On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:01:01 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



No you are the Little Middle Englander, not me.

Err, I believe you introduced that label, none of the words of which
actually apply.




The current regime can be seen straight through. It is transparent for all
to see.

That's a common thread to a lot of things that are spinning.




Britain is strewn with litter and fly tipping.

So are the other countries that you mention,

Nowhere near to the disgusting
levels of the UK.

Not my observation, and I typically
spend around a third of my time
outside the UK.

Do you ever look?

I certainly notice if somewhere is or isn't clean.




Not to the levels of the Thatcher inspired UK

I don't believe that any government has that
fine level of influence.

The Wicked Witch did.

I think you have a vivid imagination.



Blame Thatcher.

For what?

The appalling bad attitude of the
generation she influenced.

Which you are obviously one.

A little older than that.



A worldwide issue. I don't believe that
MT, even in her wildest
dreams imagined that she had that
level of influence.

She tried and did get to the hard of thinking.

So, I'm curious as to why you're not a devout supporter.



One can always level a charge sheet
against a former prime minister. Those
of Wilson and Callaghan hardly show them as
paragons of virtue.

Compared to the Wicked Witch Thatcher,
they are paragons of virtue.

When is your next trip to the optician's?

Thank you for your concern of my welfare. When ate you due the clinic?

In English please.


Constitutional change has very little
to do with it.

He is unable to identify the root cause .

The root cause is the regular changing
of policies by successive
governments on issues that take at least
a generation for an effect to
be seen.

As I said "He is unable to identify the root cause". Very sad.

TB you mean?


There is a complete spectrum of
constitutional structures all over the western
world and they all have the societal difficulties
that we do.

Not to the levels of the UK.

Don't get out much, do you?

All the time and everywgere.

From dance hall to dance hall?



Because women also want to pursue a
career outside the home

Compared to the number of women
about very few are career women, and the
vast majority want to be at home with the kiddies.

I would ask around about that if I were you,
but you might want to wear a cricket box when
doing so; assuming that it is relevant of
course.

Women do want to care for their children full time.

Some do, and some would like to combine a career with raising
children.



They have no choice. Either live in
a sink estate or both parent work and
the family suffers, and hence society at large.

I don't disagree with you about the integrity
of the family, but there are numerous causes
of juvenile crime and antisocial behaviour.

And only having 7% of mothers at home full time is by far the biggest, and
it all comes down to land availability. We have the land...

That's a gross oversimplification and misses all the issues.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl