Parties clash over living wage for council staff

Parties clash over living wage for council staff

Parties clash over living wage for council staff

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

POLITICAL rivals have clashed over the future of a "living wage" for thousands of York council workers.

The pay rate - higher than the minimum wage - was introduced at City of York Council by its ruling Labour group, which pressured opposition groups to confirm whether they would retain it during the next administration, between 2015 and 2019.

Labour's motion calling for a four-year commitment to continuing the living wage regardless of who has power after next May sparked claims they were already trying to dictate a future council's policy. The Liberal Democrats and Greens voted to keep the wage, while the Conservatives abstained.

Dringhouses and Woodthorpe councillor Anna Semlyen, who proposed the motion, said: "The living wage does not just help people afford the cost of living, it improves their health, productivity, the quality of their work and how they feel about themselves.

"How would our staff feel if their pay was increased and then downgraded? It would be absolutely awful. The council has to take a lead on this."

Conservative councillor Joe Watt, while not speaking for his group's policy, did not support the living wage, saying: "We should follow the policy of Government, which sets the minimum wage, and have faith in that system rather than putting another tax burden on the people of York - this is old-fashioned trade unionism to get one pay rise after another". Labour councillor Tracey Simpson-Laing said Coun Watt's views were "just one step too far".

Chris Steward, who leads the Conservatives, said his party would not cut pay but added: "We cannot find a blank cheque for whatever level the living wage may be next year, let alone in 2019 - I don't want to see hundreds of people caught up in a political game."

Liberal Democrat leader Keith Aspden said Labour's motion was attempting to "ensure their policy continues even if they don't continue in power", while supporting it.

Green councillor Dave Taylor said the living wage improved the lives of low-paid workers, but said: "It's OK for Labour to promote it, but they are also making staff redundant, externalising jobs to the private sector, and forcing staff into early retirement with their jobs taken by volunteers."

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:24am Fri 4 Apr 14

nowthen says...

The living wage is nothing more than an opportunity for James Alexander to grandstand and big himself up on his Twitter pad.. Any idiot can spend other people's money like confetti. Ask him one on Lendal bridge and he vanishes .
The living wage is nothing more than an opportunity for James Alexander to grandstand and big himself up on his Twitter pad.. Any idiot can spend other people's money like confetti. Ask him one on Lendal bridge and he vanishes . nowthen
  • Score: 19

8:43am Fri 4 Apr 14

Zetkin says...

Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do. Zetkin
  • Score: 2

8:50am Fri 4 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Zetkin wrote:
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
It's council workers this article is about. Therefore if these people are "less of a burden on the taxpayer" as you put it, it will be because they are "more of a burden" on the council tax payer.

It's money from a different pot but still paid by taxpayers. It comes from a local tax rather than a national tax.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]It's council workers this article is about. Therefore if these people are "less of a burden on the taxpayer" as you put it, it will be because they are "more of a burden" on the council tax payer. It's money from a different pot but still paid by taxpayers. It comes from a local tax rather than a national tax. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 5

9:20am Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.
Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage. York2000
  • Score: 8

9:24am Fri 4 Apr 14

courier46 says...

I would hope everyone would be on this so called living wage,but they aren`t more so in York quite a few are on well below £7,thus someone on £6.38 is paying for someone to be on £7.45 which seems very unfair and is down to this lot again (cyc)
I would hope everyone would be on this so called living wage,but they aren`t more so in York quite a few are on well below £7,thus someone on £6.38 is paying for someone to be on £7.45 which seems very unfair and is down to this lot again (cyc) courier46
  • Score: 15

9:25am Fri 4 Apr 14

nearlyman says...

Zetkin wrote:
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
They will still qualify for state benefits........just a little less. Most of the benefits are targetted at families with children, child benefit being universal to wage earners at that level and topped up by the credits required to get the latest mobile phone and satellite T.V.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]They will still qualify for state benefits........just a little less. Most of the benefits are targetted at families with children, child benefit being universal to wage earners at that level and topped up by the credits required to get the latest mobile phone and satellite T.V. nearlyman
  • Score: -1

9:26am Fri 4 Apr 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Labour councillor Tracey Simpson-Laing said Coun Watt's views were "just one step too far"’

‘too far’ from what? Reality.

This council leadership (irrespective of party politics) are a little loose with throwing money out from the public purse with little regard of where it comes from for my liking, let me guess more debt generated in our names eh?.

At some time the final bill will have to be paid, that is economics!
‘Labour councillor Tracey Simpson-Laing said Coun Watt's views were "just one step too far"’ ‘too far’ from what? Reality. This council leadership (irrespective of party politics) are a little loose with throwing money out from the public purse with little regard of where it comes from for my liking, let me guess more debt generated in our names eh?. At some time the final bill will have to be paid, that is economics! Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 17

9:37am Fri 4 Apr 14

Exlabourmember says...

Zetkin wrote:
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
What a moronic statement. If you were to try and claim those on low income pay more as a percentage than "tax dodging millionaires" then you may sound credible but to suggest people on the living wage actually pay more just shows how stuck you are repeating party spin without ever really understanding it ... you would fit in well with York's cabinet
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]What a moronic statement. If you were to try and claim those on low income pay more as a percentage than "tax dodging millionaires" then you may sound credible but to suggest people on the living wage actually pay more just shows how stuck you are repeating party spin without ever really understanding it ... you would fit in well with York's cabinet Exlabourmember
  • Score: 3

9:38am Fri 4 Apr 14

zorpie says...

Zetkin wrote:
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Typically socialist bias assuming that because someone supports the Conservatives that they're rich. They've just taken over 2.4 million low earners out of tax all together and raised the minimum wage.

This is especially hypocritical given the middle class background of York's Labour councillors in general and that one of the6m in particular is a champagne socialist slumlord, living in a manner her tenants can't even dream of.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]Typically socialist bias assuming that because someone supports the Conservatives that they're rich. They've just taken over 2.4 million low earners out of tax all together and raised the minimum wage. This is especially hypocritical given the middle class background of York's Labour councillors in general and that one of the6m in particular is a champagne socialist slumlord, living in a manner her tenants can't even dream of. zorpie
  • Score: 7

9:39am Fri 4 Apr 14

inthesticks says...

I am very critical of this Labour council and many of the staff behind them but when I heard Cllr King speaking at the meeting I was shocked at the way he spoke.
This is Tory, this is how they think and they have contempt for the working class. They have proved that in this government and they make Thatcher look like Princess Diana.
In the grand scheme of things we prop up low payed workers because of the meager minimum wage, I honestly don`t care whether it comes out of my council tax or my income tax. It`s probably pennies a month on every council tax bill in York. I think my CT has gone up by a couple of pounds a month, I am paid above the living wage and I`m not well off at all but if my increase has enabled cleaners at the council to have a living wage then good.
I am very critical of this Labour council and many of the staff behind them but when I heard Cllr King speaking at the meeting I was shocked at the way he spoke. This is Tory, this is how they think and they have contempt for the working class. They have proved that in this government and they make Thatcher look like Princess Diana. In the grand scheme of things we prop up low payed workers because of the meager minimum wage, I honestly don`t care whether it comes out of my council tax or my income tax. It`s probably pennies a month on every council tax bill in York. I think my CT has gone up by a couple of pounds a month, I am paid above the living wage and I`m not well off at all but if my increase has enabled cleaners at the council to have a living wage then good. inthesticks
  • Score: 4

9:50am Fri 4 Apr 14

Eric Olthwaite says...

Perhaps if the current incumbents had not squandered so much of the councils resources/public’s money on vanity projects, Public Relations stunts/propaganda of how well they were doing when in reality they were cutting services and proven failed experiments like the closing of Lendal Bridge then there may have been a little left in the pot for this .

But only after actually delivering essential services that a council should deliver!

When the council leader James ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander fails to manage his own finances with any prudence what do you expect?


‘York2000 says...
Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.’

I would argue anybody who has worked hard, taken further education, made self-sacrifices to get a bit further up the greasy pole in life to make their life and that of their families stable, comfortable and sustainable by being careful and managing their money so have no debt and also ‘opposes a living wage’ is far from an idiot!

In my opinion someone who expects others to pay their way for them and expects others to carry them on their backs because they will not put in the same effort due to whatever excuse rather than reason are the idiots!

But don’t let me spoil your delusion that life is fair is wealth is taken from the creators of it and freely distributed to the not so wealthy, it is not and it’s up to you and only you to make the difference for yourself from being a relative success and having some pride or being the so called victims or people who are greedy and they have done it to the detriment of the lower end of society.

However socialists will never understand that.

Read Ayn Rands ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and you may just finally get it and that was written in the 1930’s!
Perhaps if the current incumbents had not squandered so much of the councils resources/public’s money on vanity projects, Public Relations stunts/propaganda of how well they were doing when in reality they were cutting services and proven failed experiments like the closing of Lendal Bridge then there may have been a little left in the pot for this . But only after actually delivering essential services that a council should deliver! When the council leader James ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander fails to manage his own finances with any prudence what do you expect? ‘York2000 says... Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.’ I would argue anybody who has worked hard, taken further education, made self-sacrifices to get a bit further up the greasy pole in life to make their life and that of their families stable, comfortable and sustainable by being careful and managing their money so have no debt and also ‘opposes a living wage’ is far from an idiot! In my opinion someone who expects others to pay their way for them and expects others to carry them on their backs because they will not put in the same effort due to whatever excuse rather than reason are the idiots! But don’t let me spoil your delusion that life is fair is wealth is taken from the creators of it and freely distributed to the not so wealthy, it is not and it’s up to you and only you to make the difference for yourself from being a relative success and having some pride or being the so called victims or people who are greedy and they have done it to the detriment of the lower end of society. However socialists will never understand that. Read Ayn Rands ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and you may just finally get it and that was written in the 1930’s! Eric Olthwaite
  • Score: 1

10:05am Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@ Eric Olthwaite

Eric, most of that reads like you agree with me? People on lower paid jobs DO pay their way. You're not making any sense, UNLESS you are saying that people who earn below the living wage do not work hard, are uneducated and do not make sacrifices.

You don't have to be a socialist to understand people who work need to be paid enough. But thanks for the patronising response all the same.
@ Eric Olthwaite Eric, most of that reads like you agree with me? People on lower paid jobs DO pay their way. You're not making any sense, UNLESS you are saying that people who earn below the living wage do not work hard, are uneducated and do not make sacrifices. You don't have to be a socialist to understand people who work need to be paid enough. But thanks for the patronising response all the same. York2000
  • Score: 3

10:39am Fri 4 Apr 14

Eric Olthwaite says...

‘York2000 says...
But thanks for the patronising response all the same.’

My pleasure, any time you want another patronising response just ask!

There is a labour market and if your skills etc are at minimum wage level then that is where you will stay unless you improve yourself to be more attractive to employers increasing your reward opportunities.

Why I should support the people who for whatever reason do not do that is beyond me!

Opposing something is not idiotic, particularly when many elements are considered in your reasoning!
‘York2000 says... But thanks for the patronising response all the same.’ My pleasure, any time you want another patronising response just ask! There is a labour market and if your skills etc are at minimum wage level then that is where you will stay unless you improve yourself to be more attractive to employers increasing your reward opportunities. Why I should support the people who for whatever reason do not do that is beyond me! Opposing something is not idiotic, particularly when many elements are considered in your reasoning! Eric Olthwaite
  • Score: -1

10:40am Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@ Eric Olthwaite

Also, I have indeed read Atlas Shrugged. You do realise
1. It's fiction. Try reading Too Big to Fail and The Big Short instead if you want to form an opinion of who is carrying anyone on anyone's backs.
2. Rand believed in super wealth stamping on everyone else - Which probably does include stamping on you.
3. Rand actually used the welfare state to receive healthcare and 'welfare' money whilst claiming to want an end to the welfare state.
4. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand states the 'Ultimate Horror' is state regulation of business. Now, we all know the consiquences of the state not regulating business enough - The very people Rand trumpets have caused and profited from an unprecedented financial meltdown, and state non-manegement.

If you're acusing me of being a socialist, then I could be as cliched as you and suggest you read The Road to Wigan Pier, also written in the 30's, I believe.
@ Eric Olthwaite Also, I have indeed read Atlas Shrugged. You do realise 1. It's fiction. Try reading Too Big to Fail and The Big Short instead if you want to form an opinion of who is carrying anyone on anyone's backs. 2. Rand believed in super wealth stamping on everyone else - Which probably does include stamping on you. 3. Rand actually used the welfare state to receive healthcare and 'welfare' money whilst claiming to want an end to the welfare state. 4. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand states the 'Ultimate Horror' is state regulation of business. Now, we all know the consiquences of the state not regulating business enough - The very people Rand trumpets have caused and profited from an unprecedented financial meltdown, and state non-manegement. If you're acusing me of being a socialist, then I could be as cliched as you and suggest you read The Road to Wigan Pier, also written in the 30's, I believe. York2000
  • Score: 3

10:42am Fri 4 Apr 14

The Great Buda says...

Zetkin wrote:
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Very well put.

Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum. The Great Buda
  • Score: 4

10:44am Fri 4 Apr 14

asd says...

For all those people who support the Tory and are pro- tax cuts for the rich and keep people on minimum wage, remember these are the right wingers WHO OPPOSED the MINIMUM wage! They would love to see people on £2:50 an hour so they could have cheap nannies to look after children so they could go to the city and screw up the economy and put us in to a recession and get rewarded for it. Remember it was the City of London Bankers who gambled on real estate in USA and put us in to recession.
For all those people who support the Tory and are pro- tax cuts for the rich and keep people on minimum wage, remember these are the right wingers WHO OPPOSED the MINIMUM wage! They would love to see people on £2:50 an hour so they could have cheap nannies to look after children so they could go to the city and screw up the economy and put us in to a recession and get rewarded for it. Remember it was the City of London Bankers who gambled on real estate in USA and put us in to recession. asd
  • Score: -1

10:46am Fri 4 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

Just think..... getting paid the living wage for spending most of thier working day on Facebook
Just think..... getting paid the living wage for spending most of thier working day on Facebook YorkPatrol
  • Score: -6

10:50am Fri 4 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

As important and emotive a subject as it is the living wage should not be used as a distraction story by Labour.

Yesterday, Anna Semylen's controversial 20MPH story, today Anna Semylen's living wage story.

Labour should stop the distraction stories and deal with the top agenda item (Lendal, Coppergate Fines), which after all is going to cost an awful lot of money and have a massive impact on what we can afford.
As important and emotive a subject as it is the living wage should not be used as a distraction story by Labour. Yesterday, Anna Semylen's controversial 20MPH story, today Anna Semylen's living wage story. Labour should stop the distraction stories and deal with the top agenda item (Lendal, Coppergate Fines), which after all is going to cost an awful lot of money and have a massive impact on what we can afford. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 5

10:57am Fri 4 Apr 14

courier46 says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
Just think..... getting paid the living wage for spending most of thier working day on Facebook
?????????????????
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: Just think..... getting paid the living wage for spending most of thier working day on Facebook[/p][/quote]????????????????? courier46
  • Score: 0

11:09am Fri 4 Apr 14

Knavesmire view says...

As a genuine question, the Labour budget included job cuts.

If the Council hadn't introduced the living wage and maintained the minimum wage, would it still have been necessary to cut jobs?
As a genuine question, the Labour budget included job cuts. If the Council hadn't introduced the living wage and maintained the minimum wage, would it still have been necessary to cut jobs? Knavesmire view
  • Score: 7

11:24am Fri 4 Apr 14

Eric Olthwaite says...

‘York2000 says...
If you're acusing me of being a socialist, then I could be as cliched as you and suggest you read The Road to Wigan Pier, also written in the 30's, I believe.’

Fully aware that Atlas Shrugged is fiction, I’m talking about the idea in it of the wealth generators in society just stopping creating wealth due to overly large attempts of removal of their wealth created by themselves and given to the non-wealth creators. Why should they bother anymore?

Maybe it’s their turn to live off others as others have been living off them for long enough!

However somebody has to pay the bill in the end!

I have read The Road to Wigan Pier as well as many others, including animal farm, big brother, the shock doctrine, no logo and many of the esteemed works be Noam Chomskey.

I am from the ‘Know your enemy’ school!
‘York2000 says... If you're acusing me of being a socialist, then I could be as cliched as you and suggest you read The Road to Wigan Pier, also written in the 30's, I believe.’ Fully aware that Atlas Shrugged is fiction, I’m talking about the idea in it of the wealth generators in society just stopping creating wealth due to overly large attempts of removal of their wealth created by themselves and given to the non-wealth creators. Why should they bother anymore? Maybe it’s their turn to live off others as others have been living off them for long enough! However somebody has to pay the bill in the end! I have read The Road to Wigan Pier as well as many others, including animal farm, big brother, the shock doctrine, no logo and many of the esteemed works be Noam Chomskey. I am from the ‘Know your enemy’ school! Eric Olthwaite
  • Score: 3

11:27am Fri 4 Apr 14

oldgoat says...

Eric Olthwaite wrote:
Perhaps if the current incumbents had not squandered so much of the councils resources/public’s money on vanity projects, Public Relations stunts/propaganda of how well they were doing when in reality they were cutting services and proven failed experiments like the closing of Lendal Bridge then there may have been a little left in the pot for this .

But only after actually delivering essential services that a council should deliver!

When the council leader James ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander fails to manage his own finances with any prudence what do you expect?


‘York2000 says...
Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.’

I would argue anybody who has worked hard, taken further education, made self-sacrifices to get a bit further up the greasy pole in life to make their life and that of their families stable, comfortable and sustainable by being careful and managing their money so have no debt and also ‘opposes a living wage’ is far from an idiot!

In my opinion someone who expects others to pay their way for them and expects others to carry them on their backs because they will not put in the same effort due to whatever excuse rather than reason are the idiots!

But don’t let me spoil your delusion that life is fair is wealth is taken from the creators of it and freely distributed to the not so wealthy, it is not and it’s up to you and only you to make the difference for yourself from being a relative success and having some pride or being the so called victims or people who are greedy and they have done it to the detriment of the lower end of society.

However socialists will never understand that.

Read Ayn Rands ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and you may just finally get it and that was written in the 1930’s!
I think you misunderstand things a little. May be you have to put yourself in some else's shoes, without any commentary, and think about it.
Consider - for whatever reason, you loose your job. You have a wife and kids to support. Perhaps she works. You struggle to find another job that will support you as you had before, but eventually get something that is only part time.
Thing is, its basic wage. Straight away, you've got bills to pay that take most of your pay. Now, if you were paid a 'living wage', you might just keep your head above water. You're not looking for a lot - you stripped out the bits of lifestyle you could afford before when you lost your job - but there are some things you need. So, its on to all the benefits you are entitled to, to help you survive.

With a 'living wage', you wouldn't need much of the extra help, so the drain from the national tax pot would reduce. Doesn't matter who pays your wages, as someone else has to buy the product or need the service for your job to be there. This isn't about 'expecting others to pay your way for you', since this isn't a choice thing.
[quote][p][bold]Eric Olthwaite[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if the current incumbents had not squandered so much of the councils resources/public’s money on vanity projects, Public Relations stunts/propaganda of how well they were doing when in reality they were cutting services and proven failed experiments like the closing of Lendal Bridge then there may have been a little left in the pot for this . But only after actually delivering essential services that a council should deliver! When the council leader James ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander fails to manage his own finances with any prudence what do you expect? ‘York2000 says... Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.’ I would argue anybody who has worked hard, taken further education, made self-sacrifices to get a bit further up the greasy pole in life to make their life and that of their families stable, comfortable and sustainable by being careful and managing their money so have no debt and also ‘opposes a living wage’ is far from an idiot! In my opinion someone who expects others to pay their way for them and expects others to carry them on their backs because they will not put in the same effort due to whatever excuse rather than reason are the idiots! But don’t let me spoil your delusion that life is fair is wealth is taken from the creators of it and freely distributed to the not so wealthy, it is not and it’s up to you and only you to make the difference for yourself from being a relative success and having some pride or being the so called victims or people who are greedy and they have done it to the detriment of the lower end of society. However socialists will never understand that. Read Ayn Rands ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and you may just finally get it and that was written in the 1930’s![/p][/quote]I think you misunderstand things a little. May be you have to put yourself in some else's shoes, without any commentary, and think about it. Consider - for whatever reason, you loose your job. You have a wife and kids to support. Perhaps she works. You struggle to find another job that will support you as you had before, but eventually get something that is only part time. Thing is, its basic wage. Straight away, you've got bills to pay that take most of your pay. Now, if you were paid a 'living wage', you might just keep your head above water. You're not looking for a lot - you stripped out the bits of lifestyle you could afford before when you lost your job - but there are some things you need. So, its on to all the benefits you are entitled to, to help you survive. With a 'living wage', you wouldn't need much of the extra help, so the drain from the national tax pot would reduce. Doesn't matter who pays your wages, as someone else has to buy the product or need the service for your job to be there. This isn't about 'expecting others to pay your way for you', since this isn't a choice thing. oldgoat
  • Score: 3

11:32am Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@Eric Olthwaite

Fany a pint? ;-)
@Eric Olthwaite Fany a pint? ;-) York2000
  • Score: -1

11:33am Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@Eric Olthwaite

Sorry - That was meant to say FANCY a pint? ;-)

Fany a pint? ;-)
@Eric Olthwaite Sorry - That was meant to say FANCY a pint? ;-) Fany a pint? ;-) York2000
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Fri 4 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

York2000 wrote:
Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.
Crikey, anybody that disagrees with you is 'an idiot'. Regardless of any reasons they may have?
You have really contributed to this debate!
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.[/p][/quote]Crikey, anybody that disagrees with you is 'an idiot'. Regardless of any reasons they may have? You have really contributed to this debate! eeoodares
  • Score: -1

12:30pm Fri 4 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

It is a basic concept of our system of Government, one Parliament can not bind the next. Why does this Labour council believe it has the right to do so?
It is a basic concept of our system of Government, one Parliament can not bind the next. Why does this Labour council believe it has the right to do so? eeoodares
  • Score: 1

12:55pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Stafford_Staff says...

The minimum wage is a joke, speaks volume of the Conservative party that they can't even commit to paying people a wage you can live on. They'd rather have people on poverty wages topped up with benefits.
The minimum wage is a joke, speaks volume of the Conservative party that they can't even commit to paying people a wage you can live on. They'd rather have people on poverty wages topped up with benefits. Stafford_Staff
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Micklegate says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Zetkin wrote:
Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer.

It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents.

The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Very well put.

Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.
If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.[/p][/quote]If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money. Micklegate
  • Score: 1

1:56pm Fri 4 Apr 14

YorkPatrol says...

courier46 wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote: Just think..... getting paid the living wage for spending most of thier working day on Facebook
?????????????????
There was a report published not so long back showing the council office staffs internet usages figures and the sites accessed.

The results showed that in a given working day staff actually only did one hour’s actual work – the rest was spent surfing the web

I’ll try and dig out the report
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: Just think..... getting paid the living wage for spending most of thier working day on Facebook[/p][/quote]?????????????????[/p][/quote]There was a report published not so long back showing the council office staffs internet usages figures and the sites accessed. The results showed that in a given working day staff actually only did one hour’s actual work – the rest was spent surfing the web I’ll try and dig out the report YorkPatrol
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Eric Olthwaite wrote:
Perhaps if the current incumbents had not squandered so much of the councils resources/public’s money on vanity projects, Public Relations stunts/propaganda of how well they were doing when in reality they were cutting services and proven failed experiments like the closing of Lendal Bridge then there may have been a little left in the pot for this . But only after actually delivering essential services that a council should deliver! When the council leader James ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander fails to manage his own finances with any prudence what do you expect? ‘York2000 says... Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.’ I would argue anybody who has worked hard, taken further education, made self-sacrifices to get a bit further up the greasy pole in life to make their life and that of their families stable, comfortable and sustainable by being careful and managing their money so have no debt and also ‘opposes a living wage’ is far from an idiot! In my opinion someone who expects others to pay their way for them and expects others to carry them on their backs because they will not put in the same effort due to whatever excuse rather than reason are the idiots! But don’t let me spoil your delusion that life is fair is wealth is taken from the creators of it and freely distributed to the not so wealthy, it is not and it’s up to you and only you to make the difference for yourself from being a relative success and having some pride or being the so called victims or people who are greedy and they have done it to the detriment of the lower end of society. However socialists will never understand that. Read Ayn Rands ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and you may just finally get it and that was written in the 1930’s!
Well said Sir.

I am John Galt !

Atlas Shrugged - a lesson in objectivism !

BTW - note how the marxist hard left are hijacking certain sectors of society to control these in homage to Ayn Rand's philosophy.
[quote][p][bold]Eric Olthwaite[/bold] wrote: Perhaps if the current incumbents had not squandered so much of the councils resources/public’s money on vanity projects, Public Relations stunts/propaganda of how well they were doing when in reality they were cutting services and proven failed experiments like the closing of Lendal Bridge then there may have been a little left in the pot for this . But only after actually delivering essential services that a council should deliver! When the council leader James ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander fails to manage his own finances with any prudence what do you expect? ‘York2000 says... Imagine wanting to earn a decent wage to provide for you and your family eh. Anyone who opposes a living wage is an idiot, and you could probably hazard a guess earning a lot more than the living wage.’ I would argue anybody who has worked hard, taken further education, made self-sacrifices to get a bit further up the greasy pole in life to make their life and that of their families stable, comfortable and sustainable by being careful and managing their money so have no debt and also ‘opposes a living wage’ is far from an idiot! In my opinion someone who expects others to pay their way for them and expects others to carry them on their backs because they will not put in the same effort due to whatever excuse rather than reason are the idiots! But don’t let me spoil your delusion that life is fair is wealth is taken from the creators of it and freely distributed to the not so wealthy, it is not and it’s up to you and only you to make the difference for yourself from being a relative success and having some pride or being the so called victims or people who are greedy and they have done it to the detriment of the lower end of society. However socialists will never understand that. Read Ayn Rands ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and you may just finally get it and that was written in the 1930’s![/p][/quote]Well said Sir. I am John Galt ! Atlas Shrugged - a lesson in objectivism ! BTW - note how the marxist hard left are hijacking certain sectors of society to control these in homage to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -82

2:48pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
@ Eric Olthwaite Also, I have indeed read Atlas Shrugged. You do realise 1. It's fiction. Try reading Too Big to Fail and The Big Short instead if you want to form an opinion of who is carrying anyone on anyone's backs. 2. Rand believed in super wealth stamping on everyone else - Which probably does include stamping on you. 3. Rand actually used the welfare state to receive healthcare and 'welfare' money whilst claiming to want an end to the welfare state. 4. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand states the 'Ultimate Horror' is state regulation of business. Now, we all know the consiquences of the state not regulating business enough - The very people Rand trumpets have caused and profited from an unprecedented financial meltdown, and state non-manegement. If you're acusing me of being a socialist, then I could be as cliched as you and suggest you read The Road to Wigan Pier, also written in the 30's, I believe.
A conveniently skewed interpretation.

Anything to hide the communist agenda !
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: @ Eric Olthwaite Also, I have indeed read Atlas Shrugged. You do realise 1. It's fiction. Try reading Too Big to Fail and The Big Short instead if you want to form an opinion of who is carrying anyone on anyone's backs. 2. Rand believed in super wealth stamping on everyone else - Which probably does include stamping on you. 3. Rand actually used the welfare state to receive healthcare and 'welfare' money whilst claiming to want an end to the welfare state. 4. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand states the 'Ultimate Horror' is state regulation of business. Now, we all know the consiquences of the state not regulating business enough - The very people Rand trumpets have caused and profited from an unprecedented financial meltdown, and state non-manegement. If you're acusing me of being a socialist, then I could be as cliched as you and suggest you read The Road to Wigan Pier, also written in the 30's, I believe.[/p][/quote]A conveniently skewed interpretation. Anything to hide the communist agenda ! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -79

2:52pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

eeoodares wrote:
It is a basic concept of our system of Government, one Parliament can not bind the next. Why does this Labour council believe it has the right to do so?
Quite so....

Beware the words of H L Mencken:-

"The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: It is a basic concept of our system of Government, one Parliament can not bind the next. Why does this Labour council believe it has the right to do so?[/p][/quote]Quite so.... Beware the words of H L Mencken:- "The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." Badgers Drift
  • Score: -77

3:06pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Micklegate wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Zetkin wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.
If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.
The point these people conveniently miss, Micklegate, is that increasing wages in the private sector drives up prices, or puts businesses out of business. Their thinking is, and here's the truth of the matter (their plot/plan), that it will erode/reduce - and here's that nasty word - PROFIT !

So here we are, higher prices, less jobs, fewer businesses, reduced profits, reduced taxation.

Then there is the public sector. Paid out of tax revenues. With less profit and less jobs, there is less tax, this means less to pay the public sector, so they shed jobs, and we end up with less services.

These are the consequences in the real world.

Of course, the hard left don't live in the real world. They don't understand business, they hate capitalism and hate profit, and have never worked in business or run a business. They are ideologists, fanatics, dictators. They believe in moneytree economics.

Their plans for a living wage is a political construct. It's that gradualist approach of the fabians, edging ever further towards their marxist utopia, which in reality is a living hell. Just look at North Korea for gods sake - that is where they would have us be !
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.[/p][/quote]If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.[/p][/quote]The point these people conveniently miss, Micklegate, is that increasing wages in the private sector drives up prices, or puts businesses out of business. Their thinking is, and here's the truth of the matter (their plot/plan), that it will erode/reduce - and here's that nasty word - PROFIT ! So here we are, higher prices, less jobs, fewer businesses, reduced profits, reduced taxation. Then there is the public sector. Paid out of tax revenues. With less profit and less jobs, there is less tax, this means less to pay the public sector, so they shed jobs, and we end up with less services. These are the consequences in the real world. Of course, the hard left don't live in the real world. They don't understand business, they hate capitalism and hate profit, and have never worked in business or run a business. They are ideologists, fanatics, dictators. They believe in moneytree economics. Their plans for a living wage is a political construct. It's that gradualist approach of the fabians, edging ever further towards their marxist utopia, which in reality is a living hell. Just look at North Korea for gods sake - that is where they would have us be ! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -77

3:26pm Fri 4 Apr 14

pbrowne2009@live.co.uk says...

I think the 'Living Wage' is a fantastic idea, i think everyone should be in a position to be on an affordable living wage when working full time to differ those who choose not to work (that get by more than ok) and those who spend all day grafting.

HOWEVER.......... and a Big however, I would personally feel very under valued and underpaid as a full time IT Technician if I knew that someone sweeping the streets on the 'Living Wage' was earning (without disclosing my wage) £1.20ph less than myself. The margin would be too narrow for the page grade and I would probably find myself looking for a street sweeping job.
I think the 'Living Wage' is a fantastic idea, i think everyone should be in a position to be on an affordable living wage when working full time to differ those who choose not to work (that get by more than ok) and those who spend all day grafting. HOWEVER.......... and a Big however, I would personally feel very under valued and underpaid as a full time IT Technician if I knew that someone sweeping the streets on the 'Living Wage' was earning (without disclosing my wage) £1.20ph less than myself. The margin would be too narrow for the page grade and I would probably find myself looking for a street sweeping job. pbrowne2009@live.co.uk
  • Score: 4

4:12pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Diogenes2 says...

nowthen wrote:
The living wage is nothing more than an opportunity for James Alexander to grandstand and big himself up on his Twitter pad.. Any idiot can spend other people's money like confetti. Ask him one on Lendal bridge and he vanishes .
I agree.
Anything Alexander says must be taken with a massive of salt.
Two-fork-tongue man.
Now he is trying to distract the people from the real matter, Lendal Bridge mess and the latest that the Bridge scheme is lawful, according to "the legal" team told the council.
Are not the so-called legal team part of the council's empire, anyway?
The living wage is a smoke screen, Alexander. Do not care one iota about the poorly paid council workers in York. Dumping many of them into the scarp heap is morally wrong. But then, does York City Council care about morals. real morals?
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: The living wage is nothing more than an opportunity for James Alexander to grandstand and big himself up on his Twitter pad.. Any idiot can spend other people's money like confetti. Ask him one on Lendal bridge and he vanishes .[/p][/quote]I agree. Anything Alexander says must be taken with a massive of salt. Two-fork-tongue man. Now he is trying to distract the people from the real matter, Lendal Bridge mess and the latest that the Bridge scheme is lawful, according to "the legal" team told the council. Are not the so-called legal team part of the council's empire, anyway? The living wage is a smoke screen, Alexander. Do not care one iota about the poorly paid council workers in York. Dumping many of them into the scarp heap is morally wrong. But then, does York City Council care about morals. real morals? Diogenes2
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@ Badgers Drift

You really are not John Galt. And any argument about the disaster of increasing wages was lost when the minimum wage came in.

It's really not that 'communist' to pay people enough.

And anyway what's with the Marxist, hard left, ideologists, fanatics, dictators, communist nonsense? You do realise you sound silly.
@ Badgers Drift You really are not John Galt. And any argument about the disaster of increasing wages was lost when the minimum wage came in. It's really not that 'communist' to pay people enough. And anyway what's with the Marxist, hard left, ideologists, fanatics, dictators, communist nonsense? You do realise you sound silly. York2000
  • Score: 3

6:14pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
@ Badgers Drift You really are not John Galt. And any argument about the disaster of increasing wages was lost when the minimum wage came in. It's really not that 'communist' to pay people enough. And anyway what's with the Marxist, hard left, ideologists, fanatics, dictators, communist nonsense? You do realise you sound silly.
and you Sir, are not Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Carpenter, Davidson, Ellis or Podmore otherwise people might fall for your rhetoric, because if they did not, we all know what fate as dissenters would fall upon us!

Belittle me all you like. I am not silly, I am informed, and well read.

There is a growing movement (cell) operating in York. This cultural, political elitist cult, hide behind a thin veil of faux legitimacy. The mask is slipping, and these charletons will be exposed. Beware the third way.

All doubters should not only read Rand, but, should also research the New World Order, Agenda 21 and the MacBride report.

Hollande's France is where will will be, if Miliband is allowed to suceed.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: @ Badgers Drift You really are not John Galt. And any argument about the disaster of increasing wages was lost when the minimum wage came in. It's really not that 'communist' to pay people enough. And anyway what's with the Marxist, hard left, ideologists, fanatics, dictators, communist nonsense? You do realise you sound silly.[/p][/quote]and you Sir, are not Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Carpenter, Davidson, Ellis or Podmore otherwise people might fall for your rhetoric, because if they did not, we all know what fate as dissenters would fall upon us! Belittle me all you like. I am not silly, I am informed, and well read. There is a growing movement (cell) operating in York. This cultural, political elitist cult, hide behind a thin veil of faux legitimacy. The mask is slipping, and these charletons will be exposed. Beware the third way. All doubters should not only read Rand, but, should also research the New World Order, Agenda 21 and the MacBride report. Hollande's France is where will will be, if Miliband is allowed to suceed. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -81

7:27pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge.
The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 7

8:26pm Fri 4 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@Badgers Drift

The red flag will be flying over York very soon eh? Brilliant. Badger, you're a giggle.
@Badgers Drift The red flag will be flying over York very soon eh? Brilliant. Badger, you're a giggle. York2000
  • Score: 7

10:06pm Fri 4 Apr 14

perplexed says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Micklegate wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Zetkin wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.
If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.
The point these people conveniently miss, Micklegate, is that increasing wages in the private sector drives up prices, or puts businesses out of business. Their thinking is, and here's the truth of the matter (their plot/plan), that it will erode/reduce - and here's that nasty word - PROFIT !

So here we are, higher prices, less jobs, fewer businesses, reduced profits, reduced taxation.

Then there is the public sector. Paid out of tax revenues. With less profit and less jobs, there is less tax, this means less to pay the public sector, so they shed jobs, and we end up with less services.

These are the consequences in the real world.

Of course, the hard left don't live in the real world. They don't understand business, they hate capitalism and hate profit, and have never worked in business or run a business. They are ideologists, fanatics, dictators. They believe in moneytree economics.

Their plans for a living wage is a political construct. It's that gradualist approach of the fabians, edging ever further towards their marxist utopia, which in reality is a living hell. Just look at North Korea for gods sake - that is where they would have us be !
No doubt the 'priority investors' who broke their 'gentleman's' agreement with Vince Cable over the privatisation of Royal Mail, deserved the massive profits they made at Public Expense! Like the NAO, personally I do not think they deserve it . Does that make me a closet marxist, hardly !

Conspiracies aside, what is needed is a little less ideology and more pragmatism.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.[/p][/quote]If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.[/p][/quote]The point these people conveniently miss, Micklegate, is that increasing wages in the private sector drives up prices, or puts businesses out of business. Their thinking is, and here's the truth of the matter (their plot/plan), that it will erode/reduce - and here's that nasty word - PROFIT ! So here we are, higher prices, less jobs, fewer businesses, reduced profits, reduced taxation. Then there is the public sector. Paid out of tax revenues. With less profit and less jobs, there is less tax, this means less to pay the public sector, so they shed jobs, and we end up with less services. These are the consequences in the real world. Of course, the hard left don't live in the real world. They don't understand business, they hate capitalism and hate profit, and have never worked in business or run a business. They are ideologists, fanatics, dictators. They believe in moneytree economics. Their plans for a living wage is a political construct. It's that gradualist approach of the fabians, edging ever further towards their marxist utopia, which in reality is a living hell. Just look at North Korea for gods sake - that is where they would have us be ![/p][/quote]No doubt the 'priority investors' who broke their 'gentleman's' agreement with Vince Cable over the privatisation of Royal Mail, deserved the massive profits they made at Public Expense! Like the NAO, personally I do not think they deserve it . Does that make me a closet marxist, hardly ! Conspiracies aside, what is needed is a little less ideology and more pragmatism. perplexed
  • Score: 2

12:31am Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

perplexed wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Micklegate wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Zetkin wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.
Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.
If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.
The point these people conveniently miss, Micklegate, is that increasing wages in the private sector drives up prices, or puts businesses out of business. Their thinking is, and here's the truth of the matter (their plot/plan), that it will erode/reduce - and here's that nasty word - PROFIT ! So here we are, higher prices, less jobs, fewer businesses, reduced profits, reduced taxation. Then there is the public sector. Paid out of tax revenues. With less profit and less jobs, there is less tax, this means less to pay the public sector, so they shed jobs, and we end up with less services. These are the consequences in the real world. Of course, the hard left don't live in the real world. They don't understand business, they hate capitalism and hate profit, and have never worked in business or run a business. They are ideologists, fanatics, dictators. They believe in moneytree economics. Their plans for a living wage is a political construct. It's that gradualist approach of the fabians, edging ever further towards their marxist utopia, which in reality is a living hell. Just look at North Korea for gods sake - that is where they would have us be !
No doubt the 'priority investors' who broke their 'gentleman's' agreement with Vince Cable over the privatisation of Royal Mail, deserved the massive profits they made at Public Expense! Like the NAO, personally I do not think they deserve it . Does that make me a closet marxist, hardly ! Conspiracies aside, what is needed is a little less ideology and more pragmatism.
Selling off a state asset at an unintentionally discounted or undervalued price through a share offer, which gives rise to a capital gain to investors, is not a profit from a business transaction. This has nothing to do with the impact of a living wage, and is out of context.

The marxist shills (fifth columnists) are in many public, third sector and (NGO's, charities, CIC's ) organisations, acting in a 'common purpose' and subverting democracy using disruptive strategies. They are increasingly targetting the young to influence, cultivate and indoctrinate them with their ideologies. I urge citizens to pay attention to, and question the reasons for the involvement of schools in certain sectors activities and initiatives. Look out for any signs that these 'initiatives' are using social engineering to change beliefs and behaviour.

Those who know that this is not a conspiracy theory, will label it as being exactly that. That well known quotation from Hamlet comes to mind, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
,
[quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Workers receiving the Living Wage are far less likely to need to claim tax credits, housing benefit, etc, which in turn means they are LESS of a "burden" on the taxpayer. It's also worth remembering what the Tories don't want to know - that Living Wage earners are also taxpayers. Indeed many of them will pay more than the tax-dodging millionaires the Conservative Party represents. The likes of Joe Watt and Chris Steward may have faith in the system, but I'll wager neither of them has ever had to try and survive on the minimum wage or less as many of their constituents do.[/p][/quote]Very well put. Its a national disgrace that the Tax Payer is constantly having to top up the wages of people on the minimum wage. Everybody should be paid the Living Wage as the bare minimum.[/p][/quote]If 'everybody' should be paid the Living Wage all you are arguing for is the Minimum Wage to be increased. The government has increased the minimum wage so I assume you welcome that. Out of interest as you are always so keen to spend other people's money can you inform us all how many people you currently give jobs to? Or are you another for whom the answer is 0, yet rather than praise those that give people jobs and a chance to better themselves you want to sit back judgementally on what you think they should do with their and their company's money.[/p][/quote]The point these people conveniently miss, Micklegate, is that increasing wages in the private sector drives up prices, or puts businesses out of business. Their thinking is, and here's the truth of the matter (their plot/plan), that it will erode/reduce - and here's that nasty word - PROFIT ! So here we are, higher prices, less jobs, fewer businesses, reduced profits, reduced taxation. Then there is the public sector. Paid out of tax revenues. With less profit and less jobs, there is less tax, this means less to pay the public sector, so they shed jobs, and we end up with less services. These are the consequences in the real world. Of course, the hard left don't live in the real world. They don't understand business, they hate capitalism and hate profit, and have never worked in business or run a business. They are ideologists, fanatics, dictators. They believe in moneytree economics. Their plans for a living wage is a political construct. It's that gradualist approach of the fabians, edging ever further towards their marxist utopia, which in reality is a living hell. Just look at North Korea for gods sake - that is where they would have us be ![/p][/quote]No doubt the 'priority investors' who broke their 'gentleman's' agreement with Vince Cable over the privatisation of Royal Mail, deserved the massive profits they made at Public Expense! Like the NAO, personally I do not think they deserve it . Does that make me a closet marxist, hardly ! Conspiracies aside, what is needed is a little less ideology and more pragmatism.[/p][/quote]Selling off a state asset at an unintentionally discounted or undervalued price through a share offer, which gives rise to a capital gain to investors, is not a profit from a business transaction. This has nothing to do with the impact of a living wage, and is out of context. The marxist shills (fifth columnists) are in many public, third sector and (NGO's, charities, CIC's ) organisations, acting in a 'common purpose' and subverting democracy using disruptive strategies. They are increasingly targetting the young to influence, cultivate and indoctrinate them with their ideologies. I urge citizens to pay attention to, and question the reasons for the involvement of schools in certain sectors activities and initiatives. Look out for any signs that these 'initiatives' are using social engineering to change beliefs and behaviour. Those who know that this is not a conspiracy theory, will label it as being exactly that. That well known quotation from Hamlet comes to mind, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" , Badgers Drift
  • Score: -281

12:41am Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
@Badgers Drift The red flag will be flying over York very soon eh? Brilliant. Badger, you're a giggle.
It is flying high in many quarters of York society, albeit behind closed doors, in not so secret societies.

The problem is most people don't have the time and inclination to look into it. Others, who know it exists, and want to protect it, do as you do, mock, make fun of, or label those who are exposing it.

The increasing politicisation of charities, and their collaboration with the public sector, exerting influence and bringing about undemocratic changes, is well in evidence in York, and the LCR!!
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: @Badgers Drift The red flag will be flying over York very soon eh? Brilliant. Badger, you're a giggle.[/p][/quote]It is flying high in many quarters of York society, albeit behind closed doors, in not so secret societies. The problem is most people don't have the time and inclination to look into it. Others, who know it exists, and want to protect it, do as you do, mock, make fun of, or label those who are exposing it. The increasing politicisation of charities, and their collaboration with the public sector, exerting influence and bringing about undemocratic changes, is well in evidence in York, and the LCR!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -270

12:49am Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks.

You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice.

Res ipsa loquitur !
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur ! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -280

1:03am Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

York2000 wrote:
@ Badgers Drift You really are not John Galt. And any argument about the disaster of increasing wages was lost when the minimum wage came in. It's really not that 'communist' to pay people enough. And anyway what's with the Marxist, hard left, ideologists, fanatics, dictators, communist nonsense? You do realise you sound silly.
It wasn't really that 'communist' to bring in the minimum wage.....

Now it isn't really that 'communist' to bring in the lving wage.......

What next ?

The gradualist approach of the fabian marxists, edging ever further towards 'equality', whilst liberty is eroded and control by an oppressive, totalitarian regime becomes a reality.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: @ Badgers Drift You really are not John Galt. And any argument about the disaster of increasing wages was lost when the minimum wage came in. It's really not that 'communist' to pay people enough. And anyway what's with the Marxist, hard left, ideologists, fanatics, dictators, communist nonsense? You do realise you sound silly.[/p][/quote]It wasn't really that 'communist' to bring in the minimum wage..... Now it isn't really that 'communist' to bring in the lving wage....... What next ? The gradualist approach of the fabian marxists, edging ever further towards 'equality', whilst liberty is eroded and control by an oppressive, totalitarian regime becomes a reality. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -274

1:16am Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ?

They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower.

The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -269

2:51am Sat 5 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

The Liberal Democrats and Greens voted to keep the wage, while the Conservatives abstained.


Oh what a suprise, what a ****ing suprise.

Conservative councillor Joe Watt, while not speaking for his group's policy, did not support the living wage, saying: "We should follow the policy of Government, which sets the minimum wage, and have faith in that system rather than putting another tax burden on the people of York - this is old-fashioned trade unionism to get one pay rise after another"


A wannabe David Cameron if ever I heard of one... "Let's not pay people the higher wage they actually NEED, but pay them the lower wage our tory government sets, because that helps our friends in big buisnesses pay out less money to other people". A few weeks ago there were calls on the Tories to raise the minimum wage by at least £1 per hour - George Osbourne raised it by only 50p; THIS is the type of person who is made welcom in the Tories, a person who is told of the needs of "the common man" and then willfully chooses to ignore them... and should any group of people tell them they need to consider raising the level of wages for workers, they reply by saying its "Trade Unionism" and "Old Fashioned"!

The Minimum Wage was introduced as a base-level threashold, the lowest that any person should be paid... what it has become is A TARGET - many companies (especially the big companies with massive profits who can afford to do otherwise) simply see the Minimum Wage and try to see just how many people on unskilled or skilled job roles they can put on NMW and get away without so as not to pay them any more than they have to.

If you want something that IS old fashioned, what about the English Working Week... Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm with an hour unpaid break, 40 hours a week... during that time whilst everybody is working, shops are open (of which the working people cannot get to in order to buy the things they need, because they are working), postal delivers and couriers attempt to deliver mail and parcels (which they then cannot because the working people are out working), and helplines for various goods and services only operate between those times... whilst when you finally get time to do some home improvement, you get to B&Q at 3.30pm on a sunday only to find out they close in 30 minutes time, because they opened at 10am for a 'browsing hour' where no money can be taken but the shop can only stay open for 6 hours that day....
Why not try something radical - why not re-address the work-life balance and have a 4-day working week? Perhaps extend hours to 8am-6pm, thereby only losing 3 hours a week... BUT that lost time will more than likely be made up by a reduction in absent staff on a monday - because less days at work mean people will feel a lesser need to go binge drinking on a weekend only to have a massive hangover on monday. It is highly likely our archaic system where people are overworked and underpaid is leading to reduced productivity - but because those who set the rules are still in that archaic mindset, they refuse to see that a change would actually bring more benefits to people.
[quote]The Liberal Democrats and Greens voted to keep the wage, while the Conservatives abstained. [/quote] Oh what a suprise, what a ****ing suprise. [quote]Conservative councillor Joe Watt, while not speaking for his group's policy, did not support the living wage, saying: "We should follow the policy of Government, which sets the minimum wage, and have faith in that system rather than putting another tax burden on the people of York - this is old-fashioned trade unionism to get one pay rise after another"[/quote] A wannabe David Cameron if ever I heard of one... "Let's not pay people the higher wage they actually NEED, but pay them the lower wage our tory government sets, because that helps our friends in big buisnesses pay out less money to other people". A few weeks ago there were calls on the Tories to raise the minimum wage by at least £1 per hour - George Osbourne raised it by only 50p; THIS is the type of person who is made welcom in the Tories, a person who is told of the needs of "the common man" and then willfully chooses to ignore them... and should any group of people tell them they need to consider raising the level of wages for workers, they reply by saying its "Trade Unionism" and "Old Fashioned"! The Minimum Wage was introduced as a base-level threashold, the lowest that any person should be paid... what it has become is A TARGET - many companies (especially the big companies with massive profits who can afford to do otherwise) simply see the Minimum Wage and try to see just how many people on unskilled or skilled job roles they can put on NMW and get away without so as not to pay them any more than they have to. If you want something that IS old fashioned, what about the English Working Week... Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm with an hour unpaid break, 40 hours a week... during that time whilst everybody is working, shops are open (of which the working people cannot get to in order to buy the things they need, because they are working), postal delivers and couriers attempt to deliver mail and parcels (which they then cannot because the working people are out working), and helplines for various goods and services only operate between those times... whilst when you finally get time to do some home improvement, you get to B&Q at 3.30pm on a sunday only to find out they close in 30 minutes time, because they opened at 10am for a 'browsing hour' where no money can be taken but the shop can only stay open for 6 hours that day.... Why not try something radical - why not re-address the work-life balance and have a 4-day working week? Perhaps extend hours to 8am-6pm, thereby only losing 3 hours a week... BUT that lost time will more than likely be made up by a reduction in absent staff on a monday - because less days at work mean people will feel a lesser need to go binge drinking on a weekend only to have a massive hangover on monday. It is highly likely our archaic system where people are overworked and underpaid is leading to reduced productivity - but because those who set the rules are still in that archaic mindset, they refuse to see that a change would actually bring more benefits to people. Magicman!
  • Score: -3

7:44am Sat 5 Apr 14

York2000 says...

@Badgers Drift - Indeed. Those pesky commies are everywhere. They pass you in the street, they are your colleagues at work, they watch you while you sleep.....
@Badgers Drift - Indeed. Those pesky commies are everywhere. They pass you in the street, they are your colleagues at work, they watch you while you sleep..... York2000
  • Score: 6

9:14am Sat 5 Apr 14

perplexed says...

"Selling off a state asset at an unintentionally discounted or undervalued price through a share offer, which gives rise to a capital gain to investors, is not a profit from a business transaction."

When is a profit not a profit , clearly when the banks make a huge amount of money at public expense.No doubt their shareholders will be saddened as it will show in their 2013 annual accounts as a 'loss'.

As to 'marxist conspiracies' , clearly these unseen forces have done a very poor job of keeping a low profile as it is plain as a day to the likes of your good self. In a democracy you are entitled your opinions, but they are just that opinions ( like my own ) , the danger comes when they venture into the like of a modern day McCarthyism.
"Selling off a state asset at an unintentionally discounted or undervalued price through a share offer, which gives rise to a capital gain to investors, is not a profit from a business transaction." When is a profit not a profit , clearly when the banks make a huge amount of money at public expense.No doubt their shareholders will be saddened as it will show in their 2013 annual accounts as a 'loss'. As to 'marxist conspiracies' , clearly these unseen forces have done a very poor job of keeping a low profile as it is plain as a day to the likes of your good self. In a democracy you are entitled your opinions, but they are just that opinions ( like my own ) , the danger comes when they venture into the like of a modern day McCarthyism. perplexed
  • Score: 4

10:39am Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

perplexed wrote:
"Selling off a state asset at an unintentionally discounted or undervalued price through a share offer, which gives rise to a capital gain to investors, is not a profit from a business transaction." When is a profit not a profit , clearly when the banks make a huge amount of money at public expense.No doubt their shareholders will be saddened as it will show in their 2013 annual accounts as a 'loss'. As to 'marxist conspiracies' , clearly these unseen forces have done a very poor job of keeping a low profile as it is plain as a day to the likes of your good self. In a democracy you are entitled your opinions, but they are just that opinions ( like my own ) , the danger comes when they venture into the like of a modern day McCarthyism.
Running a business which provides services, manufactures goods, produces food, builds houses, constructs roads, factories etc and those involved in wholesaling or retailing, are different to one off share trading transaction in a former state owned entity.

Punishing all forms of business through regulatory interference, with the intention of eradicating profit, and then bringing about the end of property rights and all forms of freedoms enjoyed in a civilised free market capitalist libertarian society is EVIL !

When a certain high profile public servant repeatedly laments the losses of marxists, acknowledging the impact of their teachings, then colludes with a marxist who whilst running a so-called charity for science technology and the arts, continues to speak out around the world against the brutal, war-like, destructive, predatory capitalism, and seeks to use the Third Sector to eradicate it, what other proof do you need ? Then there is the network of similar fanatics/followers who are all linked to said public servant and involved im many publicly funded collaborations using public assets - its happening, believe me, or not!
[quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: "Selling off a state asset at an unintentionally discounted or undervalued price through a share offer, which gives rise to a capital gain to investors, is not a profit from a business transaction." When is a profit not a profit , clearly when the banks make a huge amount of money at public expense.No doubt their shareholders will be saddened as it will show in their 2013 annual accounts as a 'loss'. As to 'marxist conspiracies' , clearly these unseen forces have done a very poor job of keeping a low profile as it is plain as a day to the likes of your good self. In a democracy you are entitled your opinions, but they are just that opinions ( like my own ) , the danger comes when they venture into the like of a modern day McCarthyism.[/p][/quote]Running a business which provides services, manufactures goods, produces food, builds houses, constructs roads, factories etc and those involved in wholesaling or retailing, are different to one off share trading transaction in a former state owned entity. Punishing all forms of business through regulatory interference, with the intention of eradicating profit, and then bringing about the end of property rights and all forms of freedoms enjoyed in a civilised free market capitalist libertarian society is EVIL ! When a certain high profile public servant repeatedly laments the losses of marxists, acknowledging the impact of their teachings, then colludes with a marxist who whilst running a so-called charity for science technology and the arts, continues to speak out around the world against the brutal, war-like, destructive, predatory capitalism, and seeks to use the Third Sector to eradicate it, what other proof do you need ? Then there is the network of similar fanatics/followers who are all linked to said public servant and involved im many publicly funded collaborations using public assets - its happening, believe me, or not! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -5

11:36am Sat 5 Apr 14

mitch2nd says...

Excuse me but no one pays me any money towards my cost of living, why should I pay towards council workers cost of living, get a better job if you cant manage, out of order
Excuse me but no one pays me any money towards my cost of living, why should I pay towards council workers cost of living, get a better job if you cant manage, out of order mitch2nd
  • Score: -1

1:35pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks.

You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice.

Res ipsa loquitur !
Rational and balanced?!
Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought!

Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years.

More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc.

The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us."
No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory.
I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur ![/p][/quote]Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 9

1:41pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ?

They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower.

The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?
Another "well if you believe that then..." moment!

Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse.
You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads.
You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order.

I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly.
It's classic.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 7

4:09pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Compo238 says...

A few issues here, until they take the millionaires dodging tax out and string them up, we the public should support our local workers! The introduction of the minimum wage was the green light for most employers to think that was the pay for all jobs, no thought for the effort and sweat of workers in the variety of employment. Finally it is time local councillors were independent of the main political parties thus removing bland useless misguided main stream thinking.
A few issues here, until they take the millionaires dodging tax out and string them up, we the public should support our local workers! The introduction of the minimum wage was the green light for most employers to think that was the pay for all jobs, no thought for the effort and sweat of workers in the variety of employment. Finally it is time local councillors were independent of the main political parties thus removing bland useless misguided main stream thinking. Compo238
  • Score: 3

1:13am Tue 8 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?
Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.
Off the wall, as usual.

But, there is no evidence.....
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.[/p][/quote]Off the wall, as usual. But, there is no evidence..... Badgers Drift
  • Score: -3

1:25am Tue 8 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur !
Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.
Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy !

It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators.

The FACTS:-

Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine.

Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine.

These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur ![/p][/quote]Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.[/p][/quote]Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy ! It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators. The FACTS:- Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine. Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine. These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -3

9:39pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?
Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.
Off the wall, as usual.

But, there is no evidence.....
If someone as dogmatic and disrespectful as you says I'm "off the wall" then I'm happy. You think I differ from you? Then I'm very happy for that differentiation. I'd hate to be as closed and as dogmatic and as single-minded and as nasty as you.
I'd hate to be like you.

I'm also happy you can't answer the valid criticisms and observations. Be as glib as you want. It says a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean by evidence and exactly what evidence you mean but speaking of evidence it is definitely suspicious that when searching this website's archives for all those tedious and long-winded affordable housing debates and all those old Matthew Laverack and Paul Cordock letters, all of a sudden they have no comments? All those invented multiple IDs all those 60, 70, 80 comments "look we're on the front page!" and all of that contrived fake "get the numbers up to raise the profile" crap is gone?

How'd you do it? Who do you know?
Ha! You know know what - don't answer that. No-one cares. You know why they don't care? Because excision and censorship and redaction is *bent*
And for every time a councillor or a newspaper has been accused of bending it to suit their agenda, then those that accuse - and that means *you* - they must lead by example, they must show their impeccable nature.
And you can't. You are just as guilty, just as compromised. And well you know it. Despite all your bluster.

Low.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.[/p][/quote]Off the wall, as usual. But, there is no evidence.....[/p][/quote]If someone as dogmatic and disrespectful as you says I'm "off the wall" then I'm happy. You think I differ from you? Then I'm very happy for that differentiation. I'd hate to be as closed and as dogmatic and as single-minded and as nasty as you. I'd hate to be like you. I'm also happy you can't answer the valid criticisms and observations. Be as glib as you want. It says a lot. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence and exactly what evidence you mean but speaking of evidence it is definitely suspicious that when searching this website's archives for all those tedious and long-winded affordable housing debates and all those old Matthew Laverack and Paul Cordock letters, all of a sudden they have no comments? All those invented multiple IDs all those 60, 70, 80 comments "look we're on the front page!" and all of that contrived fake "get the numbers up to raise the profile" crap is gone? How'd you do it? Who do you know? Ha! You know know what - don't answer that. No-one cares. You know why they don't care? Because excision and censorship and redaction is *bent* And for every time a councillor or a newspaper has been accused of bending it to suit their agenda, then those that accuse - and that means *you* - they must lead by example, they must show their impeccable nature. And you can't. You are just as guilty, just as compromised. And well you know it. Despite all your bluster. Low. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 4

9:43pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur !
Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.
Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy !

It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators.

The FACTS:-

Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine.

Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine.

These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.
Dogma.
Yawn.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur ![/p][/quote]Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.[/p][/quote]Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy ! It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators. The FACTS:- Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine. Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine. These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.[/p][/quote]Dogma. Yawn. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 3

1:07am Wed 9 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur !
Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.
Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy ! It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators. The FACTS:- Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine. Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine. These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.
Dogma. Yawn.
Is that all you can offer ?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur ![/p][/quote]Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.[/p][/quote]Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy ! It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators. The FACTS:- Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine. Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine. These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.[/p][/quote]Dogma. Yawn.[/p][/quote]Is that all you can offer ? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -2

1:34am Wed 9 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?
Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.
Off the wall, as usual. But, there is no evidence.....
If someone as dogmatic and disrespectful as you says I'm "off the wall" then I'm happy. You think I differ from you? Then I'm very happy for that differentiation. I'd hate to be as closed and as dogmatic and as single-minded and as nasty as you. I'd hate to be like you. I'm also happy you can't answer the valid criticisms and observations. Be as glib as you want. It says a lot. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence and exactly what evidence you mean but speaking of evidence it is definitely suspicious that when searching this website's archives for all those tedious and long-winded affordable housing debates and all those old Matthew Laverack and Paul Cordock letters, all of a sudden they have no comments? All those invented multiple IDs all those 60, 70, 80 comments "look we're on the front page!" and all of that contrived fake "get the numbers up to raise the profile" crap is gone? How'd you do it? Who do you know? Ha! You know know what - don't answer that. No-one cares. You know why they don't care? Because excision and censorship and redaction is *bent* And for every time a councillor or a newspaper has been accused of bending it to suit their agenda, then those that accuse - and that means *you* - they must lead by example, they must show their impeccable nature. And you can't. You are just as guilty, just as compromised. And well you know it. Despite all your bluster. Low.
Okay, you've made your point. You don't agree with those you are criticising about their stance on the council's housing policy or national planning/housing policies/regulations
; (S106, affordable housing, CIL, CfSH etc). You don't like them, or their letters. You don't like me or my comments or my views.

That's fine, I respect your right to hold your views, and have your say. Now you have said it, more than once, I don't think you need to say it again.

We've got the message, thank you. Now please leave us alone, and cease your vendetta. Please concentrate on issues that you are interested in, as you aren't interested in us, the issues we are bothered about or our opinions. We will, by way of reciprocity, agree not to comment on you or your comments. Lets go our separate ways and not darken each others doorsteps ever again.

THE END!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.[/p][/quote]Off the wall, as usual. But, there is no evidence.....[/p][/quote]If someone as dogmatic and disrespectful as you says I'm "off the wall" then I'm happy. You think I differ from you? Then I'm very happy for that differentiation. I'd hate to be as closed and as dogmatic and as single-minded and as nasty as you. I'd hate to be like you. I'm also happy you can't answer the valid criticisms and observations. Be as glib as you want. It says a lot. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence and exactly what evidence you mean but speaking of evidence it is definitely suspicious that when searching this website's archives for all those tedious and long-winded affordable housing debates and all those old Matthew Laverack and Paul Cordock letters, all of a sudden they have no comments? All those invented multiple IDs all those 60, 70, 80 comments "look we're on the front page!" and all of that contrived fake "get the numbers up to raise the profile" crap is gone? How'd you do it? Who do you know? Ha! You know know what - don't answer that. No-one cares. You know why they don't care? Because excision and censorship and redaction is *bent* And for every time a councillor or a newspaper has been accused of bending it to suit their agenda, then those that accuse - and that means *you* - they must lead by example, they must show their impeccable nature. And you can't. You are just as guilty, just as compromised. And well you know it. Despite all your bluster. Low.[/p][/quote]Okay, you've made your point. You don't agree with those you are criticising about their stance on the council's housing policy or national planning/housing policies/regulations ; (S106, affordable housing, CIL, CfSH etc). You don't like them, or their letters. You don't like me or my comments or my views. That's fine, I respect your right to hold your views, and have your say. Now you have said it, more than once, I don't think you need to say it again. We've got the message, thank you. Now please leave us alone, and cease your vendetta. Please concentrate on issues that you are interested in, as you aren't interested in us, the issues we are bothered about or our opinions. We will, by way of reciprocity, agree not to comment on you or your comments. Lets go our separate ways and not darken each others doorsteps ever again. THE END! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -3

8:20pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur !
Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.
Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy ! It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators. The FACTS:- Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine. Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine. These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.
Dogma. Yawn.
Is that all you can offer ?
It's a lot more than your fantastical schisms deserve.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Yes, well, let people judge the well researched, rational and balanced arguments that I put forward, against your hysterical, off the wall accusations and ad hominem attacks. You never put forward any counter arguments, facts or evidence to back up your allegations. It's just infantile, futile, mud-slinging, based on petty prejudice. Res ipsa loquitur ![/p][/quote]Rational and balanced?! Oh boy if you believe that then you've gone further through than anyone thought! Someone else has once again mentioned McCarthyism in relation to you. No need to say any more on that, we've all seen it for years. More importantly, you are the absolute king of the false dichotomy. If anyone disagrees with you in any way however slight or raises a valid point that goes against your worldview then you quickly label them as James Alexander, or a council stooge, or a Labour stooge, or a Marxist, or they hate Matthew Laverack, or they hate you, or they must work for some shadowy organisation, or they are a politicised officer etc etc etc etc etc. The false dichotomy seeks to divide people into two groups. It's nature is to force people to choose - us and them - to take sides in an artificial binary conflict. In the words of GW Bush "You are either with us, or you are against us." No! The world is not black and white, rich and poor, good and evil, US and Al Qaeda, Marxist and capitalist, labour and tory. I maintain that your agenda, this need for create division and conflict, to pit man against man, that is way way way more dangerous to society than anything in the terrible and fantastic scenarios that you spew all over these pages every day.[/p][/quote]Says the man who believes in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy ! It's not me creating division, it's those who are pushing the policies and agendas. I just observe, research, and expose the conspirators. The FACTS:- Common Purpose exists, and it's founder, Julia Middleton (google it/her) favours a certain doctrine. Nesta exists, and it's Chief Executive, Geoff Mulgan founded Demos (google them/him) and he favours a certain doctrine. These organisations (charities ?!!) have links with certain high profile figures in York.[/p][/quote]Dogma. Yawn.[/p][/quote]Is that all you can offer ?[/p][/quote]It's a lot more than your fantastical schisms deserve. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 4

8:28pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?
Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.
Off the wall, as usual. But, there is no evidence.....
If someone as dogmatic and disrespectful as you says I'm "off the wall" then I'm happy. You think I differ from you? Then I'm very happy for that differentiation. I'd hate to be as closed and as dogmatic and as single-minded and as nasty as you. I'd hate to be like you. I'm also happy you can't answer the valid criticisms and observations. Be as glib as you want. It says a lot. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence and exactly what evidence you mean but speaking of evidence it is definitely suspicious that when searching this website's archives for all those tedious and long-winded affordable housing debates and all those old Matthew Laverack and Paul Cordock letters, all of a sudden they have no comments? All those invented multiple IDs all those 60, 70, 80 comments "look we're on the front page!" and all of that contrived fake "get the numbers up to raise the profile" crap is gone? How'd you do it? Who do you know? Ha! You know know what - don't answer that. No-one cares. You know why they don't care? Because excision and censorship and redaction is *bent* And for every time a councillor or a newspaper has been accused of bending it to suit their agenda, then those that accuse - and that means *you* - they must lead by example, they must show their impeccable nature. And you can't. You are just as guilty, just as compromised. And well you know it. Despite all your bluster. Low.
Okay, you've made your point. You don't agree with those you are criticising about their stance on the council's housing policy or national planning/housing policies/regulations

; (S106, affordable housing, CIL, CfSH etc). You don't like them, or their letters. You don't like me or my comments or my views.

That's fine, I respect your right to hold your views, and have your say. Now you have said it, more than once, I don't think you need to say it again.

We've got the message, thank you. Now please leave us alone, and cease your vendetta. Please concentrate on issues that you are interested in, as you aren't interested in us, the issues we are bothered about or our opinions. We will, by way of reciprocity, agree not to comment on you or your comments. Lets go our separate ways and not darken each others doorsteps ever again.

THE END!
No.
No, that's not it at all and you know it. Always with the words in other peoples' mouths.
There's no vendetta.
Whether I agree with the stance or like the views or not is irrelevant. It's nothing to do with S106 or affordable housing.

The dogma, the games, the manipulation, the way you have deviously used and continue to use The Press and all the other publications and media for your own ends, your disruptive anti-social abuse and arrogance - when I see someone behave so... sub-human - that's what prompts me to comment.

I will continue to comment freely where I see fit and when I want to, as is the nature and purpose of this facility.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, Scarlet Rocking Badger Duck in your Side Hedge. The absolute king of the false dichotomy.[/p][/quote]Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't actually get banned because of abuse ? They get banned because certain people are nervous of the attention their activities receive as a result of these activities being exposed and publicised. The nervous individuals then ask their 'friends in high places' to gag or silence the whistleblower. The gagging/silencing of dissenters is a very marxist technique, isn't it ?[/p][/quote]Another "well if you believe that then..." moment! Don't forget we were all here. We witnessed your bans. Witnessed your abuse. You get banned because you say things that put the paper in a difficult position legally. You make allegations. You get banned because you dish abuse, call names and you spam spam spam the threads. You even went as far as naming a user here and costing them their anonymity. Just a regular user here, not a covert stooge or mole. Out of order. I can see how all of the banning and everything fits nicely into your little fantasy, I've seen it before - even when evidence seems to tell you it's not what you think that's because it is what you think and they're trying to make it look otherwise. All evidence - whether to the contrary or not, proves the case. Everything fits perfectly. It's classic.[/p][/quote]Off the wall, as usual. But, there is no evidence.....[/p][/quote]If someone as dogmatic and disrespectful as you says I'm "off the wall" then I'm happy. You think I differ from you? Then I'm very happy for that differentiation. I'd hate to be as closed and as dogmatic and as single-minded and as nasty as you. I'd hate to be like you. I'm also happy you can't answer the valid criticisms and observations. Be as glib as you want. It says a lot. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence and exactly what evidence you mean but speaking of evidence it is definitely suspicious that when searching this website's archives for all those tedious and long-winded affordable housing debates and all those old Matthew Laverack and Paul Cordock letters, all of a sudden they have no comments? All those invented multiple IDs all those 60, 70, 80 comments "look we're on the front page!" and all of that contrived fake "get the numbers up to raise the profile" crap is gone? How'd you do it? Who do you know? Ha! You know know what - don't answer that. No-one cares. You know why they don't care? Because excision and censorship and redaction is *bent* And for every time a councillor or a newspaper has been accused of bending it to suit their agenda, then those that accuse - and that means *you* - they must lead by example, they must show their impeccable nature. And you can't. You are just as guilty, just as compromised. And well you know it. Despite all your bluster. Low.[/p][/quote]Okay, you've made your point. You don't agree with those you are criticising about their stance on the council's housing policy or national planning/housing policies/regulations ; (S106, affordable housing, CIL, CfSH etc). You don't like them, or their letters. You don't like me or my comments or my views. That's fine, I respect your right to hold your views, and have your say. Now you have said it, more than once, I don't think you need to say it again. We've got the message, thank you. Now please leave us alone, and cease your vendetta. Please concentrate on issues that you are interested in, as you aren't interested in us, the issues we are bothered about or our opinions. We will, by way of reciprocity, agree not to comment on you or your comments. Lets go our separate ways and not darken each others doorsteps ever again. THE END![/p][/quote]No. No, that's not it at all and you know it. Always with the words in other peoples' mouths. There's no vendetta. Whether I agree with the stance or like the views or not is irrelevant. It's nothing to do with S106 or affordable housing. The dogma, the games, the manipulation, the way you have deviously used and continue to use The Press and all the other publications and media for your own ends, your disruptive anti-social abuse and arrogance - when I see someone behave so... sub-human - that's what prompts me to comment. I will continue to comment freely where I see fit and when I want to, as is the nature and purpose of this facility. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 7

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree