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.

EXec's ideas for bedroom appliances are interesting.


I suppose it is, for some, whatever turns them on!

Fred

What turn's you off ,

Has anyone bought any Viagra at TESCO'S yet ?

No. Reason was they had it to try, you know like they do those cheese on biscuit tasters that they tempt you with. So I tried a bit. It was very good. So good in fact that five minutes later I decided to return to the store to purchase a packets. Never noticed before how narrow those doors are.

Fred

The last government did cause so much of the harm now being dealt with so blame is definately deserved.

It was labour's social engineering that caused massive house price rises such that few people can now get on the property ladder. How did they do this? they issued policy earlier this decade that councils put planning moratoriums on new house building. This lasted for years while at the same time increasing the availability of easy money, be it benefits or letting the banks off the leash. So, reduced amount of new housing coming on the market + easy money = market forces of supply and demand. It is clear that rising property prices introduce the easy come, easy go, feel good factor that leads to consumer spending. Genius policies, to keep themselves in power for a few terms but buggers everything up for most in the medium term.

Labour knew exactly what they were doing and I don't think i've heard any of them apologise! Why won't they apologise? Because they get the benefit of blaming the 'global recession' (and the americans for sub-prime) We had our own, smaller scale subprime caused by that written above/labour!

Nothing to do with the Global "recession" and Sub Prime market engineered by capitalism at its worst?

Nothing to do with Maggie flogging off "council" housed?

Nothing to do with "entrepreneurs" buying up "cheap" houses a pushing up rents and getting hand outs from the "public" purse?

The tories didn't want increased legislation on the Financial services and banks and argued against such?

Market forces are a theory, the practice of which often should be reign in.

Remember Lady Porter and Westminster?

Has she fully paid up yet?

But, it was nice to see Ken Clarke smiling, when Cameron signed up to the EU state with Nick. Only this time it was somebody else's Sarkozy.

Fascinating, Heath signs up to Europe and Cameron completes the State.

Cash is waiting as a saviour in the corridor, with something in his hand.

And who was Chancellor ? Gordon [ this is no time for novice's , I saved the world,.] Brown.

Fred

24 hour drinking , super casino's , uncontrolled immigration , easy credit , live now pay later., City centre no go area's at night , billion's wasted on computer systems that don't work and the gap between rich and poor worst under Labour and worse of all the treatment of our troop's fighting a illegal war without the financial backing of they government.

"24 hour drinking , super casino's".

Sheer stupidity. But where there is a profit margin can't see the tories revoking the licences.

When was easy credit introduced?

"City centre no go areas"; Tories are cutting back on policing, while there is probably an increase in social friction. Stupidity.

Private companies (the capitalist failure system) promised working computer system. Still think the ID system would help to reduce fraud on wealth fare benefits and tax evasion etc..

Rich to poor, I think the method of judging this is open to question. I think that in many ways the "living" conditions for the majority in Britain has vastly improved over the last 40years. Also, I think the "opportunities" in general have improved, but I would agree with some further redistribution of personal wealth would be appropriate.

Agree the Iraq war was probably illegal and certainly stupid vanity on the part of Blair.

The commitment to war in Afghanistan was equally stupid

The preparation for and management of the war of this nature showed the naivety of the American and British governments at the time of those "adventures".

But the cut backs on the forces was started with blunt knives by the Thatcher government and continued by successive governments, with little expectations of the size of demands, which were going to be made on the "DEFENCE FORCES".

Also, naivety on the time taken to produce "necessary" hard ware, due to inadequate, inefficient but costly private sector.

However, both wars were backed by a feeble tory opposition party holding up the "flag" with cries of Talley Ho.

Hind-sight is marvellous.

If the same amount of money, which is now being spent on fireworks, was spent on a Humanitarian Relief Force, which is able to move into disaster zones, and carry out reconstruction and healthcare support, I think Britain may be more respected in the World and a safer country to live in.

But, I would think this is still at odds with the primitive common thinking of many.

Have a nice evening!

Fred1new - UNIVERSITY cHALLENGE - SUBJECT - STATING THE BLEEDIN OBVIOUS!

cONCLUSION - KNOBHEAD!!!!!!

Fred

If more money was spent on a Humanitarian Relief Force, which is able to move into disaster zones, and carry out reconstruction and healthcare support = Britain may be more respected in the World and a safer country to live in.

Fact . Britain does more then its fair share and is respected in the world.

Fact. It has not made Britain more safe.

Fred I won't be replying to any more of your post's its just a waste of my time.

"Fred I won't be replying to any more of your post's its just a waste of my time.".. Bet you don't -):

Stan

Don't you mean .... Bet you do ?

Correct aldo, nice to see you are awake.. unlike me -):

aldwickk---------what took you so long, I had a few exchanges back along and came to the same conclusion.
2517

'due to inadequate, inefficient but costly private sector.'

Absolutely hilarious.

If you agree or disagree with someone's point of view then why not try and answer with a message explaining why you hold your view and which does not contain abuse against the person that you are conversing with.

Giving people abuse on a public message board (or anywhere else come to that) affords the abuser no credit at all.

Just squelsh Fred - you know it makes sense!

Stan


If you agree or disagree with someone's point of view then why not try and answer with a message explaining why you hold your view


People have been there and done that ......... Why don't you give it a try and answer him ? I would be interested to know how you get on.

"People have been there and done that" not quite true is it? Their answers have also included abuse.

Which as I say affords no credit.