Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

The Royal Wedding

On 19 Nov 2010 at 6:02pm Royalist wrote:
I wonder if people agree that it would be a wonderful gesture of the people of Lewes were to give a present to the young couple on the occasion of their wedding next year? I was thinking perhaps a local notable, Mr Baker for example, might be prepared to organise the collection. I know he is a busy man but the nuptials do promise to be a bright ray of sunshine in these gloomy times.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 6:51pm Simon wrote:
May I suggest life membership of Southove Bonfire Society ? They come from the right part of town.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:05pm Burn em! wrote:
May I suggest if anyone comes to my door suggesting this or a street party they will get a rookie where the sun don't shine.
The "nuptials" promise to be a nausea-inducing nine-months or so of irrelevant and insulting hype
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:11pm Simon wrote:
Oh come now Burm em! Where's your sense of occasion ? I'm particularly looking forward to the Daily Express coverage. Do you think we will have street parties ? I do hope so. Sticky buns and everything.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:16pm Burn em! wrote:
I'm expecting a bigger do when a certain female former Prime Minister pops off...
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:21pm Simon wrote:
Well I must say I'm disappointed. When someone takes more joy from a persons death than they do when two young people, clearly in love get married.
Modern bloody Britain.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:29pm Burn em! wrote:
"Modern bloody Britain" still in thrall to the rich and famous, while thousnands face loss of jobs, housing, education, health care etc due to the antics of their Eton-educated chums - and selfish, self-centred and obsessed-with-consumerism Britain due in no small measure to the "lady" PM who famously told us there is "no such thing as society" ...
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:46pm jrsussex wrote:
Burn 'em! - Get real, 13 years of Blair, Brown, Mandelson and the rest of that super rich so-called "socialist" rabble are totally responsible for the mess this country is in. Surprise, surprise it was not all the fault of the banks, very poor financial control by Government played a far greater role in where we are now. The Coalition Government have only been in power for 6 months, hardly long enough to load the blame onto them.
That said I, as a Tory, am unhappy with having to give the EU an extra 4.5b each year, plus of course the absolute corruption that is inherent within the EU with few MEP's appearing willing to attack the problem, the immigration policy which does not appear to be changing, VAT going up to 20% and several other matters. However that is now and is not the cause of the current financial state of the UK or indeed the EU.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:50pm Simon wrote:
Yet another hijacking of a thread to air your tired old political bluster. What does any of what you two have just vomited over this topic have to do with 2 people getting married ?
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:51pm Burn em! wrote:
I think you'll find the Tories wholeheartedly supported Labour granting the Bank of England independence in setting monetary policy.
Surprise, surprise it WAS the fault of the banks...
Corruption within the EU - that would never happen here would it jrsussex?
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:56pm Burn em! wrote:
Well, Si me old mate, I am opposed to the idea that it has any real relevance to the lives of ordinary people in this or any other country.
I believe it is a mere distraction form the harsh realities facing many people at this time.
I believe that it reinforces the deferential attitude that still prevails and prevents people from realising their true potential.
I believe it is a waste of public money.
I have nothing against them getting married per se, I hope they are very happy, but it is not relevant to the vast majority of us and the idea that we should be rejoicing is frankly insulting.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 7:59pm Simon wrote:
Ok, but she will make a fit Queen. No ?
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:08pm Burn em! wrote:
By 'fit' do you mean fit?
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:17pm Simon wrote:
I certainly do.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:27pm Clifford wrote:
jrsussex wrote: 'Get real, 13 years of Blair, Brown, Mandelson and the rest of that super rich so-called "socialist" rabble are totally responsible for the mess this country is in. Surprise, surprise it was not all the fault of the banks, very poor financial control by Government played a far greater role in where we are now.'
And presumably the Labour (and you know they're not 'socialist) government were responsible for the problems that the economies of the United States, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc etc have faced since 2007? There must be a common factor and I don't think it's the Labour party.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:30pm Royalist wrote:
I'm very disappointed by the response to my suggestion. People do not seem to appreciate how lucky we are to live in a monarchy and that Her Majesty, her children and her grandchildren are willing to take on the onerous task of ruling over us. It's not an easy job and they cannot answer back. The least we can do in the circumstances is to make a tiny sacrifice to offer the young couple a humble but heartfelt gift.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:31pm Burn em! wrote:
Oh Royalist, you old wag. You got me. I thought you were being serious earlier!
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:50pm Royalist wrote:
I am being serious Burn em! I cannot understand why you object to people having a deferential attitude towards their betters. You'll be telling us next that you don't support the government.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 8:52pm Burn em! wrote:
Oh stop it now.
You're killing me...
On 19 Nov 2010 at 9:23pm MC wrote:
Best marriage present would be the formation of a republic and the sequester of the family's wealth for the public coffers. Then they can have a happy anonymous life escaping being hounded through tunnels by the representatives of the brain-dead proles who finance the arse-end newspapers and comics.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 10:38pm jrsussex wrote:
Just for the record I am a royalist, I look forward to the marriage of William and Kate with great excitement and hope when Charles eventually becomes our King that Camilla becomes his Queen Consort. I think theQueen carries out her duty to this country magnificently, having done so for 58 years. Putting their wealth into the public coffers would actually be to the detriment of the country, the income they generate for the Treasury far exceeds the cost of the civil list and always has done. It is a complete fallacy, perpetrated by would-be republicans, that the Royal Family cost the taxpayer of the UK, they don't and never have.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 10:44pm Newmania wrote:
I agree with Royalist .On topic then, I was disappointed to see such a mean and grudging remark made by the smart Alec republican Norman Baker, quoted in the Express.
The Royal family are our living link with the past, and this marriage a reaffirmation both of continuity and hope for the future. Lewes has some fine artists not all of who, are determined to be tediously incomprehensible, perhaps some wonderful work of art to express the loyalty of the people .
God save The Queen -
(Burn`em should be sent to the Tower or better still obliged to live in an alternative reality under the gurning fatuous Euro Presidency of Mr. Blair- ugh )
On 19 Nov 2010 at 10:56pm Royalist wrote:
You see Burn em! I have Newmania and jrsussex on my side. What better supporters could any man have. jrsussex has rightly shown how grateful we should be to the Royal Family for being graciously willing to accept such a pittance from us. I wish we could give more. Newmania has wisely expressed how we can continue to live in the past with the help of Her Majesty and her family.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 10:56pm MC wrote:
Pass the sick bag Alice.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 10:59pm Royalist wrote:
I hope MC that is not meant to be a fatuous reference to Princess Alice of Battenburg, mother of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edingburgh, and inventor (I believe) of the wonderful Battenburg cake.
On 19 Nov 2010 at 11:07pm Newmania wrote:
Oh lawks the poet laureate is that Carol Anne Duffy a woman in touch with her sensible shoes and sense of grievance. I shall prepare to be outraged , but in all fairness I have not read her stuff . Not much to live up to only Wordsworth Tennyson, Johnson Spenser , Ted Hughes Dryden ...no pressure then.
Incidentally Charles the 1st was born on the 19th of November , I don`t think we need pretend the relationship has always been easy or simple , but its story is our story and now a new chapter begins
It will be fabulous - I shall buy Burn`em a selection of commemorative tea towels and a mug. You see already spirits are lifting ! Tra La
On 19 Nov 2010 at 11:24pm Newmania wrote:
That is not what I said "Royalist ". You may feel free to start at year Zero as recommended by the humanitarian visionary Pol Pot .
On 20 Nov 2010 at 7:37am MC wrote:
@ jrsussex
"I know you will never change what you believe in and I don't know why I am bothering but surely your comment here is in no way defensible and the follow up comment by Clifford is spot on? I can't see how you can possibly defend it but I guess you think you can. I'd be glad if you did me the honour (and then I will honestly try really hard not to challenge anything you say again and leave you in peace)."

jrsussex said:
"Get real, 13 years of Blair, Brown, Mandelson and the rest of that super rich so-called "socialist" rabble are totally responsible for the mess this country is in."

Clifford said:
"And presumably the Labour (and you know they're not 'socialist) government were responsible for the problems that the economies of the United States, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc etc."

How is it that the Labour Party can be solely responsible for the mess this country is in when so many other countries are in the exact same mess? Perhaps the Labour Party are in some way responsible for their problems too? Or maybe there's another factor... something rather more global than the reach of our labour party (ever wondered if the world-wide financial sector might have had an insy-winsy bit to do with it jrs...... and if it has crossed your mind please don't forget who was responsible for deregulating the UK's financial sector... I'll give you a clue... it wasn't the Labour Party).

BTW. Clifford forgot Iceland in his list. I don't believe our Labour Party had much influence there either jrs.

I am sick and tired of people falling hook line and sinker for the oft-repeated Tory govt mantra "the mess the Labour Party got us into". Just because they've said it hundreds of times (and the trash Murdoch press repeats it ad nauseum) doesn't make it true. Where has everyone's power of discrimination gone? If the average intelligence of this country gets much lower we'll soon be gladly lining up like sheep for the slaughter.... following the first photogenic media-star that manages to hold our attention for more than 10 minutes (Diversion alert: I am watching the US Tea Party nutters with interest and trepidation... I've not seen a bunch so likely to start a war for decades... and the population of that country are probably even more malleable than our own... ask your average Yank about history... or indeed anything at all outside of the US.. very worrying).

And as for Labour being "so-called Socialist"? Pleeeese... you really do yourself no favours jrs. Why do you say such things? The Blair and Mandlesson Government never referred to themselves as Socialist. "New Labour"... get it?... watered down Thatcherism.... many, many, many leagues away from Socialism.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 9:14am jrsussex wrote:
MC - I not sure about the "I know you will never change" comment (as said on previous occasions I was far-left when younger) but yes I have a firm opinion as to my political beliefs. It is, like many of us, based on what I read, see and hear from the media. That coupled with life's experience (almost 70 years) is a reasonable basis on which to form opinions.
I don't feel I laid the blame entirely at the feet of the Labour Party. I acknowledged that there was blame to be attached to the banks, just not them alone, you in fact are using the same argument to put your case for Labour by attempting to dissolve any suggestion that they should be held to account for what went wrong. We are all aware that the real villian, and instigator, of the crisis was the American housing market.
Yes again you are correct in bringing attention to the crisis spreading to most corners of the globe. But in the UK the Labour administraion governed in a manner in which even without the world economy collapsing they were steering us into troubled waters. Too many aspects too argue here but just consider the local authority issues, the creation of thousands of meaningless jobs paying stupid salaries. The, in my opinion, equally unprofessional manner in which they created some and raised other benefits that the tax-payer simply could not afford long-term. So please do not attempt to absolve them from much of the blame. The argument that because your neighbour is slowly strangling himself you will have to die with him is of course a rather silly one. Brown, as a so-called experienced economist should have seen what was coming and taken steps to at least reduce the effects on the UK.
If your point is that you cannot blame Labour then you prove beyond question that you certainly cannot lay blame on an adminsistration that has only been in control for 6 months. Incidentally as late as 2009 the Labour boys were still blaming the Conservatives (having left office in 1997) for much of their ills.
You personally may well be "sick and tired" of the oft-repeated statement "the mess the Labour party got us into", unfortunately they did not act in a positive and correct manner when they surely saw the crisis coming, in fact, as we all now know, they continued to spend, spend spend. Please don't expect me to believe that Brown acted in the best interests of the UK
Finally you are quite right that Labour under Blair and Brown were probably never socialists, but they did declare themselves for the working man. What they actually did was make a very poor fist of operating as a second rate Conservative party. They failed miserably to do so but nevertheless made themselves very rich.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 10:25am Newmania wrote:
MC - Can you imagine trying to explain space exploration to a freshly discovered Amazonian Indian who belives the sky rests of the forest canopy ?
That is what it is like for me trying to explain anything to you and in particular the Economic state of the country going into the entirely predictable down turn.Rinse you ears out village idiot because I am losing patience with your infantile crapola
Firstly it was the central insight of recently exhumed JM Keynes that markets were cyclical and that a surplus should be built during a boom. Only Gordon brown believed he had cured boom and bust a belief he acted on by increasing government spending by an adjusted 55% PRIOR to the down turn. We were also in deficit for the nine years preceding the crash on the very top of an obviouosly frothy boom . Do you follow this ?
This insane squander directly lead to our aquiring a deficit ( Thats the annual short fall) of 11.4% which was worse than anyone in the OECD and very close to thatof Greece on about 12% now a protectorate of the EU .
The only reason we can sustain this at all is the rock bottom interest we pay as one of four countries that has never defaulted .We are additionally aided by the lost funds looking for homes that are not Greece, Portrugal Ireland and so on.
It was particularly galling to see Brown signing deals the tax payer would have to pick up so as to make election bribes from the bunker of his last days. At March 2010 National debt accounted at £1000.4 billion just over 71% a peace time record ( a peace time mountain in fact). True Laiblities are about 250% add privarte debt and its about 400%
The proposed reductions to the rate of increase of debt ( got that ?) involved reducing spending to 2006 levels bu the coaltion have no chance of making anything like that much of a dent .In reality and the true rate of reducing of spending is significantly slower than that suggested by Alistair Darling .
As to the supposed power of Murdoch it is nothing compared to the State financed BBC and Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, never have.
End of
On 20 Nov 2010 at 10:55am MC wrote:
Good morning to you too Paul. Maybe you should try getting out of the other side of the bed?

jrs said that Labour were "totally" responsible for the mess that we are in. Even you with your seemingly well-informed (although often barely literate) rants must admit that Labour are not "totally" responsible.

Again you have mistaken me for a Labour apologist (when I thought the last Labour government almost entirely deplorable).
I am aware of Keynes and the cyclical nature of the economy (it may surprise you to learn I've even studied economics). It should be obvious to anyone that when times are good. a government must work to reduce not only a country's structural debt but its debt as a whole. Labour failed to do this and even spent as much as they were able, placing the UK ever more into debt. I hold Brown culpable. Unlike you I am aware that there is a global crisis (well outside of the normal boom and bust cycle), that has brought the worlds financial system right to the brink of collapse (have you so easily forgotten the US sub-prime market and collapse of US financial institutions?). This is not the Labour Government's fault. The current dire state of the UK finances is partly a result of these highly unusual global conditions and the need to bail out the banks by guaranteeing them very large amounts of cash, increasinlg the UKs debt even further. Labour's mis-management of our economy has made it a lot worse for the UK than it could have been. Likewise so did Thatcher's de-regularisation of the UKs financial systems.

Iit gets my goat to see the Tory govt do their damnest to convince everyone that the mess is "entirely" due to the last Labour Government and then to see supposedly considered people like jrs and now yourself do the same. It's obviously not "entirely" their fault. I don't know why you persist in stating that it is. It's bizarre.

As for the BBC and Murdoch. The way they use the power they have is entirely different. Murdoch's aim is the aquisition of profit and power, very often feeding (and therefore encouraging) people's baser natures to obtain it.. The BBC have a much more honourable remit, detailed in the Royal Charter. You can read it here:


Public Purposes is a good place to start and it's at the beginning. Hopefully it'll keep you out of trouble till you've calmed down.

Now, back to those cuddly Royals.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 11:05am Royalist wrote:
I don't know what our dear Queen would say about the ill-temper displayed on this site. And as far as the economic crisis we are going through is concerned, I am sure the Royal Family are making their own sacrifices. Prince William for example has shown himself willing to marry beneath himself and has chosen a girl from the lower classes as his future life partner. What greater sacrifice can anyone make?
On 20 Nov 2010 at 12:07pm homesick wrote:
But he is very bald. She could have done better.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 1:09pm Tickled. wrote:
On 20 Nov 2010 at 1:38pm Clifford wrote:
I don't think it's his hair that attracts her Homesick. The only job she was ever able to get was working for her parents or her parents' friends - a life of idleness at public expense beckons.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 2:04pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I reckon Cambo and Gideon put Baldy Boy up to popping the question in an attempt to distract us all from the way they're about to reduce our public services to a level more appropriate to a third world country and cut so many jobs that the economy will shrink faster than a flasher's todger on an icy night.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 2:27pm homesick wrote:
Who was it who said that about bread and circuses? They're taking our bread away so they need to provide us with a bigger circus.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 4:30pm Clifford wrote:
Youre probably right ACT. But remember they tried the same trick in 1981 and it turned out to be a year of riots all over England.
On 20 Nov 2010 at 5:12pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
That'll be something to look forward to!
On 20 Nov 2010 at 8:59pm Newmania wrote:
ANC - As I mentioned even planned cuts which are not proving easy were only a phased reurn to 2006 spending levels ( adjusted of course)
As for riots...I wish . Thus far the coalition is avoiding the show down with the Unionised Public Sector which we must have to get the monkey off our backs . There should be immediate pay cuts to these parasites not easy targets like families and welfare recipients .
As to the joy of a Royal wedding I wonder how many of you paper republicans would reallty condemn us to a life without pageantry colour and
rituals for us all. Prez Blair certainly wants the job ..I would have to emigrate.
Monarchy for the UK
Its coming right now !!
On 20 Nov 2010 at 9:28pm MC wrote:
> I would have to emigrate.

Something else to look forward to
On 20 Nov 2010 at 9:31pm Royalist wrote:
You write good sense Newmania. Particularly when you say there should be immediate pay cuts to the idle parasites infesting the public sector, living the life of riley at our expense. Who do they think they are?
On 21 Nov 2010 at 5:47am Billy Goat Gruff wrote:
How about giving them a His 'n Her's bathrobe set embroidered with "No Popery" in Gothic script?

This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


Pipe Passage 98:132
Pipe Passage

Invading armies are famous for "interbreeding" as you so delicately put it. I'm sure there's plenty of Norman dna as well. Please... more
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine