Jump to content

Huguenot

Member
  • Posts

    7,746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Huguenot

  1. Huguenot

    Slutwalk

    Fair play to LadyDelilah is she has inside knowledge on the aim of the walk, but the posters read 'Because we've had enough' rather than 'Because we're not getting enough'. ;-)
  2. http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00470/shellsuitRex_280_470726a.jpg
  3. Broadly speaking I thing SSG thinks there should be no government, no ideas, no collaboration and no compromises. Probably no media either. In fact probably no agriculutre or industry. Which is somewhat at odds with the enthisasm to strike to save public sector salaries, but there you go. It never had to be logical or consistent when you just hate everyone. I'm not sure I've ever seen SSG come up with an original idea, policy or plan of their own.
  4. I haven't failed to acknowlegde it, I just didn't and don't think it's relevant. I simply wasn't being drawn. I wasn't trying to discuss Thatcher's performance, I was trying to point out that during periods of employment growth the chief driver is low GDP-generator jobs. If unemployment in the UK was less than half that of France, France's figures were going to appear more productive simply by that calculation, not because of some ersatz assertion that it demonstrated something innherently productive about the French. Carnell wanted then, and still wants now, to turn this into a discussion of Thatcher. I don't want to be a part of that conversation (because it draws in spluttering wannabees like UnreliablePrejudice); I merely to point out that the oft-quoted productivity of the French is a load of old bollocks.
  5. But have you met all the other forumites?
  6. I'm sure Fabricio the Guido must be the hackneyed cliche alter ego of another forum member...
  7. Huguenot

    Slutwalk

    "after being educated about my sexual needs and how to satisfy them" Ha ha :) Do you think if I suggested that the failing in women was that they were refusing to be educated about my sexual needs and how to satisfy them, it might be suuggested that I was oppressing females? ;-) "We in the 'civilised' West practice a form of mental clitoridectomy on women" I think in 'Happy Days' that would be decribed as 'jumping the shark'. Clearly you have a sizeable, demanding and commanding sexual appetite LadyDelilah (on which I cast no judgement) - but please be assured that if others don't share it, it's not because of either inadequancy or persecution.
  8. That post was about comparing the UK with France on productivity and employment differential in the mid eighties, at a time when the government was aiming to reduce unemployment and had taken it from 11.3% to 6.7% over the period we were discussing. At that period France remained over 12% unemployed. I was not talking about Lamont's views 6 years later post 'bust' in the middle of a currency crisis, a view which eventually cost him his job. I illustrated the point with all the necessary data, unlike the prejudiced and unsupported fiction you bring to bear on most issues you touch. It's clear that like most naughty boys, you resent whoever catches you out telling lies, rather than be shamed by the lie itself. Am I to suffer more of your noisome attention over the coming weeks as you try and wreak a rather limp-wristed revenge?
  9. That's taking Lamont's quote out of context. He was not saying in general that high unemployment was a good thing - it was during a period in 1991 when inflation was running at 7.4% and interest rates were running at 12% (later to rise to 17% before pulling out of the ERM). We'd reached the point where mortgage interest rates were exceeding people's salaries and threatening a collapse in the economic system. Some of the people on here may be so used to low interest rates that they have no idea of the panic that was being created. We had middle aged family men crying in the office because they were going to lose their homes: despite the impossibility of meeting the interest fees they'd never qualify for welfare or benefits. The decision was a brutal one: to suffer a marginal increase in unemployment, or a national disaster. Unemployment was in this context 'the price worth paying'. In the end it would have been better to pull out of the ERM, which we had entered at the wrong rate. Lamont lost his job for it, so he was demonstrably wrong-headed. Nothing more to see here.
  10. Brickwork itself isn't water proof, if water enters at a low level capillary action will draw it up from the basement and into the house. Even concrete isn't actually waterproof. The damp proof course is only a thin horizontal membrane where it's above the surface. Your basement is likely to be entirely clad in a waterproof membrane, and unless the water table is unusually low anything pentrating this will allow water in, and over time will soak into the fabric of the house. There are 'waterproof' fittings, but I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. Jeremy is right that glue will only strip away the plaster, and won't carry any weight. Is it really that important not to have free standing units when the potential damage to your house is so significant? A good handyman could probably run some up for you that wouldn't be noticeably different from wall fitting ones.
  11. So we have a big long list of what you're 'against' sagatelsagouni, what are you 'for'?
  12. AfN somewhat blind to the ridiculousness of an anarchist group (which by definition supports the abolition of the state) supporting strikes against a reduction in public sector workers and state benefits such as welfare and healthcare.
  13. It's you do that doesn't make any sense AfN. Why do you have to be persistently rude in this stange cliched way? What does that opinion piece tell us? That there's more than one political grouping in a political party? Of course there is - that's true of all political parties, and even more true of your anarchist colleagues. Society and progress are predicated on compromise, not unity - something with which you may be unfamiliar. That one group brings out a puff piece on their philosophical vision tells us very little about the beliefs of their colleagues.
  14. National Socialism was a populist movement, but that has nothing to do with it being progressive liberalism. Progressive liberalism believes in government intervention in national issues like healthcare, economics and education and protecting civil rights. Believing in government intervention doesn't make it totalitarianism. In fact within the civil rights tenet of progressive liberalism lies one of the fundamental differences with National Socialism . The National Socialist movement believed in sustaining social division and the idea of a gentically defined ruling cadre (a victorian British concept) - a long way from civil rights. Both movements had their roots in the rejection of the fiercely feudal nature of the imperial era. It still doesn't make them the same thing. Only a right wing twat like Goldberg could conflate the two. I'm sure Goldberg doesn't care whether he calls them fascists or socialists so long as it sells his books and feeds the rage of neo-cons.
  15. Yep, that was Frankito and Annette.
  16. I mean, if these unions are providing 'lifelong learning' as you say, surely it's not so that their members can be sat behind the same desk for 50 years? The unions are complaining about excessive 'management' and 'consultant' ranks - so the only thing they can incentivise members to do with their education is move somewhere else?
  17. Most of the rest of the progressive socialists are asking for more, not less mobility. The unions might do themselves a favour if they stop thinking 'jobs for life' is a desirable - I'll be betting that movement between employers is because in a modern information rich era people enjoy change, are fitter more healthy and adventurous, and have greater ambitions and more distant horizons. Rather than being down to poor management, it's more likely because of better management provides more extensive and transferable skills.
  18. Huguenot

    Slutwalk

    The demise of the reputation of intellectuals in Britain seemed to coincide with the collapse of the final vestiges of colonial power. It's almost as if the 'man on the street' held the intellectuals responsible for the fact that Britain can no longer enslave foreigners. Not unlike the 'man on the street' who blames the bankers for the demise of the cruelly constructed economic house of cards on which we perched for so long.
  19. The key phrase there is 'history'. It should be noted that HG Wells 'wanted' liberal fascism - he didn't say it existed. If you're really claiming that you cannnot understand the difference between the eugenicist, socially divisive totalitarian politics of late 19th century Europe and the wafty inclusive liberalism of modern UK then there is no helping you. Personally I don't think you care one way or the other - you just love the idea of calling other people fascists in the hope that it'll get their goat. I'll leave you with this quote from the same review - "he [Goldberg] clearly does want to be able to accuse the Clintons of fascism and his disavowals lack conviction. He is in danger of shouting "fascist" so often that he will miss the real thing when it appears." In other words our reviewer does not endorse the Liberal Fascist assertion that you claim, merely that as a historical examination it's an interesting academic exercise.
  20. As I mentioned - zilch chance of sensible response. The idea that we take the extreme right-winger shock-commentator Jonah Goldberg as the source of intelligent comment on liberalism is pathetic. He claimed Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton were all fascists. He based this on the view that Liberals tend to be interested in organic foods, public healthcare and animal rights. He explained that since the Fascists also had these views then that means Liberals were Fascists. This is the observations of cretin. It would be ridiculous to ally yourself with him. I mights as well claim that you're a Fascist on the basis that you both wear underwear and sleep in a bed. As I mentioned, that 'hide' button is flashing red.
  21. In Singers the government offers easily the highest paying jobs, and snaps of the cream of the young job market. Demand is such that kids failing to make the grade usually go into a fit of depression that lasts years as they scrabble around for a way to get back in - making them almost useless at any other job too.
  22. Huguenot

    Slutwalk

    Tarot's not alone, it's a great tragedy of the British that we desipise out 'intilecktuals'. Here's WH Auden: To the man-in-the-street Who, I'm sorry to say Is a keen observer of life, The word 'Intellectual' suggests right away A man who's untrue to his wife. He's even written it in doggerel to appeal to the masses ;-) John Naughton neatly summarised it as follows: "Britain is a country in which the word "intellectual" is often preceded by the sneering adjective "so-called", where smart people are put down because they are "too clever by half" and where a cerebral politician (David Willetts) was for years saddled with the soubriquet "Two Brains"." Tarot feels that sexuality is just about as dirty a subject as you can get - so for Tarot 'intilecktuals' are even perverse when it comes to that. For most British people that lean that way, a visceral hatred of the French finds its foundation in their perceived intellectualism. Less kind observers would argue that the British hatred of intellectualism is merely a manifestation of a tragic inferiority complex. You decide ;-)
  23. No Undisputedtruth, I don't have to do anything of the sort. The fact is that you started making stuff up to justify an unpleasant and irrational prejudice. You've tried to be 'clever' to try and wheedle and twist your way out of it, and this is just another example. It's not very clever because you kept making claims that could be checked. Every time your dishonest claims have been exposed, you pretend that they're based on something else. Now your only response has been to try and make an uncheckable claim. The fact is that you're both wrong and dishonest. There's no 'good name' to defend until you start being reasonable.
  24. You're just repeated the data, but I still can't find it to analyze it - can you link me to the source? It's noticeable that you continually make inaccurate claims - for example you claimed union services such as health and safety campaigning, political campaigning, lifelong learning are 'free'. This simply isn't true. Union members will be subject to a number of fees, regular dues and assessments. Additional facilities such as healthcare plans or car insurance will attract additional fees. That's the same as an insurance premium - something available to non unionised workforces. I'm afraid it's perfectly plausible that your union propaganda is quoting the source material incorrectly and out of context. It's quite possible that the data you're quoting is heavily caveated, as was your World Bank data - and that as with that data you're making claims that aren't robust. When you say that unions 'bring' all of this stuff, that fact is that this stuff is also available elsewhere - it is unreasonable to apply these benefits simply to unionisation. I also didn't say that unions don't make a difference - Marmora Man observed that unions no long had the role in the workplace that they did 100 years ago, and I observed that 77% of the workforce was doing very well without unionisation. Your response has been to try and give credit to the unions for schemes that are widely available independently. The 'difference' the RMT is making is militant bullying, the violent persecution of staff who don't share their views, and the avoidance of justice. They certainly make a 'difference'.
  25. I can't find the button that says 'subtract news stories'. I don't think you did either. You should check stuff before you start bullshitting. The best you could do is just look at Life and Style - and guess what twinkle toes: M&S 1,245, Sainsbury 1,419, Tesco 1,446. Look, instead of just making stuff up, why don't you admit that your assertions are baseless? Why do you keep making more and more complex lies?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...