BBC News caught blatantly inventing stories about the strike, featuring highly dubious individual stories of anti-strike woe, now removed. A dirty class war is in play. https://skwawkbox.org/2022/12/08/bb...il-strikes-as-bots-mount-mass-disinformation/
In response to them making things up about me. Funny, I'm getting that same vibe I did when you defended a poster because I called him a racist **** (and not a terd) after he called me a **** for calling out his disgusting racism, whilst you had no bad words to say about his description of East African Asians as being ****ish. Disclaimer, I used asterisks. You see no wrong when people start things, but if Hooter defends himself, up go your pettycoats and outrage is your cry. I would say that of the two of us, you are the least nice, by a very, very long way.
Doubles down as ever. You really should be banned. You’ve had every opportunity to change your ways. This making things up about others you do is, quite frankly, repulsive and here you are threatening to do it again.
Are you saying I am making up you defending that comment? Go on. And please can you respond to 63 making up rubbish about my day, just for ballanceyou unplesant little Moose. Oh. You've not reported me to the Mods for asking someone not to make things up about me, have you? Use of the word terd may, in this case, be fully justified. Not just nasty, but also sad. I'm still waiting for your justification for that offensive vomit of accusations you made yesterday. So perhaps you can complain about yourself at the same time? I suppose you are going to say I'm stalking you again. Yet I haven't mentioned, but here you are commenting on me talking to another poster. Should I call the police? I have had some decent conversations on here the last few days, when you and 63 haven't been tag teaming me.
No way. Sorry Moose. But where did I call you a terd. Sorry you miss read the post. I said the use of terd wouldn't be out of place, but I never said how. But you are getting a little obsessive now in your infatuation. Send me a stamped address envelope and I'll send you a few pictures, or maybe a used pair of underware. I know people think I am a nob, but I don't think you are impressing anyone right now either. Maybe calm down a little. For the forum.
I will reply to most of this diatribe when I’ve got more time. But being accused of levelling tawdry insinuations by someone whose entire MO is based on that takes satire to its highest level. Please quote any such insinuation I’ve made. And please feel free to submit any version of my background and daily life you wish…it cannot be more ludicrously inaccurate than most other things you post.
Can people please just put him on ignore and be done with it? It's nothing but a waste of your time and all it does is completely derail threads.
I know a ban is probably justified but I've not read a word he has written since he said to me that he wouldn't reply to me if I didn't reply to him (December 2020). I suspect he's not a man of his word but it really is easier just to ignore him. Many people take different views on this forum without being deliberately obnoxious and provocative. Just engage with them. It really is not worth engaging with trolls that get a hard on (probably literally) at your frustration with their behaviour.
Copied from elsewhere, these are the strikes this month, December 5-9 – Greene King brewers December 5-10 – Bestfood delivery workers (likes of KFC, Wagamama, Pizza Express and Zizzi affected) December 5-11 – Co-op Funeralcare coffinmakers December 5-18 – Shelter charity workers December 7 – Scottish teachers December 9 – Royal Mail December 9-10 – Abellio bus December 11 – Royal Mail December 12-16 – Bestfood delivery workers (likes of KFC, Wagamama, Pizza Express and Zizzi affected) December 13-14 – Rail December 13-16 – Rural Payments Agency staff December 14-15 – Royal Mail December 15 – NHS nurses December 16 – Eurostar December 16-18 – Baggage handlers by Menzies at Heathrow Airport December 16-17 – Rail December 16-17 – Abellio bus December 18 – Eurostar December 19-31 – Department for Working Pensions staff in Liverpool and Doncaster December 20 – NHS nurses December 21 – Ambulance workers December 22-23 – Eurostar December 23-24 – Royal Mail December 24-27 – Rail December 28 – Ambulance workers December 28-31 – Driving examiners in East Midlands Power to the proletariat!
Have to say the Shelter one stood out a bit there, especially given the time of year. Seems they're being stiffed by their bosses too though. Scandalous.
‘How about Plan of Pain?’ ‘Nah doesn’t really hit the mark’ ‘Okay, what about Scheme of Shock?’ ‘Not really alliterative is it though? ‘Right, yes I understand. Objectionable Objective?’ ‘Do you really think our readership can handle a five syllable word in a headline you idiot? **** it, just call it a Calendar of Chaos’ ‘Very well, Mein Fuhrer’
Yeah. Didn't think you would want to justify what you think a living wage should be. It's just a phrase to you and the idea that government subsidise it is simply an auto suggestion that you think makes a person really virtuous. If you are going to talk about a living wage, you should, at the very least, suggest its value, and justify your reasonsing. Does it include enough for a middle class mortgage? Should it pay for a person to buy a house or rent one? No surprise that you would rather perpetuate petty squabbling, insults and fantasy world building over civil conversation. No surprise at all.
What on earth is a middle class mortgage? It's just a nonsense phrase that means nothing and says nothing. I would respectfully suggest that if you're going to demand definitions from others, at least define what you mean first. Should a wage enable a person to live in a home they either own or rent? I mean, I'm sure I've seen a dafter question or comment than that, but not since that radio host tried to argue until he was blue in the face that you could grow concrete. The Government has a law that sets the minimum wage and there's also a definition for the living wage on the gov.uk website so these are not abstract concepts. And there are campaigners who suggest that at a time of high inflation, minimum and living wages need to rise too. It's funny how often the sort of people who have their gaze fixed downwards demanding that the least well off work harder to justify their income have very little inclination to scrutinise unearned wealth and unearned income. It's almost a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. There are so many subservient foot soldiers for the wealthiest and most powerful.
Home ownership has been broken under this Government. Unrestricted access to the housing market for overseas capital and insufficient restrictions on buy to let have led to an unprecedented fall in home ownership. The Tories have made homeownership an elite and middle class thing, an aspiration beyond large sections of the working class people and many middle class ones too. And the social housing? Much if it gone. A nation of renters in other people’s castles.
You can't figure out what a mortgage would be for a middle classed family? My question to 63, which he appears to be unable to answer, is intended to eek out whether he believes a living wage relates to a middle class lifestyle, or a working class lifestyle, or a worker drone lifestyle. A fair question I think. Not my fault you do not have the capacity to figure that out. Should a wage enable a person to live in a home they either own or rent? You are not up on the news mate. WEC, who regularly present their ideas to the G7-20 audiences, have mooted that by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy. Not my fault if you do not keep up with the modern elitest (lets face it, the WEP do not envisage themselves owning 'nothing') thinking on how the plebs will live. Get yourself up to date. Unless, of course, your good words about the raveges of capitalism do not equate to the fact that without capitalism, people cannot 'own' or buy their homes, and the question then is whether or not they are given accommodation to use, or are charged rent by the government. Your thinkig seems a little simplistic on this. But please appreciate that if you take something away, it no longer remains. It seems, from your words, that you believe that all 63's suggestions (that is what I am discussing here with him) may happen without there being any effect other than people get wealthy. Good luck with that. If you did not realise that I am discussing specific matters with 63, please consider that you may be putting ideas into my mouth. Clearly, also, you have not figured out that if a national living wage exists, but people are now into nation wide strike action because they are not being paid enough, asking for a definition of the living wage that a poster has suggested will solve this problem, is not in any way unreasonable or, one would have thought, even particularly surprising. Yet you are surprised. Again. Not my fault you do not have the capacity to figure that one out. Sorry if I come across a little curt, but I am, I believe, responding to you in a similar manner to which you addressed me. I am not gazing downward here. I am working class, and I am working in one of the areas which has long been overlooked for decent wage awards. I don't own a house, because I am not materialistic, I ride a bike (I have no car) because it is eco friendly, and I represent my colleagues against management. So, quit being patronising, quit gazing down at us, and do a little research.
Absolutely. And rents are outrageous. As I strolled past an estate agent window the other day I saw that renting a one-bedroom flat round my way is significantly more expensive than the middle class mortgage (!) on my middle class (!) home. Young people (especially) have been absolutely stitched up. But, hey, perhaps they could just get a better job, or a better paid one. Or move somewhere cheaper where the work pays less and the career prospects are worse, in the process taking jobs away from the local people. Or perhaps they could seek a better life and career in Europe… although there may be a flaw to the suggestion.
Indeed. My sense is that younger people are cottoning on to the fact that they are entering a system that is completely rigged against them. Unfortunately, there are a lot of truth-twisting, shape-shifting 'left is right, right is left' arguments to ensure that people will think politicians are all the same, or all as bad as each other. A bit like our old pal Henry – the union rep who says he wants a better deal for the people he represents but in almost every single utterance stands for things that make conditions worse for people at the bottom end of the economy, and then accuses others of the very things he does himself. It's really quite extraordinary but he's on the ignore list now, mainly because the diversionary word salad is like looking at a magic eye painting. I can sort of see the argument that's being made if I squint.
The other day you seemed quite thoughtful, but your last few posts seem to have just degenerated into whining about the situation without discussing what the possible cures may be, other than don't vote for the tories; which, as it happens, may well be necessary (because they have lost it), but unfortunately does not, in any way, guarantee, or particularly promise, that anything will get any better. If an advantage is going to be gained by Labour being voted in, it will be in them radically changing the system, rather than saying "subsidise more, and invite everyone over so we can subsidise them too". Do that, and, within a couple of years, the tories will appear YET AGAIN, to be the only option we have to save the country from ruin. Labour needs to break that cycle. They are not going to do it by adopting year six politics projects from kids being egged on by activist teachers.
Well, and I don't think you can argue that I am making it up, given your words above, when I say you must be happy that Thatcher created an environment for home owners, if you think that home ownership is a good thing for everyone. Personally, I am ambivallent on the subject, not being or ever intending to become a home owner. But I would be interested to know if left wing Watford fans think that renting is for loosers, and that capitalistic home ownership, and the leveraging of its value is the socialist thing to do. Yes, I will enjoy reading that one. Closet tory confessions incoming? Ahh. Now you all press ignore...
I said I'd reply when I had time. What would I call a living wage was answered in #122, when I suggested it was a fundamental right for someone 'to be able to live inan acceptable degree of comfort commensurate with their contribution to society' and then suggested in a country such as UK that could be termed a 'living wage' which would 'allow you & your family to eat healthily, keep clean & dressed, stay warm & not be forced to live in unsafe & insanitary conditions.' The definition for the UK does not remove the right to be expressed differently in other countries. In #123, the very next post you claim that I 'haven't even defined what you mean by living wage'. Clearly, I had. And whilst you may want to talk about the 'average wage in UK', I would think the 'median' is far more relevant. In April 2022 I believe it was nearer £32,000 pa. In #138 you state 'a living wage is not a right.' I confess that surprsised me. In the same post you declare 'capitalism works if you keep greed out of it through regulation (which, yes, is legislation, but aimed at business not tax payers). ' But you object elsewhere to 'legislation'! So it seems to be OK as long as we call it 'regulation' to achieve the chimera of 'non-greedy capitalism'. Notwithstanding the point that legislation aimed at a living wage is, by definition, aimed at businesses. In that post you then go on to say 'being generous and compassionate to all is a fantastic idea but....will draw everyone down.' In a nutshell, if you're at the bottom now, tough cos we don't want to bring anyone else 'down', now do we? The end result has to be a general smoothing out of the current discrepancies in living standards. You close this post with 'Or shut the F. up. I have a very vivid imagination and will be happy to describe your day to everyone on here.' I replied (#147) 'Please feel free to submit any version of my background and current life.' Your reply (#162) was 'No surprise you would rather perpetuate petty squabbling, insults .....over civil conversation.' I'm at a loss as to whether that's irony or satire.
First. You still haven't defined a living wage, only what you think it should afford. How much is a living wage. Also, you qualify it by how hard a person works and contributes. So clearly, in the post above, you are not talking about a living wage, but levels of wages. How much are you expecting tax payers to subsidise people coming here on FOM? Or are you suggesting foreign workers don't get the same wage as other workers, for the same work? How much is a living wage? Same question. Do I need to ask it again? How much money are you talking about? Fair question, seeing as you think I should help foot the bill for it. Re legislation comments. I should have made it clear that I meant ridiculous legislation that will increase the tax burden, compound employment problems, and pretty much finish this country off. Regarding "don't want to bring everyone else down", thank you for clarifying that that is something you are prepared to risk doing. You really should get someone to read your posts before you send them. If you think it is OK to bring anyone else down, that is your own rather unpleasant business. What are your reasons for making a living wage a fundamental (human) right? What is the logic behind it, and who would you restrict from receiving it? Personally, I believe that ensuring no person starves, and that they not be refused health care, is appropriate. But making a living wage a fundamental right is a very stupid and counter productive idea. Read up on the reasons why it is not a fundamental human right under the human rights act. You might trust them more than you do me. You are simply digging your hole deeper and deeper, and every correction you make is making it clear that you have no concept of economics, human nature, or anything else you have chosen to talk about here. Sorry, but for a very vocal and persistant poster, you do not seem to have any concern about the effects your ideas would have on the real world, or how ignorant they make you look.
On the morning news today, they had the chief executive of Network Rail. A little speccy Penfold fella he was. With a hand wringing and a shhit eating grin he started off with something along the lines of "well Mick (Lynch) is a great communicator but..." ha ha ha. Translation: 'We know we're losing the argument and the public's sympathy but..." He then went on to claim that something the union had said should be disregarded by the public because it was a "red heron". Mama.
Interesting some think the public are on the side of the strikers. Nearly every person I speak to, from many backgrounds and political persuasions, seem to be more annoyed with them than the BBC is portraying. Whilst there is sympathy that times are hard, they're hard for everyone, and the minority holding the majority hostage at Christmas time, when many are really struggling, isn't (and shouldn’t be expected to be) seen at all positively. The Royal Mail strikes especially are just idiotic. I've spoken to small and large businesses that will stop using them after this current strike action. RM workers’ jobs were already at risk given the much greater innovation in the private sector, and they decide to stand there pouring petrol over their heads as the building burns around them. I'm also annoyed at the government for their lack of honest communication. We cannot expect the same level of service whilst reducing real salaries by 9%. Just be honest. These services will get worse. But our debt is huge and spiralling and we can't afford to give away life-long double-digit pay rises (and significant pension contributions) and embed in inflation. Especially given inflation is the most harmful thing to livelihood and the vast majority of current inflation is caused by temporary energy price spikes.
