Brendan

So as not to lower the tone of this thread I?m going to refrain from making any of the jokes that last sentence brings to mind LB. I shall answer instead in the medium of Cartoon Network. http://www.homiesonfire.com/bravo/JohnnyBravo11.gif

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalbeagle Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LOL! Why is that?! > > Because we're just plain DUMB Nah, come on *Bob* it?s for the same reason we do that self-deprecating shit you just tried there. Because deep down we know that chicks dig it.

David it seems to me that you are suggesting that political influence should be open to market forces.

I know it may seem that way but when making observations about people?s characters I am not making some sort of assertion about my own.

The more I think about it the more I realise that this ?It?s not equality, it?s mobility? argument is a red herring. (Which is my drawing room way of saying, bollocks.) The two things are one in the same or at least intrinsically inseparable. The reason there is limited mobility is because of the gross inequality. But you won?t get many people to agree to that because it means they will actually have to be honest with themselves and (depending on how self absorbed/short sighted they are) admit that it isn?t all fine just because they?re fine or that they are holding onto an ideological position because of their own need/desire to feel superior to others.

My question is what the agenda behind brining this to light now is when the press, and most of Westminster, have been aware of it for years but those who have rightfully tried to expose it have not been given a proper voice. Brings to mind a Newswipe episode from last year with that guy on whose name I can?t remember.

You would have to institute some sort of schoolboy political competition or a junior politician?s academy system to ensure that the buggers have at least some sense of common decency and fair play drummed into them.

Nope. You're confusing it with The Uplands, down the road.

I summed up your last paragraph a few days ago in one succinct sentence but alas, it disappeared into the ether.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brendan some of us have seen those poor pushed out > people push out the more working class populations > that lived here and similar places before if we > really want to start a hierachy of rich(er) than > me bastards being at fault for everything. That's not really what I was getting at. I was using an example to illustrate a point. I really don't see these massive financial rewards in the public sector that you imply seem to exists. The current government may have created many more jobs within the sector but they are not particularly well paid.

Well LM here are some ideas, Under this government millions of people on low incomes are forced to pay hundreds of pounds in income tax every year, keeping pensioners on the breadline and meaning that for many people in low paid jobs work simply doesn?t pay. Even a person working full-time earning minimum wage has nearly ?1000 taken in income tax. At the same time we have a tax system that lets big business and the very rich treat tax as if it is optional. Somebody needs to radically rebalance the tax system, cutting taxes for people on low and middle incomes which will be paid for by cutting reliefs and closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest. If you raised the threshold at which people start paying income tax from current levels to ?10,000, cutting the average working age person?s income tax bill by ?700 and cutting pensioner?s income tax bills by ?100. These plans will mean that almost 4 million people on low incomes will no longer have to pay any income tax at all. Now if only there was a political party that had these ideas and published them online so that I could copy and paste them over here.

Annoyance at the exorbitant wealth of white collar, middle class public sector workers is understandable for someone who has lived in this area for a while and seen how these bastards have steadily been pushed out by bankers, lawyers, advertisers and other people from hard done by, discriminated against industries.

Good point.

Do we still do this? Anyway I just discovered these guys who I've been enjoying muchly.

These guys really do deserve respect and support for this operation. Aside from the inhospitable terrain the causalities and fighting the sheer drawn out length of the conflict must grind them down. It?s been going on for 8 years now with some going back for multiple tours.

But it can also cause grounds to discredit evidence and inadvertently banjo the prosecutor?s case. That's the reason.

That was easy once you explained it. I knew it would be tit realted but I just kept on thinking chocolate tits.

Titter.

PGC's good at these.

No, nope can't get it.

I think there is a Buxom Wench clause in the rules. Something about them having to compete, citing something called the Baywatch Precedent. You will have to check with the chairman though as he is the only one who has access to the rules, written as they are on the back of an empty pack of Lambert and Butlers and kept under lock and key in a secret nuclear bunker somewhere in the vicinity of Penge.

There really should be a breathalyser on political panel shows.

The Villager specifically though smacks of pretence. It?s almost estate agent talk. I would go for Brian. You can?t go wrong with Brian. As long as my Labrador, The Prince of Wales, is allowed in.

Well maybe a bit. but just a bit.

I wasn?t being serious like.