|
UKIP man hasn't been too clever but I have to say that many of the African countries to which we send aid still seem to have a population of poverty stricken subsistence farmers led by an elite in sharp suits and nice Mercedes cars. India has a bigger space programme than we do, a vast Air Force which may be reasonable as it is a very big country and has a belligerent neighbour. I hope that our aid, wherever it goes, is actually going to agriculture, education, health, and clean water etc but I have my doubts.
|
I look forward to visiting Bongo Bongo land, apparently they are not happy with Godders.
King Bongo Bongo may yet be summoned to Newsnight to tell us how upset he is, his throne is due a service so I hear.
|
They do say that whenever a foreign country begins to receive international aid, Mercedes opens a new showroom there...:-)
|
Unwise to use the term Bongo Bongo Land, but the rest of what he said seemed ok.
As a principle not giving aid to a country in the same year it purchases fighter planes doesn't seem outrageous.
Ditto wanting it spent properly where it is given, and not stolen and misappropriated also seems ok.
In fact this is where UKIP will probably add value; unwisely and excessively comment on such matters, probably not too accurately with not much idea what to do about it, but cause such a ruckus with public opinion that the major parties are forced to address the matter.
Seems to be working with immigration.
|
Bongo Bongo Land isn't all that rude even if it's a bit disrespectful. It might offend some but others would just shrug.
Had a late friend who, when I was Africa hacking and constantly uttering African names, came up with a portmanteau African name of nursery-like frivolity: 'Bimpo Bampo'. Always made me giggle.
During the war that separated East from West Pakistan and founded Bangladesh, the then Foreign Minister George Brown dismissively called it 'Dingla Bosh'. Now that in my opinion was astonishingly out of order. Or it was if he was sober at the time.
|
|
Coming from Paddy Land I have no problem with Bongo Bongo Land.
|
|
Apparently some of our aid goes to Argentina, potentially to be spent on French missiles so that they can try and take the Falklands off us ( which would of course be very easy for them with the current state of our Armed Forces). Perhaps if we didn't spend so much on foreign aid we could afford a decent navy ...
|
|
I expect our next move will be to send Spain a cheque so they can re-take Gibraltar.
|
>> portmanteau African name of nursery-like frivolity:
The same friend, a Cheshire man if that means anything to anyone, had a portmanteau name for the piles of African newspapers in French, English and other tongues I had lying around.
'As we read in yesterday's Bakongo Bugle and Trumpet,' he would boom portentously... that made me laugh too.
|
>> then Foreign Minister George Brown
Er, shadow minister actually. Damn!
|
Our "allies" the USA would only give loans, when we were the offshore aircraft carrier against Nazism. Why do the UK give cash to our enemies and doubtful allies? For example, Pakistan, supporters of the taliban and general mayhem in Afghanistan, 54 per cent of all federal public spending goes on the army and debt servicing. The President in 2011 failed to file a tax return. In that year, 35 out of 55 Pakistani cabinet ministers paid no income tax Education, meanwhile, receives only 1.9 per cent. No wonder the madrassas are so influential. Only time before some of their nuclear weapons are acquired by factions aiming for a new Islamist colonial spurt.
India, which is a burgeoning nuclear power with a space programme, with antipathy to the lunatics in Pakistan.
Zimbabwe: straight into the pockets of the ruling party and friends. Etc. etc.
Mugged.
|
|
Always easy frittering someone elses money, career politicians (never had a real job) are just so much better at it than most but then they've been practicing for centuries.
|
|
I didn't know money was given to old Rhodesia? No wonder Mugabe is taking the mickey.
|
|
Foreign aid is political speak for a bribe.
|
|
I give you a little bit give me plenty back>;)
|
|
Not entirely. She was pretty forthright and it halted his bluster for a while. It is, as the late Alan Clark found, a term which can be taken as derogatory. I don't consider it more than ill-judged. His underlying point is well made. Probably wouldn't be picked up, if he hadn't made copy for the holy ones.
|
|
I suspect that the media, along with mainstream politicians are wholly out of touch with the feelings of the general public. UKIP certainly seems to be touching some raw nerves.
|
|
Not particularly relevant here, but ISTR the late Alan Clarke also got into trouble for referring to Africa as Bongo Bongo land. Might even have been recorded in Hansard - now there was a proper Tory.
|
|
Well remembered Alastairw, Alan Clark was the originator of that piece of bluff rude British cheek. I was trying to remember.
|
>>Our "allies" the USA would only give loans
And nearly half a million dead soldiers - more than the entire Empire, in fact.
|
|
The operative word was "when". Politically unable to deliver aid until Japan opened that phase of the war. Oil the underlying motive? Nothings changed.
|
"Bongos have a complex social interaction and are found in African dense forest mosaics."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bongo_(antelope)
|
"Clark denied the comment had any racist overtones, claiming it had simply been a reference to the President of Gabon, Omar Bongo".
I wonder if the expression "Banana republics" is now racist too?
Or "claret socialists" for that matter ?
|
>> Bongos can be brawny too:
Some can be a lot more brawny.........
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW9oM3jLVzs
LNER Class B1 Most named after antelopes and known by railmen as the Bongos.
Ted
|
>> Bongos can be brawny too:
Can also be a drink.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYj5o4kQsXs
|
>>Can also be a drink.
Hehe! - I did think of that, but I thought a moderator would have moderated it ;)
|
What he said (may be in bit inelegant manner) is absolutely right.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386482/So-right-UKIP-MEP-Godfrey-Blooms-comments-caused-storm--ample-evidence-claims.html
LibLabCon is scared as lots of people think that he is right.
This is what I like about UKIP. Just speak the truth from heart without trying to be politically correct like everyone else. Hope some more people will join UKIP now ;-)
|
The hailstorm of ''racist'' finger pointing isn't working, if anything the furore is waking many more previously sleeping people up to the fact that our govt are throwing our borrowed money away as fast as they can, and are going to spend more year on year...presumably till interest rates eventually have to rise and the country cannot fulfil its debts.
Why would supposedly intelligent people try their best to bankrupt their own country, unless they are being 'guided', i agree with Godfrey Bloom its treason.
He might in retrospect have used different words but then this storm in a teacup wouldn't have happened and few would realise just how much money we throw into the bottomless pit of foreign bungs.
Sometimes you have to say the wrong things to make people sit up, when somebody is being a complete *censored* its the only way to wake them up and tell them exactly what they are, pussy footing around calling spades shovels doesn't work.
Grauniadistas and their ilk shooting themselves in the foot as usual with overreaction, this isn't bad publicity for UKIP its exactly the opposite as they yet again show themselves as the only party prepared to tell it as it really is, and yet again draws attention to something vitally important (like uncontrolled immigration and the EU) that the One Party With Three Names will now have to come up with more damage limitation waffle over....they'll do nothing except spin and make false promises of course though all but the most brainwashed voters should be able to see through it.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 09:57
|
>> Grauniadistas and their ilk shooting themselves in the foot as usual with overreaction, this isn't
>> bad publicity for UKIP its exactly the opposite as they yet again show themselves as
>> the only party prepared to tell it as it really is
That statement is so far from the truth it isn't funny. Let's listen to John Kerry, US Secretary of State:
articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-20/world/37193410_1_foreign-aid-budget-impasse-budget-cuts
I quote, for those unwilling to click: "the vacuum we would leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those whose interests differ dramatically from our own."
That's how it REALLY is.
UKIP's simplistic island mentality is ill conceived and dangerous.
|
|
Don't agree with Kerry. Nothing to stop the warlords getting funding from Saudi/China/Iran as well as the "west". In fact they probably do. As a long term Guardian (and Times) reader I'd just point out that there are many shades of opinion on politics, but giving money without a known objective, without an audit trail, without very firm control over it's use, is sheer stupidity. I don't think it's just UKIP supporters who are scathing about pumping money into the bank accounts of the warlords, but it has to be acknowledged that on this issue they have encapsulated a deal of public opinion.
Last edited by: NIL on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 10:22
|
Yes thank God for the worlds police farce eh, always fair minded and kind to animals and those poor souls they don't kill detain indefinately or torture.
Can't kill enough Johnny Foreigners quickly enough with our drones and special farces? Don't like your leader? (neither do we) we'll help you get rid of him (he'll end up butchered one way or another to teach other who oppose us a lesson) and put in one who prefers a dollar filled briefcase...well till he falls out of favour.
Hell yes my fellow Americans we've got more borrowed dollars to bribe those who demand it than the Chinese Russians or whoever happens to be the bogeyman of the day.
And you believe John Kerry's propaganda?
|
|
So, tell me gb and NIL, how else do you propose we obtain and maintain influence in countries which could otherwise pose a significant threat to our sceptered isle? How else do we go about obtaining business for our exporters? You seem to think we live in a perfect, moral world where UK PLC will merrily float along without getting its hands a bit grubby.
|
|
By being selective. Do we aid China? We trade with them. Japan? So far as I recall we do not give foreign aid to the USA or Canada? For those which could impose a threat, you save your pennies which would otherwise be sent to Swiss banks and to support jihad etc to maintain
|
|
We are selective already, as is clear in your post. You're contradicting yourself.
|
|
Giving aid to the many unstable countries listed in the aid recipients list is the antithesis of selectivity. I don't doubt that we influence them, but not in a good way! Laughing all the way to the bank whilst they continue with their own agenda.
|
|
And removing the aid would help their stability how?
|
|
Wasting money won't help the indigenous population. If they want to change tack, interfering westerners are not likely to get a good reception. See Libya for the results of trying to help. Syria?
|
>> >> Let's listen to John
>> Kerry, US Secretary of State:
>>
No, let's not. When Americans get all pompous and start pronouncing on the state of the world, I want to deny my "special relationship" with them.
|
Doesn't matter how you feel about the Yanks. My feelings are distinctly mixed also. But put that to one side and Kerry's right about this.
If anyone can credibly refute the statement I quoted, be my guest. Yes, NIL, I know that others fund as well. Which makes it even more vital that we maintain balance by funding poorer countries to some extent as well, otherwise all our influence will be gone. The only other alternative is military, and I bet no-one's in favour of broadening the West's military campaigns across the globe either.
I know UKIP and its supporters fear an ever widening Islamic influence in the world. What they don't tell us is how they propose achieve their aims by pulling up the drawbridges on HMS Britain.
|
>> I know UKIP and its supporters fear an ever widening Islamic influence in the world.
>>
Do we thats news to me, Islam doesn't scare me either.
How is bribing certain dictators going to stop inevitable change in their countries, they're going to pocket the cash and call you unmentionable names as you bow out passing the competition on their way in with more wads.
If it wasn't for arms sales oil and expensive scarce minerals none of these global map changing shysters would give a stuff if the Middle East or so called third world/bongo bongo land exploded.
|
>>How is bribing certain dictators going to stop inevitable change in their countries, they're going to pocket the cash and call you unmentionable names as you bow out passing the competition on their way in with more wads.
If it wasn't for arms sales oil and expensive scarce minerals none of these global map changing shysters would give a stuff if the Middle East or so called third world/bongo bongo land exploded<<
GG would be proud of you gb, in fact I've often wondered if you are he ;)
|
>> >> I know UKIP and its supporters fear an ever widening Islamic influence in the
>> world.
>> >>
>>
>> Do we thats news to me, Islam doesn't scare me either.
>>
>> How is bribing certain dictators going to stop inevitable change in their countries, they're going
>> to pocket the cash and call you unmentionable names as you bow out passing the
>> competition on their way in with more wads.
>>
>> If it wasn't for arms sales oil and expensive scarce minerals none of these global
>> map changing shysters would give a stuff if the Middle East or so called third
>> world/bongo bongo land exploded.
>>
>>
Your answer please, gb, or UKIP's answer, for how to replace foreign aid, or indeed how the consequences of withdrawing it are either insignificant or could be mitigated.
Shoot. It's an open goal, apparently.
|
>> Your answer please, gb, or UKIP's answer, for how to replace foreign aid, or indeed
>> how the consequences of withdrawing it are either insignificant or could be mitigated.
>>
>> Shoot. It's an open goal, apparently.
You don't replace foreign aid IMO you simply stop appeasing with money, what difference would it make anyway, you stop bribing people and instead spend the money on defending your own borders properly instead of following the Americans around like a little wet pup.
|
Oh right. Sounds like a plan. More defence budget and wait till they attack some more. That'll be right.
Nice and easy, like all UKIP ideas. Naive, sadly.
|
As I said earlier...
"In fact this is where UKIP will probably add value; unwisely and excessively comment on such matters, probably not too accurately, with not much idea what to do about it, but cause such a ruckus with public opinion that the major parties are forced to address the matter"
|
|
Yes, quite. Not a bad point.
|
>> Oh right. Sounds like a plan. More defence budget and wait till they attack some
>> more. That'll be right.
>>
>> Nice and easy, like all UKIP ideas. Naive, sadly.
>>
Wait till who attacks whom, simplistic as that question may be to you?
|
|
Third party attacking us, the UK, I meant. So you tell me who is likely to attack. You're the one who thinks we need to stop foreign aid and spend more on defence. You're the one suggesting, therefore, that we need to put ourselves at more risk of foreign attack by stopping foreign aid, necessitating stronger defence of our borders (your words).
|
>> Third party attacking us, the UK, I meant. So you tell me who is likely
>> to attack. You're the one who thinks we need to stop foreign aid and spend
>> more on defence. You're the one suggesting, therefore, that we need to put ourselves at
>> more risk of foreign attack by stopping foreign aid, necessitating stronger defence of our borders
>> (your words).
>>
this from your previous post...''Oh right. Sounds like a plan. More defence budget and wait till they attack some more. That'll be right.''
Who are 'they' and where and why would they attack us?...you suggested we would be attacked not me.
I said to spend the money on defending our borders, borders as in stop illegals and undesirables from entering our country, and to eject those illegals already here wouldn't be a bad move either..even Cameron seems to think thats a good idea of his.
Oh well played CGN.
|
>> I said to spend the money on defending our borders, borders as in stop illegals
>> and undesirables from entering our country, and to eject those illegals already here wouldn't be
>> a bad move either..even Cameron seems to think thats a good idea of his.
Oh right. So the Foreign Aid debate is actually about immigration. Jesus wept.
|
>> Oh right. So the Foreign Aid debate is actually about immigration. Jesus wept.
>>
And sniping aside you haven't answered the question.
|
>> And sniping aside you haven't answered the question.
>>
You haven't asked one.
|
>> You haven't asked one.
>>
From my post above.
''Who are 'they' and where and why would they attack us?...you suggested we would be attacked not me.''
|
Like I said, you were the one to bring up the defence of our borders. I, not unreasonably, thought you meant Defence as in the Army, Navy etc. Which would imply that you were expecting an increase in the likelihood of attack. It seems your definition of defence is the immigration and border service, so slight cross purposes there.
What I'm now failing to join up is how you think withdrawing foreign aid and spending that money on increased immigration officers is a sensible thing to do.
|
It occurs to me that UKIP has many the of the properties of a cult.
An appeal to a group who feel ignored by society
Simplistic views
A singe charismatic leader
A conviction that only they have the answers.
A belief that anyone who does not understand their view have been brainwashed
That there is some sort of conspiracy against them
|
I prefer a simple view which I can understand rather than having a convoluted view to confuse people just to win their votes (as adopted by LibLabCon).
|
|
Remember Alanovic you are one of the brainwashed. Only the enlightened ones led by the Great Leader Farage know and understand the real truth.. Argument is futile.
|
>> If anyone can credibly refute the statement I quoted, be my guest. Yes, NIL, I
>> know that others fund as well. Which makes it even more vital that we maintain
>> balance by funding poorer countries to some extent as well, otherwise all our influence will
>> be gone. The only other alternative is military, and I bet no-one's in favour of
>> broadening the West's military campaigns across the globe either.
It's too vague to be able to refute.
It suggests that the money will prevent those it is spent on from falling under the nefarious influence of others. It further suggests that preventing those from falling under that influence, will have a significant effect on outcomes for the US.
There is no breakdown of who the money is spent on, whose influence the people would otherwise fall under, why they won't fall under it anyway, and no claim of the % of at risk people who will be saved from that influence.
Let's say that the other influence is Al Qaeda. Where is the evidence that X billion dollars of foreign aid, will prevent enough people from being influenced, so as to change the security of the US?
As to be expected from an experienced politician, a statement that sounds good, but is too vague to attack in a meaningful way (expect to point out all the things it doesn't say).
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 11:09
|
>>
>> If anyone can credibly refute the statement I quoted, be my guest.
"the vacuum we would leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those whose interests differ dramatically from our own."
But we don't leave a vacuum. We just stop stirring the murky water by pouring in money without accountability, pretending not to notice that often it goes to the least deserving people.
Such people just play one donor off against another. Even viewing the entire process cynically, we are not buying anything, more likely encouraging instability.
We can do very little to help others, but we can at least stop wasting money.
|
Talking of Banana Republics......... what about the ex Zimbabwe president .......
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana
|
Let's see:
US aid to Egypt has supported the Army for 40+ years. And the results: dismal failure.
The US has supported Pakistan as we have for decades. And the result? Dismal failure
Ethiopia has had aid for decades. And the result? Dismal failure.
Congo ? Don't laugh.
Syria has had Russian support for decades. Cry.
Just a few plucked out of the memory system.
|
And don't forget that Al Qaeda was indirectly created by USA to counter USSR.
|
>> And don't forget that Al Qaeda was indirectly created by USA to counter USSR.
And the alternative to countering USSR was what? Leave well alone and let Communism march across the globe?
Unintended consequences are sometimes the price we pay to avert the unsavoury consequences of inaction.
|
>> Unintended consequences are sometimes the price we pay to avert the unsavoury consequences of inaction.
True. The US and others have fought plenty of proxy wars, and they haven't all resulted in a terrorist organisations launching attacks on the US.
Just because there is a sketchy chain of causation (with plenty of other factors) with Al Qaeda attacking the US and the proxy war in Afghanistan, doesn't suggest that you should never make such decisions.
If you never do anything that might be a factor in some negative consequence further down the line, you would never do anything.
In hindsight the US military should also have never recruited Timothy McVeigh.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 13:46
|
All well and good madf, but what you can't say is what the situation would be like had aid been unavailable, and how you think those countries' situations would play out without foreign aid.
It's the least worst option that we're looking for. Buying ourselves some influence in places where a fluffy bunny outcome is unlikely is the more prudent thing to do.
|
>> what you can't say is what the situation would be like had aid been unavailable,
Agree. That's why we need to stop aid and see what happens.
I voted Conservative last time and seen what they did. I'll vote UKIP next time and will see what they can do. Simple.
|
>>I voted Conservative last time and seen what they did. I'll vote UKIP next time and will see what they can do. Simple.
I'm with this^ geezer Sahib.
|
>> I'll vote UKIP next time
>> and will see what they can do. Simple.
Only I can't seem them winning the General Election. Which is also, mercifully, simple.
|
|
Even if they don't win, they might get a good majority which will give them a bargaining power in coalition.
Last edited by: movilogo on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 13:48
|
>> Even if they don't win, they might get a good majority which will give them
>> a bargaining power in coalition.
Very unlikely, I would suggest.
Given the lack of a PR system, you only get bargaining power from seats, not from votes.
It is very difficult to see them winning any seats. Perhaps a good number of votes, but not seats.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 13:58
|
Nothing is impossible. When did anyone think that Russia and Latin America will appear as saviour of human rights? :-)
I think this type of news flash will do a huge favour to UKIP. They are saying what everyone else wanted to say but couldn't in the fear of becoming politically incorrect.
|
>> They
>> are saying what everyone else wanted to say
Hardly. I'm not sure I know anyone who would use the term Bong Bongo Land. And opinion is divided on foreign aid in the populace. So no, it's not what everyone else wanted to say. It's what people who support UKIP, and some others who agree with that one issue wanted to say. Sadly for them, someone from UKIP said it, very badly.
|
>> Latin America will appear as saviour of human rights?
You have no idea the level of hysterical laughter down here every time one of the LA Countries makes a statement about protecting human rights.
|
Er, I'm not sure I've ever read anything quite so delusional. Keep taking the tablets, movi.
From zero MPs to a Commons majority in 5 years, in a first past the post system. Care to put some money on that?
I bet all the Kippers who voted against AV in the referendum are kicking themselves now.
|
>> I bet all the Kippers who voted against AV in the referendum are kicking themselves now.
This is something I agree with you completely. I voted in favour of it. But only after it was explained clearly in MSE forum.
Most people voted against AV because the concept is bit difficult to understand at first glance and ConLab tried very hard (and succeeded) to make it appear as a bad thing.
They are trying same smear campaign against UKIP but more and more people are now discovering their tricks.
|
>> Most people voted against AV because the concept is bit difficult to understand at first
>> glance and ConLab tried very hard (and succeeded) to make it appear as a bad
>> thing.
They did a very good job. This advert particularly sticks in my mind
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obZ9OG_XKA#t=120 (starts at the 2 minute point)
It made my blood boil at how cleverly it completely misrepresented the complexity of the system.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 14:17
|
>>From zero MPs to a Commons majority in 5 years, in a first past the post system. Care to put some money on that?<<
As a potential UKIP councillor even I would call that optimistic, nothing can really be judged until the 2015 manifesto comes out, even members dont know what will be in it exactly although we have a fair idea. I am waiting to see where the polls are after the EU elections in 2014, that will be the time for predictions, anything either positive or negative until then is just hot air.
>>I bet all the Kippers who voted against AV in the referendum are kicking themselves now.<<
Not really, AV was just another flawed concept. If AV had made it through the debate would have been closed down for decades but it would be quite easy to justify an attempt at PR after the compromises made for the Coalition.
|
>> I am waiting to see where the
>> polls are after the EU elections in 2014
You carry on. UKIP could win nearly every vote in the EU election and still not gain an MP in Westminster.
|
|
True, we shall just have to wait and see. My focus at the moment is mobilising for by-elections, there is a pool of maybe 250 activists that can help for any one seat and that is the priority rather than dreaming of what happens years away.
|
UKIP have a certain value as a protest ginger group, and undoubtedly touch a chord in what the average voter is feeling. But parties from the English nationalist-tendency part of the spectrum are in the end always let down by their leaders.
The British will accept a bluff traditional labour type, and even love a patrician on occasions, and are willing to be beguiled by a smooth-talking Blair type, but have an instinctive suspicion of lower-middle right-inclined politicians. It's a class thing - they are just not quite right from any perspective.
|
The executive is generally better educated and better informed than the population at large, as it should be of course given current levels of education.
Over the years the political class, so called, has systematically spoken one language to itself and another, grossly simplified to the point of distortion, to the electorate.
The result of that is an electorate easily mesmerised by a distasteful one-trick pony like Farage into making the Tories (but it would be much the same were Labour in power) uneasy about a possible depleted or split vote at election time. Of course no one in their right mind expects a lot of kippers in parliament, or any really to speak of. What a nightmare that would be.
Serves the carphounds right. They need to shape up.
|
The electorate wants Government to spend more money on their own causes irrespective of whether they need to borrow or not. But spending more money on others is not acceptable.. See Benefits and foreign aid.
The electorate wants criminals punished by time in jail but are unwilling to pay extra taxes to pay for the justice system required.
The electorate wants immigration curtailed except when it's Ghurkas, their friendly neighbour , au pair girls, nurses and doctors.
And so on.
Spare a thought for politicians. Most electoral demands are conflicting, impossible to achieve and self defeating. As a terrible example see President Hollande. And yet he gained a majority only a year ago.
The electorate is comprised of an awful lot of people who think what they want is 1> important 2> possible and 3> capable of being implemented in 12 months.
It's not always the fault of politicians but frankly at times they should tell the electorate it's not possible. D Cameron tried that - and look where it got him. The nutters in teh Tories went to UKIP :-)
Last edited by: madf on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 15:52
|
You have to read some of the other stuff Mr BongoBongo land said.
Things like "why would anyone employ a woman of child bearing age because they could get maternity leave"
Like all swivelled eye loonies, the good stuff gets diluted by the other utter garbage they also spout.
|
Yes : some gold there. Pity about the dross it's buried in..
I am sure - like that Peer who spouted on about the desolate North East - they are aliens and don't live in the same world as us...
|
>> You have to read some of the other stuff Mr BongoBongo land said.
>>
>> Things like "why would anyone employ a woman of child bearing age because they could
>> get maternity leave"
I know at least one small business owner who takes that view. And she's a woman.
|
>>I know at least one small business owner who takes that view. And she's a woman. <<
My dads company had a liking for women with 'life experience'.
|
There's a few groups of people behaving and pricing themselves out of the job market in various ways, not as the sensible employer would openly admit it.
Good for the mature job seeker who can prove without question competence reliability and non absenteeism.
|
|
You are,GB, absolutely right.
|
Yes. Everyone under 50, especially if female, can not be trusted. Everyone over 50 is a good as gold. Stands to reason.
:-(
No wonder we've got such high youth unemployment with attitudes like that. And then you old folk complain about the state of youth today, bunch of slackers, why don't they just get a job?
Which way do you want it? Both situations can't exist at the same time, surely?
Yet another Daily Mail style view of the black and white world.
|
My dads company had a liking for women with 'life experience'.
So have I ...........
|
>> Yes. Everyone under 50, especially if female, can not be trusted. Everyone over 50 is
>> a good as gold. Stands to reason.
>>
>> :-(
>>
>> No wonder we've got such high youth unemployment with attitudes like that. And then you
>> old folk complain about the state of youth today, bunch of slackers, why don't they
>> just get a job?
>>
>> Which way do you want it? Both situations can't exist at the same time, surely?
>>
>> Yet another Daily Mail style view of the black and white world.
>>
Try being responsible for hiring and productivity and you might change your mind.
|
|
I have been. No problems with enthusiasm and productivity amongst the under 30s I hired. the 60 year old I sit opposite is asleep as I type.
|
>>the 60 year old I sit opposite is asleep as I type.<<
And you are wasting time posting on here. Tut tut. :-)
|
|
IT, mate. Stuff is compiling. Reports are running. Can't do much with the system while that's going on. Bit like waiting for a punter's car seats to dry out after a shampoo. And that.
|
|
I use a technique that doesnt soak the seats, professional see :-)
|
|
There is the full spectrum of age in our office - an 18 year old in admin and 75 year old volunteer. So far, I am the only one I'v e caught napping.
|
|
It's the Mirror: makes the Daily Mail look like a newspaper...
|
>> Mirror: makes the Daily Mail look like a newspaper...
Can't imagine what you mean madf, and anyway you are quite wrong. That Tony Parsons piece is a classy bit of tabloid journalism. They're all a bit garish, tabloid comics, but the Mirror is far more deep-down politically serious than the ghastly Mail. Of course it's generally Labour supporting, which probably sticks in certain undeserving craws.
|
|
Reading all the papers regularly I'll agree with madf. The Mirror is a ghastly rag, about two rungs below the Daily Star and that's on a good day. The most biased rubbish published, even if I were a Labour supporter I'd be embarrassed. One of this week's issues was blaming Cameron for the internet troll suicides and I well remember a seventies edition with the headline, "We'll blast the Tories To Power, says The IRA" after a mainland bombing.
|
Yeah, well RR, I don't read it myself either. Naturally it bawls to its chosen audience. But the Mirror is consistent and serious, to the extent it feels to be possible, in a way the right-wing tabloids aren't.
These are fine distinctions though, like choosing between two turds, I agree.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 10 Aug 13 at 18:42
|
In fairness AC none of the Red Tops have been serious newspapers for years, celebrety sex and football is their main staple.
I have an admiration for the Daily Star because it doesn't pretend to be anything else, unlike it's two competitors who still regard themselves as authoritative voices on the serious issues of the day - even though the hard news is tucked a couple of pages behind which footballer is rooting what reality TV star.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653789
If you do the sums, and assuming you're a UK taxpayer, that's about three farthings each.
|
Bongo Bongo Land - Stuu
