OT: He's gone.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 16 Dec 2004 08:49:03 -0800, "dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>The fact that he made his blindness irrelevant is his great
>achievement. Even down to exhibiting the same human weaknesses as
>everyone else.

Yup. But just as Thatcher's proof that a woman can run the country
undoubtedly put a lot of people off the whole idea, so it may well be
that we have a long wait before another disabled person makes it in
politics.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

pk

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:54:34 +0000, Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>> Sorry but I haven't been this happy about politics in years. Herr
>> Blunkett has left the building.
>
> I always thought that, just as Margaret Thatcher had to become more
> masculine than the average bloke to get ahead, Blunkett had to be more
> illiberal than the average Tory to overcome allegations of playing the
> disability card.

I agree with one of the commentators on the radio today, he was far more in
touch with the socially conservative views of the typical traditional labour
voter than his liberal left colleagues. Plain speaking, strong auctioned
Blunkett would get more traditional labour voters out than ever would have
effete Oxbridge Fellow Jack Straw.

My experience growing up in the working class north was that the typical
man/woman was socially very conservative but voted labour. Frank Field
remarked recently on just this contradiction and wrote about the unspoken
bargain between labour working class voters and the labour party - provided
they protected the working man in the workplace and the working class
generally, the liberal intellectuals could also do their liberal social
stuff.

pk

Tony Raven

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2004 08:49:03 -0800, "dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The fact that he made his blindness irrelevant is his great
>>achievement. Even down to exhibiting the same human weaknesses as
>>everyone else.
>
>
> Yup. But just as Thatcher's proof that a woman can run the country
> undoubtedly put a lot of people off the whole idea, so it may well be
> that we have a long wait before another disabled person makes it in
> politics.
>
> Guy


I don't know, Geoff Hoon has gone quite a long way as an anencephalic

Tony

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

>Having not driven for a while and admittedly not having kept abreast
>of legal changes when I did, is my manky scrap of paper still valid?
>It's the original; never had to go back to Swansea for point adding.
>

Well my manky bit of paper driving licence is very valid.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

JLB

Arthur Clune wrote:
> Carol Hague <carol@wrhpv.com> wrote:
>
> : In fairness, nobody forced him to have an affair with a married woman.
> : His downfall was entirely of his own making
>
> This I object to strongly. So what if he had an affair? Every bugger and
> their wife does. It shouln't be a requirement for high office to be
> holier than though.

I agree with you. The trouble is he was prolier than thou, he had a
disgraceful way of crapping all over anybody who disagreed with him even
if they were simply doing their job properly, and he issued a whole load
of cant about the sanctity of families and marriage before he finally
came unstuck.

If there was real justice he would have been sacked for being a
dangerous lunatic who was going all out to destroy the basic freedoms of
British people and move us a long way towards a police state.

However, Clarke is clearly determined to be Blunkett II, so don't expect
any good to come of any of this.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Roos Eisma

carol@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) writes:

>I don't think it's "holier than thou" to avoid sleeping with other
>people's spouses, just basic decency.

It also depends on the people and spouses involved and the circumstances.
In the end I think these are decisions that individuals make the way they
seem fit.

Roos

Doki

Jon Senior wrote:
> Sorry but I haven't been this happy about politics in years. Herr
> Blunkett has left the building. I would wish him my condolences if I
> actually felt that he was in any way qualified to hold the position of
> Home Secretary in the first place. Let's hope the milder Clarke sweeps
> his more rabid policies under the carpet.

I have to wonder what the hell the tories are thinking. They've been
preaching the virtues of small government, and all of a sudden they're pro
ID cards. I don't think there'll be anyone I'm willing to vote for come
election time.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

>I hate to say this, but I can't help remembering how elated I was when
>the Tories got kicked out. What happened? What happened to the 'Ethical
>Foreign Policy' which, frankly, for me was the biggest thing? What
>happened about the arms trade? What happened about probity in public
>life? What happened about social justice? On topic for this group, what
>happened about integrated transport policy?
>
>The answer, frankly is we've gone backwards on all fronts. On foreign
>policy, we've indulged in an illegal imperial war in cynical support of
>oil interests - not even our own oil interests - while continuing to be
>one of the worlds major exporters of arms. On social justice, the
>disparity between rich and poor is wider, and getting wider faster. On
>transport, we have new motorways, relatively cheaper motoring,
>relatively more expensive trains with more restrictions on taking a
>bike. And on probity in public life?
>
>So, yes, it's good to hear that one of Tony's cronies has got his well
>earned comeuppance. But don't for a moment imagine that, in the words
>of the old song, 'things can only get better'. In the words of another,
>'you ain't seen nothing yet'.

B*gg*r... I'm going into full aol mode...

I agree ;-)

Cheers, helen s
(normal service will now be resumed)

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

RJ Webb

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:42:21 -0000, "Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com>
wrote:

>Pete Bentley wrote:
>> Epetruk <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> If by "rabid policies" you mean the introduction of ID cards, forget
>>> it.
>>
>> Indeed. Interviewed on the Today Programme this morning, Clarke
>> stated he intends to push ahead with ID cards as soon as possible.
>>
>> Pete.
>
>I don't think that ID cards are a bad thing in principle. However, I don't
>think that the technology to be used and the cost of the project justify
>introducing them at this time.

Still to be convinced of any benefit.. Mind its the fingerprinting of
everyone and the Database that scare me....

What a gift to the next government even more illiberal than this one.

Richard Webb

RJ Webb

>He will be under strict instructions from the top, and probably would not
>be allowed to change direction even if he wanted to.

Then the top has to go.. Still plenty of sh1te on Mr Quisling
Cuckoo.... Keep working at it.


Richard Webb

JLB

Doki wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
>>Sorry but I haven't been this happy about politics in years. Herr
>>Blunkett has left the building. I would wish him my condolences if I
>>actually felt that he was in any way qualified to hold the position of
>>Home Secretary in the first place. Let's hope the milder Clarke sweeps
>>his more rabid policies under the carpet.
>
The "milder Clarke" appears to be have been given his instructions along
with the job; my guess is Tony told him that if the press has not
nicknamed him "Crusher Clarke" by Xmas, he's toast.

His priority is to ensure he does not suffer by comparison with
Blunkett. Perhaps he'll arrange a photo opportunity where he will
disembowel a selection of asylum applicants with his bare hands.
>
> I have to wonder what the hell the tories are thinking. They've been
> preaching the virtues of small government, and all of a sudden they're pro
> ID cards. I don't think there'll be anyone I'm willing to vote for come
> election time.
>
I was thinking the same. To support the government about Iraq could have
been just unfortunate; to support the government on ID cards as well
looks worse than careless. Can somebody give Michael Howard a definition
of the word "opposition" for Christmas?

The next election has to be the most hopeful ever for the Lib Dems.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Simon Brooke

in message <41c1d77b$0$78279$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Roos Eisma
('roos@xs4all.nl') wrote:

> carol@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) writes:
>
>>I don't think it's "holier than thou" to avoid sleeping with other
>>people's spouses, just basic decency.
>
> It also depends on the people and spouses involved and the
> circumstances. In the end I think these are decisions that individuals
> make the way they seem fit.

Agreed. And I really don't believe this is a matter for public comment.
There's clearly a lot of private unhappiness here on a number of sides,
and I don't think any of that is any of our business.

What is our business is when someone abuses their public office to
favour particular individuals, or when someone imprisons someone else
without recourse to due process.

There's no doubt in my mind that Blunkett should have gone, but I'm not
at all convinced that the reason he went is the reason he should have
gone.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

Simon Brooke

in message <Xns95C18BAD62906pleasegivegenerously@130.133.1.4>, Mark
Thompson ('pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com') wrote:

>> On social justice, the
>> disparity between rich and poor is wider, and getting wider faster.
>
> As long as the poor are still getting richer that's fine by me.
>
> And hey, at least it's the kind-of meaningless 'relative' poverty
> we're concerned about, rather than real poverty.

There is one family with three children in this village living in a
garden shed (and I _mean_ a shed - not something with proper walls or a
proper roof) and another with two children living in an old caravan. If
you don't call that 'real' poverty then I suggest you try it for a
couple of years.

It's been blowing force ten here earlier today.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

Tim Woodall

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:12:06 +0000,
Dan Gregory <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Epetruk wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think that ID cards are a bad thing in principle. However, I don't
>> think that the technology to be used and the cost of the project justify
>> introducing them at this time.
> Surely these are going to be an "exit tax" with the price of a passport
> rising to £85 (?) to cover costs just after mine expires ''''
>:-((

This might change - the government (or David B) have been claiming that
they have to have biometric passports for Europe so they can claim that
cost against passports and then just add another 30-40GBP for the ID
card itself (plus x billion for the NHS entitlement card plus x billion
for the driving licence etc, etc, etc) but Europe has just ruled that
they can't opt-in to just the biometric passport part of the European
legislation and opt-out of other bits.

So, the government can still produce biometric passports if they wish
but they can no longer claim they have got to because Europe requires it.

Of course the European legislation only requires a biometric identifier
on the passport so that the document is better linked to the holder. It
doesn't require this massive Database behind it.

IIRC Hong Kong are producing biometric ID cards at about 15 dollars
(which particular dollar I don't know) so quite why we need to spend
goodness knows how much to get all our cards is anybodys guess.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/