Posted by JLW on Wednesday Sep 21, 14:03
News from the BBC (and previously in the South Manchester Reporter) on John Leech taking part in the hunt for the killer dogs. Find out more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4266954.stm
The first meeting of the action group takes place at the Red Lion pub in Withington on 6 October.
+ tags coming soon
( 243 Comments )
Ian Smith
Thursday Sep 22, 00:13
Does John Leech actually care?
Alan
Thursday Sep 22, 02:06
I'm sure he doesn't but I suppose he has to pay head to local residents.. and it's a good way to get yourself in the press as we have seen!
Alan
Thursday Sep 22, 02:07
I think I meant 'heed' not 'head'... just home from a very long day at work!!!
peter h
Thursday Sep 22, 02:49
actually john leech DOES care. That's why he attends local residents' meetings. Labour would do well to learn from Lib Dems on that
Alan
Thursday Sep 22, 04:05
Peter I imagine that he cares as much about the 'beast of burton road' as I do.. i.e not very much!!
Thomas
Thursday Sep 22, 04:25
Actually, it doesn't matter whether John Leech cares or not (cares is perhaps a bad word to use). I'd guess that John isn't very interested in some dog on Burton road, but if it is an important issue to local residents then it should be an important issue for him. Whether it justifies press coverage or not is another matter, but John should be congratulated for his committment. BTW Peter, I didn't see a response to my comment regarding edited comments.
He may be off "Hunting" the Beast of Burton Rd., but does he support the ban on hunting?
Thomas
Thursday Sep 22, 04:26
(with foxes)?
Dave Wilson
Thursday Sep 22, 16:19
Now that would be a good idea. I'd love to go hunting with a pack of foxes for a bit of revenge!
Thomas
Thursday Sep 22, 23:53
I wouldn't - I disagree with any and all of it. The killing of an animal for pleasure/sport is wrong. I wonder if John supports the death penalty.
Alan
Friday Sep 23, 03:21
I've previously worked on two farms and foxes are no cuddly toy. Although I by no means condone hunting... categorically. However they are a pest, as is a rat.. lets face it, we wouldn't think twice about killing one of them.
I got in to work some mornings to find a chicken coup destroyed by a fox, it's no prety sight. The right to revenge lies with the chickens Dave..trust me!
peter h
Friday Sep 23, 03:32
*** EDITED ***
oh dear me. I agree with Alan.
Innapropriate comments have been deleted from this message.
peter h
Friday Sep 23, 03:55
you know, alan, how you felt when you saw what the fox had done to the chicken coup?
I sympathize. I really do.
Now you know what people feel like when they look at the labour party after tony blair got into it
Thomas
Friday Sep 23, 05:07
I don't dispute the fact that foxes are "vermin" and need to be controlled, but why people need to make an afternoon of killing one I don't understand. Apparently, many more foxes are killed by farmers than by hunts and I just think that people shouldn't take pleasure in doing it.
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 23, 14:28
I blame the farmer for misleading the fox over the chickens! If you prime instinct is to hunt for food, and you find a load of chickens trapped in a cave (which is probably what the fox thinks a hen house is) then it is going to think all it's Christmas's have come at once. It is tragic that farmers loose out, but there are better ways of dealing with the fox population than to hunt with a pack of dogs. I too worked on a sheep farm, I have also worked for landowners, including those grouse shoots, so I know how bad the problem of vermin can be, I also know that packs of dogs are not the only solution!
judith
Friday Sep 23, 17:18
*** EDITED ***
you may like to know that thomas has banned peter h from posting comments because of peter h's criticism of him. so if you think this website has open discussion, you're wrong. this website is censored
Peter H has been temporarily banned from posting to this website.
Chris
Friday Sep 23, 19:21
I think it's admirable that John Leech is attending the meeting. As a cat owner in the vicinity, I do actually care about dogs going around killing cats.
Presumably something can be done to track down and control these dogs, but I don't know what it is. John Leech, though, as a (former?) councillor, may know - and may even be able to help.
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 23, 20:09
Censored or moderated?
Thomas
Friday Sep 23, 22:15
I agree completely with Dave's comment above about fox hunting. Regarding "censorship" - it is moderation, and it makes this clear when you post: "we will remove any comments that are deemed to be wilfully offensive".
Personal attacks are not acceptable, and this website does NOT censor comments. Peter H has been temporarily suspended from posting to the site while I discuss with him his comments. I fully expect to remove this suspension over the weekend.
Kat
Friday Sep 23, 22:20
The dogs were caught this morning. Having their picture all over the TV news really helped. The fact this issue got such good media coverage is probably in part due to John Leech's willingness to get involved.
Thomas
Friday Sep 23, 22:24
Good news!
Kat
Friday Sep 23, 22:24
The dogs were caught this morning. Having their picture all over the TV news really helped. The fact this issue got such good media coverage is probably in part due to John Leech's willingness to get involved.
Alan
Sunday Sep 25, 20:04
.. or the fact that John Leech got some good media coverage is largely due to him getting involved!!
On another point, I have to say that I disagree with this censorship. Peter H may get a bit offensive now and then but don't we all. I don't agree with his personal attacks but neither do I agree with this censorship.
Dave Wilson
Monday Sep 26, 17:36
I agree with moderating. I use another forum, where some very offensive comments were made. I put in a complaint to the moderator who took quick swift action and deleted the offensive remarks. Now I am not a big fan of censorship, however, I do feel that sometimes it is necessary
Dave Wilson
Friday Sep 30, 14:18
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm
Another reason why I won't be going back to voting Labour! Not allowed to interact with a Labour politican, not even a little bit of heckling. Then to be man handled quite aggressively. Then, (and this is the bit that I was most shocked about) to be detained under Anti-Terrorism laws when you try to re-enter the conference!!!!!! Alan, I beleive it was you who stated that a Police State is laughable when trying to imagine the future under Labour. I think it is getting ever more closer! (sorry if it wasn't you!)
Alan
Friday Sep 30, 18:57
I completely agree with you the actions of stewards at the conference was wholly unacceptable and I condemn it completely. It would have been good to see Jack Straw stop his speech and deal with the incident.
I do have to say that the actions of over zealous stewards should not be associated with the party as a whole.
To take an example of the few British soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners - we cannot say that this is a true depiction of the Army or British forces in it's entirity. It was an isolated case which should never have happened.
Thomas
Friday Sep 30, 23:46
I was there, and that steward was really nasty in general. I think some people just get a sick power trip. I think everyone is in complete agreement that it is wrong to treat anyone like that.
The thing I have against the man is that he was being rude, and he wasn't there as a delegate so it wasn't his place to be involved in the debate in the first place. OK, the reaction was completely out of proportion, but the reason we have delegates is to allow a debate to occur and people were allowed to stand up and criticise the war etc.
peter h
Saturday Oct 01, 03:00
he was "being rude"?
"not his place to be involved in the debate"?
That man has been a labour party activist for 57 years. He has EARNED his right to join in "the debate". He's been working for labour since before most MPs were born. How dare you say he shouldn't be involved in the debate. But for people like him, Labour wouldnt exist.
As for "rude"! He shouted out "lies" and "nonsense" to Jack Straw. How many labour party memebers on this website see nothing wrong with calling John Leech a liar?
Just like you have the right to say that, he has the right to say it about Jack Straw.
This is freedom of speech yet again, control freakery run riot. From what I've read, the entire conference has been ruthlessly stage managed to squeeze out any possible dissent and its blown up big time in their horrified faces. The only thing most people can remember from the whole thing is the sight of thugs attacking an 82 year old holocaust surviving peace campaign. Congratulations Labour on another fine mess
Thomas
Saturday Oct 01, 03:22
There was a lot of control to prevent people throwing things/shouting out. I'm not arguing - freedom of speech is an important right and the bloke had a right to put his point across. However, if he wished to take part in the debate he should have put himself forward as a constituency delegate (although it may be that he couldn't have done because it had to be a woman that year).
peter h
Saturday Oct 01, 03:58
throwing things? how many times has that ever happened at these conferences?
Everybody there is either a labour party member or from the press, so who is going to throw things?
since when did the labour party need 20 stone bouncers to control its own members in case they shouted out in a debate? What kind of party is this now? National Socialist?
There was a lot of control because the party was terrified of protests against Iraq , so free debate was squashed, and the result was a week of total boredom finished off by sinister farce. look at the headlines on the press (left and right) and on the TV. Total , but richly deserved, disaster
Thomas
Saturday Oct 01, 04:27
I agree completely, the reason for high "security" was Iraq, but they were worried about "missiles" too - you weren't allowed to take bags of sweets (much to some delegates disgust) into the conference, or any other sort of bags.
I have to agree with Alan though, the majority of stewards were helpful pepole who were reasonable, but a few of them really spoilt things at the conference.
Alan
Saturday Oct 01, 15:58
Suprisingly I find myself agreeing with Peter. (that is worrying)
peter h
Saturday Oct 01, 17:59
don't be so surprised alan. Don't forget that people like myself and my family and many of my friends , and (if I may speak on his behalf momentarily) people like Dave Wilson are people who would normally be Labour supporters but feel that "their" paty has been hijacked.
I personally don't kid myself that Lib Dems are a government in waiting. There's no weight there. And I'd sooner leave the country than vote Tory, but Labour, with all its principles, all its beliefs, all its support for the common man and the dispossessed, all its basis in the concept of public ownership and the public good, has been perverted by a bunch of skilfull, unprincipled control freaks who see nothing wrong in siding with a neofascist american president, stripping unions of all their power in support of big business, selling off our national assets to the highest bidder, treating refugees as criminals and so on. It happens daily. In this morning's paper they are refusing to sign up to a European attempt to clamp down on trafficking of women who are tricked into sexual slavery as prostitutes. The aim is to start treating these poor souls as victims (which is exactly what they are) and granting them temporary residence in order to allow them to escape the criminals' clutches and recover from their ordeal.
But, guess what! Labour won't do it because it might get "abused" by asylum seekers. For God's sake!! Where is their humanity? These poor kids are slaves in dire need of help in our OWN country, held imprisoned in brothels by criminals. How on earth can this government claim any moral credentials when it will stand back and let that happen for fear of upsetting the Daily Mail?
Alan
Saturday Oct 01, 19:37
I am not aware of this issue as I have not been keeping up to date recently (shameful I know). If what you are saying is true then I agree with you again. I have to say that although I am a supporter of Labour and a strong supporter of Keith Bradley, there are a few issues that I am becoming disillusioned with. I read in the MEN recently about a family in Salford (I think) who were being forcibly removed from the country as they had been deemed illegal immigrants as opposed to asylum seekers. It was a single mother and her two young children who had fled from an African state after her husband was murdered for speaking out about the government. To me that is a genuine asylum seeker who should receive all the support she needs to make a new life in this country.
Don't get me wrong I am still a solid Labour supporter as I believe that they have revolutionised this country but recently there have been certain issues which have made me question the way things are going; the incident at the conference and subsequent holding under the terror laws; the treatment of 'genuine' asylum seekers and Ruth Kelly's blind following of that idiot Jamie Oliver!!
Incidentally Peter I noticed that you had once again been banned from participating on this site, what was the reason this time?
Thomas
Saturday Oct 01, 20:39
When was Peter banned again from participating on the site?
I think it is unfair to suggest that the unions have been stripped of their powers - as demonstrated at the conference (vote on secondary action) they do have some powers, but you are right that they are limited.
Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of things that this Government has done wrong, but I feel that it is still the best choice, and one that is making peoples lives better - look at the 100% debt relief for the most indebted poor counntrys, a doubling of the EU aid budget and a commitment to set a date for ending export subsidies, more investment in hospitals, schools and the police. These things wouldn't have happened with a Tory government, and Peter is right - the Lib Dems are not a "government in waiting". The last election was probably the worst possible term the government could have had, and still both the Tories and Lib Dems failed to capitalise, so the only likely outcome at the next election is a Labour or Conservative government (possibly a LD/Tory coalition). That is why it is important that people vote Labour, and the Labour party tries to rebuild its relationship with people that used to vote Labour.
What would your views on a LD/Tory coalition be?
peter h
Sunday Oct 02, 04:18
lib dems would not go into a coalition with tories. there is no common ground. THey would only go into coalition with labour, and no doubt will do when the circumstances arise which force it on labour.
Labour only got re-elected this time because there is no effective nationwide opposition.
The lack of effective oppostion is a tragedy for this country.
Personally I think a lot of it is because our 1st past the post system makes too many people think it isnt worth voting because their vote won't make any difference.
thomas most certainly did bar me from this site, claiming I had been offensive to him. He has "edited" (censored) the remarks in question. They were critical of him, not offensive. He appears to believe it is OK for him to make highly critical comments about my MP, but not for similar comments to be made about him. I have not taken back one word of what I said at the time. You'll haver to try and figure out what I said. Not because I don't want to repeat it, but because Thomas must learn that censorship never works. It invests the censored comments with an interest that they do not deserve. It was all to do with animal rights (which this house supports extremely strongly)
Thomas
Sunday Oct 02, 04:36
Peter said, "lib dems would not go into a coalition with tories. there is no common ground."
I wouldn't be so sure. People are making noises about charlie, and others in the party are keener for it to happen: "In a recent pamphlet, Mr Cable wrote: "If the pendulum swings, it may swing to a combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and, thus, to a period of minority government or coalition, in some form." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4246080.stm
Also the Tories are talking about it: "He also suggested it was possible there could be a coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems in the future."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4269904.stm
It might seem unlikely, but it really wouldn't suprise me.
"There's no reason why that should be out of the question," he said.
"If you end up with a hung parliament, there is either a minority government, which is unwieldy, or a coalition. You deal with what the electorate gives you."
Thomas
Sunday Oct 02, 04:39
Sorry that came out in the wrong order. The quote is from the Tory chairman btw.
peter h
Monday Oct 03, 03:08
if lib dem leaders tried to go into coalition with tories, lib dem grass roots would walk out en masse. they have nothing in common with tories other than a desire for power. They are to the left of labour. in any case, if the situation arose then by definition lib dems would have a choice of which party to get into bed with (revolting thought). so why choose tory?
really we need pr to bring new life into this moribund process, so that minority parties of all shades could get a say and any party with over 5% vote could have a couple of MPs. Then things would liven up. As things stand the whole bloody lot of them are becoming increasingly faceless and irrelevant, especially to the young.
maybe we should adopt the old lord reith model of benign dictatorship tempered by assassination.
of course, real power is no longer in westminster any way. its in multinational boardrooms.
as a nation we no longer control our own country
Thomas
Monday Oct 03, 03:37
And there was me thinking you'd be moaning about the power being in quangos or Europe (It's ok - I'm pretty sure you're not the UKIP type).
I think that globalisation is a thing that has to be accepted and embraced as we don't really have much choice about it.
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 03, 17:07
"Labour only got re-elected this time because there is no effective nationwide opposition." Wrong! Labour got in because our "democracy" is not a real democracy! First past the post!! Grrr, it makes me angry that a party only gets 28% (or thereabouts) of the vote and thus becomes in "charge!"
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 03, 17:11
Conference comes from the word "confer" Latin for "to bring". "To meet in order to deliberate together or compare views; consult: conferred with her attorney."
Thomas, this man was trying to engage Jack Straw, but Jack wouldn't. I remember when you got hecklers at conferences, and MP's would stand their ground (If they could). Only goes to show that Jack Straw can't or won't. Also, was it not very extreme to then hold the man under anti-terrorism laws?
Alan
Monday Oct 03, 22:15
I think that the problems in Germany portray the problems of PR Dave. Whats more it would give the Lib Dems an opportunity to get into power; presenting problem number 2, a country run by an alcoholic with no clear strategy or policy.
Alan
Monday Oct 03, 22:15
p.s I agree with you on the conference. Jack Straw should have intervened.
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 03, 22:26
Not that I think Charlie Boy is an alcoholic (may be a heavy drinker, certainly not alocholic), but I would rather have the country led by him than a Megalomaniac (eg Blair)
peter h
Tuesday Oct 04, 01:52
winston churchill was a drunk. Didnt stop him running the country.
As for PR, Germany doesnt show PR's problems, it shows that under pr people of different political persuasions have to make accommodations with each other in order to form a government. Which is what democracy should be. trouble with 1st past the posters is that they think it gives "strong" government.
It does. You also get strong governments in North Korea, Burma, Syria USSR, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, and Blair's UK, where the party in power does not have to listen to its opponents.
As for globalisation, Thomas - wrong.
It's got sod all to do with UKIP.
Globalisation is ultmately a bad thing because it makes government too remote.
EC proves it. How many people know who their MEP is?
I don't. I have no idea. Nor does my wife or my kids or anybody I know (we did a straw poll a few months ago!!!). We all know John Leach, we knew (he he) Keith Bradley. But who the hell is our MEP? When did he/she/it last visit this area or send us any letters or write to the local paper? Anybody know? Does anybody know any of the European Ministers? Or what they do?
Brussels, no matter how well meaning ends up remote and meaningless to the electorate.
I love the idea of EU in principle, nad most of its laws , especially about human rights, labour laws, are bloody good laws which scare the hell out of Tony Blair, but it doesnt know how to engage with the public in practice. Maybe its best left as a free trade area and no more.
After all, do you really want your laws to be drafted by people whom youve never heard of and whose language you dont understand?
its nothing to do with putting the "great" back into britain a la UKIP. Its the simple practicality of managable size, and of maintaining identity. Trying to forge a political entitiy out of 300 million people with god knows how many languages and cultures is ultimately an impossibility
Thomas
Tuesday Oct 04, 01:57
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting globalisation had anything to do with UKIP... I just meant that when you were talking about not running our own country you were going to say the quangos do (or if you were a UKIP type, that Europe does).
The point I was trying to make about globalisation was that we don't have a choice about it, so we might as well get on with it.
So are you anti-european at the moment? What do you think the best way forward for Europe is?
peter h
Tuesday Oct 04, 03:46
never been anti-european. Most of EC legislation is far superior to british equivalents especially on human rights, working conditions, defence.
But it's like communism. The principle is brilliant but the practice falls down if you take it to its limit.
When I said we don't run our own country, I was making a different point - about the power of big business, be it media corporations, oil industry, automotive, IT, food production, retail, whatever.
I hate globalisation, because it is inherently undemocratic and driven by money, not concern for humanity. Not only is it not inevitable, it will eventually need controlling.
Your party already has a situation where its leaders are scared of upsetting rupert murdoch, for instance, because of what he can do to them via the Sun, Times, Sky etc. Iraq is replete with US commercial undercurrents. Our nuclear warfare capacity is dependent on Halliburton to service it, we are about to sell Sellafield to overseas buyers, much of our industrial workforce depends on the whims of accountants in USA for their survival; many of our public utilities are foreign owned and so on ad nauseam. The result is that far too many decisions which affect this country's fundamental interests are taken by people who are totally unaccountable to the people of this country.
I have no beef with Qangos. At least our own government appoints them and can disband them.
Alan
Tuesday Oct 04, 13:21
MEP is Arlene McCarthy and the Labour Leader in Europe is Gary Titley.
peter h
Tuesday Oct 04, 23:10
perhaps arlene might get off her bum and start getting to know her constituents while she still has any.
When did you last see any mention of her in the local press? When did she ever send any fliers out to tell people what she is doing? How on earth do these people expect the electorate to connect to Europe if their so called representatives make no effort to communicate?
Al least JL and KB before him put time and effort into getting their opinions and actions to the attention of the electorate.
Or does Arlene think she's above such lowlife as the people?
Alan
Wednesday Oct 05, 04:15
I agree (again.. rather worrying). We were at some stage supposed to vote on a European Constitution and yet I had no real clue as to what it was until I did research into it. I'm not talking policy, I am talking basic concept. I imagine that if the MEP's ( and by that I mean all of them) made an effort to campaign and put their message across then the public would not be so taken in by the negative media scaremongering on the question of Europe.
Europe is key to the future prosperity of this country and to take a Tory or even worse a UKIP stance and walk away from it is crazy.
Alan
Wednesday Oct 05, 04:18
p.s I'm no big fan of Arlene McCarthy and wouldn't vote for her anyway. However, Gary Titley is a nice guy and always very helpful should you email him.
peter h
Thursday Oct 06, 22:34
Actually, Alan, europe is not necessarily the key to our prosperity.
The world economic powerhouse for the foreseeable future is in the East, and with economic power will eventually come political clout.
Ive been going to China regularly for years and the pace of growth there is breathtaking. The most astounding thing there is the sheer number of intelligent articulate highly educated graduates desperate to make something with their lives. Theyre better educated tahn us and hungry for success in a way you no longer see in Europe.
We're still only at the beginning of this, but if you imagine that 25% of the world's population is there and a billion in India, before you start counting Indonesia, Pakistan etc etc, then the future is going to see some dramatic economic and power shifts.
And theyre getting rich by exporting to Europe and America, who in turn are no longer making things.
Our main economic activity is in retailing - ie buying and selling products to ourselves, and so is the rest of Europe. It's basically unhealthy in the long term.
We don't seem to hear of anybody really sitting down and figuring out where we should be in 50 years time, or whom we should be allied to.
It may well be Europe, but it may not. The EC has not even yet decided what it is, how big it is , or what it will be in future.
I personally am by nature pro european, but I can equally see it unravelling.
My personal bet in fact is that it WILL unravel, purely because its ever increasing size will make it unworkable in any meaningful way except as a free trade area. And a free trade area where nobody makes anything because theyve imported it all is basically pretty meaningless.
Which is why I'm off to shanghai again in a couple of weeks...........rats and sinking ships as it were.
there is a very real possibility that 22nd century britain will be a major theme park for Asian tourists
Alan
Friday Oct 07, 13:15
So do you think that our future is with Europe or with China/Asia. Furthermore what do you think of the French hostility towards our rebate. Should we scrap the rebate and still continue to pay subsidies to French farmers... or indeed any farmer?
peter h
Saturday Oct 08, 11:45
I don't know where our future lies. I'm just saying that EC is in a mess in terms of where it is going, so we should stand back and keep our options open. It worked when it was small. I think it has a finite possible size. It's like big business. The bigger you get, the more central control you need in order to manage it properly, and the more remote it gets from its individual units and employees, or electors, and the less sense of belonging you get. It's daft. Like the rolling presidency. What the hell does president mean? How many presidents pay any attention to it? Theyve all got other jobs which are more important to them. Nobody knows who their MEPs are or what they do. They just think theyre overpaid bloated beurocrats, which may or may not be true.
sod the french. they look after their own interests and only that.
but as for the CAP, I sctually like it. Not for any economic reason but because it helps preserve the countryside by protecting small farmers' livelihoods in the face of big industry.
If you want to keep the countryside looking good and double up as a good place for townies to go to relax in addition to being a food source, then you have to make it workable for small farmers.
the trouble with thi s government is that it doesn't think like that. to them agriculture is just another industrial activity which needs to be run on strict commercial lines, which in turn means wiping out small farmers and pushing them into bigger units, which again will destroy the landscape as we know it, and much of the wildlife with it.
same with fox hunting. I'm one of the very few animal rights enthusiasts and strict vegetarians (one of the reasons I got banned last time) who is actually in favour of fox hunting and hunting/shooting/fishing on the grounds that they are , if properly done (ie not farm-bred sitting duck pheasants etc), a way of ensuring the countryside is viable and ensuring it survives.
British politicians scoff at the CAP. But it means you go through france and belgium and they are full of small farmers and high grade local produce, whilst we get crap from tesco that looks good and tastes of cardboard.
We're a rich nation. we should pay more attention to quality of life and less to quantity sometimes.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Oct 12, 17:57
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4332702.stm
One wonders how much Lawrence would have got it right. Would we be in as much mess now?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Oct 12, 20:13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leech_(politician)
I have just had a laugh. According to wikipedia internet site. johnleech.org.uk is a "fansite" to John Leech MP
peter h
Wednesday Oct 12, 22:52
Lawrence?
TE? DH? Dalaglio?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Oct 12, 23:59
Peter click on my link
petr
Thursday Oct 13, 01:57
It's the same old story, isn't it?
Ireland, Kashmir, Israel, Iraq, Ruanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo.....
Greedy western - usually British - colonialists invent "countries" to suit their own worthless motives, completely ignoring the people on the ground, and 100 years later we reap the whirlwind of the wind they sowed. Look at Ireland after 300 years. It still isnt right.
There is no logic on the ground within the people of the area to have a country called Iraq, with at least 3 completely separate peoples, at least one of which at any one time feels oppressed, and all of which have stronger links with "outsiders" (Iran for the Shiites, Turkish Kurds for the Kurds) than with their supposed countrymen. It's a recipe for disaster.
I had to laugh this week when Labour stand up and complain that Iran is "interfering" (!!) in Iraq in support of Shia militias!
As the guy no sense of irony at all? Iran is helping its brothers and cousins! How on earth does he work out that Britain has a right to invade Iraq but Iran has no right to be there? He doesn't get bit. He can't see (or can't admit) that we are seen as invaders there.
I don't know how much you know about the area, but Britain is universally distrusted amongst the shiites there because of our double dealing history in the region, especially the way we imposed the Shah of Iran on that country against the wishes of the people in order to protect our own interests. And that, Dave, is almost a mirror image of what USA and UK are doing in Iraq now under the pretext of "liberating" it from Saddam. It stinks, and if we get a bloody nose out of it then we shall deserve it
peter h
Thursday Oct 13, 23:15
Dave, your comments reminded me of kipling's poem called Mesopotamia July 1917, written about dead english soldiers, lives lost due to arrogant politicians. Nothing changes. Lawrence and Kipling saw the human side:
They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,
The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?
They shall not return to us, the strong men coldly slain
In sight of help denied from day to day:
But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain,
Are they too strong and wise to put away?
Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide -
Never while the bars of sunset hold.
But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,
Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?
Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour?
When the storm is ended shall we find
How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power
By the favour and contrivance of their kind?
Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,
Even while they make a show of fear,
Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their friends,
To confirm and re-establish each career?
Their lives cannot repay us - their death could not undo -
The shame that they have laid upon our race.
But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew,
Shall we leave it unabated in its place?
vera from the flats
Friday Oct 14, 02:46
The Liberal Democrats are back stabbers as
Vera frm the Flats
Friday Oct 14, 02:52
The liberal Democrats are a bunch of back stabbers as Councillor Simon Wheele as just found out. Come next May he is no longer going to be a Councillor because all his so called friends have dropped him like a "HOT POTATOE", poetic justice, some may say. Ha!
Alan
Sunday Oct 16, 20:53
Well, "Vera from the flats" it look as though you stopped that thread dead.
As for your Kipling poem Peter, it should be remembered that in his day most soldiers were drafted and had no choice in whether they went to war or not.
Today's soldier is different, they volunteer to do what they do and are left under no illusions about what they may need to do once their training has finished.
I think that if the society 'do gooders' took the time to speak to those in the Armed Forces as opposed to paying too much attention to their own self righteousness then they would see that most soldiers see operational deployment as 'part of the job'that they are paid to do. Just like it is the job of a customer service advisor in a call centre to answer the phone.
peter h
Monday Oct 17, 04:02
youre missing the point alan.
The poem is about the politicians that send soldiers to war.
And my point is that it is the same now as it was then - political manipulation of foreign countries ,using british soldiers' lives to pay for it. And in turn it was backing up what Dave Wilson said about TE Lawrence and British activities in the area.
The fact that then they were drafted and now they are volunteers is neither here nor there.
Blair is playing in 2005 the same game as his predecessors played in 1917 and it is equally shameful now
Thomas
Monday Oct 17, 05:31
Well not really quite the same as in 1917, as then our country was actually in danger of being invaded.
On the other point that Alan makes, it shouldn't be forgotten that regardless of the fact that the armed forces volunteer, they still bravely risk their lives for us, on behalf of the British people (or if you are a cynic the Americans).
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 17, 17:10
Alan have you not heard of conscientious objectors? We all have a choice, as did many of the British service men and women of wars past and present. My grandfather was one during the Second World War!
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 17, 17:12
Thomas, I think you have an odd definition of "bravely". They are not risking their lives on behalf of the British people. They are helping Mr Blair and Mr Bush exasperate the situation and increasing the risk of terrorist attacks on the British people.
Thomas
Monday Oct 17, 20:23
Again, it is not their choice where they fight, nor who they fight.
You may not agree with it and probably don't think it isn't ethical, moral, or right, however you cannot take away the fact that they risk their lives on behalf of the British people, British people who sent them to war. They are put into conflict by a British government that was (and is) elected by British people (and yes I know you are about to say "I DIDN'T VOTE FOR TONY BLAIR", but that is irrelevant. If you don't want to be represented by a government that has been elected, right hard to elect another one, or find another country to live in).
While when the personnel in our armed forces know they risk their lives when they join, so do firemen and policemen, and if you think they aren't brave because of it you are wrong.
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 17, 21:22
Hi Thomas, if I may come back at the points that you made Thomas
a) They choose to join the armed forces. They know that they may go to fight in a war. So it is not the British people that sent them to war.
b) It is not "Irrelevant" that I am more than 60% of the voting population voted for the Labour government, nor is it "irrelevant" that at one point over 50% of the population were against going to war with Iraq.
c) I want to be represented by a fair and democratic government in this country. Moving to another country is a little extreme, and something which I can not afford to do. If you are willing to contribute to me moving abroad, then I am willing to discuss this further with you.
d) I think the police and firemen are very brave. I am not sure what you are getting at, as these are very different roles from that of the armed services
Alan
Monday Oct 17, 22:56
People don't join the Armed Forces because they want to kill people, most servicemen would probably be happy never to go to war. What they do recognise is that they may have to go to war and when they do, they do their job and they do it well. They have all been trained to exceptionally high standards and essentially, trained to kill.
I would imagine that if you asked the average British squaddie out in Iraq at the moment; what do you think about during a fire fight with the enemy?, the answer won't be Britain, the government or the Queen, it will ultimately be about keeping himself and his oppo's alive.
peter h
Tuesday Oct 18, 03:52
I'd be more inclined to believe this picture of noble brave british sodliers risking their lives for us if I hadnt met various ones over the years.
most recently all of 3 weeks ago being threatened by a soldier home on leave from Iraq for the heinous crime of looking at him. His parting shot was "I risk my life in iraq to protect wankers like you", before walking off shouting at me "consider yourself lucky (that he didnt flatten me)". Complete psychpathic nutter living in South Manchester right now, before going back to Iraq and further destroying what little credibility we have with any locals who look at him wrongly.
He kept going on about serving queen and country. Very proud of himself.
Or sitting in Oman some years ago talking to SAS officers boasting about killing insurgents , cutting their heads off and driving round Muscat in a jeep with the heads stuck on the wings. Quite the nastiest people I have ever met in 40 years of travel.
Yeah. Makes you proud to be British, Thomas and Alan. Sorry, but people who take up professions whose job description includes killing other people don't register in my file of people to respect.
As for conscientious objection , Dave, there's an RAF Medical Officer about to be Court Martialled for refusing to go to Iraq because he feels the war is illegal.
Should be interesting. Apparently the military still hasnt got the hang of conscientious objection. They regard it as a criminal offence.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Oct 18, 20:52
I have no sympathy for service men and women who act as conscientious objectors in a modern professional army/air force/navy etc. They knew that they might have to go to war. They have to take orders (some they will like, some they won't) when they signed up.
Alan
Tuesday Oct 18, 22:43
With most my family, including myself and alot of my friends serving and having served I find your comments very distasteful Peter. To profile all of Britains armed forces on one idiot you met in south manchester (of which you have no proof he was actually a serving soldier as alot of people like to pretend)is pretty narrow minded.
As for the SAS they are highly trained killers, no dispute, but we need them and to say that we don't is exceptionally naive.
Well done Peter for giving his 'civvie' outlook on the armed forces having no idea of the danger that they face on a day to day basis not just today but also in the past.
Perhaps you should consider the millions of people, of whom you have no respect for, that fought in WW2 to allow you to have the freedoms that you enjoy today.
Out of everything you have said on this site Peter your last posting really does say alot about you!
Alan
Tuesday Oct 18, 22:43
p.s none of it bloody good!!!!!!
Annette
Tuesday Oct 18, 22:49
I think people should accept that we need an armed forces, and that you cannot hold them responsible for the job we ask them to do as British people, and what our government ask them to do.
peter h
Wednesday Oct 19, 02:09
youre not getting away with that alan. I'm from a military family on both sides. I'm not being "naive", mate. And I've been too close to comfort to what they do for a living on half a dozen occasions, closer than many soldiers, although, unlike them, I wasnt getting paid to be shot at (Jordan) or having my car blown up (Derry) or (fortunately failed)attempt to have our plane blown up (Abu Dhabi) or to be chased through the streets by gunmen trying to blow my head off for being Western (Beirut). So I've seen the risks without having a tin hat on. And I wasnt impressed with the participants - on either side.
And I don't recall saying I have no respect for those in WW11 or WW1? Most of those guys thought they had no choice. And that took more bravery because they werent professionals. And the conshies were even braver because they dared to go against convention. My dad was blown to smithereens in Germany (he survived), my cousin was shot down over hamburg(he didnt), one grandad spent 4 years in WW1 trenches and the other had to swim for it at Jutland. And my cousin Frank got killed in some naval escapade in the sixties or seventies. So don't suppose you have the knowledge to judge me in that way.
Fact is that this coun try is a little country trying to act big. In 2005 we do not need a huge army; we do not need independent deterrence (we havent got it anyway - we are US puppets). If we scrapped most of it tomorrow we would be no less secure. Who's going to invade us? Andorra? Why do we need a bigger army than Switzerland?
We don't, not if our aim is to defend ourselves adequately.
As for "distasteful", call me old-fashioned, but I find killing people is rather distasteful, personally. And that, Alan, is ultimately what a professional soldier agrees to do. He may well be brave, but so were the guys flying planes into the twin towers. There's plenty of people who call them heroes too, rather than the mass murderers that they actually were.
John
Wednesday Oct 19, 03:46
It is an interesting point that peter h makes (akin to the one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter), and it is difficult to classify. However, look at the Army's mission statement:
'The British Army is a force for good, carrying out essential work both in the UK and overseas. Whether it's protecting the UK's security or fighting a war, keeping the peace in the world's hotspots or delivering humanitarian aid, our Army is respected worldwide for its ability to fulfil a role that no other organisation is trained or equipped to do.'
That is correct, though obviously you wouldn't know peter h (as you seem to have no real connection to the armed forces) whether it was or not - you can just choose to make your upyourself selfish and childish comments without thinking about it. You are happy to tell us about your globe-trotting to run your (presumably exploiting) business, yet don't think about the massive support function the British armed forces play in the world peace keeping, and yes "regime changing".
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Oct 19, 14:21
Annette, I never "asked" the armed forces to go to Iraq. From the first moments of the Axis of Evil speech, I was against Britain sending armed forces to a country that did not need to be occupied by another countries forces. I was one of the many millions from across the globe that went on a peaceful march to demonstrate. So please do not make assumptions that all British people asked the armed services to go to war. That is why John Leech is now our MP. Not over the threat (real or otherwise) of Christies closing down, but because Labour took us to war. I do feel sorry for Keith Bradley, as I know his stance, but he should of stood as an independent if he didn't like so many of Labour's policies (I was in agreement with many of his ideas, shame I didn't agree with his parties!)
Alan
Wednesday Oct 19, 23:08
If a soldier signs up to kill people the presumably a police officer joining S019 is doing the same Peter... or perhaps you are wrong. The members of my family currently serving would have no desire to kill anyone. If they were forced into a situation where they had to then I presume they would. That is the difference. You presume that because of your encounter with a supposed soldier the other week that all soldiers act in this way. This, as I'm sure you know, is not the truth.
It sems to me that you are very much akin to the French and Russians; you hurl abuse at the British government and the members of our armed forces while you are on your farcical 'moral high ground' and when business has been done you are straight in there looking for business opportunities to line your own pocket.
How much do the Chines companies that you trade with, and export goods for, pay their employees. Presumably, certainly morally, they are on the minimum wage... or are they just exploited for business!
John
Wednesday Oct 19, 23:11
Thats right, Peter H you immoral exploiting bastard.
peter h
Wednesday Oct 19, 23:48
yeah, I'm an immoral exploiting bastard. A bastard who will in December pay a £40 000 tax bill for the half year to help pay the army's wages. 40% of most of what I earn goes immediately in income tax, plus 17 .5% VAT on what I buy, plus taxes on wages of people I keep in work in UK. Only a dozen or so these days directly, but a lot indirectly.
So whose pockets do I line, Alan?
ANd how much does moral, non-exploiting John contribute to the national coffers when he isnt questioning my morality? Eh John?
And, by the way, I pay every last penny of tax. I could quite easily keep most of the money out of UK and evade tax. But being an immoral bastard I happen to believe in paying taxes.
As for exploiting? Well, in Shanghai we pay about $100-$130 a month, which is about 20% above the going rate for manchinists in China, and 4 times higher than our employees would get as farmers, which they used to do. We overpay purely to get the best, but well above the norm. So, sorry, mate, youre wrong there too. And the factory passes ethical audit, if that means anything to you. It means it meets standards of working conditions required by the best importers. Proper working conditions, proper facilities, food, heat, light, accommoddation, restr breaks, holidays, no child labour etc.
The final irony is that we were obliged to move to China in the 90s when economic conditions forced it on us.
Before we did so, we spent a lot of time lobbying MPs in order to find ways of keeping the work here. It was impossible, of course. But I always remember writing to a couple of LABOUR MPs , poining out that tousands of testile jobs in their constituencies were under threat and asking their help.
They never even bothered to reply.
peter h
Thursday Oct 20, 00:13
As for you John,. whoever you are, you completely misunderstand me. We obviously need the ability to defend ourselves and help in defence of other peoples' freedoms when they can't do it themselves.
But, far too often, that isnt what happens, is it? We didnt go Iraq to protect Iraqis. We went there to protect US and UK interests. We were perfectly happy to back Saddam despite his evil deeds when he was on "our" side and fought Iran.
And Alan, the moral high ground is not farcical, although the idea of Chirac and Putin occupying it certainly is. They're sleazy chancers.
And armed policemen are totally different. The police force needs armed response units, or they can't do their job. And by and large they do it well as a last resort. Policing is totally different from soldiering, as we saw in Northern Ireland. If Ulster had been treated as a policing job rather than a military job and we'd concentrated on straightening out the RUC in the 60s and 70s, then we would not have had 1000s of dead there over the next 30 years. Bloody sunday would never had been a massacre if there had been a decent unbiased police force on the gorund. Instead, you take Paras who are trained to kill and throw them in with inevitable results. Their training kicks in and there is a massacre.
Laurellien
Thursday Oct 20, 01:27
It seems that John and Alan think that a British soldier is Mother Teresa in a tin hat.
It doesn't matter how brave our soldiers are in Iraq, what matters is that the 'regime change' we undertook is illegal under internatinal law. I know Saddam was cruel and needed getting rid of, but two wrongs don't make a right.
John! What makes you an authority on the British armed forces?
I am not saying that the British army is bad (in my opinion we are proud to have the best military in the world and an impressive military history) but a person who signs up to be a soldier (not a mechanic, medic, recording officer etc...) must expect to fight the enemy at some point, it might be from a computer screen on a warship or in a silo, it might be 20,000 feet above them, or it might be eye-to-eye in a city (the most brutal and dangerous war arena), and when they do fight the enemy they are going to have to kill. In a warzone as we constantly hear, it is kill or be killed, make sure a corpse is a corpse etc... And sometimes, a soldier will get it wrong, he'll target the wrong encmpment, or the wrong plane, or miss or his targeting system will fail, and he will cause 'collateral damage'. Anyone who signs up for a combat role in the army and doesn't expect to have to kill at some point is in my opinon, naiive
peter h
Thursday Oct 20, 03:54
in fairness to alan, blaming the soldiers is short-sighted. They do what they are ordered to do and the real culprits are those that deploy them.
the fact remains that there is a history of using armed force for unjustifiable reasons - iraq being simply the most recent, interspersed with some obviously good deeds, and there is a lot of hypocrisy at the highest level.
Over the last 2 weeks, for instance, the British Government , with no sense of irony, has complained about Iranian intervention in Iraq by helping to train local militias attacking British forces, totally ignoring the fact that the Iranians and Southern Iraqis are closely related and the Iranians have far more legitimate claims to be active in that area than us, or the fact that Britain has a disgraceful record for interfering with Iranian affairs and ids largely despised and distrusted in Iran as a result.
I'm surprised that people with military connections are not complaining loudly about their army friends being deployed in such a manner and being killed in numbers as a result. There are almost 100 British soldiers dead, needlessly, in Iraq now in support of an illegal campaign which should have been dealt with by the UN. If you really do support the army so strongly, then camapign to get them out of there.
Dave Wilson
Thursday Oct 20, 17:19
Good points made there Peter. How do you suggest we campaign to get them out? I have written to my former MP, I attended one of the biggest protests ever seen in Manchester. I voted against the main political party who advocated Britain goes to war in Iraq, etc etc, and still I see millions of pounds of tax payers money go to waste, I see needless deaths on both sides of the war reported in the news daily, I see we have an increased threat of terrorism and thus and increase loss of civil liberties. Any suggestions on how we can be more democratic? (a word Tony Blair and G W Bush use way too often, when they do not know the true meaning of it!)
Alan
Thursday Oct 20, 23:03
Laurellian, I'm not quite sure what you are going on about. I certainly don't think that a British soldier is mother teresa in a tin hat and nor should he/she be.And yes they do sometimes make mistakes, they are only human and as humans we all do!
At no time did I, or I think John, suggest that people signing up to the armed forces didn't expect to kill someone. My point was that alot of them sign up realising that one day they may have to go to war and kill people but it doesn't mean that they want to kill people and that is the key difference.
The armed forces is not just about going to war it is a way of life for people that serve, something that a civilian with no previous military experience would not understand. It is a life of discipline, friendship, teamwork and pride; something which the civilian world is severely lacking.
As for you Peter, that will teach me to try and catch you out; I should have known that you look after your workers abroad and ensure a fair deal for them. My apologies for suggesting otherwise.
Alan
Thursday Oct 20, 23:07
p.s perhaps you should read today's Guardian before suggesting the UN as a more viable tool in which to use to deal with the Iraq situation!
Raping and pillaging in the Congo is hardly credible for a "peace keeping force"
peter h
Thursday Oct 20, 23:10
We don't have a democracy if we have a government with 40% of the votes cast and 28(?)% of available votes.
We are on dangerous ground as the percentage of people voting drops lower.
It is worst with younger voters. That IS dangerous.
Personally I think (a)voting should be obligatory(b)the percentage of votes cast per party should be reflected in the makeup of parliament (c) all matters of importance be decided in parliament (d)freedom of information be made a reality (e)elections every 4 years, removing the right of government to manipulate it (f) all important committees be in public (g)no prime minister serve more than 2 terms (h) alsatair campbell should be shot
Alan
Thursday Oct 20, 23:13
I like Alistair Campbell and if a PM could only serve 2 terms then Tony wouldn't be in power now and of course I wouldn't be happy with that.
On another note, has anyone any ideas as to why Simon Weale has been de- selected?
peter h
Friday Oct 21, 02:17
thank you alan. I may run a business but at base I'm a socialist, and that comes first.
I've never seen a sweat shop in China in 10 years. It suits certain vested interests to paint China as some kind of stalinist hell-hole, but it simply isnt like that. It's not riddled with sweatshops, it doesnt feel remotely repressive. Its simply a country in breathtakingly rapid transition from a land of peasants to a highly educated leading 21st century economy, via a temporary but necessary foray into Communism. And it is no threat militarily whatsoever to the outside world. China has never invaded anywhere except places it regards as part of China, and never will.
The UN is a bit of a mess and it needs sorting out. But the principle of it is sound and an absolute necessity for the moderm world. If done properly it should be the world's parliament, the planet's policeman. It should be the place where the Iraqs and Liberias of this world can be sorted out, where supernational problems like global warming can dealt with effectively. It's a huge pity that USA is so equivocal about it. The Bush camp regard it as a threat to their world dominance.
I like Alistair Campbell too. But his type of spin doctoring has been disastrous. It has severely undermined the credibility of politicians in the eyes of Joe Public. It leads to ministers ducking and diving instead of giving straight answers.
If PMs had only 2 terms, Thatcher would have been ditched earlier. And Labour is not short of good leadership material
Dave Wilson
Friday Oct 21, 15:08
I agree with you on some of your ideas Peter, but on point a) I think that if you are going to make voting a legal obligation, then you need to have a "none of the above" place to tick
Mystic Mug
Friday Oct 21, 18:35
First Yasmin (Good enough to be LD candidate in 1997 and 2001 but then deselected)...
...now Simon (stood but lost out on the LD's parliamentary nomination)...
QUESTION: Which newly elected MP benefitted on both occasions?
peter h
Saturday Oct 22, 04:10
agreed dave. But god knows how the devaluation of politics in peoples' perceptions will be reversed. It's dangerous. We call ourselves a democracy and the government has less than 30% mandate, and both major parties are happy to leave it that way because power matters more than principle to them. fundamentally immoral
peter h
Saturday Oct 22, 04:17
the words exploiting bastard were used on this site recently.
if you really want to see that, look at what happened this week with the chairman of arcadia group (owners of Topshop, BHS etc) , Phillip Green.
He paid himself £1.2 BILLION.
And he avoided UK tax by paying it to his wife whose home is monaco.
At 40%, that represents tax avoidance of £480 million.
All perfectly legal. He broke no law.
The amount of tax that is avoided in this country is a total scandal. THe above is one extreme example but the tip of an iceberg.
one can understand it under a tory government. But Labour?
Alan
Monday Oct 24, 12:00
Mystic Mug, I'm not sure about Simon Wheale as I have never met him/seen him talk, but Yasmin was a nutter.
At the pre election hustings she ranted uncontrolably. I'm no fan of John Leech but to suggest that he is a racist is ridiculous. She needed to go!However, in a way I'm sorry that she did... only because I'm a Keith Bradley supporter and with her leading the Lib Dem group their would have been no question as to who the winner would have been.
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 24, 18:08
I disagree Alan. Sadly for Keith, I don't think it would have mattered who was standing for the Lib Dems, as they would have certainly won in my opinion. Not because of individual personalities of Keith or whoever stood for the Lib Dems, but because, for the vast majority of people in the ward, they were unhappy with the Labour governments handling of Iraq.
Alan
Monday Oct 24, 22:34
Come off it Dave, if Yasmin had stood then the Lib Dems wouldn't have stood a chance. Yes, people were disillusioned over Iraq but I'm sorry there is no way Yasmin would have won that seat. I don't know if you were at the pre election debate, but if you were then you would know exactly where I was coming from. The Lib Dems knew it and that is why they ditched her!
Dave Wilson
Monday Oct 24, 23:49
Alan the point is, not many people get to meet their MP in person, nor do they get to meet the candidates. I for one have never met Keith or Yasmin. In fact the only council/parliment candidate I have met is John Leech. I do not read local press, so although I have heard of Yasmin, I do not know her, not even through reputation (although I am now starting to get idea from forum contributers on here). So with that in mind, I am still quite convinced of Labour being booted out over Iraq and other poor judgements made by the government. Like I said earlier, if Keith had stood as an independent, I might have voted for him, but as it was, he stood for a party, that I (and many other voters in Chorlton and Didsbury) had lost faith in.
peter h
Tuesday Oct 25, 20:20
ni hao from shanghai.....
dave, if you get to know local residents' groups, you'll find out that john leech and his colleagues built up a sizable specific vote base by dint of sheer hard work for local issues. A lot of the people who voted for him did so because they knew and trusted him and he'd supported them many times in their battles.
Labour tends to belittle this because, embarrassingly for them, the battles all too often were with them at the town hall as they either ignored or rode roughshod over local concerns.
Withington hospital was probably the most high profile, but there were myriad other issues where labour arrogance at a local level towards ordinary people cost them dearly.
Ive said to alan several times in the past that if they want to unseat the Lib Dems they have to relearn grass roots issues.
Other labour supporters poured scorn on it asking of John Leech what he'd actually achieved, saying he'd achieved very little.
But they miss the point. He came along and fought their corner for them.
By defeating him because he was lib dem, Labour just defeat him they also helped defeat Keith Bradley because he was tarred with the same Labour brush.
Our local residents meetings always have several lib dem councillors coming. We never see Labour councillors, activists or MPs.
Labour all too often opposed these things just because they were Lib Dem supported - ie playing politics instead of sticking up for what was right. Just look at the mean minded, infantile vitriol poured on him in the Reporter - most of which backfires badly by just making the local labour activists look like childish idiots. They have no idea how stupidly it reads to non-partisan readers.
Any way, back to the smog.
Alan
Wednesday Oct 26, 04:13
I'm not denying John Leech is hardworking I'm sure he is and if so then good effort to him; an MP (PPC) should. I just seriously dislike his politics, in my view they are wrong and that's why I want to see him gone at the next election.
Peter, sadly, is right, perhaps Labour do need to get back to grass roots but I would suggest that this applies to only SOME Labour councillors and not all. I remove Keith Bradley from this equation because having seen the work that he dealt with it was clearly evident that he was dedicated to his constituents and to grass root issues. You may disagree with me on this Peter but he worked tirelesly for the constituency and to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, entirely wrong.
I hope the Chinese are treating you well.
peter h
Wednesday Oct 26, 23:26
Alan, the perception kb created anomgst the people I know does not fit your description. Sorry. maybe that is more down to the council-level "support" he should have got, and maybe JL will have the same problem once he gets properly into being an MP and has his mind set more on that environment. BUt I suspect not, because othe lib dems are stepping in to do that at grass roots and maintain that sense of involvement. Most people don't vote for ideological reasons. They vote for the people who do the best job for them. And that means getting out and working hard at local meetings, actually hammering away at local issues for the people there irrespective of left/right divides. That is what lib dems are good at, and that is what labour is perceived to be bad at round didsbury. When we had the kerfuffle about schools 4-5 years ago, hundreds of parents in west didsbury were up in arms about finding their kids cut out from Parrs Wood qualificiation after years of being qualified to send their kids there. And where was Labour? On a local level they were telling us to shut up and take what we were given, and at least one labour councillor heavily connected with schools openly sneered at us. And where was KB? he wrote a couple of anodyne letters in our support, and then ducked out.
It did not go unnoticed that KB had no problem sending HIS son to parrs wood. people said he moved house to get in the catchment. And when his son didnt like it, he moved him to mgs. just as our lot were holding mass meetings. Labour lost enough votes on that issue alone to cost them the seat. Add up the number of kids in the feeder schhols affected, multiply it by two.
That is one simple but very costly example. It lost our votes, and it lost a lot of votes I know of, but it was not a national or a city-wide issue and it doesnt figure anywhere in labour's calculation over why they lost. But those protest meetings were jam packed - completely filling school assembly halls. Blair once said, "Education, Education, Education". And he was right. And when at the stroke of a pen you remove from maybe 2000 parents the basic right they'd been working for for their kids and in some instance theyd moved house for, and then just stonewall them when they protest, then you sign your own death warrant as regards most of their votes. you mess with people's kids at your peril. we wanted to feel the weight of kb pushing and pushing hard on our behalf. but it wasnt there. we felt overwhelimngly that he put on a bit of a show for our benefit and then quietly went along with labour policy. Just like we felt he did on iraq. token protest then nothing. that is the perception he created, be it right or wrong.
ph
Wednesday Oct 26, 23:28
and china's fine. thanks for asking. you should try it sometimes. it's nothing like the western media say it is.
John
Wednesday Oct 26, 23:48
Isn't this site blocked by the great firewall of China?
peter h
Thursday Oct 27, 19:54
no. don't be so daft as to have your prejudices shaped by what you see in the media. remember who owns the media.
Alan
Thursday Oct 27, 23:21
My grandad did alot of business in China during the 60's and 70's and spent alot of time out there. From the pictures it looks like a great place. As for visiting perhaps I'll be able to afford it when I make my millions but it is definately near the top of my list of places I want to see.
From the perspective of the media China seems to be a country on the up (from a western perspective)
peter h
Friday Oct 28, 22:18
western definitions just relate to money, unfortunately. there's a b+q in the middle of shanghai for gods sake, and an IKEA across the road, and walmart, plus macdonalds, tgi fridays, kfc and irish pubs. that isnt my definition of "up". on the other hand you can walk into a buddhist temple thats been in continuous use for 1400 years and read philosophers (confucius etc) who were writing 600 years before the birth of christ. go see it before it gets too polluted by the west. just remember that their culture is more developed than ours and we are the peasants, not them.
vera from the flats
Sunday Nov 06, 23:28
can i please ask the regular users on this site, one question please? (and i dont mean to offend)
What do you actively do, in the area to make a change?
I have read about the lack of activist, fighting for their communities and there seems to be interest in other areas, outside of home!
So, what else do you do, in order to change the problems, other then this site?
Thank you
Dave Wilson
Monday Nov 07, 19:17
Well Vera I used to protest among with hundreds of thousands around the UK (and millions from around the globe) about going to war with Iraq, yet this government don't bother listening. I used to write letters to my MP about tution fees, but didn't get much of a reponse.
Alan
Tuesday Nov 08, 00:23
Vera, I worked on an internship basis for Keith Bradley and worked on his re election campaign. I have written to MP's on the issue of fox hunting, terrorism etc. I also helped in Mike Hall's election campaign. I am an active member of the Labour Party and have done work for Amnesty International on a voluntary basis in addition to working on a voluntary basis as a caseworker for the Royal British Legion in the Manchester area.
Wait until you see Peter's response because it would seem that there is nothing that he hasn't done.
Alan
Tuesday Nov 08, 00:29
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/170/170171_mps_rallying_call_to_save_macc_hospital.html
Perhaps John Leech can get involved!! It would make a change to see him campaign against the closure of vital services in a hospital where a real threat exists. At least he wouldn't have to make them up himself!! (see above link)
John Holliker
Wednesday Nov 09, 18:27
Peter
So much to say, ignorant of so much. If it wasn't for Keith the disaprities in the LEA admission process for the good middle-classes of West Didsburyy would've remained unchanged. See also Chorlton High, Burnage Education campus and the investment in local primary school buildings.
The day Mr Leech exerts as much influence is the day you say something sensible ie. not in my lifetime.
Alan
Wednesday Nov 09, 23:47
lol you're cooking up a storm there John!
peter h
Thursday Nov 10, 02:26
well I hope you have a long and happy life john.
And that you learn how to spell. Must be all that good education under Labour, eh?
My son, under the tutelage of KB and local LEA, got offered a place at Ducie High School with its 93% failure rate..............
while KB's got into Parrs Wood.
Yeah, thanks Keith, thanks Labour. Praise the Lord and pass the ballot box.
Now when youve stopped posturing John , tell me the league table positions of all these good schools in south Manchester relative to the national averages. No doubt your maths will tell you just how "good" the education provided in this city's schools is.
steve bishop
Thursday Nov 10, 02:49
Peter: To be fair your son is an arrogant twat.
peter h
Thursday Nov 10, 03:40
you know him, do you? you speak from experience? or you just assuming that?
Dominic
Thursday Nov 10, 12:52
Steve? Is that the same scout master of the 306? If so do you think that, that is appropriate language for a scout master?
Dominic
Thursday Nov 10, 13:18
Anyway, what bearing does it have on the discussion
Thomas Graham
Thursday Nov 10, 13:45
Steve Bishop wasn't a scout leader at the 306, I think the guy you are thinking of is Steve Smith.
I think the comments by Steve Bishop are innapropriate, and irrelevant.
Dominic
Thursday Nov 10, 13:50
So Steve Smith. Where do you know me from?
Dominic
Thursday Nov 10, 13:52
Sorry, too early, brain cells not working properly.
So Steve Bishop, where do you know me from?
peter h
Thursday Nov 10, 14:40
thank you thomas. But leave his comments on for the world to see
They say far more about Steve Bishop than they do about my son. Sad little man.
Dave Wilson
Thursday Nov 10, 16:16
I love the language on a "family" forum from Steve Bishop.
John Holliker
Thursday Nov 10, 19:38
Peter
Before I reply in more substantive terms, can you confirm that your son took up a place at (formerly) Ducie?
More importantly, can you give me substance/examples on anyone from this West Didsbury axis who missed out on a South Manchester co-ed place after Keith's interventions.
More objectivity/accuracy please...
peter h
Thursday Nov 10, 23:32
My son went to MGS in the end, because I could afford to pay to bail him out of Ducie.
There was a whole raft of kids in his year who were turned away from Parrs Wood in the final year of their primary school education (my son was at cavendish road). I have no idea where they all went in the end. They were being given placements in Chorlton, Burnage, Ducie and other places whose names escape me now (it was 5 years ago).
The parents were absolutely furious. There were repeated protest meetings at the school, with the assembly hall literally packed, and we all felt we got the brush-off. It was at that specific point that many of us gave up on Labour - which was the point I made some time ago aboutKB's demise.
Labour local authorities seemed not to give a toss (they appeared to think that Didsbury people deserved their come-uppance) and KB's support was non-existent other than a couple of anodyne letters. His own getting of a place for his son at Parrs Wood was widely noted and there were a lot of bitter comments about it.
I have no intention of being objective, by the way. People like ourselves regard ourselves as natural labour voters and we feel that we have been shoddily treated at both local levels specifically (in our case)over schools and Withington Hospital, and at a nationel level over dozens of issues , notably Iraq.
Alan
Thursday Nov 10, 23:54
Out of interest what are people's thoughts about the defeat in Parliament yesterday?
peter h
Friday Nov 11, 00:10
it should happen more often - to all governments. Makes them more responsive
Alan
Friday Nov 11, 00:53
Do you agree with the 28 day instead of the 90.
peter h
Friday Nov 11, 03:41
I don't even agree with 28, but it's better than 90.
Dominic
Friday Nov 11, 04:26
If you suspect someone of terrorist activity and want to gather evidence, then have them escorted everywhere by the law overtly or covertly, I wouldn't want a 3 month prison sentence because the police thought I was a bit shifty, a bit muslim, and had a few too many muslim friends with beards.
Dominic
Friday Nov 11, 04:28
Steven Bishop!
If you are ever going to post here again, then a few questions.
1) How do you know me?
2) Why do you think what you said?
3) How is that Relevant.
btw, I'm glad that the government's draconian measures are being defeated.
Thomas Graham
Friday Nov 11, 06:48
"I wouldn't want a 3 month prison sentence because the police thought I was a bit shifty, a bit muslim, and had a few too many muslim friends with beards"
OK its a bit of an irrelevance now, but firstly it is not a prison sentence - that suggests that the person that is in custody has been found guilty of a crime and sentenced accordingly.
Second it isn't neccessarily a three month period - it would have been reviewed weekly by a judge.
Thirdly, it isn't someone who is "a bit muslim" (by the way, how are you "a bit muslim"?) that would be detained using the law, it would be someone that was suspected of terrorist activity and they needed more time to produce evidence (again which would have been reviewed by a judge).
I think what we ended up with is probably for the best.
peter h
Friday Nov 11, 12:44
thomas
if youre locked up for 90 days, you ARE in prison.
If you are locked up for 90 days and you have not been convicted of a crime then you are an innocent man in prison.
If you are locked up for 90 days because the police havent got a case against you, then you are an innocent man in prison having a crime committed aghainst you by the state.
Obviously, there need to be compromises, but you also have to bear in mind that the majority of people detained under suspicion of terrorist activity end up getting released because they are innocent.
If you introduce 90 days, that will still happen, but a lot of innocent people will have been locked up for 90 days.
Imagine that will do to an ordinary guy's life? He loses his job, maybe his house, certainly his credibility. You wreck his life and that of those around him.
If we call ourselves a free democratic country, then we need to do better than that to our fellow citizens.
The core problem here is alienation amongst a section of the population - notably young male muslims seeking a viable identity in life and not finding it in what is supposedly their own country. Address that, and be seen to address it, and radical Islam will melt away as a problem in UK. If you listen to those guys talking, they are young lads trying to find their way in life and feeling that they do not belong in this country. That means this country's institutions have failed them.
Dave Wilson
Friday Nov 11, 16:47
As the law stands, we already have the longest detention period of any Western/Democratic country. Did you see newsnight on Wednesday? It was brought up there. (you can watch the re-run on the bbc website in case you missed it)
John Holliker
Friday Nov 11, 20:02
Peter
Thanks for your reply which confirms your inability to look at this situation factually and impartially. Your ref about Keith's son is distorted to pout it best and you obviously know nothing about the influence/efforts keith made on this situation, namely whereby he got the LEA to commit to releasing places at either (then) Oakwood or Parrs Wood for the year kids were in the situation. I repeat my challenge to you, to find me one example where this wasn't the case.
You are as much as natural labour voter as George Bush is a pacifist.
You are the weakest link - goodbye.
peter h
Friday Nov 11, 23:34
how thick are you?
I GAVE you your one example.
MY OWN SON.
Got it?
Or is that not good enough for you?
I rescued him from the situation by buying him out of it. LEA and Keith Bradley did nothing.
My ref to KB's son was precise. I referred to perceptions. And that is exactly the truth.
Your references to my knowing nothing about his influences are garbage. This family, and many many more were painfully aware of the amount of input from him at the time.
As for your comments about natural labour voters, matey, you can take that back and shove it. Both me and my wife are from coal mining families and we forgot more than you and your fellow travellers will ever learn about socialism. It was a very painful decision to stop voting labour, and the moment labour stops being a moderate conservative party and remembers what it's supposed to be, then we'll vote for it again.
if I'm the weakest link, then youre the missing link. Ciao
peter h
Friday Nov 11, 23:38
Dave
In fairness to this country, we also probably have the best approach to integrating new minorities - look at the mess in France for instance. Personally, I have a lot of confidence in UK managing to get it right eventually.
peter h
Saturday Nov 12, 05:31
oh and by tyhe way John Holliker, my son can name 5 people, including himself, from his class who ended up going private because they were unable to get to a good school in the same way.
peter h
Saturday Nov 12, 16:16
here's a surprise for you, Alan. If John Leech really is supporting motor bikes in cycles lanes, then he is wrong, badly wrong, and should know better.
Bet you never thought you'd read that!
Alan
Saturday Nov 12, 17:53
.....
Alan
Saturday Nov 12, 17:58
That was me speechless... On another note, being as I like to have a laugh at the expense of our American 'friends' every now and then; I read an article in the paper yesterday which shows how our armed forces are a cut above the rest, even if they aren't given the same financial support as the American military.
It was reported that the Americans have spent millions, if not billions (you know what they are like) on research into being able to locate infra red/ laser trip wires, attached to APM in the caves of Afghanistan. Apparently alot of their soldiers have been seriously injured, killed as a result of these booby traps. It turns out that the answer to their problem costs £1.49 and is available from Woolworths.
While in Hereford an SAS Trooper came across the solution to the problem while spraying a can of silly string all over the place. It occurred to him that this could be used to detect the lasers, hidden in the caves and having tested it the MOD have found it to work.
Another victory for brains over the dollar!!
Thomas Graham
Saturday Nov 12, 18:02
I read the letter in SMR, but I'm sure it can't be serious. I had a look through the EDMs John has signed, and the only one I could see that might have been relevant was EDM 615
EDM 615 was about the use of motorcycles in BUS lanes, not cycle lanes.
peter h
Saturday Nov 12, 19:32
this isnt an outbreak of fairmindedness is it?
Alan
Saturday Nov 12, 19:51
Don't be ridiculous!!
Dominic
Saturday Nov 12, 21:51
John,
Seeing as you assume that I am not an example, I shall tell you that I am one of eight people who i was friendly with. There were others who I disliked or was apathetic to.
Oh and as for releasing more places. I know two girls who only got into Oakwood after the start of term because A: there were no decent secondary state school places there or at anyother place and B: Because the Haeadmaster was kind enough to let them in.
The extra places at Parrswood? We received notice of being offered a place at Parrswood during late August, when I and my 3 friends going to MGS had received notification of our places and had payed our fees.
Alan
Saturday Nov 12, 22:18
Dominic,
You are your father's son!
peter h
Sunday Nov 13, 03:05
5 years at mgs and he still can't spell........thirty five grand in fees and he writes "payed". I could have got that for nothing at ducie.........
vera from the flats
Sunday Nov 13, 21:16
You people have longer claws then my cat!!!!!
I'm going to call GreenPeace.
It is circuling that the supposed 1,800 petitions that was sent back to Mr Leechy, supporting the closure of Christies Hospital, it is alleged, that a Chorlton Park Local councillor, did not see 1 petition, but saw countless others not relating to the Christies Hospital.
So may i ask...where the names on the stacks of paper came from?
May be it was just a Lib Dem focused dream!!!!!!!
Alan
Sunday Nov 13, 21:57
There was never any petition in support of closure. Furthermore what petition are you talking about. The one conducted by John Leech, or the one conducted by the Labour Party?
peter h
Monday Nov 14, 03:32
with respect alan, if you want to unseat john leech, you and your mates should drop the whole christies issue and move on.
It almost certainly had negligible effect on the outcome of the election. Nobody in labour can bring him/herself to accept that John has good points. Until you do, and until try to oudo him on them, you've got no chance of beating him. Constant harping about Christies, or "2 jobs" etc etc reads like sour grapes to the outside observer, and the diatribes in the local press (with the honourable exception of Zoe Sharma, if I got her name right) are positively counter-productive. They make labour look nasty meanminded and infantile, which Labour is not.
Alan
Monday Nov 14, 18:58
Alright Peter, calm down!! I do agree with you, we should move on from Christie's but not forget it. As for John's good points I'm yet to see them becuase, let's face it, he hasn't really done very much since taking office.
John Holliker
Monday Nov 14, 19:23
Peter
Your arrogance speaks for itself. You are clearly in love with your own voice and unable to to provide examples/evidence to support what is, obviously, ballyhoo and not reasoned argument.
Still, I suppose there's a job for you writing opinion columns for the Daily Mail.
And as for Christie Hospital - people won't let this go because it was an irrefutable exaggeration by John Leech, made for self-gain, and something that would not stand up to due examination. That's fact - but then again, whenever did you pay heed to that.
peter h
Monday Nov 14, 19:55
what evidence do you want john? I gave it you. My own son.
you wouldnt know reasoned argument if it punched you in the face.
I told you about my own son and 4 of his classmates. Then my son chipped in with the fact (fact, got that) of 8 people he knows .
And you prattle on as if none of that had been said. You asked for facts and we gave them. Which you obviously didnt expect and can't handle.
I have no idea about the daily mail. I can't recall ever having read it, though I do hear it and New Labour make good bedfellows and I did hear its editor on Radio 4 recently saying that Gordon Brown "has the touch of greatness about him" (exact words)
Being a socialist, I'll leave it to you to keep me informed of its contents.
As for Christies "people" have let it go, whether you like it or not. Tempus fugit. Stay dug in your hole if you want to. The more you dig the deeper it gets
John Holliker
Monday Nov 14, 20:57
Peter
So you paid for your son to go to MGS. Nice double-standard when you've taken a pop at Keith Bradley on related issues so many times.
My original question was "can you give me substance/examples on anyone from this West Didsbury axis who missed out on a South Manchester co-ed place after Keith Bradley's interventions."
(please note the word after which doesn't take into account 'socialists' like you with money who bail out whilst your MP is working to rectify the situation.
FACT: The LEA relented and ensured its admissions criteria gave a co-ed place at either Oakwood/Parrs Wood to anybody affected in this part of West Didsbury). Find me credible examples when this didn't happen (i.e. not your son's *nameless mates*, Lord Lucan or the guy who works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis)
I'm only taking you on with this issue because your prior arguments are skewed, biased and a bit bonkers Sir.
So stop being such a pedant.
Oh - love the fact that you tell people to drop the Christie issue - brilliant advice. So, when someone with status says something so untrue for self-gain remember...don't criticise them people, just forget about it and move on.
What hypocrisy Peter.
Goodnight.
Dave Wilson
Monday Nov 14, 22:32
On a small, but still relevant point. I'd like to big up our MP and local Lib Dem councillors who were out this Saturday, helping the local bin men collect extra rubbish. Can't ever remember Keith Bradley doing that, and it's that sort of community involvement that makes me think that I might continue supporting Lib Dem's after my "protest" vote against Labour
peter h
Monday Nov 14, 22:55
John
HOw many times do I have to repeat it? MY SON was one of 8 examples we know of.
I can identify him because he is my lad.
And if you have a brain in your head, you would know that we can hardly start publcizing the names of other peoples' children on here just to satisfy your pigheadedness.
We know them. We know their names. We respect their privacy.
As for double standards about sending my son to MGS, well the alternative was Ducie for him. Why should I send him to a school with 93% failure rate?
Call it double standards if you will. But, correct me if I am wrong, I believe Keith Bradley's son is at MGS?
Are you accusing Keith of double standards?
And which inner city comprehensive did your beloved leader Tony Blair send his children to?
If double standards apply anywhere, it is with politicians who mouth platitudes about public services for Joe public whilst buying themselves out of it for their own family.
As for Christies , yes I hope it is sound advice. You may remember and your pals may fume about it, but the electorate move on, like it or not. Fighting old battles doesnt win new wars.
peter h
Monday Nov 14, 22:58
Dave
your point about the bins summarizes what we've been trying to say about the difference between KB and JL for months.
Nice one.
Labour just don't get it.
Alan
Tuesday Nov 15, 01:22
You're right it does summarise the difference between JL and KB.. big time. Keith got on with his job as MP whereas JL seems to be spending his time collecting rubbish. Forgive me if I'm being naive but don't we pay our council taxes so that refuse collectors do that.
I wouldn't want to see any MP collecting rubbish, I would like to see them doing the job they should be doing and furthering the interests of their constituents in Parliament; something that Keith always did and something that John Lech hasn't cottoned on to yet. When will he stop trying to cheaply gain popularity with local people and start representing them properly.
I'm suprised at you Peter being so impressed by this ridiculous stunt?
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Nov 15, 02:00
And I thought I was the cynic! Alan, an MP's role is very wide (or at least it should be). I thought and MP was there to support the community in which s/he represents?
And if it is a ridiculous stunt, at least it is more useful than holding a smiling baby etc. I never ever saw KB in my neighbourhood, (except once, but that was just in the local paper). However, I have seen JL twice on my street including the rubbish collecting, and he has only been an MP for a few months!
peter h
Tuesday Nov 15, 03:04
like I said, alan, you don't get it, do you?
you call it a cheap stunt. I call it getting involved in his constituents' daily lives at grass roots level.
John is good at it.
And it helped him win the seat.
The man does genuinely get involved. He doesnt just go round looking for photo calls. That's the whole point of it, what weve said repeatedly.
One of the many big problems in modern politics is that of our representatives getting too remote from their electorate, and a sense of alienation creeping in. Look at the turnouts at voting time, especially amongst the young. An MP getting stuck into keeping directly - and very visibly - in touch at that level is helping fight that.
It certainly worked for JL round here, and bought him votes by the barrow-load. Not just at election time but throughout the year.
Like DAve, nobody here can remember KB ever turning up at local residents' associations, or any key labour people for bthat matter. So the locals end up with an affinity for JL which thye didnt feel for KB. Simple, basic logic.
Alan
Tuesday Nov 15, 19:37
Hmm, is still think there are beetter ways than collecting rubbish. i.e something that might make a difference to his constituents!
John Holliker
Tuesday Nov 15, 22:29
Peter
Sorry, I can't continue this with somebody with such little rationale and objectivity. My arguments are factual. Your world is strange. You took your son out of the state sector. Your choice.I asked for details of anyone who missed out on a co-ed state place in West Didsbury after Keith's intervention. You can't provide the detail. You'll be telling me Santa exists next because you saw him in Lewis's.
You chastise me for not moving on with Christie yet you come out with the same old claptrap that is either years gone or something that the Brothers Grimm would have been jealous of.
Sorry Sir, you're a hypocrite.
Leech and litter? I don't totally disagree with Dave's comments but I think it comes down to perception and communication, something John is good at. But when you look at substance, who would you choose? Somebody with a unquestioned record of getting investment in local schools and the health service locally or the man who can't stopped signing EDMs. Ok, credit to Leechy for his occasional grass roots activities but at some stage, attention needs to come back to his party's policies.
I mean, come on people, does anyone else here agree with 16 year olds being allowed to buy booze in the pub or off-licence?
Alan
Tuesday Nov 15, 23:41
At last, someone with as much to say as Peter but who hasn't yet turned to the dark side!
peter h
Tuesday Nov 15, 23:49
John,
What do you want me to do? Publish on a website the names of the 8 children my son referred to as being in his position? Do you think that would be an ethical course of action to suit some spat on a bulletin board? Grow up.
And you have my son's name.
So why do you say you don't have facts?
Maybe they aren't the facts that suit your argument. But they are there.
As for taking my son out of the state education sector. We did so. We did it unwillingly because it was forced on us by the state sector in the first place.
We did exactly the same as Keith Bradley did.
Except that he took his son out of Parrs Wood to send him to MGS. We took ours out of a special measures school to save his education. We would have been only to happy to see him go to parrs wood.
And, by the way, I personally don't blame KB one iota. He was doing the best for his son, like any good parent.
Peter h
Tuesday Nov 15, 23:58
Alan, I well remember you getting a bit upset some time ago because I said the Labour party was scared of the Daily Mail, and this shaped their policy. You were insistent that it did no such thing.
On Radio 4's Today programme this morning, their reporter was talking about a leaked document which indicated that the government was going to clamp down on motorists breaking the speed limit on motorways in order to help keep down carbon emissions - speeding cars on motorways apparently create significantly more problems.
Alastair Darling was interviewed yesterday and denied any such plans.
The reporter today quotes one of Darling's "senior advisors" as saying that the Government would never introduce such measures because (and I quote) "The Daily Mail would crucify us".
Whoops.
I can remember a time when any self-respecting Labour MP would regard crucifixion by the Daily Mail as a badge of honour.
Sic transit gloria laboris
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Nov 16, 15:16
I am not sure letting young people from the age of 16 buying alcohol legally from the off licence is the answer, however John Holliker, the Labour government need to think very carefully about all the mixed messages it gives to young people, and to stop blaming them for all of societies ills. I
It's okay for them to go to war, have sex, buy cigs, pay tax... but they can't vote on who or what the tax is spent on, they can't buy alcohol, they can't watch people have sex on film. No wonder the youth of today are confused by the government (as well as previous gov