Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
Register now or login to post to this thread.

THE TALK TO YOURSELF THREAD. (NOWT)     

goldfinger - 09 Jun 2005 12:25

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.

Fred1new - 03 Nov 2010 20:25 - 9836 of 81564

"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!

Chris Carson - 03 Nov 2010 23:01 - 9837 of 81564

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

cONCLUSION - KNOBHEAD!!!!!!

aldwickk - 04 Nov 2010 07:21 - 9838 of 81564

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.

Stan - 04 Nov 2010 08:44 - 9839 of 81564

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

aldwickk - 04 Nov 2010 08:59 - 9840 of 81564

Stan

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

Stan - 04 Nov 2010 09:03 - 9841 of 81564

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

2517GEORGE - 04 Nov 2010 09:06 - 9842 of 81564

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

rawdm999 - 04 Nov 2010 09:11 - 9843 of 81564

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

Absolutely hilarious.

Stan - 04 Nov 2010 09:22 - 9844 of 81564

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.

This_is_me - 04 Nov 2010 09:43 - 9845 of 81564

Just squelsh Fred - you know it makes sense!

aldwickk - 04 Nov 2010 09:44 - 9846 of 81564

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.


Stan - 04 Nov 2010 09:53 - 9847 of 81564

"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.

aldwickk - 04 Nov 2010 10:16 - 9848 of 81564

Stan

As I said Why don't you give it a try and answer him ? without abuse like I did and greekman and other's.

Stan - 04 Nov 2010 10:36 - 9849 of 81564

"As I said Why don't you give it a try and answer him ? without abuse like I did and greekman and other's." To busy, And beside the point.

As said, abuse affords no credit.

Fred1new - 04 Nov 2010 10:39 - 9850 of 81564

AlD.

The Iraq debacle and the Afghanistan adventure has done more harm to Britain's reputation, than any relief effort and it is obvious from the Terrorist risk level that this is so.

The ref "due to inadequate, inefficient but costly private sector" was a short cut and refers to the cost of outsourcing and the relative disproportionate cost of doing so.

Even the "oik" is slashing the costs of the outsourcing "contracts".

Many of the contracts with the PRIVATE SECTOR are being reviewed down in Pricing.

This should/could have been done before, but more honest pricing from the "private sector" would have made this unnecessary.

I think, if there had been more appropriate and informed management
(better trained) making the contracts, rather than cosying up of public and private sector this "overcharging" would have been prevented.

Some of the outsourcing of services from the private sector to the public service have ended up with appalling standards. (Have a look at the NHS and then various areas of IT contracting and subcontracting)

Fred1new - 04 Nov 2010 10:39 - 9851 of 81564

.

aldwickk - 04 Nov 2010 10:56 - 9852 of 81564

Stan

That was a pathetic answer

Stan - 04 Nov 2010 11:04 - 9853 of 81564

Aldo,

Your prime reason for posting seems to be "mainly just to argue" rather then to have an intelligent discussion with , which I have no interest in.

hilary - 04 Nov 2010 11:13 - 9854 of 81564

Intelligent discussion and Fred. Should those words be used together in the same sentence?

Fred1new - 04 Nov 2010 11:29 - 9855 of 81564

The Hairy one has spoken.
Register now or login to post to this thread.