Posted by JLW on Monday Aug 15, 06:09
John is running his "Thank you!" campaign and leaflets are going through doors at the moment.
The basic message was that the election was a success for the Lib Dems - a bad night for Labour and a bad night for the Tories.
"John Leech MP was sensationally elected our new MP in Britain's biggest winning swing to the Liberal Democrats, overturning a massive 11,574 Labour majority."
The leaflet points out there are "Only 667 votes seperate Lib Dem John Leech and Tony Blair's man.".
The leaflet also says that he may not have responded to the "hundreds of people [that] contacted John Leech during the election campaign" and if you haven't recieved a response getback in touch. Perhaps he will be more diligent as an MP.
Something to note in the small print: "...we may call you in future - even if you are TPS registered...". Seems a little odd considering the Lib Dems campaign to stop nuisance election calls: http://www.libdems.org.uk/tps/
+ tags coming soon
( 94 Comments )
Dave Wilson
Monday Aug 15, 18:05
not got the leaflet yet. But I am looking forward to it.
BTW Thomas, you excited about this week? Results are in for A-level's. Good luck.
peter h
Tuesday Aug 16, 03:09
grow up for god sake and stop being so petty minded. If you want to do politics then you need to take your blinkers off.
First of all, TPS, telephone preference service, is to stop unwanted cold-call selling, not to stop your bloody mp contacting you. Admittedly the idea of an MP making efforts to talk to his constituents might seem a bit novel to labour, but most constituents will be pleasantly surprised if a politiciam does contact them when there isnt an election round the corner.
As for "diligence", moron, that is precisely how the lib dems won the core of its vote - by diligently pursuing constituents' interests at councillor level. You just don't get it, do you? You still don't understand why you lost. You're believing your own half-witted myths, convincing yourselves that you are the victims of some non-existent underhand tactics, unable to face the truth.
Thomas
Tuesday Aug 16, 03:42
*** EDITED ***
Yes I do get my A-Level results this week Dave - thanks. I don't know if Peter H means read politics at uni by "do politics" or just in general, but I am going to read Maths at university.
On the issue of TPS Peter, I agree completley - the aim is to stop unwanted cold call selling. However, it is a little hypocritical to say the least when they Liberal Democrats say, "The Liberal Democrats respect the rights of an individual to opt-out of receiving cold-calling telephone calls, and we work hard to try and ensure we do not call TPS registered numbers" (from the Lib Dem site linked in the article) and on their leaflets they say they will ignore TPS registrations unless you tell them. I'm sure you'll come back with the Labour party being hypocritical in some way, but just read it.
I don't see why you, or your son feel the need to direct insults such as "moron" etc. at me - I don't argue that the Liberal Democrats have been very busy in the local area. I would hope that if I had written to John Leech he would reply, regardless of whether it was during election time or not - I can understand a backlog of letters (I'm sure the last few months have been very hectic for John what with all the changes and finding an office etc.), but simply saying please write again is a bit rude.
I get why Labour lost... it is really quite simple - as John's leaflet tells me: 15,872 people voted for John Leech and 15,205 people voted for Keith Bradley. As more voted for Mr Leech than Mr Bradley, Mr Leech won the election.
Why then, you ask, have I been involved in campaigns "against" John Leech and setup this site? The answer is simple: I (along with 15,204 others) believe that a Labour MP can serve this constituency better than any other MP. I want people to know that John Leech did mislead people about Christie "closing", and want to make it possible to keep up-to-date with John's actions as our representative.
Obviously, I believe that Keith Bradley was a better MP than John Leech will be but at the end of the day the proof, as they say, is in the pudding and we will only know what people think at the next election.
Part of this post has been deleted following a request by John Leech. The post suggested that John Leech lied about a statement supposedly made by the police. Infact, one of John Leech's election leaflets said that the Police supported his campaign. The police have said that they never pass any comment on political policy.
Thomas
Tuesday Aug 16, 03:59
Oh and just as an afterthought, John Leech Watch has now had over 20,000 hits since 13th May 2005. I'm pleased that something so small can contribute to political discussion in the local area.
I forgot to mention something I heard that was interesting recently - I was speaking to some voters in Didsbury and was told that by one resident (Didsbury East ward) that the Labour council had let him down with his street repairs, and that he didn't feel able to vote Labour until things had improved.
Apparently though, he was just as unimpressed with his Liberal Democrat councillors.
His road was in need of repair - there were some pot holes in road. One local resident, who had been making a concrete drive, used his leftover concrete to fill in the holes.
To the residents suprise, they received a leaflet (most likely a "Focus") telling them that the Lib Dem councillors had got their street fixed. Perhaps this is an example of the Lib Dems being extremely diligent, but in the wrong way.
peter h
Tuesday Aug 16, 14:15
John Leech misled nobody about Christies. He picked up on the intelligent fears of the doctors and bought it to the fore just as he should have done. As far as we can see, he got a result for his efforts too.
As for diligence, by the way, the West Didsbury Residents had their regulat meeting last night. As usual there were a couple of lib dem councillors there. And Joh n Leech came along to, as he has always done regularly.
That's why they get votes. They turn up and work at grass roots level. No doubt they pull a few political stunts - all politicians do - but nobody here can remember keith bradley ever turning up , or any labour people turning up to help the local association.
The result is, after years of their doing that time after time after time, people round here feel connected to Lib Dems in a way that Labour has forgotten about in Manchester. Labour has been in power so long in this city that they take it for granted and have forgotten that they are supposed to be our servants, rather than our masters. They need to lose power for a few years in order to learn what being the people's party is all about.
Good luck at university, by the way. And remember - politicians lie. ALL of them. And the nerds you see debating inanely at the various political societies at university are the ones which will run the countyry in 25 years time, god help us.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Aug 16, 15:12
I am dissappointed in the tone that Peter has lowered himself to (no need for name calling!?)
Personally I think you are wrong Thomas. I don't think a Labour MP can serve us well, but likewise I am not so sure any other political party can. I believe that Party Politics has had its day, and the need for more independent MP's is needed. However, we only have two independent MP's in the whole of Parliment, and the way the election process is run in this country at the moment, makes it very hard for independents to suceed at elections.
BTW Thomas, will you be able to continue this site when you go to uni? I do hope so. As for the 20,00 hits about me, alan and peter make up about 75% of that! (only kidding!)
Alan
Tuesday Aug 16, 19:48
Peter, if you don't watch it you're going to end up having a heart attack!!
Thomas
Tuesday Aug 16, 20:22
I'm not actually going to Uni next year, I'm having a Year In Industry. I will continue to contribute to this site and part of the reason that it will work is the group of people involved in the site.
Whether a state without party politics would work or not is a bit of a non-issue (though I would be happier if parties encouraged MPs to vote for what they believed in rather than toe the party line at all times) as the reform required will never happen. This is just a quick post so I'll discuss it in a post later.
Thank you Dave - I do find Peter's insults rude, and I don't see why you can't get your point across without them. I hope that I don't come across in the same way - I always try to provide a response other than "you are an idiot" or "grow up". On the 20,000 hits - that is page impressions, so you are right there are duplicates. The number of unique visitors is somewhere just over 1,000.
My view that a Labour MP would best represent this constituency (and any other) is based on values - and Labour party values is why I am a member of the Labour party. Yes, things haven't gone right over the last two terms of Government but (in my opinion), many more things have become much better. Can I suggest reading Better or Worse by Poly Toynbee on the subject.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Aug 17, 13:44
Not a very ethical choice there Thomas? I am quite suprised. However, I am sure it will be a valuble year for you, so good luck with that.
Labour, I feel did great in the first term (minimum wage for one). I was very proud of them. Second term was great right up to the Twin Towers. Since then they have been on a downward spiral in my opinion. And that is why, after so many years of voting and supporting the Labour party, I felt that i had to switch to the Lib Dems.
peter h
Thursday Aug 18, 03:32
let me get this straight. It is all right for thomas and alan and friends to insult at will John Leech, for whom I vote, calling him a liar , accusing him of misleading the electorate, accusing him of grossly exploiting cancer victims (which really would be unforgivable had he done it).
But if in retaliation on his behalf I insult them in what are far milder ways, albeit with a few robust words, then that is NOT all right? That is lowering the tone?
Oh no it isn't, matey.
I've used a few choice words, and I stand by every one of them because, with the exception of Steve on another thread, they were deserved.
Sorry if you don't like it, and you're welcome to say what you want about me without me getting upset.
But remember you have been throwing garbage at John Leech since he won, and if you want to live in a glass house then don't throw stones. Don't give what you can't take. You guys set the tone with the attacks on John Leech, not me.
And if you think that working for the MOD is a moral career choice, then saying that I lower trhe tone beggars belief. WMD (remember them? Iraq? Remember UK was 1st country to use chemical weapons against Iraq 80 years ago)
Thanks for the concern (or was it hope?) about my health, Alan. But it's unlikely. I daren't fall ill, now that Labour's PFI's are polluting the NHS.
Final point. Dave's summary of Labour in the posting above is the most perceptive comment there has been on this website and I second it 100% (sorry if that lowers your tone dave)
Alan
Thursday Aug 18, 04:53
I know Peter, perhaps we could go back to the good old Tory days when the NHS was just great!!??
Thomas
Thursday Aug 18, 04:58
18 month waiting lists from seeing the specialist in 1997.
18 week waiting list (just over) from seeing your GP now.
Better or worse? I think those figures speak for themselves.
John 2
Thursday Aug 18, 16:07
Haven't had the Lib Dem leaflet - but have had one from Labour - attacking the Lib Dems - they just don't get it. They seem to assume that most people have a similar world view to the diminishing band of labour activists.
On another note I read in the Observer last weekend that Robin Cook probably lost his job as Foreign Secretary because he did not get on with that most unplesant of neocons (and that is saying something) Dick Cheney. So Cook was replaced by a man who has no known principles. For me that sums up what new labour is all about.
Alan
Thursday Aug 18, 23:18
I'd be very upset to read a Labour leaflet that didn't attack the empty policies of the Liberal Democrats.
Furthermore you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers...never mind though because it is something that Mr Leech hasn't caught on to yet either!
peter h
Friday Aug 19, 00:06
Thomas,
Don't spout labout half truths at me.
In a couple of weeks time I have an appointment to see a specialist consultant. It will cost me £400. I am doing this because it will take over 12 months to see a specialist on the NHS. My GP said it was poiintless to try to see one any earlier.
I also have to see an osteopath and physio therapist intermittently because of injuries -at £35 per session.
If I attempt to see them on NHS, again there is a 12 month+ wait list, during which time I would seize up..
The physiotherapist I see treats staff of the Greater Manchester Ambulance Service, because GMAS apparently find it more cost-effective to use private physios than wait for it on NHS.
I assume you have the wit to see the irony of that.
Just because the service functions better than it did under the disgraceful tories does NOT mean that it functions well.
The correct way to measure it is to compare it to that received by our immediate neighbours in Europe.
In comparison to them, it is utter crap.
Labour has now been in power 8 years, and comparisons with a Tory administratrion are no longer valid. 8 years is long enough to get it right.
Parts function very well, but overall it is not up to scratch, and it is riddled with wholesale hidden examples of poor services.
People like me can afford to buy ourselves out of the problems, and I do so. Private physios, private dentist, private consultants. The majority of the population have no such luxury and deserve better than they get. The only reason that you and your fellow-travellers can con them into thinking the service is better is because those poor sods have no means of comparing it with the private sector or with how the equivalent services function in other countries in Western Europe. In fairness to you, you too are probably being conned by your party. I am not. When you do that, your comments are of no value because they are not your thoughts.
When I get angry with you and Alan, it is because almost all the ripostes you have to arguments by others is rehashing labour party soundbites. That is why I tell you to grow up. I'm sorry if you find that rude - it is not the intention even if that is the effect - but they do not represent thought-through opinions.
The problem you and alan have with myself and Dave is that we are not lib dem party members (I assume Dave is not - forgive me if I am wrong). We are people who would normally have voted labour and have walked away having seen how Labour has betrayed its principles, notably over Iraq. So you cannot hope to preach superiority of Labour principles to us, because we already KNOW that, and we know that thouse principles have been betrayed wholesale in a cavailier, mendacious manner . Believe me, it took a lot of souls searching on my part to walk away from Labour. I'm from a coal mining village, and from that genration which owes its ability to get an education and decent health service to what Labour did for us after world war two and into the 50s and 60s, and it breaks my heart to have sit here and disown them.
Alan
Friday Aug 19, 04:11
Peter, I do not have a problem with either you or Dave. If you feel that I do then you are wrong. The fact is that I do disagree with some; not all; of what you say.
I am not naive enough to think that I know it all at my tender young age but the fact is that I believe this Labour government and Tony Blair has done a great job. If, in my opinion, they stop doing that then I won't vote for them.
My only problem is when you tell people to grow up, call them a moron etc there really is no need. Although I disagree with you and Dave most of the time I respect your opinions, if I didn't then I wouldn't bother to respond.
Arguments, debates etc are a good thing in my book but just because you disagree with someone else it doesn't mean that they are a 'moron'.
In looking at the Labour government I don't just look at singular high profile issues I also look at the positives; as Dave mentioned, the minimum wage and other such ground breaking achievements.
I have to disagree that 8 years is enough to completely transform the country and bring it back from 18 years of Tory mis management.
There are many who believe that Michael Howard and the Conservatives should be running the country, including alot of my family, that's their personal choice and I completely disagree with them.... however, morons they are not.
Poppy
Friday Aug 19, 13:18
Well,
Glad to see that after 4 months John Leech seems to have done absolutely nothing. suprise suprise.
Dave Wilson
Friday Aug 19, 14:49
It wasn't just Iraq for me, it was also "PFI" or New (tory) Labour for "Privatization", it was student funding. One of the very big ones for me was GM crops. Labour let me down on so many more, but my brain isn't functioning very well this morning so I am not going to go into details.
I would just like to say, that I haven't lost any respect for anyone on this forum. I like it when we don't get personal (no need for it) and keep the debate healthy.
John 2
Friday Aug 19, 16:53
Alan
I am sure you would be disappointed if a labour leaflet did not attack the Lib Dems - but that is exactly my point. Most members of the public are not like you. If you write leaflets (and letters to the papers) which appeal simply to the committed you are likely to continue to lose support.
peter h
Friday Aug 19, 23:47
I don't know why you think the minimum wage is an achievement.
A LABOUR government should have achieved far more than that for the low paid. In fact after 8 years of Labour , there shouldn't BE any low paid.
The argument about lifting the minimum wage to a decent level is that it makes UK uncompetitive. Yet the low pay is mostly in service sector jobs, and they have nothing to do with export. You can't export a hospital cleaner's job, for instance.
And witness the BA thing the other day. 670 low paid workers - mostly asian women - summarily fired for daring to protest , and the union which is supposed to defend them hamstrung by laws introduced by Thatcher and enthusiastically enforced by Labour against the poor. Where are the labour party stalwarts to protect those poor women against such disgusting treatment? Where is the conscience of the labour party these days when they have the means to squash such offensive behaviour?
So sorry to disagree Dave, but minimum wage is not an achievement, it is a con to allow this government to pretend it is defending the vulnerable , and it is an obscenity that the party which is supposed to protect the poor should allow them to be exploited in such a way.
Dave Wilson
Friday Aug 19, 23:51
More than happy for you to disagree with me.
Alan
Saturday Aug 20, 12:46
I get the impression that nothing will ever please you Peter, apart from the impossible!
peter h
Sunday Aug 21, 04:24
alan, what will please me is a labour party which is true to its core principles, combined with the ability to run the country effectively.
this administration is selling the low paid of this country down the river under the guise of a minimum wage. We have a workforce which is the least regulated and therefore has the least protection in Europe, and the longest working week in Europe, whilst the average pay of the CEOs in top companies is now £2.5 million per year, 103 times greater than the average wage.
If you know anything about your own party, (clue - it is called the LABOUR , that's L A B O U R , party) then you will know that this is irreconcilable with the party's principles, as is acting as lieutenant to far-right warmongering US presidents, ignoring UN resolutions, invading other countries in defiance of UN resolutions, introducing the private sector into NHS, encouraging private education, deporting people to countries who practice torture and so on and so forth ad nauseam.
If you think that asking Labour to be true to its principles is asking the impossible, then so be it. You said it.
Alan
Sunday Aug 21, 18:53
Again you talk of ignoring the UN. We didn't in Bosnia and as the blue caps stood by innocents were rounded up and murdered... another genocide. We didn't listen to the UN when Thatcher went to re capture the Falklands yet the operation received massive backing and probably secured her re election!? (not that that is a good thing).
I see that the patronising doesn't stop!!! I'm well aware of what Labour stands for and having gone to university I am also aware of how to spell it!
People want maximum from government whilst putting litle in and it doesn't work. We moan about long working hours, between my job, other roles and voluntary work I probably put in just under 90 hours a week.. big deal!! People need to just get on with it and stop bloody moaning all the time. This country has never seen it so good and yet still people moan!! Newly qualified doctors claiming that they are unable to become doctors and therefore go straight onto the dole (M.E.N). Well join the bloody club, I've got a degree in History and Philosophy and I'm not exactly doing what I wanted to be doing... yet! Get agency work, find another job....while you are waiting to become a doctor.. there is no excuse for people like me and other university qualified people to be on the dole!!! It's just another excuse for people to moan!!
On the issue of deporting people my response is this. If people incite hatred against this country and our way of life, if they want to live here and yet make no effort to integrate and if they condone and encourage attacks like those on London then they should be deported and the sooner the better!!!
Labour has moved with the times Peter just like the Tories are beginning to realise that they need to do. Maybe you should take a leaf out of their book!!
Tim
Monday Aug 22, 03:11
Are you sure your not a Tory Alan? You sound just like one in your last post.
Dominic Hardwick
Monday Aug 22, 04:51
Please do not be offended if you perceive my dad to have insulted you. It is an unusual week indeed where he does not insult at least 15 different people. Please take it with good humour. It is as the former High Master of Manchester Grammar, Doctor George Martin Steven described it, "robust debate".
A point that I feel you haven't answered, why is it that while you routinely insult John Leech, calling him a liar and other things, you find it unacceptable for someone to insult you?
In the words of the Magic Roundabout's Dylan,
"You get what you give man..."
In the words of Jesus,
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
As the common phrase goes,
"What goes around comes around."
The Wicka rule of three
The Eastern concept of Kama.
peter h
Monday Aug 22, 04:58
My son is a pompous little git. I do not insult people
peter h
Monday Aug 22, 04:59
My son is a pompous little git. I do not insult people
Dominic Hardwick
Monday Aug 22, 05:03
You do by your own admission, although you don't consider moron an insult...
peter h
Monday Aug 22, 05:26
When I logged on tonight, I was greeted with the following anoynomus message:
Welcome back Peter H. Some of your recent posts to this forum have been reported to us for being unnecessarily offensive. Can we draw your attention to the statement below: If you find a comment you think is unnacceptable please report it - we will remove any comments that are deemed to be wilfully offensive". end of quote.
tell me, whoever you are, what you mean by "unnecessarily offensive"?
Does that mean that some things are acceptably offensive, or necessarily offensive?
And who is to be the judge of what is acceptable or unacceptable offensiveness?
You?
And what do you then regard as acceptably offensive?
That you call my MP a liar? Is that acceptability offensive?
And if I tell you to grow up. That is unacceptably offensive?
Why? Because you are offended that I should tell you to grow up?
So, it is "acceptable" that you should insult my MP, which I find extremely offensive, but it is "unacceptable" that I should tell you to grow up because I find your arguments juvenile?
The definiton therefore of acceptable or unacceptable is who said it and if you agree with it or not.
All I have done is to put my point of view, argue against what views expressed here I have disagreed with, and upon occasion opined on the quality of those arguments.
Democracy depends on free speech and exchange of ideas. Sometimes they are forcefully expressed - ask John Prescott, Dennis Skinner, Mo Mowlam, Peter Mandelson.
When you squash free speech, you throttle democracy too. The way to deal with something you find offensive is to fight back, which is precisely what I have done against the nonsense you've written about John Leech.
As for your comments, Alan, the key is not to move with the times. The key is to move the times.
My comments about the mockery of what Labour has become are not about returning to the past. They are about the core principles which Labour claims to represent but which it has abandoned.
peter h
Monday Aug 22, 10:35
Having thought about matters overnight, I've decided that I will not continue to take part in a debate which is subject to censorship by people who represent one side of the argument.
It is an abuse of process, typical of New Labour, and quite beyond the comprehension of those seeking to impose such censorship.
Ironically, I am paraphrasing the words of Keith Bradley when he refused to continue debating about Christies at a pre-election hustings, except that, in his case he was ducking embarrassing questions, whereas I have been attempting the opposite.
I will make no further contribution to this website.
Dave Wilson
Monday Aug 22, 15:30
Alan, when I talk about Labour's policy on Aslyum seekers and refugess and immigration/emmigration, people I am talking about the majority of law abiding folks not a few handfuls like you mention, "On the issue of deporting people my response is this. If people incite hatred against this country and our way of life, if they want to live here and yet make no effort to integrate and if they condone and encourage attacks like those on London then they should be deported and the sooner the better!!!"
Dave Wilson
Monday Aug 22, 19:29
I also forgot to add, that it is a sad day that someone who imputs on a regular basis, feels that they can no longer contribute to this site.
I am the first to admit that I am not happy with censorship, but then I am also not happy with folks using derogatory remarks about other contributers. Yes, some Labour supporters here have used unhelpful remarks about our "democratically" elected MP, but lowering yourself to the same level as those Labour supporters is not the way to go.
Sorry to see you leave Peter.
Alan
Monday Aug 22, 23:46
I knew what you meant Dave; I wasn't having a pop specifically at you I was just pointing out that why should we want people in this country who incite violence etc against our way of life to be a part of our society. Could you imagine if a group of us went over to Saudi and started slagging off Islam in addition to encouraging violence against the Muslim population!! We'd either be forcefully removed or we'd find ourselves without any hands!!
As for Peter, I will be very sorry to see him go and although I don't like the 'grow up' comments I can honestly say the site will not be the same without his contribution.
Alan
Tuesday Aug 23, 02:40
One last note Peter, I too was at the pre election hustings and Keith did not back away from any debate in relation to Christie; if I remember correctly it was John Leech who refused to discuss it!!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Aug 23, 18:08
Did anyone see in the news today about Rainbow Warrior and the Thatcher government?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/story/0,9061,1554612,00.html
Greenpeace's campaigns director, Blake Lee Harwood, said yesterday: "The Thatcher administration was famously unsympathetic to Greenpeace and so their action in downplaying an act of state terrorism and murder was entirely in character. However, 20 years on, remaining mute in the face of the blowing up of a peaceful ship in the harbour of a Commonwealth country seems strangely at odds with Tony Blair's war on terror."
Thomas
Monday Aug 29, 05:22
Peter H (and Dominic if you are reading it) firstly, you do not need to insult me or anyone else for their beliefs or views. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that I think people that do are morons. You can make a point without insulting people regardless of what you think - perhaps simply saying something like "I think you are being a little short-sighted" or "I think you might develop your arguments by reading..." etc.
Secondly, I think criticising my job for being unethical is unfair. You do not know anything about the job that I am doing.
Thirdly, the reason it gives you a warning Peter, is becuase we have recieved complaints from people (like Steve) that you are being rude and we only point out the text that has been on the website for some time.
And Dave: yes I did see the story about the Rainbow Warrior in the Guardian. The director of Greenpeace is right in what he says. The "right" has often seen Geenpeace as ecoterrorists (for instance http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17751/article_detail.asp) , and Greenpeace often deny it (http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/news/news_main.asp?offset=20&PRID=243). Unfortunately I think that somewhere in the middle is true. It's worth taking a look at WikiPedia which has interesting discussions about Greenpeace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greenpeace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Criticism_and_attacks
Matty
Tuesday Aug 30, 20:02
In my opinion Peter H was the voice of reason round here and it's a shame he has gone.
This website has no value anyway. It was set up to embarrass and defame a legitimately elected MP, and whether or not Christie hospital was under threat is now completely irrelevant as it cannot change what happened in the election. Yeah, so John may or may not have lied but I doubt that anyone who has got involved in politics and reached the level of MP has ever got there by being completely truthful and faithful to their own beliefs. Prime example being the pack of lies and deception which was the Iraq war.
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or whatever that old saying was. I'm not really old enough to be good with proverbs.
Alan
Tuesday Aug 30, 23:43
While I disagree with what Matty is saying I have to say that it is a shame Peter is no longer contributing to the site.. whether or not he was the voice of reason remains a personal judgement but it certainly is a shame he has gone.
ph
Wednesday Aug 31, 05:06
alan, if you disagree with matty, for god's sake do him the justice of arguing the points he's made . He deserves that
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Aug 31, 16:34
I think I made a comment somewhere about your job being unethical Thomas. What I should have said is the organisation (MOD) is an unethical choice.
Alan
Thursday Sep 01, 00:02
Dave, why is the MOD unethical?
Dave Wilson
Thursday Sep 01, 14:39
Well Alan, I am suprised that you ask such a question. I can think of many reasons why the MOD is unethical. Way too many to mention here. However, we can start with one I guess. That being there are two invitation lists to DSEi,
the official MoD list, which this year includes feuding neighbours
India and Pakistan, Turkey, Russia, and 'axis of evil' state
Syria. Then there's the organisers, Spearhead Ltd.'s, own secret
list, over which the MoD has consultation but ultimately no
control.Spearhead have invited Afghanistan, Angola, Tanzania, and Israel.
No cash for health and education? Well DSEi has something for
everyone. The whole of next Thursday (11th) is dedicated to a
conference called 'Making Defence Affordable?'
Matty
Thursday Sep 01, 15:21
Alan, what part of what I said did you not agree with. Admittedly when I said Peter H was the voice of reason that was my own opinion, but I stand by my statement that it is virtually impossible to not compromise your integrity and beliefs to get far in the political world. Or does every MP in the country believe exactly the same as detailed in their party manifesto, by some sort of odd coincidence?
peter h
Friday Sep 02, 12:43
the words of mohamed siddique khan just before he blew 52 people up in london. Thank you, Labour, and all your fellow travellers, especially those who join the military:
Mohammad Sidique Khan said:
"I am going to keep this short and to the point, because it's all been said before by far more eloquent people than me.
"But our words have no impact upon you, therefore I'm going to talk to you in a language that you understand. Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood.
"I'm sure by now the media has painted a suitable picture of me, this predictable propaganda machine will naturally try to put a spin on it to suit the government and to scare the masses into conforming to their power- and wealth-obsessed agendas.
"I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our driving motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God, Allah and follow in the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad.
"This is how our ethical stances are dictated. Your democratically elected governments perpetuate atrocities against my people and your support of them makes you responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.
"Until we feel security, you'll be our target. Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we'll not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 02, 15:09
Welcome back Peter.
Alan
Friday Sep 02, 22:12
The military are told where to go by the polticians. I think that it is wrong to incorporate them into what is a political argument.
They do their best under difficult circumstances and are not afforded the luxury or the time to be able to contribute and pontificate on weblogs such as this.
Alan
Friday Sep 02, 22:12
p.s good to see you back Peter
peter h
Saturday Sep 03, 04:43
you sidestepped the point of what I said. The point was the statement from the suicide bomber.
Thank you for welcoming me back, but my opinions won't get any less offensive.
Dave Wilson
Monday Sep 05, 14:13
Sorry for sidestepping, but I didn't feel the need to comment, as there were no suprises to the statement made by the suicide bomber. I have known for a long time that the West's foreign policy (namely Britain and the USA) have been one of the main issues that a large minority of Muslims have felt persecuted over, and therefore, feel the need to retaliate in someway.
Clarice
Monday Sep 05, 15:59
Why is anyone surprised about Lib Dems being hypocritical? It seems perfectly normal behavior for them to me....
Dave Wilson
Monday Sep 05, 21:37
I am not suprised, but confused. Which bit of the lib dems is anymore hypocritical than labour or the tories?
Alan
Monday Sep 05, 23:01
I think that Peter was saying that it was me who was side stepping. On the issue did anyone watch the programme on Saturday night, "Prelude to 9/11" I think it was called?
Alan
Monday Sep 05, 23:02
p.s I also think that we need a new controversial topic to discuss as the 'new' Lib Dem focus letter is a bit out dated. Any suggestions?
peter h
Tuesday Sep 06, 03:23
yes alan. Try justifying a supposed democracy which gives an absolute majority to a party which has less than 50% of the vote and where the percentage split of votes is not remotely reflected in the percentage split of MPs, and both main parties conspire to keep it that way in order to ensure they get power.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Sep 06, 14:35
Hi Alan, no I have missed a lot of the docu's that have been on this past week or so regarding Sept 11th. Which ones have you seen? Were any of them any good?
As regards to a new topic, I think you are right, we could do with a new one, not sure what we could have though.
ph
Thursday Sep 08, 03:03
how about Intelligent Design?
peter h
Thursday Sep 08, 19:39
email from my best friend in NYC whose brother's house is under water in New Orleans (these are the guys Blair has allied us to):
When something big and confusing happens here, The
standard response is to go to the gym rather than the
library, for this is a place where the most popular
solutions are physical and aggressive. (The ideal
response to a really big problem is of course to nuke
it.) Since the people left behind to die in New
Orleans are being labelled as armed and criminal
rather than hungry and thirsty, the governor - with
hearty federal support - has declared the problem to
be one of law n order and has ordered the troops to
shoot and kill. These troops are people who are in
fact just back from Baghdad, so they are well used to
kicking in doors, pointing guns at civilians and
generally considering any population to be hostile,
potentially murderous and to be dealt with
accordingly. Once again, I'm glad the world is seeing
it - Bush World in all its glory.
Two things from today's paper (a free one, as I gave
up on the main press years ago):
1. a quote from Moronic Michael Brown, the director of
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management people who
should be in charge of such disasters, interviewed by
a journalist on public television after the fiasco -
"the American people understand how fascinating and
unusual this is, that we're seeing people that we
didn't know exist." You just can't invent this stuff.
2. Citing a report in the newsletter Inside EPA (the
EPA is the federal Environmental Protection Agency),
the New York director of the Sierra Club
(environmentalists) said that the EPA was not included
in President Bush's Katrina task force. Thank God
there's no environmental problems down there.
It's beyond parody, and to show you just how divided
and delusional people are, respectable surveys reveal
thaqt about 80% of Republicans thing bush is doing a
good job on Katrina!
peter h
Thursday Sep 08, 19:39
email from my best friend in NYC whose brother's house is under water in New Orleans (these are the guys Blair has allied us to):
When something big and confusing happens here, The
standard response is to go to the gym rather than the
library, for this is a place where the most popular
solutions are physical and aggressive. (The ideal
response to a really big problem is of course to nuke
it.) Since the people left behind to die in New
Orleans are being labelled as armed and criminal
rather than hungry and thirsty, the governor - with
hearty federal support - has declared the problem to
be one of law n order and has ordered the troops to
shoot and kill. These troops are people who are in
fact just back from Baghdad, so they are well used to
kicking in doors, pointing guns at civilians and
generally considering any population to be hostile,
potentially murderous and to be dealt with
accordingly. Once again, I'm glad the world is seeing
it - Bush World in all its glory.
Two things from today's paper (a free one, as I gave
up on the main press years ago):
1. a quote from Moronic Michael Brown, the director of
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management people who
should be in charge of such disasters, interviewed by
a journalist on public television after the fiasco -
"the American people understand how fascinating and
unusual this is, that we're seeing people that we
didn't know exist." You just can't invent this stuff.
2. Citing a report in the newsletter Inside EPA (the
EPA is the federal Environmental Protection Agency),
the New York director of the Sierra Club
(environmentalists) said that the EPA was not included
in President Bush's Katrina task force. Thank God
there's no environmental problems down there.
It's beyond parody, and to show you just how divided
and delusional people are, respectable surveys reveal
thaqt about 80% of Republicans thing bush is doing a
good job on Katrina!
Alan
Friday Sep 09, 00:07
Dave, I think probably the most interesting of the docu's on about 9/11 was about the guy who predictd it. As Head of Security for Morgan Stanley inside the WTC he insisted on comprehensive disaster training in light of his view that the next terror attack on it would be from the air. Out of the 2,700 employees under his care he managed to get approx 2,660 out alive. Tragically he died after going back into Tower 2 to help others. He was a Brit called Ray Rescola who joined th eUS Army to fight in Vietnam. It was evry interesting because even after all his efforts people stayed in Tower 2 believeing they would be safe, after the plane went into Tower 1. Pretty unbelieveably and of course tragic... bringing me on to discuss with Peter the inadequacies of US disaster management.
The scenes coming from New Orleans are appalling. The majority of those who are still in New Orleans, or who have died are black due to the fact that every white man with a car got out fast. What sickened me was to see well derssed US troops, not wading through the water helping people, but poncing around with their rifles shooting at people who are trying to survive and save their families. The response to this disaster is an absolute disgrace and brings to light the fact that although the American government has the money and resources to be able to deal with this situation effectively, they haven't.. basically because like with everything els.. they couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery.
Gun sales have rocketed and instead of coming together and helping each other they are just shooting each other. I saw on the news that two people, sat in their home, had been told by the local sheriff to arm themselves and shoot anyone that comes near their house!!! I was genuinely gob smacked that an official of the US government is able to tell ordinary citizens to do this.
President Bush and Dick Cheney flying in to hug black kids is nothing more than a sick and perverse PR stunt. Perhaps instead of racing through Iraq.. again with no real plans.. the US Government should concentrate on sorting out it's own infrastructure, look after it's own citizens and get those that have survived out instead of shooting people trying to feed their families!!. People are still needlessly dying because of an ineffective and poor response to the hurricane!
peter h
Friday Sep 09, 04:31
theyre your allies in Iraq, Alan. If they behave like that towards their own citizens, how the hell are they going to behave towards Iraqis?
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 09, 14:25
http://www.heady.co.uk/b3ta/photopp2.jpg
Now it is not very often that I stick up for the USA government. But I was told that New Orleans is about the size of Birmingham, and I wonder how well the UK government would cope if Birmingham had been hit by something on the same scale?
However, I do agree that it was disgusting seeing the police/army going around aiming guns at everyone. Especially when you compare Boxing Day last year. That struck so many more cities/towns etc, yet peaces deal (however fragile) were formed in countries with civil wars etc.
John 2
Friday Sep 09, 18:21
Dave
You are right about not underestimating the scale of the problem - but there was advance warning of the approach of the hurricane; the consequences of a strike on New Orleans were well studied, well understood, but unfortunately ignored by those in power.
The Tsunami by contrast came without warning - and was the first such event in the region in recorded history as far as I am aware.
Even George Bush says the US response was unsatisfactory - he looks as if he is trying the old Thatcherite tactic of pretending he is the leader of the opposition when things go wrong.
As always in a crisis he has not got a clue what to say or do, so he lies low until his advisers tell him. By contrast Tony Blair excels in a crisis.
Not sure what all this has got to do with John Leech! I am a little surprised that the local Labour party are not blaming him for it - it certainly never happened before he was elected.
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 09, 19:13
Hi John 2
Fair points about the warnings in the USA and no warnings on Boxing Day. However, I am not so sure if I agree with you on Tory Blair excelling in a crisis. All he does in a crisis situation is tighten any terror laws even further. (be it a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or greenfly attacking his pot marigolds!)
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 09, 19:27
By the way ph is Intelligent Design similar to Creationist Theory? If it is, I am not a big fan of the idea, as I am agnostic.
peter h
Saturday Sep 10, 04:56
Dave no they are not similar, although dawkins etc pretend it is. Intelligent design is based on the proposal that the universe is such a complex structure that there must be some life force behind it. Professor Fred Hoyle used to say the idea of the universe developing by chance was as absurd as saying a jet plane could develop by chance in a scrap yard.
The most common analogy for ID is the blind watchmaker - to say that if you found a watch in the street, without ever having seen one, and you opened it up and looked at its mechanism, you would , upon seeing the beauty and symmetry and delicate workings of its mechanism, immediately, quite correctly, assume that such a complex mechanism must have been invented and designed by somebody. It could not be haphazard. So how on earth can you assume that the universe, which is massively more evolved and complex, was not also the work of intelligent design?
That is the logic of it. It specifically does not deny evolution, or science, or the big bang. All of them fit comfortably into ID. ID proponents would argue that Evolution is better explained by ID than by chance, because there is a system to it, a mathematical chain traceable in it.
It scares militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to death because of its logic and they try to rubbish it by saying it is creationism in another guise, which it isnt.
As I presume you know, Creationism claims that the bible is literally true and the entire universe was created fully formed in 7 days by God, normally 6-10 000 years ago, and that evolution is a myth.
Darwin, incidentally , would probably have considered himself a supporter of ID, since he always said that evolution could only ever happen because of procreation by two beings to create young new generations, and that evolution could not explain where this procreative system came from in the first place, since by definition it had to exist BEFORE evolution could take place...
As with so many other things, people try to rubbish the arguments by feeding you half truths.
Personally I have no particular faith, but I admire logic and I frankly find the ID argument more logical than the idea that everything developed by chance.
Like somebody said, they don't want to know what happened after the big bang. They want to know what happened BEFORE the big bang. Atheists want to claim there was nothinng. So how did nothing become something? To that, there is no coherent answer, except that it was created. And something had to be the creator for that to happen, and it is beyond science to explain it. At that point, a truthful atheist will usually change the subject........
Dave Wilson
Monday Sep 12, 15:05
Sounds interesting Peter, but what I can't get my head around is this. If something/one/being started the big bang. What started the "creator"? By the way, I have very little knowledge of both Darwin's theories, or the Big Bang theory. However, as for Creationism, I do have a fairly good knowledge, but I don't believe in it one little bit.
John 2
Monday Sep 12, 15:26
Hi Dave,
When I said that Tony Blair excels in a crisis what I meant was that he seems to know instinctively what to say and how to react by contrast with George Bush who must surely by wondering along with much of the Bible Belt why God seems to have it in for the United States.
I certainly do not think that Tony has come up with any answers to the problems - perhaps there are none - although his denial of the link to Iraq and foreign policy in the middle east does not help.
Dave Wilson
Monday Sep 12, 16:02
I see your point John 2.
peter h
Monday Sep 12, 22:45
dave. there are no answers really, or at least no answers that human beings could ever understand . There are just questions. Only religious bigots have answers, and they will be wrong.
Bottom line is, the universe must have started at some point, and that means that something came out of nothing, which is contrary to every known law of physics. God is humnaty's attempt to explain that. In that respect God MUST exist insofar as God is a word for whatever made the universe happen. The definitions of God prdouced by religions, and their attempts to then use that as a means to escape death's inevitability, or as a means to cajole and force people to do what priests tell them, are what lies behind many of our current troubles.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Sep 13, 15:29
On the last bit, about religion being behind so many of the worlds troubles - I couldn't agree more with you Peter. Sad thing is, we can't ban religion (will just create even more troubles) and I also doubt that religions will fizzle out - It appears to be in human nature to worship false idols, be they celebraties, Gods, sports player etc etc
Alan
Tuesday Sep 13, 23:19
Well I think a bit of worship has to go out to Pieterson, Flintoff and Vaughn now that England has regained the Ashes and finally won a competition in a sport, which, we ourselves originally invented!!
peter h
Wednesday Sep 14, 03:39
it was nothing compared to the rugby world cup. if you want to see a real contest, get down to Sale Sharks friday night.we only won the ashes because it rained or the light was bad for gods sake.
peter h
Wednesday Sep 14, 03:45
problem with religion is that it gets hijacked by people using it to promote their own ends. Kings, presidents, prime ministers, emperors, sheiks and god knows who else have done it for years. Like Muslims say the koran is the direct word of god and therefore cannot be contradicted, ergo end of argument. Or hjews say palestine belongs to them because god gave it to them. Rather like you going into natwest, nicking a million quid and saying god gave ot you. Or catholics saying only catholics can go to heaven, or protestants calling the pope the antichrist.
None of that has anything to do with god. It's all men perverting peoples belief in god to their own ends. So don't blame god.
And if pieterson is god I'm joining the other side. And I should point out to you alan that England failed to win the 4th test because pietersen dropped circa 6 catches.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Sep 14, 15:01
I don't blame God. How can I when I don't think God(s) exsist?
peter h
Wednesday Sep 14, 22:06
labour blame John Leech's lies when they don't exist.......
Alan
Wednesday Sep 14, 23:49
Peter does anything ever please you or are you just one of those cynical old guys who just moans about everything. Pietersen played well as did Flintoff although I've got the feeling that if I had said Pietersen played badly and Flintoff was an idiot then you would have said exactly the opposite Peter!! Sad really!
peter h
Thursday Sep 15, 00:52
Not sad. Quite good fun, winding you up,Alan, actually.
And Pietersen DID blow Englands chances of winning the last test. He dropped 6 catches
But I don't really care because I don't much like cricket. Seeing a crowd cheering because bad light stopped play.... now THAT is sad Alan, and unsporting
Thomas
Thursday Sep 15, 04:38
It is unfair to suggest that England won due to bad light/rain - you have to remeber that England would have won the test at Old Trafford if it hadn't rained, and then the final test would have been an irrelevance.
Dave Wilson
Thursday Sep 15, 18:50
When I first started using this forum, the level of debate was very high (regardless of whether or not I agreed with people), but sadly it appears to have gone a little downhill. I know this is partly due to the fact that John Leech seems to have "dissappeared", so lets hope he gets himself in the news soon, so that we can all have another good moan.
Alan
Friday Sep 16, 01:23
Fair play Peter, I don't know what came over me; getting all uptight over cricket... either that or I am just very easily wound up - the latter I think!!
Dave, John has done alot recently.. have you not been reading the newspapers.
Firstly he joined the Commons football team; then he bought himself a £160,000 flat in London; now it's in the news that good old environmental John is cycling to work.
Dissapeared??? John boy is never out of the news, sadly it just seems to be about his apparent love for exercise as opposed to anything political! What's he getting paid £62,000 p.a for???
Thomas
Friday Sep 16, 02:18
The only thing I've heard of John is a letter from him asking for a comment to be changed on the site, and I guess things will pick up a bit when parliament resumes (I guess his stance on the new terror legislation will be interesting for a debate)
peter h
Friday Sep 16, 22:23
Alan
so which bit do you object to with john leech?
buying a cheap flat(160k is cheap in london) so he can live whilst he works?
playing football in his spare time?
cycling to work?
Sounds rather sensible to me. And this has been a Parliamentary holiday.
And incidentally, he's been active up here. He's come to at least 2 local residents meetings around here in the last 6 weeks(more than KB managed in 8 years) and he's been on TV and in the local press over a number of local matters.
That strikes me as the mark of a conscientious MP
Alan
Friday Sep 16, 22:37
I don't dispute the fact that his environmental concerns are admirable. I was merely pointing out how busy John had been over the summer break, which incidentally is a parliamentary break.. not a holiday as many mis guided people seem to think it is. MP's still work in their constituency.. or should do.. during this recess. If John has been then well done to him!
Alan
Saturday Sep 17, 03:26
p.s Peter, your KB figures, as ever, are wrong!!
peter h
Sunday Sep 18, 13:52
my kb figures are not wrong in realtion to the residents meetings we know about
peter h
Sunday Sep 18, 13:54
Thomas report that john leech asked for a cooment on the website to be changed, which nobody has mentioned.
this strikes me as rather important.
What comment was it it?
What as the objection?
Was it changed?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?
Alan
Sunday Sep 18, 15:13
You could be a politician yourself with answers like that Peter!!
I am unsure about Thomas but I received numerous emails from Mr Leech with regards to my website. It was in relation to the Christie's petition and the way in which I had reported things on my site. I advised Mr Leech that I would be more than happy to change the website comletely if he could provide evidence which suggested what I had reported was incorrect.
This he very kindly did in the form of several documents and photocopies. Although it was not evidence that convinced me what I was saying was wrong, it did highlight certain inaccuracies in the facts I had reported. As promised, these I promptly changed.
I have no problem in changing what I have written; or said; if adequate evidence is produced to the contrary.
On the issue of Christie, which too a degree has become a tired issue, Mr Leech seemed to base his entire campaign of spin on an article written in the MEN. From the information he has sent me, this is certainly the conclusion that I have come to although I imagine that others, yourself included Peter, will arrive at a very different conclusion to mine.
peter h
Monday Sep 19, 02:37
my questions are nothing to do with playing politics. I think the participants in and readers of this website , without whom it would not function, have an absolute right to know if it is being altered retrospectively by the webmaster. Otherwise I don't see how the supposed free speech can function.
You may have answered, Alan, but I see no comment from Thomas. Why the silence?
Alan, politcians are normally being accused of bendin the truth, playing games with words. I am trying to do the opposite. If words that have appeared on here have been changed at the behest of a politician, then we should be told.
Let's here things as they are, warts and all, to paraphrase Cromwell.
Thomas
Monday Sep 19, 04:52
Sorry Peter H. I don't have a proper internet connection yet, and haven't been around for the last couple of days. The comment in question was made by me.
Mr Leech wrote to me requesting that the comment saying that he had lied about a statement supposedly made by the police. I would be able to comment more fully had I received a reply to my letter asking for an explanation which Mr Leech had forwarded to his agent. I have written to follow this up twice, but have received no response.
In the interest of keeping things simple and avoiding any potential conflict the post has been edited (see the post) and an explanation at the bottom - as is the standard practice for any "edited" comments.
The comment is: http://www.johnleech.org.uk/?show=comments&id=27#c728
Hope that makes sense Peter, and sorry for the delay responding. Hopefully I'll have my broadband sorted soon.
Thomas
Monday Sep 19, 04:55
Oh, and sorry just to add any edited comment (like the comment in question) has
*** EDITED ***
at the top of the comment to ensure that readers know that the comment has been edited. The author (if an email has been provided) will also be contacted should a comment be edited again.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Sep 21, 19:34
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4266954.stm
John is in the news today
Patricia Gough
Tuesday Jan 10, 02:27
I was diagnosed with MS in 2001 and its took me until 2005 to admit to myself that I suffer with MS.
My new years resolution was to seek out and obtain support to help me deal with being an MS suferer.
I have found out, to much disgust that there is either little or no support in the South Manchester area for people with MS.
I have checked out the websites of various MS organisations, including the MS Society but among confusing sites have had no joy, but I am able to leave such organisations money in my will.
I have found that the only support available is a thearpy centre where I can go and sit in a de-compression chamber for two hours, take a spar bath or participate in Yoga sessions ( I don't think I could get my legs around my head).
As John Leech is my local MP and the Labour Party may wish for me to vote for them, can they possibly come up with any solution to this problem?
At present I feel that I am the only person in South Manchester with not just MS but a recognised disability.
I would be intrigued to know what Mr. Leech or the Labour Party intend to do for people like myself, who have on-going medical conditions?
What we need is acess to facilities and easy acess to support and information to help us deal with the general day to day of living with MS e.g; some one to talk too who is in the same boat.
I am not ready to die yet and do not wish to be treated as though I am, or like an idiot.
You should remember that disabled people do have the right to vote and do have the intelligence to use our vote in a stand, where we will be counted.
I am also not brain dead yet, my legs may not work properly any more but my brain is still active!
Remember that and do not let any one ever think otherwise.
RHA
Monday Jan 23, 03:02
Can any of the lib dems defend John Leech's election campaign?
Why did he put Lib Dems outside Christies hospital saying it was going to close?
Why did he make out that Keith Bradley supported the war when he voted against it? Why can't people see through him and the lib dems empty promises?
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
