"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Odd that a government in charge for 5 years already - so in control of
all those departments

Umm, did you forget the LDs?

Would they have been against selling off surplus WD land for housing? Etc?

But of course the Tories will blame them for everything. Exactly as they
blamed Labour. And they'll still be doing it at the end of this
parliament.

Corse you never blame anything on Thatcher, eh ?

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:07:58 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

*40% of £759.5bn

Except it isn't.

It's 40% of some departments.
The NHS is excluded.
The MoD is excluded.
Schools are excluded.
The ODA is excluded.

So that leaves

Pensions £153.3 billion and Welfare £110.5 billion

Nope, there are a lot more govt depts non excluded.

So that over the next five years leading up to the next election, with an
ageing healthier population, all of whom have the vote, Osborne hopes to
cut either 25% or 40% off the pension bill.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Or am I missing something ?

Yes, as always.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
If it was all caused by unions,

No one ever said that.

what accounts for the present mess?

There is no present mess.

Crikey.

You wouldn’t know what a real mess was if one bit you on your lard arse.

And its stupid to just ignore the FACT that whatever mess
there is is the result of LABOUR being stupid enough to
deregulate the banks and having to bail out the worst of
those when the **** hit the fan, as it always does sometime.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:49:18 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Are you getting £40bn and 40% confused?

*40% of £759.5bn

Except it isn't.

It's 40% of some departments.
The NHS is excluded.
The MoD is excluded.
Schools are excluded.
The ODA is excluded.

So that leaves

Pensions £153.3 billion and Welfare £110.5 billion

So that over the next five years leading up to the next election, with
an ageing healthier population, all of whom have the vote, Osborne hopes
to cut either 25% or 40% off the pension bill.

Or am I missing something ?

Yes. The fact that pensions have been "triple locked" to increase to the
highest of three factors - inflation, average salaries or 2.5% - each
year.

Sorry, maybe my monitor is at fault, maybe some pixels are missing or something
but I can't actaully see "Pensions" on the list you posted earlier

I It's 40% of some departments.
The NHS is excluded.
The MoD is excluded.
Schools are excluded.
The ODA is excluded

Funny, even with missing pixels there's no "Pensions" in your list even if I scroll the
display
so maybe that's not the reason after all.


michael adams

....

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense. They
are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police, some
against an ethnic origin. Etc.

Maybe you get nicer jurors down here.

I still say the jury members must not have an interest in the outcome.

Really depends on what you mean by interest. If you mean some sort of
financial reward, obviously. But then if they'd agreed to vote in a
particular way for financial gain, you probably wouldn't be aware of it.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But of course the Tories will blame them for everything. Exactly as
they blamed Labour. And they'll still be doing it at the end of this
parliament.

Corse you never blame anything on Thatcher, eh ?

I do. But I'm not the government. If I were, I'd have reversed some of her
more crass decisions.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine*

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

On Thursday, 23 July 2015 14:15:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense. They
are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police, some
against an ethnic origin. Etc.

Maybe you get nicer jurors down here.

I still say the jury members must not have an interest in the outcome.

Really depends on what you mean by interest. If you mean some sort of
financial reward, obviously. But then if they'd agreed to vote in a
particular way for financial gain, you probably wouldn't be aware of it.

For those that have been on jury service, I seem to remmeber that I/we
were instructed to base our decision of guilt or innocence on the proof provided in court and not on what we thought or believed to have happened.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 23 July 2015 14:15:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense.
They are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police,
some against an ethnic origin. Etc.

Maybe you get nicer jurors down here.

I still say the jury members must not have an interest in the
outcome.

Really depends on what you mean by interest. If you mean some sort of
financial reward, obviously. But then if they'd agreed to vote in a
particular way for financial gain, you probably wouldn't be aware of
it.

For those that have been on jury service, I seem to remmeber that I/we
were instructed to base our decision of guilt or innocence on the proof
provided in court and not on what we thought or believed to have
happened.

Oh indeed. Evidence as presented in court. Not what you might find by
Googling. ;-)

My point being that we hope and expect that jurors won't be intimidated by
others on that jury. But some think it is the norm on an industrial action
ballot. Just the same people can be on both.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

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

On Thursday, 23 July 2015 15:51:40 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 23 July 2015 14:15:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense.
They are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police,
some against an ethnic origin. Etc.

Maybe you get nicer jurors down here.

I still say the jury members must not have an interest in the
outcome.

Really depends on what you mean by interest. If you mean some sort of
financial reward, obviously. But then if they'd agreed to vote in a
particular way for financial gain, you probably wouldn't be aware of
it.

For those that have been on jury service, I seem to remmeber that I/we
were instructed to base our decision of guilt or innocence on the proof
provided in court and not on what we thought or believed to have
happened.

Oh indeed. Evidence as presented in court. Not what you might find by
Googling. ;-)

There are other ways of deciding other than googling, google didn;t exist when I was on jury service so we had to think for ourselves ;-)


My point being that we hope and expect that jurors won't be intimidated by
others on that jury.

Well intimidated no, but the jurors are meant to discuss the case and you are allowed to say why you are going to vote the way you are going to vote, and other jurors are allowed to agree or disagree and dicuss the finer points.
In one case we wanted one of the jurors removed for her attitude that the defendants were definantly guilty. Where as most of us thought he was probably quilty but the police didn't bring enough evidence.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Oh indeed. Evidence as presented in court. Not what you might find by
Googling. ;-)

Are you admitting to having taken such steps?

Of course not. But it seems some may do.

My point being that we hope and expect that jurors won't be intimidated
by others on that jury. But some think it is the norm on an industrial
action ballot. Just the same people can be on both.

On the jury are 11 others you've never met before and are unlikely to
see again after the case is concluded. A different situation I venture
to suggest.

On all the separate jury service I've done, I've always known at least one
other juror in the pool, if only by sight. Since in London at least they
tend to get drawn from the same area(s), but used in a court a long way
off.

But to carry on with the original theme, are you saying a voter at a
'hands up' ballot is going to be intimidated by someone he knows? What
happened to the shady militants?

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

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

On 23/07/2015 17:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Oh indeed. Evidence as presented in court. Not what you might find by
Googling. ;-)

Are you admitting to having taken such steps?

Of course not. But it seems some may do.

My point being that we hope and expect that jurors won't be intimidated
by others on that jury. But some think it is the norm on an industrial
action ballot. Just the same people can be on both.

On the jury are 11 others you've never met before and are unlikely to
see again after the case is concluded. A different situation I venture
to suggest.

On all the separate jury service I've done, I've always known at least one
other juror in the pool, if only by sight. Since in London at least they
tend to get drawn from the same area(s), but used in a court a long way
off.

But to carry on with the original theme, are you saying a voter at a
'hands up' ballot is going to be intimidated by someone he knows? What
happened to the shady militants?


Just carry on ignoring the facts that intimidation has happened in the
past and probably happens in a different way now. It just devalues
everything you say.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But of course the Tories will blame them for everything. Exactly as
they blamed Labour. And they'll still be doing it at the end of this
parliament.

Corse you never blame anything on Thatcher, eh ?

I do. But I'm not the government.

Corse Labour has never blamed anything on Thatcher, eh ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 23 July 2015 14:15:18 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
As regards juries starting out with unbiased views, it's nonsense.
They are human beings. Some may have prejudice against the police,
some against an ethnic origin. Etc.

Maybe you get nicer jurors down here.

I still say the jury members must not have an interest in the
outcome.

Really depends on what you mean by interest. If you mean some sort of
financial reward, obviously. But then if they'd agreed to vote in a
particular way for financial gain, you probably wouldn't be aware of
it.

For those that have been on jury service, I seem to remmeber that I/we
were instructed to base our decision of guilt or innocence on the proof
provided in court and not on what we thought or believed to have
happened.

Oh indeed. Evidence as presented in court. Not what you might find by
Googling. ;-)

My point being that we hope and expect that jurors won't be intimidated by
others on that jury.

Stupid expectation, of course that will happen when
there isn't initial unanimous agreement on the verdict.
Only a naïve fool would expect otherwise.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

Oh indeed. Evidence as presented in court.
Not what you might find by Googling. ;-)

Are you admitting to having taken such steps?

Of course not. But it seems some may do.

We know some have because some jurys have
been discharged because that has happened.

My point being that we hope and expect that jurors won't be intimidated
by others on that jury. But some think it is the norm on an industrial
action ballot. Just the same people can be on both.

On the jury are 11 others you've never met before and are unlikely to
see again after the case is concluded. A different situation I venture
to suggest.

On all the separate jury service I've done, I've always
known at least one other juror in the pool, if only by sight.

Doesn’t mean that they are likely to put a brick thru your window
or torch your car if you don’t vote the way they want you to tho.

Since in London at least they tend to get drawn from
the same area(s), but used in a court a long way off.

But to carry on with the original theme, are you saying a voter at a
'hands up' ballot is going to be intimidated by someone he knows?

Corse they can with the worst of the most rabid unions,
particularly with very small communitys like coal mines.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
But to carry on with the original theme, are you saying a voter at a
'hands up' ballot is going to be intimidated by someone he knows? What
happened to the shady militants?


Just carry on ignoring the facts that intimidation has happened in the
past and probably happens in a different way now. It just devalues
everything you say.

And you just carry on ignoring the simple fact that secret ballots made
not a scrap of difference to the outcome of votes on industrial action.

Which proved 'intimidation' wasn't a factor in the outcome.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But of course the Tories will blame them for everything. Exactly as
they blamed Labour. And they'll still be doing it at the end of this
parliament.

Corse you never blame anything on Thatcher, eh ?

I do. But I'm not the government.

Corse Labour has never blamed anything on Thatcher, eh ?

Only you would think that malpractice by one side makes it ok if the other
does the same. Absolutely typical of your thinking. Or lack of it.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
On all the separate jury service I've done, I've always
known at least one other juror in the pool, if only by sight.

Doesn’t mean that they are likely to put a brick thru your window
or torch your car if you don’t vote the way they want you to tho.

I was involved with my union for many a year. No one ever put a brick
through my window, nor did they to any memeber I knew or heard of.

Perhaps it is the norm in your country - I neither know or care.

--
*When you get a bladder infection urine trouble.*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
But to carry on with the original theme, are you saying a voter at a
'hands up' ballot is going to be intimidated by someone he knows? What
happened to the shady militants?


Just carry on ignoring the facts that intimidation has happened in the
past and probably happens in a different way now. It just devalues
everything you say.

And you just carry on ignoring the simple fact that secret ballots made
not a scrap of difference to the outcome of votes on industrial action.

Like hell it didn’t. There were a hell of a lot less strikes after that.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But of course the Tories will blame them for everything. Exactly as
they blamed Labour. And they'll still be doing it at the end of this
parliament.

Corse you never blame anything on Thatcher, eh ?

I do. But I'm not the government.

Corse Labour has never blamed anything on Thatcher, eh ?

Only you would think that malpractice by one
side makes it ok if the other does the same.

Never said anything of the sort, ****wit.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
On all the separate jury service I've done, I've always
known at least one other juror in the pool, if only by sight.

Doesn't mean that they are likely to put a brick thru your window
or torch your car if you don't vote the way they want you to tho.

I was involved with my union for many a year.

Which was nothing like the most rabid unions.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And you just carry on ignoring the simple fact that secret ballots made
not a scrap of difference to the outcome of votes on industrial action.

Like hell it didn’t. There were a hell of a lot less strikes after that.

Lets have some figures, Wodney. Strikes versus number of union members.

You lie so much no one will just take your word for it.

Of course it probably would work in your country since so few can read.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And you just carry on ignoring the simple fact that secret ballots made
not a scrap of difference to the outcome of votes on industrial action.

Like hell it didn't. There were a hell of a lot less strikes after that.

Lets have some figures,

YOU'RE the one who claimed that secret
ballots made not a scrap of difference.

YOU get to provide the figures.

THAT'S how it works.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
But to carry on with the original theme, are you saying a voter at a
'hands up' ballot is going to be intimidated by someone he knows? What
happened to the shady militants?


Just carry on ignoring the facts that intimidation has happened in the
past and probably happens in a different way now. It just devalues
everything you say.

And you just carry on ignoring the simple fact that secret ballots made
not a scrap of difference to the outcome of votes on industrial action.

The number of strikes dropped significantly.
Which proved 'intimidation' wasn't a factor in the outcome.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
On all the separate jury service I've done, I've always
known at least one other juror in the pool, if only by sight.

Doesnt mean that they are likely to put a brick thru your window
or torch your car if you dont vote the way they want you to tho.

I was involved with my union for many a year. No one ever put a brick
through my window, nor did they to any memeber I knew or heard of.

Yes but as we know you were in the cosy little world of the BBC.
Perhaps it is the norm in your country - I neither know or care.

You know nothing of the rest of this country.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd read in
the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

tim

In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

Think the expression is barrack room lawyer. One who thinks they know all
about a subject after a little light reading.

I spent a considerable time on union business including going to the TUC
annual conference on a few occasions. So talked to and heard from those in
many other unions.

And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja one,
which as usual with them is sensationalist.

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the meja
when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they printed about
intimidation, etc.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

Think the expression is barrack room lawyer. One who thinks they know all
about a subject after a little light reading.

I spent a considerable time on union business including going to the TUC
annual conference on a few occasions. So talked to and heard from those in
many other unions.

And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja one,
which as usual with them is sensationalist.

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the meja
when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they printed about
intimidation, etc.

I ask again

what relevance has any of this to the point that I made

Absolutely NONE!

tim

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I ask again

what relevance has any of this to the point that I made

Absolutely NONE!

I doubt anyone cares. I can't even find out what your original 'point' was
so it must have been worthless.

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

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

On 26/07/2015 12:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

Think the expression is barrack room lawyer. One who thinks they know all
about a subject after a little light reading.

I spent a considerable time on union business including going to the TUC
annual conference on a few occasions. So talked to and heard from those in
many other unions.

And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja one,
which as usual with them is sensationalist.

I believe the court records unless you have proof they were all framed.


It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the meja
when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they printed about
intimidation, etc.


Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies and
claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket line so
they can state nothing ever happened.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja
one, which as usual with them is sensationalist.

I believe the court records unless you have proof they were all framed.

Which court records?

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the
meja when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they
printed about intimidation, etc.


Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies and
claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket line so
they can state nothing ever happened.

I've never claimed anything like that dennis, and only a fool like you
would say I had.

But unlike you do have at least some direct experience of such things.

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

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

On 26/07/2015 19:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja
one, which as usual with them is sensationalist.

I believe the court records unless you have proof they were all framed.

Which court records?

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the
meja when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they
printed about intimidation, etc.


Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies and
claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket line so
they can state nothing ever happened.

I've never claimed anything like that dennis,


You actually said that, just not the exact words.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

Think the expression is barrack room lawyer. One who thinks they know all
about a subject after a little light reading.

Like you for example
I spent a considerable time on union business including going to the TUC
annual conference on a few occasions. So talked to and heard from those in
many other unions.

Paid for by the BBC no doubt.
And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja one,
which as usual with them is sensationalist.

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the meja
when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they printed about
intimidation, etc.

Nonsense. You are the one who keeps saying Shoot the messenger.
Unlike you some of us have experience of the real world of industrial
unions not just the cosy little world of the BBC
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 26/07/2015 12:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

Think the expression is barrack room lawyer. One who thinks they know all
about a subject after a little light reading.

I spent a considerable time on union business including going to the TUC
annual conference on a few occasions. So talked to and heard from those in
many other unions.

And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja one,
which as usual with them is sensationalist.

I believe the court records unless you have proof they were all framed.


It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the meja
when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they printed about
intimidation, etc.


Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies
and claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket
line so they can state nothing ever happened.
And has done jury service many times.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not the meja
one, which as usual with them is sensationalist.

I believe the court records unless you have proof they were all framed.

Which court records?

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time for the
meja when it comes to climate change, but believe every word they
printed about intimidation, etc.


Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies and
claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket line so
they can state nothing ever happened.

I've never claimed anything like that dennis, and only a fool like you
would say I had.

But unlike you do have at least some direct experience of such things.

Only in the BBC.
--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim..... wrote:
You've just shown you no nothing about unions.

What's knowing about unions got to do with it?

Because it usually means you've formed your opinions by what you'd
read in the press, etc. And believed every word of it.

Ok I'll ask again:

what's knowing about union's got to do with the point that I made?

a point which I see you have completely ignored answering

Think the expression is barrack room lawyer. One who thinks they know all
about a subject after a little light reading.

I spent a considerable time on union business including going to the TUC
annual conference on a few occasions. So talked to and heard from those in
many other unions.

But only from union goons. Hardly what
you might call a very viable source on that.

And I know who's versions of events I believe

I do too, and it isn't union goons.

- and it's not the meja one, which
as usual with them is sensationalist.

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any
time for the meja when it comes to climate change, but
believe every word they printed about intimidation, etc.

Because it wasn’t just the media that has done that and plenty
us have seen the intimidation that picket lines involve too.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

And I know who's versions of events I believe - and it's not
the meja one, which as usual with them is sensationalist.

I believe the court records unless you have proof they were all framed.

Which court records?

The one where those arseholes were convicted and jailed for killing
the driver of the taxi they dropped a ****ing great lump of concrete
thru the windscreen of from an overpass when trying to intimidate
the passenger in that taxi.

It's interesting that so many on here haven't got any time
for the meja when it comes to climate change, but believe
every word they printed about intimidation, etc.

Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is
lies and claims they have been to every union meeting and
vote and picket line so they can state nothing ever happened.

I've never claimed anything like that dennis,

By implication you have with your stupid claims about what
you actually saw personally when working for the BBC and ITV.

But unlike you do have at least some direct experience of such things.

Not with the most rabid unions you don’t.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies
and claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket
line so they can state nothing ever happened.

I've never claimed anything like that dennis,


You actually said that, just not the exact words.

Then I didn't 'say' it.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
I've never claimed anything like that dennis,

By implication you have with your stupid claims about what
you actually saw personally when working for the BBC and ITV.

But unlike you do have at least some direct experience of such things.

Not with the most rabid unions you don’t.

But you, living in a different country with zero experience of anything UK
(and anything else come to that) feel your opinion is valid. What a prat.

--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

But unlike you do have at least some direct experience of such things.

Not with the most rabid unions you don't.

reams of you desperately attempting to bull**** your
way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no
one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs

On 27/07/2015 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Its not at all interesting that someone claims all the media is lies
and claims they have been to every union meeting and vote and picket
line so they can state nothing ever happened.

I've never claimed anything like that dennis,


You actually said that, just not the exact words.

Then I didn't 'say' it.


Trying to wriggle I see.