In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:18:41 +0100, harryagain wrote:

True.
But our Post Officeclosed because certain srvices were "taken away" from
them.
You couldn't even buy a TV licence or road tax any more.

You can buy both of those at most post offices, no problem at all.

Perhaps that particular PO had been downgraded to a sub-PO?

You are out of date. TV Licences aren't sold at any Post Office. Vehicle
licence sales do not depend on being a sub-post office (as most village
ones are). In the next village there are 2 sub-post offices. One sells
vehicle licences the other can't.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:10:39 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

But, hey, let's have a rant without having the first ****ing clue about
what we're ranting about.

It's SOP for harry to talk cock.

Speaking of which...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xLbcIianBg

Dear ****ing gawd. It's SO bad, I think it might be a very clever ploy by
the Tories.

The lyrics are... well, I'll let you judge for yourself.
http://usvsth3m.com/post/10049231551...-3-minutes-50-
seconds-of-the-ukip

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:17:32 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:10:39 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

But, hey, let's have a rant without having the first ****ing clue about
what we're ranting about.

It's SOP for harry to talk cock.

Speaking of which...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xLbcIianBg

Dear ****ing gawd. It's SO bad, I think it might be a very clever ploy by
the Tories.

You could be right!

"Published on 20 Oct 2014

"UKIP Calypso", by former Radio 1 DJ and former Conservative Party
conference entertainer Mike Read."


The lyrics are... well, I'll let you judge for yourself.
http://usvsth3m.com/post/10049231551...-3-minutes-50-
seconds-of-the-ukip

Actually, I found it quite entertaining. :-)
--
J B Good

In message , F
writes
On 20/10/2014 12:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

About five years ago, our local (Labour) MP turned up to support some
people protesting at the closure of a sub post office. The MiL
mentioned this as proof of Labours caring. My point that a better way
of caring would be to have not voted for the bill which caused the
closure was ignored, and when I asked what had precipitated the
closure, I was told "the Tories", although we had had a Labour
government for 12 years at that point.

You talking about a corner shop post office? Those of course are all
franchises owned and operated by the shop keeper. So if it closes it's
probably because the shop keeper couldn't make it pay.

Or because the Post Office's Horizon computer system screwed up, made
it look as though the staff were thieves, and they were jailed or had
to close down.

Private Eye
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/section...the_back&issue
=1375

Pr because the post office paid the owner generous compensation to
retire.
--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , bert ]
wrote:

In message , F
writes
On 20/10/2014 12:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

About five years ago, our local (Labour) MP turned up to support some
people protesting at the closure of a sub post office. The MiL
mentioned this as proof of Labours caring. My point that a better way
of caring would be to have not voted for the bill which caused the
closure was ignored, and when I asked what had precipitated the
closure, I was told "the Tories", although we had had a Labour
government for 12 years at that point.

You talking about a corner shop post office? Those of course are all
franchises owned and operated by the shop keeper. So if it closes it's
probably because the shop keeper couldn't make it pay.

Or because the Post Office's Horizon computer system screwed up,
made it look as though the staff were thieves, and they were jailed
or had to close down.

Private Eye
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/section...the_back&issue
=1375

Pr because the post office paid the owner generous compensation to
retire.

Why would the PO have to pay the klod anything? He's not employed by
them. As I said, it's a franchise - and if you are a small shopkeeper
and want to open a PO, AIUI you have to pay them £8k for the privilege.

The PO did not have to pay but chose to doe so when they wanted to close
down some post offices a few years ago.
--
bert

On 21/10/2014 16:47, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:17:32 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:10:39 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

But, hey, let's have a rant without having the first ****ing clue about
what we're ranting about.

It's SOP for harry to talk cock.

Speaking of which...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xLbcIianBg

Dear ****ing gawd. It's SO bad, I think it might be a very clever ploy by
the Tories.

You could be right!

"Published on 20 Oct 2014

"UKIP Calypso", by former Radio 1 DJ and former Conservative Party
conference entertainer Mike Read."


The lyrics are... well, I'll let you judge for yourself.
http://usvsth3m.com/post/10049231551...-3-minutes-50-
seconds-of-the-ukip

Actually, I found it quite entertaining. :-)

Same here, and I couldn't find anything to complain about. Certainly not
the 'accent' that the PC brigade have got excited about.

We've got any number of UK 'singers' singing with a mid-Atlantic accent
that they seem to think is in sympathy with the genre they indulge
themselves in and 'On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at' sounds ridiculous in anything
other than a Yorkshire accent. So what's wrong with singing a calypso
style song in a (bad!) Caribbean accent?

--
F

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 20 October 2014 10:35:41 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

I had a great-aunt just like that. Always voted Labour. Even after
they'd trashed the economy.

That was the CIA and the merchant banks.
Get your facts right.

The same thing is happening in Venezuela and they are using the NSA to do
it. Your inability to know better is the reason that all the
anti-terrorism measures are in force.

Someone in Central America thought it would be a good idea to ask United
Fruit to pay taxes and as that company was a front for the CIA all hell
broke loose, forcing a situation that led to unstoppable interference in
Western politics.

It went completely out of control under George Bush and Tony Blair was
unable to defend us from him. (Plus of course the little sodomite is now a
millionaire. I can't imagine he tried very hard once his cornhole got used
to it.)

Vote for politicians at your peril.
I had to laugh at that ageing punk, ****forbrains, belittling a comedian
about his politics. He said his jokes weren't funny. I can remember that
we had a vibrant music industry before him.


It was socialism destroyed our economy.
Spending other people's money and running up debt.
Encouraging the idle to vote for them.
Just as socialism destroyed Venezuela, France Poland Bulgaria Hungary
Yugoslavia Romania Albania USSR Lithuania Latvia Estonia. etc etc.

You can alway tell the ultimate socialistc ountry, they have to fence the
people in.
When socialism fails, the brain dead socialists alway say that more
socialism is what's needed.

Scotland is going the same way.
Capitalism created Scottish industry.
Socialism destroyed it with trade unions etc. (Not the Tories or the
English.)
The Jocks'll all be eating grass in ten years, you watch.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 20 October 2014 10:35:41 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

I had a great-aunt just like that. Always voted Labour. Even after
they'd trashed the economy.

That was the CIA and the merchant banks.
Get your facts right.

The same thing is happening in Venezuela and they are using the NSA to do
it. Your inability to know better is the reason that all the
anti-terrorism measures are in force.

Someone in Central America thought it would be a good idea to ask United
Fruit to pay taxes and as that company was a front for the CIA all hell
broke loose, forcing a situation that led to unstoppable interference in
Western politics.

It went completely out of control under George Bush and Tony Blair was
unable to defend us from him. (Plus of course the little sodomite is now
a millionaire. I can't imagine he tried very hard once his cornhole got
used to it.)

Vote for politicians at your peril.
I had to laugh at that ageing punk, ****forbrains, belittling a comedian
about his politics. He said his jokes weren't funny. I can remember that
we had a vibrant music industry before him.

It was socialism destroyed our economy.

Bull****. You lot never managed to work out that the
world had moved on and that the empire was doomed.

Spending other people's money and running up debt.

There were no 'socialists' involved when you lot did that during WW1.

Encouraging the idle to vote for them.

Just as socialism destroyed Venezuela, France Poland Bulgaria Hungary
Yugoslavia Romania Albania USSR Lithuania Latvia Estonia. etc etc.

Didn’t do Germany any harm. Funny that.

You can alway tell the ultimate socialistc ountry, they have to fence the
people in.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

When socialism fails, the brain dead socialists alway say that more
socialism is what's needed.

Scotland is going the same way.

Bull****.

Capitalism created Scottish industry.
Socialism destroyed it with trade unions etc.

That's not socialism, fool.

(Not the Tories or the English.)
The Jocks'll all be eating grass in ten years, you watch.

I've been watching. They do a lot better than you fools.

On 09/11/14 09:14, harryagain wrote:

You can alway tell the ultimate socialistc ountry, they have to fence the
people in.
When socialism fails, the brain dead socialists alway say that more
socialism is what's needed.

Scotland is going the same way.
Capitalism created Scottish industry.
Socialism destroyed it with trade unions etc. (Not the Tories or the
English.)
The Jocks'll all be eating grass in ten years, you watch.


Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis. Only when labour could exercise
power did the owners feel forced to part with their cash, hence the
growing gap between rich and poor. We hear a lot about rights but one
genuine and necessary right is that a family on average income should be
able to afford a roof over their head and in many parts of the country,
that simply isn't possible and the rich don't give a jot. How does your
capitalist system address this fundamental issue?

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 10:40:46 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis.

Define "fair".

If we mean that the rewards go to those who, through the use of labour
and/or capital, earn them - is that not "fair"?

There's a very strong argument that that's "fairer" than the rewards
being spread evenly across everybody regardless of how much effort and
innovation they've contributed.

On 09/11/14 10:54, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 10:40:46 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis.

Define "fair".

If we mean that the rewards go to those who, through the use of labour
and/or capital, earn them - is that not "fair"?

There's a very strong argument that that's "fairer" than the rewards
being spread evenly across everybody regardless of how much effort and
innovation they've contributed.


Well an amount to allow you to live a decent life. Now I guess you'll
say define decent life. Well as say, for the average worker, a roof
over your family's head, an adequate diet and at least sufficient for a
little recreation. I'm not suggesting every one earns the same but
there's a very narrow line between competition and exploitation. It was
only legislation and still is, which protects workers from unreasonable
hours, unsafe practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was done
voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost. All I'm suggesting is
that there has to be a middle way, which we have so far failed to do.

On 09/11/14 10:40, Andy Cap wrote:
On 09/11/14 09:14, harryagain wrote:

You can alway tell the ultimate socialistc ountry, they have to fence the
people in.
When socialism fails, the brain dead socialists alway say that more
socialism is what's needed.

Scotland is going the same way.
Capitalism created Scottish industry.
Socialism destroyed it with trade unions etc. (Not the Tories or the
English.)
The Jocks'll all be eating grass in ten years, you watch.


Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis.

Actually, there are two points to be made.

1/. People who are capitalists are free to give money to whoever they
want. In general it is often used more effectively than if given by
government.

2/. who decides what is 'fair'?


Only when labour could exercise
power did the owners feel forced to part with their cash, hence the
growing gap between rich and poor. We hear a lot about rights but one
genuine and necessary right is that a family on average income should be
able to afford a roof over their head and in many parts of the country,
that simply isn't possible and the rich don't give a jot. How does your
capitalist system address this fundamental issue?

Generally by reducing the price of housing.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 09/11/14 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Actually, there are two points to be made.

1/. People who are capitalists are free to give money to whoever they
want. In general it is often used more effectively than if given by
government.

2/. who decides what is 'fair'?


So under your system there would never have been an end to slavery !
Strange then that there is currently and anti-slavery bill going through
parliament, in an attempt to catch up.

As for fair, surely that is the purpose of a democracy, to decide
together, what is fair.

I wonder why the government are presently having to tell the petroleum
companies to drop their prices. We all know competition alone doesn't
work and that there needs to be other controls both in prices and wages.

In those places where there is a free-for-all, there is always extremely
rich and extremely poor. That is the true face of capitalism.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
1/. People who are capitalists are free to give money to whoever they
want.

Yes - screw the workers who (help) make the money for them and give it to
a donkey sanctuary.

Strange the way capitalists are always on about 'rights' - but only of
course for themselves. Everyone else to rely on their charity.


In general it is often used more effectively than if given by
government.

Given? You make it sound like only capitalists pay tax.
Oh - that statement is about the biggest ******** I've ever seen from you.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/11/14 14:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:

So under your system there would never have been an end to slavery !

What makes you think there has been an end to slavery? The only bit
that's been abolished is the obtaining of slaves from the chiefs and
kings in west Africa who held them as slaves to sell on, and their
transport to Central/North America. That was relatively easy, as those
slaves were transported in ships, which could be stopped. Elsewhere it
continues.


True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.
The capitalists effectively want it's legalised! I'm not a rampant
socialist by any means but we need a middle way and despite our supposed
intelligence, we haven't found a solution. Individual workers are no
match for owners and do require some kind of representation. Again, it's
undeniable that some unions became too powerful but I think democracy
should have been given a chance to work rather than lazily dealing
solely with the militant leaders. The vast majority of workers are not
stupid and will not vote for redundancy if given the the facts.

True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.

It continues at a low level in this country, and the trafficked women
are, in effect, slaves. But I was referring to slavery in arab
countries, also against black people from further south.


Which is exactly why it should be accepted that not all cultures are the
same!

My point though is that slavery is a capitalist's dream scenario,
minimum overheads, maximum profit.

On 09/11/14 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:

True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.

It continues at a low level in this country, and the trafficked women
are, in effect, slaves. But I was referring to slavery in arab
countries, also against black people from further south.

Which is exactly why it should be accepted that not all cultures are
the same!

In today's world, slavery is wrong whoever is doing it. Especially as
it involves at least degree of coercion.

My point though is that slavery is a capitalist's dream scenario,
minimum overheads, maximum profit.

If you think that all capitalists are as amoral as that, then you've
obviously never met any.


I repeat what I replied to Adrian. It was only legislation and still is,
which protects workers from unreasonable hours, minimal wages, added
that in, unsafe practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was
done voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost.

Of course there are some decent employers, that's not the point though.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:20:52 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

I repeat what I replied to Adrian. It was only legislation and still is,
which protects workers from unreasonable hours, minimal wages, added
that in, unsafe practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was
done voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost.

Because, of course, none of that ever has ever happened under any public-
sector employment, either in predominately capitalist economies or in
socialist ones?

On 09/11/14 18:25, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:20:52 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

I repeat what I replied to Adrian. It was only legislation and still is,
which protects workers from unreasonable hours, minimal wages, added
that in, unsafe practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was
done voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost.

Because, of course, none of that ever has ever happened under any public-
sector employment, either in predominately capitalist economies or in
socialist ones?


Of course it did. All I'm saying is that you require State intervention
and shouldn't simply leave things to the market because widespread
exploitation will be the inevitable outcome. If you think not, we'll
just have to agree to differ.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:35:50 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

I repeat what I replied to Adrian. It was only legislation and still
is, which protects workers from unreasonable hours, minimal wages,
added that in, unsafe practices and dangerous materials. Little of
this was done voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost.

Because, of course, none of that ever has ever happened under any
public-sector employment, either in predominately capitalist economies
or in socialist ones?

Of course it did.

So how come it's all capitalism's fault?

All I'm saying is that you require State intervention

Yet you admit that the state is just as guilty of having done it.

and shouldn't simply leave things to the market because widespread
exploitation will be the inevitable outcome. If you think not, we'll
just have to agree to differ.

Seems to me that you're working backwards from your preferred solution.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/11/14 09:14, harryagain wrote:

You can alway tell the ultimate socialistc ountry, they have to fence the
people in.
When socialism fails, the brain dead socialists alway say that more
socialism is what's needed.

Scotland is going the same way.
Capitalism created Scottish industry.
Socialism destroyed it with trade unions etc. (Not the Tories or the
English.)
The Jocks'll all be eating grass in ten years, you watch.


Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for sharing
the wealth on a fair basis. Only when labour could exercise power did the
owners feel forced to part with their cash, hence the growing gap between
rich and poor. We hear a lot about rights but one genuine and necessary
right is that a family on average income should be able to afford a roof
over their head and in many parts of the country, that simply isn't
possible and the rich don't give a jot. How does your capitalist system
address this fundamental issue?

Even HongKong before it was handed back to
China dealt with that problem quite effectively.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Of course not. No point in one employer doing it; they'll just be
undercut by others. The state has to set the level playing field. What
you're missing is that I don't see droves of capitalists demanding that
all this legislation be repealed. What Maggie did was to get rid of
some of the dopier practices forced on these same capitalists by
bully-boy unions. And don't tell me it wasn't necessary, because it
was.

And of course you'd not even think some of those 'bully boy' tactics were
forced on the unions by some employers?

As the saying goes it take two to tango.

It's interesting that those same unions in say the car industry - with
many of the same employees - seem to get along just fine with overseas
owners.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/14 10:54, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 10:40:46 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis.

Define "fair".

If we mean that the rewards go to those who, through the use of labour
and/or capital, earn them - is that not "fair"?

There's a very strong argument that that's "fairer" than the rewards
being spread evenly across everybody regardless of how much effort and
innovation they've contributed.


Well an amount to allow you to live a decent life. Now I guess you'll say
define decent life. Well as say, for the average worker, a roof over your
family's head, an adequate diet and at least sufficient for a little
recreation. I'm not suggesting every one earns the same but there's a very
narrow line between competition and exploitation. It was only legislation
and still is, which protects workers from unreasonable hours, unsafe
practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was done voluntarily by
the owners, on the grounds of cost. All I'm suggesting is that there has
to be a middle way,

There is, what we have been doing for close to a century now.

which we have so far failed to do.

Like hell we have with minimum wage rates and with stuff
like council housing and welfare for those who can't work
because they are too disabled or too old etc. Leaves the
previous approach of workhouses for dead.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:20:14 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Of course not. No point in one employer doing it; they'll just be
undercut by others. The state has to set the level playing field. What
you're missing is that I don't see droves of capitalists demanding that
all this legislation be repealed. What Maggie did was to get rid of
some of the dopier practices forced on these same capitalists by
bully-boy unions. And don't tell me it wasn't necessary, because it
was.

And of course you'd not even think some of those 'bully boy' tactics
were forced on the unions by some employers?

As the saying goes it take two to tango.

It's interesting that those same unions in say the car industry - with
many of the same employees - seem to get along just fine with overseas
owners.

If you're somehow trying to compare the unions in 1970s BL with the
unions in 2010s Nissan Sunderland or Honda Swindon or Toyota Derby, then
I think you might actually be proving Tim's point.

On 09/11/14 18:49, Adrian wrote:

Yet you admit that the state is just as guilty of having done it.

and shouldn't simply leave things to the market because widespread
exploitation will be the inevitable outcome. If you think not, we'll
just have to agree to differ.

Seems to me that you're working backwards from your preferred solution.


The State of course has dual roles, both that of employer but also of
ensuring it's people aren't exploited or put at risk. I'm sure there
have been conflicts from time to time but capitalist don't have this
dual responsibility. Their primary motivation is keeping their
shareholders happy at lowest cost.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/14 10:40, Andy Cap wrote:
On 09/11/14 09:14, harryagain wrote:

You can alway tell the ultimate socialistc ountry, they have to fence
the
people in.
When socialism fails, the brain dead socialists alway say that more
socialism is what's needed.

Scotland is going the same way.
Capitalism created Scottish industry.
Socialism destroyed it with trade unions etc. (Not the Tories or the
English.)
The Jocks'll all be eating grass in ten years, you watch.


Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis.

Actually, there are two points to be made.

1/. People who are capitalists are free to give money to whoever they
want. In general it is often used more effectively than if given by
government.

2/. who decides what is 'fair'?


Only when labour could exercise
power did the owners feel forced to part with their cash, hence the
growing gap between rich and poor. We hear a lot about rights but one
genuine and necessary right is that a family on average income should be
able to afford a roof over their head and in many parts of the country,
that simply isn't possible and the rich don't give a jot. How does your
capitalist system address this fundamental issue?

Generally by reducing the price of housing.

The reverse has actually happened right throughout virtually
the entire modern first and second world in the last say 50 years.

There are some exceptions like in Ireland currently, but not that many.

On 09/11/14 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:

Of course not. No point in one employer doing it; they'll just be
undercut by others. The state has to set the level playing field. What
you're missing is that I don't see droves of capitalists demanding that
all this legislation be repealed. What Maggie did was to get rid of
some of the dopier practices forced on these same capitalists by
bully-boy unions. And don't tell me it wasn't necessary, because it
was.


Again, it's undeniable that some unions became too powerful but I think
democracy should have been given a chance to work rather than lazily
dealing solely with the militant leaders. The vast majority of workers
are not stupid and will not vote for redundancy if given the the facts
but all they got was one-sided rhetoric from their 'leaders'.

The main reason private workers cave in and public workers don't, is
because many of the public jobs can't be exported, the favourite resort
of the private sector or of course import workers from low-pay
countries, prepared to live in poorer accommodation. That's why the
wealthy have been getting richer, whilst the workers incomes have been
stagnant.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/14 14:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:

So under your system there would never have been an end to slavery !

What makes you think there has been an end to slavery? The only bit
that's been abolished is the obtaining of slaves from the chiefs and
kings in west Africa who held them as slaves to sell on, and their
transport to Central/North America. That was relatively easy, as those
slaves were transported in ships, which could be stopped. Elsewhere it
continues.


True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.
The capitalists effectively want it's legalised! I'm not a rampant
socialist by any means but we need a middle way and despite our supposed
intelligence, we haven't found a solution.

We have actually, its a mix of capitalism and socialism.

Even HongKong before it was handed back to China had that,
just not that much socialism, just free public education and
some very very minimal welfare for those at the very bottom.

ALL systems just vary the amount of socialism and capitalism.

With communist countrys the capitalism is mostly just the illegal stuff.

Individual workers are no match for owners and do require some kind of
representation.

Not necessarily with the best of the owners.

Again, it's undeniable that some unions became too powerful but I think
democracy should have been given a chance to work

It did, the voters elected a govt that put
the boot into the worst of the unions.

rather than lazily dealing solely with the militant leaders.

Nothing lazy about what Thatcher did.

The vast majority of workers are not stupid and will not vote for
redundancy if given the the facts.

Worked real well in Thatcher's time.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...


True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.

It continues at a low level in this country, and the trafficked women
are, in effect, slaves. But I was referring to slavery in arab
countries, also against black people from further south.


Which is exactly why it should be accepted that not all cultures are the
same!

My point though is that slavery is a capitalist's dream scenario, minimum
overheads, maximum profit.

It would be interesting to have a slave owner's view on that.

The overheads might not be that minimal, particularly
ensuring the slave doesnt just bugger off and go elsewhere.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:

True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.

It continues at a low level in this country, and the trafficked women
are, in effect, slaves. But I was referring to slavery in arab
countries, also against black people from further south.

Which is exactly why it should be accepted that not all cultures are the
same!

In today's world, slavery is wrong whoever is doing it. Especially as it
involves at least degree of coercion.

Surely there must still be some who choose to be slaves ?

That is essentially what some women from third world
countrys who choose to marry those in the first world are.

My point though is that slavery is a capitalist's dream scenario, minimum
overheads, maximum profit.

If you think that all capitalists are as amoral as that, then you've
obviously never met any.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/14 18:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy
Cap wrote:

True but it's illegal and the government are doing their best.

It continues at a low level in this country, and the trafficked women
are, in effect, slaves. But I was referring to slavery in arab
countries, also against black people from further south.

Which is exactly why it should be accepted that not all cultures are
the same!

In today's world, slavery is wrong whoever is doing it. Especially as
it involves at least degree of coercion.

My point though is that slavery is a capitalist's dream scenario,
minimum overheads, maximum profit.

If you think that all capitalists are as amoral as that, then you've
obviously never met any.


I repeat what I replied to Adrian. It was only legislation and still is,
which protects workers from unreasonable hours, minimal wages, added that
in, unsafe practices and dangerous materials.

That's not right. There were some capitalists that treated
their employees very well, providing housing etc as well.

Plenty still do, particularly in industrys where
there is a shortage of skilled employees.

Little of this was done voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost.

That's overstated. Plenty realised that their
employees were essential to their operations.

Plenty still do and pay more than the law requires.

Of course there are some decent employers, that's not the point though.

It is actually, particularly with the employers of professionals.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/14 18:25, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 18:20:52 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

I repeat what I replied to Adrian. It was only legislation and still is,
which protects workers from unreasonable hours, minimal wages, added
that in, unsafe practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was
done voluntarily by the owners, on the grounds of cost.

Because, of course, none of that ever has ever happened under any public-
sector employment, either in predominately capitalist economies or in
socialist ones?

Of course it did. All I'm saying is that you require State intervention

You dont with some employees, most obviously with the professionals.

and shouldn't simply leave things to the market because widespread
exploitation will be the inevitable outcome.

How odd that we dont see that with say Apple and Google.

If you think not, we'll just have to agree to differ.

Doesnt mean that you are right tho.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Of course not. No point in one employer doing it; they'll just be
undercut by others. The state has to set the level playing field. What
you're missing is that I don't see droves of capitalists demanding that
all this legislation be repealed. What Maggie did was to get rid of
some of the dopier practices forced on these same capitalists by
bully-boy unions. And don't tell me it wasn't necessary, because it
was.

And of course you'd not even think some of those 'bully boy' tactics were
forced on the unions by some employers?

As the saying goes it take two to tango.

It's interesting that those same unions in say the car industry - with
many of the same employees - seem to get along just fine with overseas
owners.

But that may be because the union goons got the bums
rush and the union members got one hell of a fright when
the operation went bust and got a clue about how to operate.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/11/14 18:49, Adrian wrote:

Yet you admit that the state is just as guilty of having done it.

and shouldn't simply leave things to the market because widespread
exploitation will be the inevitable outcome. If you think not, we'll
just have to agree to differ.

Seems to me that you're working backwards from your preferred solution.


The State of course has dual roles, both that of employer but also of
ensuring it's people aren't exploited or put at risk. I'm sure there have
been conflicts from time to time but capitalist don't have this dual
responsibility. Their primary motivation is keeping their shareholders
happy at lowest cost.

It is in fact much more complicated than that with operations like Apple and
Google.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/11/14 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:

Of course not. No point in one employer doing it; they'll just be
undercut by others. The state has to set the level playing field. What
you're missing is that I don't see droves of capitalists demanding that
all this legislation be repealed. What Maggie did was to get rid of
some of the dopier practices forced on these same capitalists by
bully-boy unions. And don't tell me it wasn't necessary, because it
was.

Again, it's undeniable that some unions became too powerful but I think
democracy should have been given a chance to work rather than lazily
dealing solely with the militant leaders.

Nothing lazy about what Thatcher did.

The vast majority of workers are not stupid and will not vote for
redundancy if given the the facts

Didnt work like that with the coal miners and in the car plants.

but all they got was one-sided rhetoric from their 'leaders'.

They were free to get the facts from elsewhere.
They were too stupid to do that.

The main reason private workers cave in and public workers don't, is
because many of the public jobs can't be exported,

That is certainly part of the difference.

the favourite resort of the private sector or of course import workers
from low-pay countries, prepared to live in poorer accommodation.

That isnt even possible in most jurisdictions.

That's why the wealthy have been getting richer,

Nope, that is due to something else entirely and happens when
it isnt even possible to import workers from low pay countrys.

whilst the workers incomes have been stagnant.

Bull**** they have.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:31:09 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Yet you admit that the state is just as guilty of having done it.

and shouldn't simply leave things to the market because widespread
exploitation will be the inevitable outcome. If you think not, we'll
just have to agree to differ.

Seems to me that you're working backwards from your preferred solution.

The State of course has dual roles, both that of employer but also of
ensuring it's people aren't exploited or put at risk.

Well, exactly.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
If you're somehow trying to compare the unions in 1970s BL with the
unions in 2010s Nissan Sunderland or Honda Swindon or Toyota Derby, then
I think you might actually be proving Tim's point.

And if you're somehow trying to compare the '70s BL management with 2010
Nissan etc you might actually prove my point.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It's interesting that those same unions in say the car industry - with
many of the same employees - seem to get along just fine with overseas
owners.

But that may be because the union goons got the bums
rush

They didn't.

and the union members got one hell of a fright when
the operation went bust and got a clue about how to operate.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
The vast majority of workers are not stupid and will not vote for
redundancy if given the the facts

Didn‘t work like that with the coal miners and in the car plants.

You really are a fool.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
And of course you'd not even think some of those 'bully boy' tactics were
forced on the unions by some employers?

Must be why, in the 50s & 60s, there were all those comedy programmes
about industrial relations (Rag Trade, anyone?). We all laughed,
because there was more than a grain of truth about them, just as we
laughed at Basil Fawlty. Today, people would wonder what you were on
about if you tried a comedy show based on management/unions
relationships.

Yes. The Government got exactly what Thatcher etc wanted. Control over the
workforce by fear. And the other result they wanted - depress average
earnings while allowing those towards the top of the pile go through the
roof. It's called capitalism, red in tooth and claw. Oh - and to shift
overall taxation as a proportion of income to the poorest in the land.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.