like a conservative, placing too much emphasis on facts. We liberals know we are right, regardless of the overwhelming evidence against us. Maybe the economic argument for membership doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, but we receive so many other benefits from the EU, and all for the bargain cost of just £18 ¼ billion a year!”

“Like what?”

“What will happen to our influence in the world if we choose to go it alone from Europe?” Nick asked. “We stand tall in Washington, Beijing and Delhi when we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin.”

“But haven’t we increased trade to America, China and India by billions of pounds in 2013?” I asked, “and didn’t Cameron negotiate a free trade agreement with China, who imported £12 billion worth of goods from the UK last year, with China promising to invest £50 billion in the UK economy, only for the EU to block the agreement because it didn’t want cheap Chinese imports flooding into Europe?”

“Okay then forget world influence,” Nick took a red pen and crossed out a section of his notes for the Farage debate, “what will happen to our citizens’ safety if we leave? The British police depend on cooperation with their counterparts abroad – sharing information, pooling resources, helping each other bring criminals to justice. Take that away and you are forcing the police to do their job with one hand tied behind their back.”

“But doesn’t our signing up to the European Human Rights Act hinder our citizens safety?” I postulated. “Didn’t Europe block our attempts to extradite terrorists like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, costing our taxpayers ten of millions of pounds a year, and giving a green light to terrorists to come to Britain and plot its destruction from within whilst living on benefits, without fear of us throwing them out?”

“Well what about our environment?” Nick quickly changed the subject. “Climate change doesn’t stop at Dover. There is no point reducing our carbon footprint unless our neighbours do the same. But together we can set collective targets and work in concert to achieve them – and we have far greater clout in encouraging other countries and regions to do the same.”

“The European Science budget, along with additional spending on tackling climate change, will cost the EU taxpayers a minimum of £267 billion over the next five years,” I informed him, “what do the EU taxpayers get for this huge amount of money?”

“EU scientists last year exposed many myths which have been long put about by the likes of Nigel Farage and his climate change denying puppet James Delingpole,” Nick replied.

“Such as?” I challenged the Liberal Democrat leader.

“Let me tell you Kevin,” said Nick, “if it weren’t for the expenditure of this £267 billion European scientists would never have uncovered the fact that climate change is man-made and can only be stopped by more wind farms.”

“Is that their only discovery?” I asked.

“No they also discovered that prunes are not a laxative and it is now illegal under EU law to claim that they are, Nick replied.

“Any other scientific discoveries from our £267 billion?” I raised an inquisitive eyebrow.

“Certainly,” Nick replied with a note of triumph, “ after a five year study funded by the taxpayer and costing only £30 million European scientists found no evidence to suggest that drinking water rehydrates you and it is now, under EU law, illegal for companies like Evian, Perrier and Highland Spring to advertise that drinking water is a cure for thirst.”

“Let me get this right,” I sought clarification, “at the bargain cost to the taxpayer of only £267 billion, European scientists are equally sure that climate change is man-made and can only be stopped by renewable energy, that prunes are not a laxative and that drinking water is not a cure for thirst?”

“Precisely,” Nick confirmed.

“So given the strength of the arguments you will put forward against Farage,” I asked Nick, “how do you think the European election results will go next year for the Liberal Democrats and UKIP after your debate?”

“Between us the Liberal Democrats and UKIP have 21 seats in the European Parliament,” Nick replied, “after my debate against Farage, when the British people have heard what we both have to say, I think we will still have 21 seats between us.”

“You currently have 12 and UKIP have 9,” I pointed out, “do you think those numbers will stay the same?”

“To be honest with you Kevin no,” Nick sighed, “after our debate I expect UKIP to win 21 seats and the Liberal Democrats 0.”

From post 37051
Watch the barriers go up and the investment down.

Also, watch businesses move to the EU.

Easier for them.


I don't think so Fred, EU red tape is set to cost Britain close to £100b. I would hazard a guess other countries face similar costs. Away from the red tape shackles the EU impose on countries businesses will thrive. aimo of course
2517

the one good thing about all (2!) these guys posting at such unnecessary length (clearly their education never taught them to paraphrase), is that they are easily by-passed

Manuel,

If I were you, I would concentrate on writing recipes.

But test them out first!

Cameron is taking his cabinet to Scotland.


Could he stay there indefinitely!

Manuel's Table.

Not a B. waiter insight.




How to win friends and influence people.

Cack-handed as usual, developed from stunted childhood!