"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:29:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Anything can be proved by setting terms of reference and asking
selective questions. You simply leave out anything you don't want to
hear.

It's interesting to note, that we have people with views from across
the political spectrum, and those who feel that Baroness Thatcher was
equally misbehaved in her day, yet the only person who seems to be
supporting Teflon Tony is yourself. Doesn't that strike you as a
little odd?

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

It certainly does......

Right on Andy.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

It certainly does......

LOL, and I bet I know which Tabloid IMM reads...

Have a guess.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:00:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Off-topic, cossposted, garbage.

"Toby" wrote in message
...
Capitol wrote:
The big picture is that the BBC report was substantially
correct and 80% of the British people know it!

Absolutely, and nearly every other media organisation had a similar
conclusion.

But 10% was hopelessly wrong and wrong big time.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Saddam was into terror.


Yes, his own people, and those counties that neighbour Iraq, not that he
did
a lot of that after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

I Bush and Blair had stated those facts as the reason why he (Saddam)
should
be over thrown they just might have got backing, but they chose to use the
WMD's issue

There were "many" reasons for going into Iraq. Anyone with half a brain
could see that.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Kelly said "days". YES DAYS!!!!!!! He said week then days, which mean
less
than 7. Are you that thick!

And the government said 45 minutes,

Read back at my attempt to explain something very simple to you.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

snip
[ re WMDs in iraq ]

We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things.

But the whole country is available to inspect and they have been
searching hard since they invaded


And they can question (in what ever manner they like in effect) those who
allegedly designed and built them - yet they still have not found
anything,
not even a trace of them.

The point is they had them, had used them and had them until recently. They
could,be hidden somewhere. It is big place.

You are influenced by tabloids. You can't think or see the big picture.
You are sad.

"Toby" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"PoP" wrote in message

I've been on Sheffield (as was) before it got used for target
practice by the argies. Type 42.

I heard an interesting story back in the days of the Falklands.
Beware matelots tales...

Apparently in the war theatre ships like Sheffield are put on "picket
duty" in front of and to protect the carriers, to pick up and deal
with any incoming. That's why Sheffield was in harms way.

Sheffield was equipped with Sea Wolf missiles.
Sheffield was not. It had Sea Dart.

Blimey IMM gets it right.

I am always right.

Close to HMS Arrow on the fateful day (A Type 21 which had Sea Cat)

Sea Wolf was only on the type 23s.

But the Type 23 was not in the South Atlantic, only on drawing boards.
So nearly right, try Type 22s.

I was only one out.

When HMS Sheffield was struck the Type 22 frigates HMS Brilliant and HMS
Broadsword were assisting the carrier HMS Hermes and cvs HMS Invincible,
using the close defence Sea Wolf. HMS Sheffield was 20 miles away. It's
Sea
Dart system, unlike the Sea Cat and Sea Wolf systems, was not really a
close
defence system, but a high speed high altitude missile & had successfully
taken out Argentinean surveillance aircraft at altitude of almost 40,000
feet. It's beam tracking guidance was not really suited to surface
skimming
threats.

Unfortunately when the UK went to war they forgot to inform the
onboard computer systems on Sheffield that Exocet was to be
considered a hostile missile. It's manufactured in France which is
part of the NATO pact. You don't expect your friends to be firing on
you so any Exocet which is in the sky can't be coming your way.

Not true at all. The UK knew all about the limited number of Argentinean
Exocets, down to the serial numbers.
The radar on a Type 42 had less detailed resolution than that of other
ships
in the task force.
The Sheffield was operating closer to the coast than most of the task
force,
it's radar subject to clutter from the mainland. The ship was not in a
full
state of preparedness and it had not had information about the threat
passed
on to it from HMS Invincible which had been tracking the incoming
aircraft.

Subsequently no further ships were lost to long range Exocet during
the conflict
The Exocet used were short range variants, the HMS Glamorgan seriously
damaged when attacked by them for the third time.

Sheffield had it radar off as it was used to talk to London. the radar
interfered with the satellite link to London. That is what it was unable to
launch chaff deflecting rockets. Another Leander class ship did see the
exocets and launched chaff.

The Sheffield was lucky hit. The Exocet was a poor missile. Hit the
Sheffield by more luck than anything and did not sink her. The desastation
was due to the poor design of the ship. Hit the unarmed Atlantic Conveyor
and the Glamorgan was hit from the land, saw it, although alittle too late,
turned stern on and survived.

The British fleet was equipped with Sea Eagle which had (from memory) 3
times the range, twice the speed and twice the TNT. The Argies ****ed off
rather than engage the British fleet. Very wise, as many mothers sons are
still here.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

snip

LOL, You really should read the Huttion report, I am, and I have never
even
set foot in the local Tory party office.

Send the money by post do you?

Unlike you I don't support any political party, in anyway.

You jest of course.

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:01:36 +0000, geoff wrote:

It is not worth debating with idiots.

I think the rest of us are fast coming to that conclusion

One of the lessons I learnt a very long time ago is that when
conversing with idiots, innocent bystanders can have a difficult time
figuring out who is the idiot.

That's why I don't bother. So of them are fun though.

Unfortunately we've either got just one idiot (VZZ - apply ROT13), or
a dozen wannabee idiots. I'd rather believe that we've got just one
idiot

Nice of you to volunteer.

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Jerry." wrote in message
...
snip


Go and read the Hutton report FFS and stop being an utter plank !

You are reading it? You sad *******. This is storm in a teacup. A
nothing
issue. The power of media is awesome at times, look what it has done to
him.


Well, if not reading it means I'll be so ill informed as you are I'm glad
that I'm a sad *******,

Are you glad to be brainwashed to, and unable to see cons and lack commons
sense too.?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
IMM wrote:

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government

Oh the poor ******* is brainwahsed. He is not old enough to experince how
inept this bunch of self interest goons are.

Read Who Runs Britain and Who Own Britain. read them well. If you can move
your lips when reading if you like.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:19:48 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:19:28 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of
it.

You are being unbelievably generous!

I tend to think our IMM has the memory retention capability of a
goldfish. Must be real nice getting up each morning in a different
bedroom!


Research has it that that is about 8 seconds.........

LOL, Andy you are a hoot.

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:00:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Off-topic, cossposted, garbage.

You are right. It will not cross posted any more.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
There were "many" reasons for going into Iraq. Anyone with half a brain
could see that.

Revenge for Bush's dad getting his arse kicked. Oh, and oil. Any other
reason could equally apply to dozens of other countries - and the US
itself.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:42:15 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
It's interesting to note, that we have people with views from across
the political spectrum, and those who feel that Baroness Thatcher was
equally misbehaved in her day, yet the only person who seems to be
supporting Teflon Tony is yourself. Doesn't that strike you as a
little odd?

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

Well, I don't read any papers and get all my news from the BBC. And am a
socialist. But am perfectly aware that on the broader issue of WOMD Blair
either lied, was very badly advised, or both. The facts of the 'war' only
go to prove this.

H(mostly)RYK ... the whole "45 minutes" issue, followed by the
assignment of blame to the BBC, has diverted attention away from the
key issues: why was the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs so wrong,
and/or why was that intelligence incorrectly analyzed, and/or was that
intelligence and its analysis selectively passed on to the government,
and/or did the government chose to emphasize some of the intelligence
available to it and ignore the rest?

It seems to have been conveniently forgotten that Saddam Hussein was,
among all his other attributes, a clever man with clever advisors. He
will have undoubtedly recognized that the likelihood of an attack by a
US-led coalition, with or without explicit UN backing, would be
reduced by claiming to or presenting evidence of a lack of WMD and the
destruction of WMDs. OTOH, the Iraqi regime will have equally
recognized that the likelihood of a mass uprising by Kurdish fighters
and/or renewed hostilities w/ Iran would be reduced by maintaining and
encouraging information that WMDs were still available ... and
available for immediate use. This is pure surmise, but it may be a
reasonable assumption that the human intelligence available to the US
and the UK came either from people within (or previously within) the
Iraqi regime -- who will probably have been telling what appears to
have been the truth, i.e., that WMDs had been destroyed and were not
being re-manufactured -- or from sources in Iran or Kurdistan which
will have given the completely opposite story. This would have given
the situation in which different sources were producing completely
opposite intelligence; if this was the case, who made the decision to
give prominence to the intelligence that was subsequently used to
justify military action, and why?

Notwithstanding these issues and how they impact on the government,
the BBC *has* come out of this very badly. I for one hope that with
the departure of Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan (and hopefully also
those of the people w/ editorial responsibility for the continued
emphasis on the dossier/45 minutes start) will reinstate within the
BBC's news organizations a culture that the truth is more important
than "the story", and that the BBC's role as a news organization is to
report the news, not to create it. If Mr Dyke's appalling
lowest-common-denominator populism could be swept away all the better
.... I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:42:15 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
It's interesting to note, that we have people with views from across
the political spectrum, and those who feel that Baroness Thatcher was
equally misbehaved in her day, yet the only person who seems to be
supporting Teflon Tony is yourself. Doesn't that strike you as a
little odd?

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

Well, I don't read any papers and get all my news from the BBC. And am a
socialist. But am perfectly aware that on the broader issue of WOMD Blair
either lied, was very badly advised,

He did not lie. Badly advised by many intelligence depts, maybe. HE did not
lie or sex up the document.

or both. The facts of the 'war' only
go to prove this.

H(mostly)RYK ... the whole "45 minutes" issue, followed by the
assignment of blame to the BBC, has diverted attention away from the
key issues: why was the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs so wrong,
and/or why was that intelligence incorrectly analyzed, and/or was that
intelligence and its analysis selectively passed on to the government,
and/or did the government chose to emphasize some of the intelligence
available to it and ignore the rest?

This is being addressed by the Yanks. Info was pretty well joint.

IMM wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:00:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Off-topic, cossposted, garbage.


You are right. It will not cross posted any more.




There you are, from UK.D-i-y's brown nosed laber-can-do-no rong
illiterate moron.

In article ,
wrote:
Off-topic, cossposted, garbage.

Is that uk.rec.coss?

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps the
majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the viewing
figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a TV, it's
only fair the majority is catered for.

Perhaps there's space for a subscription channel that only makes the
programmes you want to watch, but I'd guess you'll have to set it up and
run it yourself. ;-)

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:13:22 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

And that is why I have believed for a long time that there should be a
similar limit to the number of term a Prime Minister can hold office (not
the party, I hasten to add...!).

Another rule I would like to see is that either the decision to hold
an election is removed from the party in power, the terms are for a
set period like in the US, or the party in power has to set the next
election date within 3 months of taking office (hence giving at least
4 years notice).

The reason for doing that is to stop governments engineering the
election date to fall in line with their own electability. Too many
times over the years elections have been called to suit the party in
power and it sure would be nice if they had to go to the electorate on
a timescale which they couldn't fiddle with close to the time.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:19:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The yanks were fooled, or chose to be fooled, by Saddans posturing.

It is possible that we'll never know why the US really went into Iraq.
Perhaps the WMD theory was just a cover story, and they haven't been
able to reveal the real reasons behind the conflict.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:39:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

I am always right.

I was only one out.

Which proves the first statement does it not?

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:53:22 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Research has it that that is about 8 seconds.........

See? IMM only has to take a catnap and he wakes up in a different
place!

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:45:19 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Well, you must be pretty young if you can't remember just how many
ordinary people's lives Thatcher and her pals ruined. Or, of course, very
rich.

I have a lot of respect for people who were affected by the coal and
steel industries shutting down in the UK. However, it is somewhat
unfortunate that those industries (and particularly the unions) were
unable to accept that change had to take place. You can't play a game
of King Canute on the sea shore commanding the waves to go back, but
that's essentially what the unions were up to.

The miners in particular got their cum-uppence because of the likes of
Scargill. I think Thatcher went way too far on the unions, but managed
to get away with it because the unions were not helping themselves by
using the general public as a battering ram.

Things like electricity strikes, rubbish piling up in the streets,
morgues filling with dead people awaiting burial, Green goddesses
attending fire incidents. Sooner or later Joe Public realises this has
to stop somewhere, and burying the unions was one way out. In burying
the trades unions it is very regrettable that some of our historically
sound industries were thumped out of existence.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Did you mean Mori perchance?
Noooooooooooo, the mint people

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip more crap

You really do not understand what is being discussed here and I doubt you
will ever be able to. :~(

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

It certainly does......

LOL, and I bet I know which Tabloid IMM reads...

Have a guess.



So you admit to reading a Tabloid then, the reason for your ignorance is
coming clearer now...

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps the
majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the viewing
figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a TV, it's
only fair the majority is catered for.

That is not, though, what the BBC is there for, nor what its licence
fee funding is intended to achieve. Commerical channels chase ratings
in order to generate advertising revenue: that's the right place for
mindless/populist "entertainment". The BBC does not *need* to compete
with such dross, and it would be entirely within its charter not to do
so.

Perhaps there's space for a subscription channel that only makes the
programmes you want to watch, but I'd guess you'll have to set it up and
run it yourself. ;-)

Actually, it appears that the BBC is increasingly putting the
programming that I would prefer to watch on channels that are funded
from the licence fee, but I cannot receive ... :-(

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:42:15 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
It's interesting to note, that we have people with views from
across
the political spectrum, and those who feel that Baroness Thatcher
was
equally misbehaved in her day, yet the only person who seems to be
supporting Teflon Tony is yourself. Doesn't that strike you as
a
little odd?

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

Well, I don't read any papers and get all my news from the BBC. And am
a
socialist. But am perfectly aware that on the broader issue of WOMD
Blair
either lied, was very badly advised,

He did not lie. Badly advised by many intelligence depts, maybe. HE did
not
lie or sex up the document.

Well what the hell do you call altering the wording of a perfectly good, if
lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.
These alterations were asked for by those in No. 10, Fact.
If you change a documents wording (by adding or removing words, so that it
then reads completely decently it has been altered to meet your needs, FACT.

HMG might not have told a lie, but nor did he tell the truth either.


or both. The facts of the 'war' only
go to prove this.

H(mostly)RYK ... the whole "45 minutes" issue, followed by the
assignment of blame to the BBC, has diverted attention away from the
key issues: why was the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs so wrong,
and/or why was that intelligence incorrectly analyzed, and/or was that
intelligence and its analysis selectively passed on to the government,
and/or did the government chose to emphasize some of the intelligence
available to it and ignore the rest?

This is being addressed by the Yanks. Info was pretty well joint.



And the 'Yanks' have started to admit they got it wrong.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Saddam was into terror.


Yes, his own people, and those counties that neighbour Iraq, not that he
did
a lot of that after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

I Bush and Blair had stated those facts as the reason why he (Saddam)
should
be over thrown they just might have got backing, but they chose to use
the
WMD's issue

There were "many" reasons for going into Iraq. Anyone with half a brain
could see that.



Yes, business opportunities for US businesses, oil, more oil, and yet more
oil, oh and we must not forget finishing what Daddy couldn't. As for Blair,
he just wanted to look big and powerful...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:45:19 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

Well, you must be pretty young if you can't remember just how many
ordinary people's lives Thatcher and her pals ruined. Or, of course, very
rich.

I have a lot of respect for people who were affected by the coal and
steel industries shutting down in the UK.

The unions had nothing to do with the decline of British industry. Thatcher
legislated them to neutrality and we went even further downhill. So it
wasn't unions.

snip misinformed drivel

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps the
majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the viewing
figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a TV, it's
only fair the majority is catered for.

That is not, though, what the BBC is there for, nor what its licence
fee funding is intended to achieve. Commerical channels chase ratings
in order to generate advertising revenue: that's the right place for
mindless/populist "entertainment". The BBC does not *need* to compete
with such dross, and it would be entirely within its charter not to do
so.

The BBC does not pander to advertisers. They changed light entertainment in
the early 1960s with Steptoe & Son, Till Death Us Part etc, Programmes
copies in others countries. You want then to be a news channel only.


Perhaps there's space for a subscription channel that only makes the
programmes you want to watch, but I'd guess you'll have to set it up and
run it yourself. ;-)

Actually, it appears that the BBC is increasingly putting the
programming that I would prefer to watch on channels that are funded
from the licence fee, but I cannot receive ... :-(

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:19:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The yanks were fooled, or chose to be fooled, by Saddans posturing.

It is possible that we'll never know why the US really went into Iraq.
Perhaps the WMD theory was just a cover story, and they haven't been
able to reveal the real reasons behind the conflict.

Duh! There were many reasons, not one.

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:39:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

I am always right.

I was only one out.

Which proves the first statement does it not?

Yep.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:06:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I for one have no problem with the concept of a publicly funded,
public service broadcaster; I do have a problem, though, with that
broadcaster producing crap (soap operas, game shows, "reality" shows,
etc.) using licence fee revenue.

*You* might have a problem with this, but the reality is that perhaps the
majority of the viewing public want soap operas, etc, given the viewing
figures. And since the BBC is funded by all those who possess a TV, it's
only fair the majority is catered for.

That is not, though, what the BBC is there for, nor what its licence
fee funding is intended to achieve. Commerical channels chase ratings
in order to generate advertising revenue: that's the right place for
mindless/populist "entertainment". The BBC does not *need* to compete
with such dross, and it would be entirely within its charter not to do
so.

The BBC does not pander to advertisers. They changed light entertainment in
the early 1960s with Steptoe & Son, Till Death Us Part etc, Programmes
copies in others countries. You want then to be a news channel only.

Nope - the programmes you cite here are two (of many) examples of BBC
excellence - these have/had artistic, cultural, and intellectual
merit: something that I defy anyone to claim for any of the current
"reality TV" abominations, etc. The BBC continues to make many, many
good programmes across a wide spectrum: drama, entertainment, N&CA,
documentary, ... I just don't see why (over the last 10-15 years) they
have found a need to compete with the kinds of output from ITV and Sky
that may attract big audiences but are entirely devoid of any
recognizable merit.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

IMM wrote:

The unions had nothing to do with the decline of British industry.

Can we borrow those rose tinted specs of yours when you are finished
with them....?

(oh no, on second thoughts you probably need them to protect you from
the glare coming out of Phoney Blairs rear end).

We are talking about those same unions that had brought about the demise
of two governments aren't we?

The ones responsible for the winter of discontent? The ones (aided and
abetted by weak government) that pushed inflation to unsustainable levels?

Thatcher legislated them to neutrality and we went even further downhill. So it
wasn't unions.

So you are saying that compared to the 70's we have slipped even further
downhill? That's odd - I seem to recall from another posting of yours
that "the economy is stronger than any time in living memory".

What were the figures they showed in the documentary on the miners
strike the other day:

Number of UK man days lost to industrial action in the year before the
miners strike: 27,000,000

Number of UK man days lost to industrial action last year 1,300,000

snip misinformed drivel

You could save that for your reply.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
IMM wrote:

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government

Oh the poor ******* is brainwahsed. He is not old enough to experince how
inept this bunch of self interest goons are.

Read Who Runs Britain and Who Own Britain. read them well. If you can
move
your lips when reading if you like.



You're slipping IMM. It's taken you nearly 3 days to introduce land
ownership to this thread. You must be slowing up.

Cheers
Clive

In message , IMM
writes

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
It was a none issue made to be a major issue by a taboid media,
and
the BBC
has become tabloid to compete for viewers. The WMD? Kelly said,
they
could
get them up and running in days. Days is a very "short time".
They
also
had WMD and USED them.

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Not much between when talking about such weapons.
If Iraq wanted to WMD in a few days and we did
not have forces available to stop it - stopping
them within days is virtually impossible - then
they get used and we watch. If it is many weeks,
then if the west thinks they are about to uses them, a
force cam be assembled and sent around. Even
then it would be close run to stop
them. You have to get it all into perspective.

Days is not 45 minutes, though, is it?

Just read what I read again and get the big picture. Get this tabloid mush
that is bouncing around your head and stand back and look at the situation.


January 30, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look at
what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

First, and most trumpeted, he did not find ``large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction.'' He did find, as he reported last
October, WMD-related activities, from a very active illegal missile program
to research and development (``right up until the end'') on weaponizing the
deadly poison ricin (the stuff found by London police on terrorists last
year). He discovered ``hundreds of cases'' of U.N.-prohibited and illegally
concealed activities.




Right, let's get some perspective on this. I have put up a letter from a
friend who is also something of an expert in the field addressed to his
MP. It was written a couple of weeks before the invasion of Iraq.

I suggest that everyone arguing in this thread should read it, including
IMM (if you have any problems with the big words, I'm sure there are
people who can help you out)

Although not really diy related, it can be found at:

http://www.uk-diy.org

have fun

--
geoff

In message , IMM
writes

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

It certainly does......

LOL, and I bet I know which Tabloid IMM reads...

Have a guess.

Bunty ?

--
geoff