On 13 Apr 2020 at 8:39pm Nevillman wrote:
I read that someone said Johnson's recovery is an example of his great leadership. Is it?
On 13 Apr 2020 at 8:45pm Sleeveless wrote:
Where did you read that?
On 13 Apr 2020 at 11:01pm Basil wrote:
What I've always thought is interesting is that the further we got from Hitler, the more 'fuhrerprinzip' became acceptable. So now every little tinpot manager calls him or herself a 'leader'. Head teachers, for god's sake, now refer to themselves as 'school leaders'.
On 14 Apr 2020 at 7:43am Mark wrote:
Not good leadership at all. He's infected because, in early March, he walked around a hospital ward that had covid patients. He shook hands with them all. The idea was to convince us all that none of this was actually a problem... we needed to continue going to work... herd immunity would be fine... And then he infected half the cabinet and (probably) his pregnant partner.
On 14 Apr 2020 at 9:15am Sleeveless wrote:
So he definitely infected half the cabinet, but only probably his pregnant partner.
On 14 Apr 2020 at 1:16pm Tom Pain wrote:
I think we've decided that bojo is a no good, let's have a quick general election and get another one. You're right there basil, but it's not a new phenomena, we've always needed someone to blame when anything goes wrong.
On 15 Apr 2020 at 1:46pm Nevillman wrote:
Basil. We may disagree over the specific responsibilities, duties and character of a leader but you seem to be saying that an enterprise like a business, school or government, doesn't need a leader whether they use the word or not. Can you explain why as surely most people think the opposite. Or do they?
On 15 Apr 2020 at 2:25pm Green Sleeves wrote:
@Tom Pain - yes, humans create their own scapegoats. In your case its the EU, George Soros and the Rothschild family. Or 5g networks.....
On 15 Apr 2020 at 5:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
I'm afraid you're hallucinating again greenie,find me one mention of the R word. My complaint about the EU is that it's too big and having one government with it's hand in my pocket is quite enough without a second dipping in. Soros was not a scapegoat for black whenever it was, he did it quite openly and proudly. Your insinuations are completely inaccurate and align only with your twisted, malignant imagination. Try aiming your grotesque vitriol at it's true source~ yourself.
On 15 Apr 2020 at 10:46pm Basil wrote:
Nevillman wrote: 'Can you explain why as surely most people think the opposite.'
Don't you think that's a question that hardly needs answering? Once 'most people' thought they needed a monarch to 'lead'. The education system and the media (the church under feugedalism) are there to protect the interests of the owners and so indoctrinate people into the need for 'leaders' rather than democratic decision making. I assumed you realised that.
On 16 Apr 2020 at 1:09pm Nevillman wrote:
If you only associate leadership with the divine rule of monarchs and exploitative mill owners then I can understand your view of leadership basil. Most good leadership these days is democratic as good leaders realise that to get the best of of other people working for the organisation they have to include them in the process. Leaders are meant to coordinate the work of everyone to achieve the goals of the organisation. For many businesses this is profit which I understand you have a problem with but even organisations without the profit motive work better with a good leader.
In the days when we were hunter gatherers living in loose groups of 50 or so, it is quite possible that we did not have established leaders so it may well go against the grain of human nature but in the modern world with modern institutions I'm afraid leadership is required to coordinate efforts. Education has always existed to further the interests of capitalism but I'm afraid you haven't seen enough of modern teaching to say that it is there to indoctrinate people into the need for leaders.
Tom. Please try to think about what you have written and what someone else writes about your post before responding if you want to be taken at all seriously. You have proved green's point in your response to him and lowered the tone of debate to name calling. It's up to you what you write but I am increasingly feeling that your points are just not worth responding to and I don't think I am alone in that view. Please feel free to ignore my post and respond with a personal attack on me but don't expect me to answer it.