UK in a mess!

[Johnny Bognor]

Remind us all who was responsible for the sale and destruction of manufacturing and industry in this country...

 

....the effects of de-industrialisation in the Western World (UK, France, Germany, USA, etc etc), coupled with the rise in low cost emerging economies (like Japan, Taiwan and China), speeded up by the actions of our Trade Unions.

[Wes Tender]

could there be a combination of both perhaps?

 

What, a fairly mental tax?

[Saint Billy]

Every country is in a mess!!

 

If you don't like to contribute to your local society by paying taxes, suggest you sell up, buy a caravan and learn to sharpen knives or tarmac drives - then you can live for free.

 

.. and as for thinking BA cabin crew have backbone because they are striking ....???

 

Its amazing how many on here reply to posts that they have not read properly. Where did I state that I had not paid it or did not want to pay it pal?

The Sheriff of Nottingham is getting my money dont you worry.....................................****!

 

And people being too damn greedy for their own good. People not wanting to take personal responsibility for their actions seems to be another reason this country is going downhill. Everyone's always looking for someone else to blame. 'It was them, they leant me the money'.....you know what, people got greedy, they wanted their 'investment' flat. They were prepared to spend £300k on a 2 bed flat in Southampton. They were happy to take '2 years guaranteed rent at £1500 per month' from the builders. Surprise, surprise, when they came to month 25, they suddenly found out it was only worth £750 per month and the market was flooded with other flats.

 

Bottom line is that these people were also part of the reason for the recession. A large part.

 

Oh, one other thing....'some' large banking organisations. Not all.

 

P.S. Why didn't you just pay your council tax on time? Would have avoided the whole situation. Personal responsibility?

 

Oh God, give me patience, and GIVE IT TO ME NOW!

[Gemmel]

Its amazing how many on here reply to posts that they have not read properly. Where did I state that I had not paid it or did not want to pay it pal?

The Sheriff of Nottingham is getting my money dont you worry.....................................****!

 

 

 

Oh God, give me patience, and GIVE IT TO ME NOW!

 

You would not be going to court if you had not paid it on time.....and no it wasnt two days late

[Saint Billy]

Lol dont be silly - you do not get taken to court for being two days late. Three consecutive missed payments as a bare minimum or failing to stick to agreed terms of payment plan of money owing.

 

Don't even bother coming back to assure us you really were only two days late (They wouldnt have been able to serve notice otherwise)

 

Not so black and white as you would like to think mate, I have proof of payment via direct transfer but the funds did not show up in there account for a few days even though it should be minutes.

 

If little ole Gemmel does not believe me I franky dont give a s h i t.

[benjii]

Sorry but the poll tax was never fair.Thats why there were protests.

The polltax didnt take into account your ability to pay.How could it be fair that a millionaire in a big mansion pays the same as a single person on a council estate?

 

 

I agree that is massively unfair. The council estate dweller no doubt uses far more public services so it is a bit odd that the millionaire should have to prop up his lifestyle.

[Gemmel]

Not so black and white as you would like to think mate, I have proof of payment via direct transfer but the funds did not show up in there account for a few days even though it should be minutes.

 

If little ole Gemmel does not believe me I franky dont give a s h i t.

 

It's not a question of whether i believe you or not, it's just the way the system operates. Council Tax is three consecutive missed payments or default on a payment plan (Previously agreed for previous defaults) before they take you to court.

 

In order to serve notice, they have to prove that they have sent you more than 3 reminders, leaving 7 days notice and 7 days reponse inbetween each one.

 

So no i don't believe you, nobody has ever been taken to court for being two days late from the orginal bill and if you disputed a transaction, any action would be put on hold., to allow you time to prove it.

So dont let the facts stand in the way of a good story............

[aintforever]

I agree that is massively unfair. The council estate dweller no doubt uses far more public services so it is a bit odd that the millionaire should have to prop up his lifestyle.

 

Spoken like a true ass hole.

[rocknrollman no2]

I agree that is massively unfair. The council estate dweller no doubt uses far more public services so it is a bit odd that the millionaire should have to prop up his lifestyle.

 

You have a point,but i bet if the person living on a council estate is working and on PAYE,then he would probably end up paying more tax as a percentage of his wages than the millionaire.

[benjii]

Spoken like a true ass hole.

 

Intelligent response. 10/10.

 

Seriously, what could be fairer than everyone paying for an equal share of local services? Why is it fair to make someone pay more just because they have a nicer house? Unless that house is packed to the rafters they will not be producing more rubbish than anyone else. They won't be using the local school more. Or the hospital. Or the roads. Or occupying the police's time Or etc....

 

The only thing that would be fairer would be to abolish a mandatory tax and levy charges based solely on usage.

[benjii]

You have a point,but i bet if the person living on a council estate is working and on PAYE,then he would probably end up paying more tax as a percentage of his wages than the millionaire.

 

Yep. But so what? He also pays more for food as a proportion of income. And energy. And road tax. And tv licence. And beer. And football and everything. That's because he has less income.

 

Unless you want everyone to haev exactly the same as everyone else (which I suggest is a tad unrealistic) then you have to accept that some people will be worse off than others.

[Saint Billy]

It's not a question of whether i believe you or not, it's just the way the system operates. Council Tax is three consecutive missed payments or default on a payment plan (Previously agreed for previous defaults) before they take you to court.

 

In order to serve notice, they have to prove that they have sent you more than 3 reminders, leaving 7 days notice and 7 days reponse inbetween each one.

 

So no i don't believe you, nobody has ever been taken to court for being two days late from the orginal bill and if you disputed a transaction, any action would be put on hold., to allow you time to prove it.

So dont let the facts stand in the way of a good story............

 

Do you actually sit there checking out every posters profile before you decide who to lay into?

 

If you are that intent on trying to make me look like a liar or a story teller on here, I will let you know the result of my visit to the magistrates court later this month as I intend to dispute the claim.

Edited 9 July, 2010 by Saint Billy

[Fuengirola Saint]

Forget Fair that's where we are right now. There is no money left in the kitty. Just like when you spend everything you have in the bank and go to the cash point for some more and it politely says no. It is no different for the Country, it has no money left. Infact it is much worse than having no money left, it is minus 100's of billions.

 

No problem that you want to balme the banks and force the banks to pay (And in time they will) but for the next few years, it is everybody that will have to pay.

 

Your idea of unionising and taking action willl go the same way as the initial posters examples;

 

Miners strike; Failure

Poll Tax Riots; Failure

Printers Strike; Failuire

Fuel Protests: Don't recall anything sunstantial, but given the prices now....Failure

BA; Will be a Failure

 

I wouldn't have called the Poll Tax riots a failure, it was abolished

[Gemmel]

Re-Invented and Tories stayed in power

[Fuengirola Saint]

Yep. But so what? He also pays more for food as a proportion of income. And energy. And road tax. And tv licence. And beer. And football and everything. That's because he has less income.

 

Unless you want everyone to haev exactly the same as everyone else (which I suggest is a tad unrealistic) then you have to accept that some people will be worse off than others.

 

 

Of course some will be worse off than others but you don't exacerbate the problem by lowering taxes for the rich

[Fuengirola Saint]

Re-Invented and Tories stayed in power

 

No it wasn't, the council tax is just the rates but more expensive for working or middle class people

[Gemmel]

No it wasn't, the council tax is just the rates but more expensive for working or middle class people

 

Rates, then Poll Tax, then Council tax, with the exception of home owners for rates, they are all pretty much of muchness

[Sour Mash]

Intelligent response. 10/10.

 

Seriously, what could be fairer than everyone paying for an equal share of local services? Why is it fair to make someone pay more just because they have a nicer house? Unless that house is packed to the rafters they will not be producing more rubbish than anyone else. They won't be using the local school more. Or the hospital. Or the roads. Or occupying the police's time Or etc....

 

The only thing that would be fairer would be to abolish a mandatory tax and levy charges based solely on usage.

 

Spot on.

[Wes Tender]

Intelligent response. 10/10.

 

Seriously, what could be fairer than everyone paying for an equal share of local services? Why is it fair to make someone pay more just because they have a nicer house? Unless that house is packed to the rafters they will not be producing more rubbish than anyone else. They won't be using the local school more. Or the hospital. Or the roads. Or occupying the police's time Or etc....

 

The only thing that would be fairer would be to abolish a mandatory tax and levy charges based solely on usage.

 

100% agree. It is almost beyond the wit of many from the left of the political spectrum to take onboard that the Rates, the Community Charge, the Council Tax, are all tax levies on services provided by the local authority. As usual, they allow their envy to cloud their thinking, reasoning that millionaires and people in big houses ought to pay more for these services because they can afford it. But why should they?

 

As you say, using another example, the elderly widow living alone in her large house that her family used to inhabit, is hardly going to produce more rubbish than the family of 4 next door, all of whom might be working. The spinster living alone is not making use of the school system.

 

But looking at it from another perspective, everybody pays the same amount for the services they use in the private sector. You don't expect to pay more for having your boiler serviced because you are wealthier. There is no earnings related charge for using a taxi, booking a flight, seeing a film at the cinema or eating out at a restaurant. So why do the lefties think that the supply of services by a council ought to be based on ability to pay? Would they therefore accept as a logical conclusion that those who pay more are entitled to expect a better service? Businesses pay at much higher levels and are not entitled to a greater say in which party runs the council. The majority of council funding comes from central Government, so it could also be argued that those higher earners have contributed a greater proportion towards those services through their taxes already.

[buctootim]

100% agree. It is almost beyond the wit of many from the left of the political spectrum to take onboard that the Rates, the Community Charge, the Council Tax, are all tax levies on services provided by the local authority. As usual, they allow their envy to cloud their thinking, reasoning that millionaires and people in big houses ought to pay more for these services because they can afford it. But why should they?

 

As you say, using another example, the elderly widow living alone in her large house that her family used to inhabit, is hardly going to produce more rubbish than the family of 4 next door, all of whom might be working. The spinster living alone is not making use of the school system.

 

But looking at it from another perspective, everybody pays the same amount for the services they use in the private sector. You don't expect to pay more for having your boiler serviced because you are wealthier. There is no earnings related charge for using a taxi, booking a flight, seeing a film at the cinema or eating out at a restaurant. So why do the lefties think that the supply of services by a council ought to be based on ability to pay? Would they therefore accept as a logical conclusion that those who pay more are entitled to expect a better service? Businesses pay at much higher levels and are not entitled to a greater say in which party runs the council. The majority of council funding comes from central Government, so it could also be argued that those higher earners have contributed a greater proportion towards those services through their taxes already.

 

Perhaps we should have an entirely flat taxation structure then Wes. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of income. In fact better still we could tax the poor more, because they are more likely to use state education, benefits and the NHS. Billionaires could pay say £5,000pa because they create wealth and dont use many services, whilst poor people should pay £10,000pa. Anyone who cant or wont pay should be jailed - except the billionaires, who have good accountants.

[Gemmel]

Perhaps we should have an entirely flat taxation structure then Wes. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of income. In fact better still we could tax the poor more, because they are more likely to use state education, benefits and the NHS. Billionaires could pay say £5,000pa because they create wealth and dont use many services, whilst poor people should pay £10,000pa. Anyone who cant or wont pay should be jailed - except the billionaires, who have good accountants.

 

Assuming that everybody uses the same amount of services, then obviously that would be the fairest way. May be a reduction for those that privately educate their children (Not costing the state any money) and those that have private health (Saving the NHS 000's ), but im guessing you wouldn't agree with that either

[buctootim]

Assuming that everybody uses the same amount of services, then obviously that would be the fairest way. May be a reduction for those that privately educate their children (Not costing the state any money) and those that have private health (Saving the NHS 000's ), but im guessing you wouldn't agree with that either

 

Thats what Im suggesting, having a taxation system based on the amount you use services. Families of four would pay four times as much a single billionaire, plus the billionaire would get a discount for having private healthcare.

[solentstars]

oh dear " billionaires who are already loaded getting a discount for private health care,this thread is getting more like la la land.

i,m sure if i was billionaire i would not sleep at night because of the worry of not getting that discount:lol:

come on marcus us poor people nede to line your pocket even moreso it can sit in your bank account.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

TLS, as a history teacher tell us all why the Wall Street Crash happened.

 

I'll summarise: During the 1920s the American economy experienced a substantial period of growth, and coupled with loan repayments from WW1, the USA were 'rolling in it'. People thought they could cash in on this success and therefore prices on the stock market were inflated due to uncontrolled speculation. The bubble burst and companies and speculators were ruined.

 

It had nothing (as I suspect you believe seeing as you seem so ready to use it as an exmaple) to do with government spending at the time because under Hoover the US believed in a Laissez-Faire policy of 'not getting involved'. The crash happened due to investors not being regulated...hmm where has this happened recently? We need a 'new deal' in this country akin to the one FDR put in place, alas, we now have a ****servative government.

 

What was your point anyway dune? Or have I just shattered it?

[dune]

I'll summarise: During the 1920s the American economy experienced a substantial period of growth, and coupled with loan repayments from WW1, the USA were 'rolling in it'. People thought they could cash in on this success and therefore prices on the stock market were inflated due to uncontrolled speculation. The bubble burst and companies and speculators were ruined.

 

It had nothing (as I suspect you believe seeing as you seem so ready to use it as an exmaple) to do with government spending at the time because under Hoover the US believed in a Laissez-Faire policy of 'not getting involved'. The crash happened due to investors not being regulated...hmm where has this happened recently? We need a 'new deal' in this country akin to the one FDR put in place, alas, we now have a ****servative government.

 

What was your point anyway dune? Or have I just shattered it?

 

How could you have shattered my point when I know much more than you do on the subject?

 

You have however highlighted the cause - poor regulation. So what did Labour do to prevent the banking crisis during their 13 years?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

How could you have shattered my point when I know much more than you do on the subject?

 

You have however highlighted the cause - poor regulation. So what did Labour do to prevent the banking crisis during their 13 years?

 

Hahahahahahahahahahaha, oh I forgot your HND, my sincere apologies, you're a highly intelligent 'human' being. Dune, don't try and catch me out. We both know that you blame government spending for this crisis: All you've done is read my facts, thought "oh dear" and had to frantically search for another reason which initially wasn't your argument. I find it highly ironic that a fascist such as yourself is moaning about 'poor regulation' when that is something you agree with. Oh and if you're thinking 'well, I don't agree with poor regulation, I think they should be regulated' then that would make you a Nazi, and what a suprise that would be!!

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

How could you have shattered my point when I know much more than you do on the subject?

 

You have however highlighted the cause - poor regulation. So what did Labour do to prevent the banking crisis during their 13 years?

 

What was your inane point anyway Heinrich?

[chrisobee]

What do the Americans do at times like this? Obviously I know their policies and way of life are different from over here. How do they deal with it.

 

Continue to stuff their faces, pretend it's not happening and if it really gets bad maybe resort to abusing some poor Brit on FB HTBH

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Continue to stuff their faces, pretend it's not happening and if it really gets bad maybe resort to abusing some poor Brit on FB HTBH

 

Drat! I thought you were going to come up with the line that they sometimes go to war when their home situation is poor!

[chrisobee]

Drat! I thought you were going to come up with the line that they sometimes go to war when their home situation is poor!

 

I rarely state the obvious !

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I rarely state the obvious !

 

You did!

 

Continue to stuff their faces, pretend it's not happening and if it really gets bad maybe resort to abusing some poor Brit on FB HTBH

[chrisobee]

You did!

 

Lol, if you say so, I have no beef with you. I'll leave that to Ponty:lol:

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Lol, if you say so, I have no beef with you. I'll leave that to Ponty:lol:

 

Is Ponty a mod on FB ?

[chrisobee]

Is Ponty a mod on FB ?

 

I think so but of no consequence, any problems I'll set St Landrew on to him

[Wes Tender]

Perhaps we should have an entirely flat taxation structure then Wes. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of income. In fact better still we could tax the poor more, because they are more likely to use state education, benefits and the NHS. Billionaires could pay say £5,000pa because they create wealth and dont use many services, whilst poor people should pay £10,000pa. Anyone who cant or wont pay should be jailed - except the billionaires, who have good accountants.

 

There's no need to be quite so sarcastic, as it just makes you look a bit ridiculous.

 

I've already pointed out that the vast majority of local Government services are paid for by central Government, so that the higher taxed people have already contributed far more towards the cost of those local services. I don't see you adressing the points I made. Where exactly do you draw the line at the level of taxation that ought to be paid for services which are either not used by people or are no better even though they cost more for some?

 

Of course, as you have already recognised in your own obtuse way, when taxation becomes punitive and deemed to be unfair, those most punished by it find ways to avoid paying it, either by seeking out loopholes, or emigrating. As the percentage of these really wealthy people is relatively small and many of them find ways of avoiding payment anyway, the burden then falls onto the shoulders of the middle classes as usual. It was recently Lib Dem policy with their typically woolly thinking that there ought to be a local income tax to finance local Government services. Again, the only people who would think that fair, would be those who were low income earners, the same people who appear to believe their class warrior political heros, that the rich should be squeezed until the pips squeak. To them, a fairer society is one where their services and benefits are free to them and paid for by anybody who earns more than them.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

I left the UK partly because I could see the writing on the wall. But don't be fooled - the rest of the world is on the precipice too. Whatever you might read, Australia is on the brink too. Just chill and enjoy the football and try to get by. Not much any of us can do about it, so no point worrying about how to fix it. And none of us are heading for the mountains with soup cans just yet.

[dune]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha, oh I forgot your HND, my sincere apologies, you're a highly intelligent 'human' being. Dune, don't try and catch me out. We both know that you blame government spending for this crisis: All you've done is read my facts, thought "oh dear" and had to frantically search for another reason which initially wasn't your argument. I find it highly ironic that a fascist such as yourself is moaning about 'poor regulation' when that is something you agree with. Oh and if you're thinking 'well, I don't agree with poor regulation, I think they should be regulated' then that would make you a Nazi, and what a suprise that would be!!

 

The point i'm making is simple and it is that Labour had 13 years to introduce regulations to prevent the banking crisis - why didn't Brown or the Labour created FSA use common sense and heed the warning from the 20's? I will tell you why nothing was done, nothing was done because Prudence Brown was so consumed by his own ego that he believed he was akin to an alchemist and that the threat of boom and bust would never happen again because of him. So as a government Labour had no interest in reigning in the reckless lending because as a government Labour were a reckless borrower and had no desire to reign their own spending in. Labour led by example, and that is why the period 1997 - 2010 will go down as the age of the credit card, wheras the next 10 or 15 years will be known as the age of austerity where the debts are payed back.

 

As you are so well read, despite strangely not having read 1984 or the Guardians, I would imagine you are familiar with The Adventure of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi (abeit through the Disney film) and this book gives a good example of the last 13 years of Labour what with the lies and the excesses of the land of play. I find that far better lessons are learnt through scholarly literature, than through national curriculum text books.

Edited 10 July, 2010 by dune

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The point i'm making is simple and it is that Labour had 13 years to introduce regulations to prevent the banking crisis - why didn't Brown or the Labour created FSA use common sense and heed the warning from the 20's? I will tell you why nothing was done, nothing was done because Prudence Brown was so consumed by his own ego that he believed he was akin to an alchemist and that the threat of boom and bust would never happen again because of him. So as a government Labour had no interest in reigning in the reckless lending because as a government Labour were a reckless borrower and had no desire to reign their own spending in. Labour led by example, and that is why the period 1997 - 2010 will go down as the age of the credit card, wheras the next 10 or 15 years will be known as the age of austerity where the debts are payed back.

 

As you are so well read, despite strangely not having read 1984 or the Guardians, I would imagine you are familiar with The Adventure of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi (abeit through the Disney film) and this book gives a good example of the last 13 years of Labour what with the lies and the excesses of the land of play. I find that far better lessons are learnt through scholarly literature, than through national curriculum text books.

 

Oh I forgot literature began and ended with those 3 texts...moron.

 

The simple fact is Labour had to spend to bring this country into the 21st century. If it was left with to the ****servatives there would have been no fuel allowances, woeful public services and no minimum wage for starters. If the ****servatives had spent a little money in the 80s maybe Labour wouldn't have had to make Britain play 'catch up' with the rest of the world.

[dune]

Oh I forgot literature began and ended with those 3 texts...moron.

 

The simple fact is Labour had to spend to bring this country into the 21st century. If it was left with to the ****servatives there would have been no fuel allowances, woeful public services and no minimum wage for starters. If the ****servatives had spent a little money in the 80s maybe Labour wouldn't have had to make Britain play 'catch up' with the rest of the world.

 

Is it too much to ask that you start behaving like an adult? You complain about being sworn at in the classroom, but clearly you need to grow up as much as the children you teach.

[RedAndWhite91]

I don't understand why Thorpe-le-Saint can never have a balanced debate without having to revert to name calling and belittling comments.

[benjii]

I don't understand why Thorpe-le-Saint can never have a balanced debate without having to revert to name calling and belittling comments.

 

Because he's unpleasant, myopic and insecure?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Is it too much to ask that you start behaving like an adult? You complain about being sworn at in the classroom, but clearly you need to grow up as much as the children you teach.

 

Hmmmm being lectured on behaviour by a ****ing Nazi racist ****, rich. How the **** poor mods on this forum have not banned you is beyond me for your disgusting views on people who are not white. You're a true waste of oxygen and it saddens me that there are innocent children in Africa who are contracting HIV/Malaria while you are still around consuming natural resources that they could be using. You're beyond doubt the single most ******ish ****pit that has ever posted on this forum, be it in it's current form or S4E.

 

I've tried behaving like an adult in responses with this 'man' yet his complete unwillingness to consider sensibly any reply I put forward and then have the cheek to accuse me of being childish after this ****tard, rather than reply with commets on the facts, comments on things that are totally irrelevant is beyond crap.

 

dune you are a scumbag excuse for a 'human being' and we are poorer as a society for having 'people' like you in it. After being threatened by this spineless **** in a PM, which was sent to the mods and SUPRISE SUPRISE nothing was done about it, this forum truely has become, by allowing ****s like dune to post on it, a mediocre (at best) example of it's former self.

 

As I anticiapte this will be my final post may I just add that there are posters on here who I do get on with and who are very nice people and I feel sorry for you that in order for you to enjoy matchday threads for the coming season, you will still have to share bandwidth with this absolute ****ing ****.

 

Adios.

[benjii]

Hmmmm being lectured on behaviour by a ****ing Nazi racist ****, rich. How the **** poor mods on this forum have not banned you is beyond me for your disgusting views on people who are not white. You're a true waste of oxygen and it saddens me that there are innocent children in Africa who are contracting HIV/Malaria while you are still around consuming natural resources that they could be using. You're beyond doubt the single most ******ish ****pit that has ever posted on this forum, be it in it's current form or S4E.

 

I've tried behaving like an adult in responses with this 'man' yet his complete unwillingness to consider sensibly any reply I put forward and then have the cheek to accuse me of being childish after this ****tard, rather than reply with commets on the facts, comments on things that are totally irrelevant is beyond crap.

 

dune you are a scumbag excuse for a 'human being' and we are poorer as a society for having 'people' like you in it. After being threatened by this spineless **** in a PM, which was sent to the mods and SUPRISE SUPRISE nothing was done about it, this forum truely has become, by allowing ****s like dune to post on it, a mediocre (at best) example of it's former self.

 

As I anticiapte this will be my final post may I just add that there are posters on here who I do get on with and who are very nice people and I feel sorry for you that in order for you to enjoy matchday threads for the coming season, you will still have to share bandwidth with this absolute ****ing ****.

 

Adios.

 

Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio, etc.

[Wes Tender]

Oh I forgot literature began and ended with those 3 texts...moron.

 

The simple fact is Labour had to spend to bring this country into the 21st century. If it was left with to the ****servatives there would have been no fuel allowances, woeful public services and no minimum wage for starters. If the ****servatives had spent a little money in the 80s maybe Labour wouldn't have had to make Britain play 'catch up' with the rest of the world.

 

Your memory is obviously very short, or very selective. The Conservatives spent most of that decade sorting out the over-powerful Unions and their destructive overmanning and restrictive practices. Before they came in, we were the sick man of Europe and had to bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. The last thing needed at that time was spending money we didn't have or the high taxation that would have been needed to fund it. At the end of the Conservatives time in office, the economy was once again sound and we had returned once more to the top table of World ecomomies. But don't let the facts get in the way of your dogma, teach.

[benjii]

iI am so glad that my teachers were, on the whole, not politcally zealous.

[Wes Tender]

iI am so glad that my teachers were, on the whole, not politcally zealous.

 

I agree. Granted that teach doesn't post under a recognisable name, presumably not one that could be identified by his pupils anyway and of course, he might not even be a teacher at all. But like you, my eyebrows are raised that he holds the sort of opinions that he does, where the views are sometimes a bit extreme and in many cases just plain incorrect. Also, although he is perfectly entitled to berate somebody else for extreme views that he despises, it is a bit disconcerting that a teacher would be quite so easily rattled into using such intemperate language. Although I also don't agree with the views of Dune on many things, I don't recall him often having to stoop to puerile name-calling.

[benjii]

There were a few crusty old bourgeois socialists amongst my uni lecturers but they were pretty chilled out and at the end of the day the primary aim of many of their pupils was to get out into the capitalist world and rake in some serious money so they could hardly participate in that and maintain a pretence of authenticity.

 

Some of my school teachers were old-tie, tally-ho what what, damn good thrashing, showers in the pavillion and down to Monty's for trebles all round types but they were respectful of differing views too.

[alpine_saint]

I left the UK partly because I could see the writing on the wall. But don't be fooled - the rest of the world is on the precipice too. Whatever you might read, Australia is on the brink too. Just chill and enjoy the football and try to get by. Not much any of us can do about it, so no point worrying about how to fix it. And none of us are heading for the mountains with soup cans just yet.

 

Hmm. I left the UK for similar reasons. I could see more and more of my hard-earned being taken from me to fund hair-brained schemes and scroungers, and in return my kids wouldnt be safe walking the streets or get a half-decent education.

 

The rest of the world is in a better state, imo. Not sure how near the precipice it really is. The UK will be the worst hit nation because it gave up making things, and turned to pushing bits of paper around.

 

As for the mountains/soup tins comment, you are right, but I've made sure I am within a stone's-throw...

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I agree. Granted that teach doesn't post under a recognisable name, presumably not one that could be identified by his pupils anyway and of course, he might not even be a teacher at all. But like you, my eyebrows are raised that he holds the sort of opinions that he does, where the views are sometimes a bit extreme and in many cases just plain incorrect. Also, although he is perfectly entitled to berate somebody else for extreme views that he despises, it is a bit disconcerting that a teacher would be quite so easily rattled into using such intemperate language. Although I also don't agree with the views of Dune on many things, I don't recall him often having to stoop to puerile name-calling.

 

I will respond to this to make a point. Children are innocent in their views on the whole, unless they are very intelligent at a young age their opinions and ideas are often formed by their parents so any controversial comments can be ignored or disregarded. There is never an excuse to lose your temper or swear at a child because of an idea they express.

 

Aduls on the hand are a different kettle of fish. They should know better and if I feel they are inherently wrong on a topic I will tell them in no uncertain terms what I think, as demonstrated on this thread.

 

Therein lies the difference Wes, dune is an adult.

 

You also need to remember that my political beliefs actively promote inclusion in education so it can never be said that my beliefs would hamper the progress of any pupil.

[Wes Tender]

I will respond to this to make a point. Children are innocent in their views on the whole, unless they are very intelligent at a young age their opinions and ideas are often formed by their parents so any controversial comments can be ignored or disregarded. There is never an excuse to lose your temper or swear at a child because of an idea they express.

 

Aduls on the hand are a different kettle of fish. They should know better and if I feel they are inherently wrong on a topic I will tell them in no uncertain terms what I think, as demonstrated on this thread.

 

Therein lies the difference Wes, dune is an adult.

 

IMO a child's views are formed by the opinions expressed by those he holds in respect. It ought to be the case that somebody responsible for teaching that child should command that respect, but that they also have a responsibility to express both sides of a point of view, so that the child can achieve some sort of balance and make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so. Your views on this forum are often slanted very much towards the left and also often factually incorrect. So I hope that you are not responsible for teaching your pupils History or Economics.

 

As for your position on adults, as you say, they should know better. But neither does that excuse intemperate language from a professional such as a teacher. I have often said that one loses the argument if one has to stoop to name-calling. Anyway, I don't see much disproving of arguments as being inherently wrong, more a difference of opinion based on political dogma.