Green Goose

Rah x3 You are possibly to young to remember the Labour Govt and the Loonie Left in the 70's and the never-ending strikes in the State sector. Now Corbyn wants to take us back to all that by nationalising:- Rail Water Mail National Grid Electricity Suppliers Gas Suppliers To make matters worse he wants to borrow and spend on a scale that would dwarf the borrowing that Gordon Brown did, which knackered the economy and left a massive debt for our kids and grandchilderen to payoff. JC's a nice enough bloke - a pacifist and socialist idealist but I wouldn't even let him manage my childrens pocket money , let alone the Exchequer.

Spot the difference.... http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/Public%20Album/Corbyn_zpsuwluzhlo.jpg The one on the left is wearing a tie.

Thought the FT summed it up quite well today.... Mr Corbyn is a fringe figure who has spent his entire political career in opposition ? to his own Labour leadership. Despite his recent media makeover, he is a pacifist relic of the 1970s, in hock to the trade unions, with no grip on economic issues. It is no accident that the arrival of Mr Corbyn and his hard-left supporters in mainstream politics has coincided with a revival of anti-Semitism and misogyny.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Way back in the 1970s the WRP had a manifesto > > which included setting up a workers' militia > > instead of the police, locking everyone up who > was > > a drug addict or alcoholic- because apparently > in > > their 'utopia' people would not need these > escapes > > - some of the members I met were teachers, > Vanessa > > Redgrave and her late brother, Robert Powell > > popped up at a spring fair fund raiser, and > Mungo > > Jerry (the band) played at the conference. > > These ideas do not go away- their adherents are > > just better than they used to be at hiding > them... > > Way back in the 1960s some Tory candidates > campaigned with the slogan "If you want a nigger > neighbour, vote Labour." These ideas don't go > away, and their adherents don't even bother trying > to hide them. You just can't resist the urge to scratch that itch you have ,can you? Or is pouring salt in your own wounds?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is it with idiots asking for figures off the > top of peoples head at the moment. > I's like business, if you go into a meeting and you havn't got your figures and facts at your finger tips, you are toast. It certainly is in the businees that I'm in. Same with party leaders -they ought to be fully conversant with the numbers and costings. And for heaven's sake, today was the day JC launched his party's child care policy. Given that JC came accross well last night on C4 as a confident orator, but he lost all that cudos today when he couldn't talk the numbers on child care. TM last night recited all the numbers without hesitation. And when it comes to costing manifesto promises, it's the person who knows the numbers that has credibility with the electorate. At least, if JM becomes PM he will most most likely lead a Labour government that will be consistent with all the others in that every previous Labour govt has ended with a financial crisis caused by overspending and overborrowing. Every single one. Then Labour get kicked out by the electorate. Then the Tories get in and impose austerity to balance books and so they become unpopular and get kicked out. And so the cycle repeats itself. Plus ca change.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A friend of a friend is a journalist and filmmaker > from Beirut, currently living in Istanbul had this > to say on Corbyn's foreign policy. > > > > "Firstly, Paxman was f'ing crap, let's get that > out of the way. Looks like his race is run, time > for him to retire. > > Secondly, remember when Donald Trump said he was > going to make a deal with the Israelis and > Palestinians for peace? Remember how he was mocked > for this? Remember how his words weren't just > accepted but they were also scrutinised and found > to be total bollocks? Yeah, Corbyn does that on > Syria and he gets a loud round of applause. > > Again, I'm going to break this down into tiny > detail so the sceptics among you can understand > what is being said. > > Firstly Jeremy Corbyn's approach to combating ISIS > abroad is to "cut of arms and funding" for ISIS. > Let's start unpacking that. The international > coalition against ISIS have been "cutting off arms > and funding" for ISIS since the very beginning of > their campaign against them. What people do not > seem to understand, no matter how many times it is > plainly explained, is that Islamic State do not > receive huge amounts of external funding. > > The vast majority of IS wealth comes from robbery, > extortion, oil revenue, taxation and kidnapping. > Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes from > donations, those donations are from private > citizens and are very difficult to trace. Saudi > Arabia and the Gulf States are categorically not > funding Islamic State, they are part of the > anti-IS coalition and are actively fighting > Islamic State. Anyone found guilty of financing > Islamic State in one of those countries would be > imprisoned for a very long time. So talking about > arms deals to Saudi Arabia doesn't change anything > with regards to ISIS, no matter how many times > leftists write articles about it. > > Now onto arms, ISIS have a lot of weaponry, the > vast majority of it stolen. They have stolen it > from the US-backed Iraqi army, they have stolen > them from Gulf-armed rebel groups, they have > stolen them from the Russian backed Assad regime. > There are no large convoys of arms coming in to > Islamic State territory from neighbouring > governments. If there were, it would require air > strikes to destroy those convoys, air strikes > which Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end. > > Therefore the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is going to > stop ISIS by stopping fantasy revenue funds it > does not receive and arms shipments that do not > exist is as fanciful as trying to chop down an oak > tree by strangling it. It will not work, it is not > grounded in reality. However instead of mocking > his answers the British public loudly applaud him > because they do not understand this. Then, when > this is pointed out by those who understand the > situation, they are then called Tories or > imperialists or war mongers simply for pointing > out the facts. > > NEXT, Syria. > > We are back in the realms of Donald Trump's > fantasy peace deal in Israel here. Jeremy Corbyn's > frequent positions on Syria are as follows, 1) he > wants a negotiated settlement and the restarting > of the peace process which includes Iran. 2) He > thinks all action should be carried out through > the UN. > > Both of these positions are based on fallacies, > neither of them are ever properly scrutinised by > the British press. Firstly, Corbyn has been > talking about involving Iran in the peace process > since the very start of the crisis as if they have > not been involved. In reality, Iran has been > involved in the Syria "peace talks" for many years > now, in fact, they run the show. Iran and Russia > are the bulwark against international > accountability for the Assad regime, they are as > intransigent on diplomacy re:Assad as ISIS would > be re: Baghdadi. > > Iran and Russia are in Syria to preserve the Assad > regime. While Corbyn says there is "no military > solution in Syria", Assad, Putin and Tehran > disagree and are pushing forward with their plan > to cleanse all of Syria. Understanding this is > important, the issue isn't negotiating peace in > Syria, it is negotiating what a future Syria will > look like and what process the international > community can take to hold parties accountable to > those agreements. > > People seem so quick to forget that the Russians > negotiated an aid convoy into Aleppo and then > bombed it before it could enter. This is what we > are dealing with there, this is not a case of the > British government being bad at diplomacy, it is > about the international community being paralysed > by continuously trying to talk their way out of a > conflict in which the party holding the power has > no intention of talking about anything. > > Furthermore, Corbyn has repeatedly refused to call > for Assad to step down or transition out of power. > This is why the rebels are fighting, they want > Assad gone. There is no reality in which rebels > will surrender to Assad and live happily under > Assad. If Corbyn has no position on Assad's > future, unlike the British government who are > still insistent on a transition and refusal to > normalise relations, then Corbyn won't be > negotiating for peace in Syria, he will be > negotiating a victory for the Assad regime. A > victory for Assad will not ensure peace but will > instead fuel the fires of extremism and war for > many decades to come. > > The last point is the UN, and this is critical. > Corbyn continues to push the fallacy that any > military action must be decided through the United > Nations. Corbyn rejected and still opposes the > Libya No Fly Zone. The Libya No Fly Zone was UN > security council mandated. So, in the last example > of the UN backing military action, Corbyn opposed. > He would oppose UN backed military action in Syria > too. Most importantly, if Corbyn was prime > minister he would have a veto at the UN. He can't > have a neutral position on military action, he is > either for it or against it and Britain's vote in > the UNSC is critical to that action. Therefore > there can be no UN-backed military action unless > Jeremy Corbyn either votes for it or abstains. > > This also fails to include the fact that Russia, > which backs Assad and commits near-daily war > crimes in Syria, also has a veto at the UNSC and > have been vetoing any and all meaningful UN action > on Syria, including against chemical weapons, for > nearly 7 years. Pushing Syria towards the UN is > essentially Corbyn giving Vladimir Putin veto > powers over the entirety of British foreign policy > in the Middle East. > > Look, you might not care about this stuff, which I > can accept. But what I can't accept is the > mindless circus applause as if we were all seals > waiting by the side of the pool for someone to > throw us a fish. These are dangerously naive > positions to hold at best and criminally > neglectful positions to hold at worse.To see > people who genuinely don't understand the conflict > continue to push his foreign policy words as > "principled" is deeply frustrating. I know many of > you have your hearts in the right places, but what > you are endorsing is not only stupid but also > massively counterproductive. It is also not in > line with the frequent statements put out by human > rights organisations such as Amnesty > International. > > I know you all care more about what you think will > happen to the NHS and schools and that's fine, I > understand, but that does not give you the right > to start pushing this insidious nonsense to people > when you don't even have the facts to back it up. > Please, for the love of god, scrutinise this man > like you would any other politician. > > Just because you talk a strong game about "peace" > doesn't mean your policy approach won't make > things worse both at home and abroad. > > And, if we have anything to go off, after Donald > Trump carried out a barely significant strike > against an Assad air base, Corbyn asked his own > shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith how the > Labour party should respond. Griffith allegedly > said that Labour should support a proportionate > response, Corbyn overruled this and condemned the > strikes. Corbyn is overruling his own defence > secretary because he thinks he knows best when he > clearly doesn't. This is a troubling precedent to > set." No reflection on the content but I just wish I had the time to spend writing that that lot.

Foxy, No need to respond to RendelHarris's provocations. He is a sad troll. He has got nothing beter to do than provoke people on the EDF that don't agree with his views. If you do respond, he's guaranteed to take the bait. So predictable. He always wants to have the last word. He will flog any topic just the be the last word. Join the club Foxy and link up with Borky, Uncleglen, me and the others. We have all been targets of his biggoted trolling. GG

Classic RendellHarris. He's got nothing else to do all day so he spends hours (if not days) researching his target list plus searching for posts he finds that don't agree with his views. Then he regurgitates his bile. He's obviously at home all day with nothing better to do although he admits to being a self-styled "free lance writer". He obviously spends all day prowling the EDF and posting abolute drivel. Hang around, just like the P13, he will be back soon. GG

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you set yourself up as a one man EDF coconut > shy, don't expect any sympathy when people start > throwing balls at you. Well said Borky. Join the club. He certainly is an odd one but what is apparent is that he is an odious, self-opinionated, intolerant, sanctimonious, judgmental bigot. Now just watch, he will respond within minutes with a a bit of vitriol. Guaranteed. GG

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a general observation rh- do stop trolling > me > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tro > ll Uncleglen, Join the club. The club is not too exclusive however as RendellHarris has been trolling for ages and targets anyone who doesnt agree with his prejudices and sensitivities. He spends all day on the EDF just looking for new posts from those on his hate list. It's quite sad really but let's hope he grows out of it. Meanwhile, just a little tweak and he bails up like a rabid dog. GG

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- And > he's not being bullied, apart from one comment > above people are simply quite rightly disagreeing > with his hateful and puerile right-wing views and > his bellicose spiteful attitude. Interesting to see that you are still pre-occupied with your dislike of opposing views and that it is still eating away at you, day by day. Your inherent prejudices, sensitivities and intolerance just mean more attempts by you at spewing out more sanctimonious, vitriolic drivel.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I wonder if they have shareholders, > because if they do there's your answer - I have a > hard time imagining that any shareholders will > tolerate lower dividends; they don't tend to! Just to let you know, The PictureHouse operation is owned by Cineworld plc which has other entertainment franchises. Cineworld has shareholders and is quoted on the London Stocke Exchange. Market Cap is ?1.99Bn and turnover is ?797M pa. It provides shareholders with a dividend yield of 2.59% - which is below average. Cineworld has active competitors which keeps profits down. Longer term its profitability could deteriorate rapidly with the likes of Netflix providing streaming video on line. Other on-line streamers have been entering the market so the impact on Picturehouse could be quite severe. It could end up with a situation where technology creates a sea change. Remember when everyone used to rent videos from BlockBuster? And where are Blockbuster now?

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose, you should refrain from making ad > hominem remarks of this kind. They are > intolerable. Please Teacher he started it first with his post advising me to "Seek help" QUOTE You regard it as a laughable concept that when a company makes huge profits any of that profit should be utilized to improve the terms and conditions of its workers? Seek help. UNQUOTE > You also confuse legality (the power of > directors/shareholders) with ethics. Neither the > proposition (if you obey the law you act > ethically) nor its inverse (if you break the law > you have acted wrongly) are necessarily true. One > can think of many cases in which both are false. I only endeavoured to acquaint readers with the legalities and realities of the Picturehouse situation. The ethical dimension was tabled by you. One man's ethics can be another man's PITA hence a very subjective issue.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether > this analysis of current wages is accurate (it is > another debate entirely), if the position that > wages will rise post-Brexit is true, surely the > workers at Picturehouse are, in fact, ahead of the > curve in demanding higher wages? Hey, hey, this thread IS about wages at Picturehouse. It not as you say "another debate entirely". It is the debate! You just want to divert it into a debate on Brexit. The staff there with their demands is akin to Arsenal supporters yesterday shouting "Kroenke Out!" Kronke owns around 70% of Arsenal shares. He is the majority shareholder so he can do with the business what he wants. They didn't object when he bought in and they didnt object when they had 20 years of Champions League football. It's just laughable that people demand "rights" they have no legal right to have.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8 > > million post-tax profit with you, this is > totally > > absurd and laughable. The shareholders are the > > only ones who are entitled to share the profits > of > > a company. > > You regard it as a laughable concept that when a > company makes huge profits any of that profit > should be utilized to improve the terms and > conditions of its workers? It's laughable how staff can make demands on an employer who is not obliged to even consider these demands and who has no legal obligation to do so whatsoever. It's laughable that employees demand a share of the business's profits. Worker's utopia maybe? If the employers consider it might bring benefits to the company ( eg effeciency) if they paid more, then that's their decision. It's also laughable how you extrapolate matters to fit your weird prejudices. RH,You never let me down. One little tweak and you are up there straining on the leash. LOL. Do try and get out more and try to find a job rather than hanging around the EDF all day.

My first was a Matchless 350 Trials bike, circa 1962. Single cylinder. Great fun!

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >>Join us from 2.15 right opposite the cinema where there?ll be music, speeches, a whole bunch of people venting their >> anger at a company that made ?93.8 million post-tax profit and refuses to negotiate sharing this fairly. From livingwage.org.uk.... QUOTE ""The Living Wage is a voluntary higher rate of base pay. "" UNQUOTE Based on this fact, Picturehouse has no obligation to pay the living wage or even talk to you about paying it. Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8 million post-tax profit with you, this is totally absurd and laughable. The shareholders are the only ones who are entitled to share the profits of a company. If you are to secure any sympathy from the public, you need to get a better grip on the legalities involved and a better understanding of what any employer's obligations are under law. Apart from that, you should have good weather for the protest. FORH

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this Tories government have caused us to crash out > of Europe and with a mother term will no doubt > oversee the break up of the UK. History will judge > how 'strong and stable' they've been for the > country. Our kids are going to be poorer and have > fewer opportunities than we did. If you are going to go totally tribal and blame the Tories for Brexit, then you should give the facts a bit more thought. Brexit was a majority decision taken via a national referendum. Blame the referendum on UKIP. One major factor in the result was the "grey vote" ie older people who remember the UK signing up to the Common Market. This morphed into the European Union with the promise of " ever closer union". It was the prospect of that "ever closer union" concept (driven by France and Germany) that frightened these voters -quite understandable, given the failure of monetary union.

Speculation abounds that Vince Cable will switch sides and join Labour following his interview with Susanna Reid when he says that the LibDems? new public sector pay policy will affect 1 million workers, then 2 million workers, then 5.4 million. Or maybe he is going in for a Darwin awards, politically speaking. GG PS - RH, this was the fruits of my mate's research.

RH, Sounds like you are developing more of conspiracy theories.

Good to see the shadow cabinet members are showing a consistent standard of performance.

Jaywalker, It's your tendency to divert a thread about swifts with a snide political comment is something you seem to specialise in. This is what is infantile and boring. As for your assessment of my Green credentials and political inclinations, all I can say is you are very wide of the mark. GG

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And what do all the Conservative voters who read > this forum hope for Barry? > > To be clear, if the Tories win, his country > cousins will be torn apart by packs of dogs. Get a life and spare us your boring politicalisation of every topic you respond to. It's so repetitive, infantile and boring. GG

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As with bats, we should pay much more attention to > providing shelter for our native fauna. Instead we > have a return to fox-hunting promised by the woman > masquerading as the 'people's' prime minister. > Truly unspeakable. Get a life and spare us your boring politicalisation of every topic you respond to. It's so repetitive, infantile and boring. GG

Quite obviously LoeLeg, you really havn't grasped the basic realities of a free market in employment situation. This and your earlier posts confirm that. You must live in a Socialist dream land. Enjoy. GG