Not so sure, being second or lower can be the better where I'm concerned. Not being noticed, less expectations, avoiding the flak when things go wrong, less responsibility.
Being top dog brings all the pressures.
.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Being top dog brings all the pressures.
.
Totally lost now, where did that response come from. We were talklng about Lottery winners. One off's, the real workers are the consistent one's, surely?
Really, not a previous mention of lottery on this page or the previous one. I can see now why you get so confused.
I remarked on your winner and coming second references, comments that could be valid in any sphere.
.
The Daily Mail rather proves my point that they haven't changed a bit,spreading alarm and hatred, heres a report of theirs late 1930's
It looks remarkably Familiar, doesn't it? perhaps they have a standard form where the latest Foreigners to Vilify can be filled in?
And through the "Back Door"?
It looks remarkably Familiar, doesn't it? perhaps they have a standard form where the latest Foreigners to Vilify can be filled in?
And through the "Back Door"?
Certainly not a good time in history to have been a Jew. I guess a lesson in what can happen when times get tough for a society. We turn on one another and see advantage. In that sense a rather 'good' example of the vulnerabilities that always get in the way of us. I suspect they always will, envy gone mad - politics or religion - take your pick? Yet, both are truly run by people who think they either have the answer or know the way.The Daily Mail rather proves my point that they haven't changed a bit,spreading alarm and hatred, heres a report of theirs late 1930's
It looks remarkably Familiar, doesn't it? perhaps they have a standard form where the latest Foreigners to Vilify can be filled in?
And through the "Back Door"?
Judge: I had no idea benefits claimants liked champagne
A JUDGE told a shoplifter who had stolen alcohol that he didn’t realise people who were on benefits drank champagne.
Nichola Vout, a mother of two, was caught on CCTV putting the champagne in her bag, claiming a delay in her benefit payments drove her to theft. However, Judge Gary Garland didn’t accept the excuse, adding: “It seems to me you have gone on a thieving mission and been caught.”
The 33-year-old stole the £25 bottle from a Co-op in Stockton on Aug 3, Teesside magistrates’ court heard. Since the theft, she’s been barred from every Co-op in Cleveland.
In mitigation, it was claimed Vout’s long-term relationship ended in ugly circumstances and she had faced issues waiting for her benefits claim to start.
Judge Garland said: “I didn’t know that people who were on benefits were into champagne.” He handed Vout a 12-month conditional discharge after she admitted shop theft. Ordering her to pay £85 costs and a £20 charge, he added: “That’s £105 for a bottle of champagne you didn’t even drink. It has been an expensive afternoon out.”
Judge Garland previously caught out a couple when he saw them speeding on mobility scooters during a court break.
Former Royal Artillery gunner David Hughes, 58, and his partner Wendy ran up a bill of over £10,000 by refusing to pay British Gas for over a decade.
Hughes told Judge Garland that he was registered blind and could not read documents sent to him. Then his partner collapsed in court with apparent breathing problems. But Judge Garland revealed that during a break in proceedings at Blackpool magistrates’ court he saw them.
“They were speeding along the footpath in their electric buggies, both of them smoking cigarettes,” he told the court.
A JUDGE told a shoplifter who had stolen alcohol that he didn’t realise people who were on benefits drank champagne.
Nichola Vout, a mother of two, was caught on CCTV putting the champagne in her bag, claiming a delay in her benefit payments drove her to theft. However, Judge Gary Garland didn’t accept the excuse, adding: “It seems to me you have gone on a thieving mission and been caught.”
The 33-year-old stole the £25 bottle from a Co-op in Stockton on Aug 3, Teesside magistrates’ court heard. Since the theft, she’s been barred from every Co-op in Cleveland.
In mitigation, it was claimed Vout’s long-term relationship ended in ugly circumstances and she had faced issues waiting for her benefits claim to start.
Judge Garland said: “I didn’t know that people who were on benefits were into champagne.” He handed Vout a 12-month conditional discharge after she admitted shop theft. Ordering her to pay £85 costs and a £20 charge, he added: “That’s £105 for a bottle of champagne you didn’t even drink. It has been an expensive afternoon out.”
Judge Garland previously caught out a couple when he saw them speeding on mobility scooters during a court break.
Former Royal Artillery gunner David Hughes, 58, and his partner Wendy ran up a bill of over £10,000 by refusing to pay British Gas for over a decade.
Hughes told Judge Garland that he was registered blind and could not read documents sent to him. Then his partner collapsed in court with apparent breathing problems. But Judge Garland revealed that during a break in proceedings at Blackpool magistrates’ court he saw them.
“They were speeding along the footpath in their electric buggies, both of them smoking cigarettes,” he told the court.
Last edited:
Slightly OT and not really in spirit of present discussion ....but don't posters think its about time there was a trully independent body to grade all media outlets ( including BBC and especially papers and blogs with over a specified viewing figure) for fact/lack of propoganda..
We all know the major culprits ( IMO BBC and Daily Mail) but for some reason we seem to think ( depending on our own biased standpoint) that our own supply of " News/ Information is propoganda free.
Unfortunately this is simply never the case.
Perhaps a simple 3 tier grading. Cigarettes , Chain saws and everything under the sun come with a warning. Seems we don't attach as much importance to the truth.
Not saying this would affect circulation but most papers should come with a warning.
" Content likely to be slightly untruthful and biased"
Afraid we are all products of propoganda...all of us. Left, right and centre.
We all know the major culprits ( IMO BBC and Daily Mail) but for some reason we seem to think ( depending on our own biased standpoint) that our own supply of " News/ Information is propoganda free.
Unfortunately this is simply never the case.
Perhaps a simple 3 tier grading. Cigarettes , Chain saws and everything under the sun come with a warning. Seems we don't attach as much importance to the truth.
Not saying this would affect circulation but most papers should come with a warning.
" Content likely to be slightly untruthful and biased"
Afraid we are all products of propoganda...all of us. Left, right and centre.
Must have even a good bowl of cornflakes this morning. Who do you think would do the grading - OG perhaps? There is something more comforting with a newspaper,, not so instant and in your face as TV, you can take your time apply your own measures. Still biased of course, still I wonder what it is that really influenced us in the first place?
There are organisations making an effort such as this one
http://www.humantruth.info/uk_newspapers_comparison.html
They appear to have the Daily Mail "Bang to rights"
Daily Mail
2nd most popular2
Sunday: 4th most popular2
@@ Staunchly right-wing10. Populist, rabidly conservative, anti-Europe, anti-immigration, anti-taxation, anti-abortion, anti-permissive, concocted moral outrages11. Alastair Campbell said: "It's very hard to see how we can be happy as a nation when every day two million people buy the Daily Mail"12.
2
Has won Newspaper of the Year 6 times since 1993.
3
1,214 PCC complaints against it (top of the league by a long way, and its Sunday counterpart is 5th in the list) [2013]6.
3
Three times more successful PCC complaints against it than any other paper [2008]7.
1
Sensationalism, lack of depth.
1
"Alarmist headlines", providing "daily hate" according to former owner Lord Northcliffe. "More than any other newspaper in Britain, it deals in falsehood and distortion"10.
I think they are guilty of being far too fulsome and generous is their lavish praise.
Why go elsewhere, when we can offer an unparalled source of opinions to suit any taste?
And of course you can always rely on Zlatan and I to give an unbiased opinion (In Zlatan's case they may differ from day to day, or even at Full Moon)
Oldtom however tends to be more accurate. (though he does tend to let them have both barrels)
The ultimate wisdom comes from flecc, as he is the most experienced time traveller among us and when he was young the news came with a man with a cocked hat, Frock Coat and a bell, who read from a scroll in a very loud voice.
That's the real power of this thread, it has the one way one time attraction of fly paper to the unsuspecting passing victim that drifts by.
Last edited:
I was me who mentioned the busy lotto terminals on Saturdays. I subsequently regretted attacking the lotto for connecting the low probability of an immediately favourable outcome to brexit, I shortened the post and removed the mention of lotto terminals.
Thank heavens, I thought dementia had hit me for a moment and spent some time trying to find where I had written it!
I had to blame someone having spent at least 5 minutes reading through the posts without finding anything - says a lot about us on here though.Thank heavens, I thought dementia had hit me for a moment and spent some time trying to find where I had written it!
a good read this morning:
→ Don't blame migrants for Brexit, blame politicians - Please share
BOSTON IS THE TOWN THAT MOST WANTED BREXIT. WHY?
Boston is the town that most strongly voted for Brexit in the Referendum. Clearly, the people there don’t much like ‘free movement of people’. But it wasn’t always like that.
Back in the 17th century, people of Boston, England moved to America and founded Boston, in the state now called Massachusetts.
That’s because, like most people who move, those people from Boston, England wanted a better life.
This was eloquently expressed by the playwright and novelist, Bonnie Greer, on a recent edition of BBC Question Time, which was broadcast from the town of Boston, England.
Ms Greer said:
‘We’re a migratory species, we human beings. And we move. We move to better ourselves, we move to go and find the things we need.
‘We’ve always moved. We will continue to move.
‘This town of Boston is the second Boston I’ve been in. The first one is in Massachusetts. People from your town founded that town. And they founded it because they wanted to have a better life. And they’ve moved.’
Her comment drew strong applause from the Bostonians in the audience, who were clearly moved.
And yet, it’s also clear that many residents of Boston are alarmed by the rapid rise of migrants moving there in recent years from the rest of the EU.
After London, Boston is home to the highest concentration of EU migrants – quite something, when you consider that London is one of the world’s largest cities, and Boston is, or was, a sleepy Lincolnshire farming town.
In the period between 2004 and 2014, the migrant population of Boston increased by 460 per cent.
Of the 64,000 people now living in the borough (some officials believe the real figure could be 10,000 more), about 12 per cent were born in other EU countries.
That has put considerable pressure on public services – schools, hospitals, doctors, homes, etc. It’s understandable that many of the indigenous population of Boston feel disgruntled.
It’s is also perhaps a natural response to blame the extra people who are using those public services for the strain on those public services.
There is, though, another way of looking at this.
If a train is full, do you blame the passengers, or the train company for not providing enough trains or carriages?
If a hospital is full with no beds available, do you blame the patients in the hospital, or the public services for not providing enough beds and facilities?
Migrants don’t move to places where there aren’t good jobs. And that’s perfectly exemplified in the case of Boston.
The rapid rise in Boston’s migrant population is because there are plenty of jobs to fill, with employment rising. If that were not the case, migrants wouldn’t go there.
Consequently, Boston is booming.
Unemployment in the town is below the national average - 4.4% of economically active people, as against 4.8% nationally.
Boston used to be a sleepy farming town. Farmers used to bring in temporary workers for the short harvest periods.
But as a result of the influx of migrants, the local economy of Boston has diversified and blossomed.
The town now creates work all year-round, meaning that it can sustain a lot more jobs. That also means, of course, that Boston needs migrants to fill those jobs.
As Boston Labour councillor, Paul Gleeson, recently told the BBC:
"There's more harvesting going on throughout the year. And - more importantly - those vegetables are processed in Boston - wrapped and bar-coded for supermarket."
In addition, food grown elsewhere in Europe is now brought to Boston to be processed.
This is, and should be, a success story. Why do so many residents in Boston think otherwise?
Politicians have been quick to blame ‘too many migrants’ for perceived strains in the town of Boston. But, in reality, that’s castigating the wrong people.
It’s easy to scapegoat migrants for problems they didn’t cause. And doing so, actually lets our political masters off the hook. It hides the central problem, rather than addressing it.
Because politicians shouldn’t be blaming migrants for any lack of resources. They should be blaming themselves. For it is they who are at fault.
EU migrants in Britain – and in Boston – are mostly in gainful employment, working hard, spending most of their earnings here, paying taxes, and making significant net contributions to our national and local economies.
Without them Britain – and Boston – would be poorer.
The lack of investment in the local services and infrastructure of Boston – and in other areas of Britain - is not the fault of hard-working migrants. It’s the fault of successive governments which have made places such as Boston a forgotten town.
We need politicians to stop incriminating immigrants, and start devoting their energies into the real problems facing Britain.
EU migrants help Britain to be richer. We should be using that extra wealth they bring to our country to enhance and upgrade towns like Boston.
We need massive investment programmes, to rebuild infrastructure; encourage new enterprises; build many more affordable homes; invest more into our schools, hospitals and GP services; assist with re-education and lifelong learning for all workers; help the unemployed to train for new skills or even to start their own businesses; offer bigger incentives to companies (yes even foreign ones) to relocate to towns where people need more work.
Why isn’t this happening?
Don’t blame Poles or other EU migrants. Blame politicians.
• Words and graphic by Jon Danzig (founder of Reasons2Remain)
• Please re-Tweet:
twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/904784727428653056
********************************************
• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Help us to ‘Reach a Million’ on Facebook. Go to facebook.com/Reasons2Remain
********************************************
• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/
********************************************
• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/
********************************************
• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk
********************************************
• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help us, you will be very welcome. Please drop us a line.
#STOPBREXIT #BOSTON
→ Don't blame migrants for Brexit, blame politicians - Please share
BOSTON IS THE TOWN THAT MOST WANTED BREXIT. WHY?
Boston is the town that most strongly voted for Brexit in the Referendum. Clearly, the people there don’t much like ‘free movement of people’. But it wasn’t always like that.
Back in the 17th century, people of Boston, England moved to America and founded Boston, in the state now called Massachusetts.
That’s because, like most people who move, those people from Boston, England wanted a better life.
This was eloquently expressed by the playwright and novelist, Bonnie Greer, on a recent edition of BBC Question Time, which was broadcast from the town of Boston, England.
Ms Greer said:
‘We’re a migratory species, we human beings. And we move. We move to better ourselves, we move to go and find the things we need.
‘We’ve always moved. We will continue to move.
‘This town of Boston is the second Boston I’ve been in. The first one is in Massachusetts. People from your town founded that town. And they founded it because they wanted to have a better life. And they’ve moved.’
Her comment drew strong applause from the Bostonians in the audience, who were clearly moved.
And yet, it’s also clear that many residents of Boston are alarmed by the rapid rise of migrants moving there in recent years from the rest of the EU.
After London, Boston is home to the highest concentration of EU migrants – quite something, when you consider that London is one of the world’s largest cities, and Boston is, or was, a sleepy Lincolnshire farming town.
In the period between 2004 and 2014, the migrant population of Boston increased by 460 per cent.
Of the 64,000 people now living in the borough (some officials believe the real figure could be 10,000 more), about 12 per cent were born in other EU countries.
That has put considerable pressure on public services – schools, hospitals, doctors, homes, etc. It’s understandable that many of the indigenous population of Boston feel disgruntled.
It’s is also perhaps a natural response to blame the extra people who are using those public services for the strain on those public services.
There is, though, another way of looking at this.
If a train is full, do you blame the passengers, or the train company for not providing enough trains or carriages?
If a hospital is full with no beds available, do you blame the patients in the hospital, or the public services for not providing enough beds and facilities?
Migrants don’t move to places where there aren’t good jobs. And that’s perfectly exemplified in the case of Boston.
The rapid rise in Boston’s migrant population is because there are plenty of jobs to fill, with employment rising. If that were not the case, migrants wouldn’t go there.
Consequently, Boston is booming.
Unemployment in the town is below the national average - 4.4% of economically active people, as against 4.8% nationally.
Boston used to be a sleepy farming town. Farmers used to bring in temporary workers for the short harvest periods.
But as a result of the influx of migrants, the local economy of Boston has diversified and blossomed.
The town now creates work all year-round, meaning that it can sustain a lot more jobs. That also means, of course, that Boston needs migrants to fill those jobs.
As Boston Labour councillor, Paul Gleeson, recently told the BBC:
"There's more harvesting going on throughout the year. And - more importantly - those vegetables are processed in Boston - wrapped and bar-coded for supermarket."
In addition, food grown elsewhere in Europe is now brought to Boston to be processed.
This is, and should be, a success story. Why do so many residents in Boston think otherwise?
Politicians have been quick to blame ‘too many migrants’ for perceived strains in the town of Boston. But, in reality, that’s castigating the wrong people.
It’s easy to scapegoat migrants for problems they didn’t cause. And doing so, actually lets our political masters off the hook. It hides the central problem, rather than addressing it.
Because politicians shouldn’t be blaming migrants for any lack of resources. They should be blaming themselves. For it is they who are at fault.
EU migrants in Britain – and in Boston – are mostly in gainful employment, working hard, spending most of their earnings here, paying taxes, and making significant net contributions to our national and local economies.
Without them Britain – and Boston – would be poorer.
The lack of investment in the local services and infrastructure of Boston – and in other areas of Britain - is not the fault of hard-working migrants. It’s the fault of successive governments which have made places such as Boston a forgotten town.
We need politicians to stop incriminating immigrants, and start devoting their energies into the real problems facing Britain.
EU migrants help Britain to be richer. We should be using that extra wealth they bring to our country to enhance and upgrade towns like Boston.
We need massive investment programmes, to rebuild infrastructure; encourage new enterprises; build many more affordable homes; invest more into our schools, hospitals and GP services; assist with re-education and lifelong learning for all workers; help the unemployed to train for new skills or even to start their own businesses; offer bigger incentives to companies (yes even foreign ones) to relocate to towns where people need more work.
Why isn’t this happening?
Don’t blame Poles or other EU migrants. Blame politicians.
• Words and graphic by Jon Danzig (founder of Reasons2Remain)
• Please re-Tweet:
twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/904784727428653056
********************************************
• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Help us to ‘Reach a Million’ on Facebook. Go to facebook.com/Reasons2Remain
********************************************
• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/
********************************************
• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/
********************************************
• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk
********************************************
• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help us, you will be very welcome. Please drop us a line.
#STOPBREXIT #BOSTON
I see... so it's US, not ME now is it?
Picking on the most obviously simple minded to blame, eh? You naughty Boy!
I now declare you have passed your initiation with flying colours and have achieved the dubious honour of becoming a member of this Flying Circus.
And all because Woosh employed a Stealth weapon.....
Confucious him say
if at first you don't succeed
Cover up any evidence that you ever even tried.
Commended: but it will take a lot of work to do that with Brexit by Heck!
Last edited:
That was a very interesting post.a good read this morning:
→ Don't blame migrants for Brexit, blame politicians - Please share
BOSTON IS THE TOWN THAT MOST WANTED BREXIT. WHY?
Boston is the town that most strongly voted for Brexit in the Referendum. Clearly, the people there don’t much like ‘free movement of people’. But it wasn’t always like that.
Back in the 17th century, people of Boston, England moved to America and founded Boston, in the state now called Massachusetts.
That’s because, like most people who move, those people from Boston, England wanted a better life.
This was eloquently expressed by the playwright and novelist, Bonnie Greer, on a recent edition of BBC Question Time, which was broadcast from the town of Boston, England.
Ms Greer said:
‘We’re a migratory species, we human beings. And we move. We move to better ourselves, we move to go and find the things we need.
‘We’ve always moved. We will continue to move.
‘This town of Boston is the second Boston I’ve been in. The first one is in Massachusetts. People from your town founded that town. And they founded it because they wanted to have a better life. And they’ve moved.’
Her comment drew strong applause from the Bostonians in the audience, who were clearly moved.
And yet, it’s also clear that many residents of Boston are alarmed by the rapid rise of migrants moving there in recent years from the rest of the EU.
After London, Boston is home to the highest concentration of EU migrants – quite something, when you consider that London is one of the world’s largest cities, and Boston is, or was, a sleepy Lincolnshire farming town.
In the period between 2004 and 2014, the migrant population of Boston increased by 460 per cent.
Of the 64,000 people now living in the borough (some officials believe the real figure could be 10,000 more), about 12 per cent were born in other EU countries.
That has put considerable pressure on public services – schools, hospitals, doctors, homes, etc. It’s understandable that many of the indigenous population of Boston feel disgruntled.
It’s is also perhaps a natural response to blame the extra people who are using those public services for the strain on those public services.
There is, though, another way of looking at this.
If a train is full, do you blame the passengers, or the train company for not providing enough trains or carriages?
If a hospital is full with no beds available, do you blame the patients in the hospital, or the public services for not providing enough beds and facilities?
Migrants don’t move to places where there aren’t good jobs. And that’s perfectly exemplified in the case of Boston.
The rapid rise in Boston’s migrant population is because there are plenty of jobs to fill, with employment rising. If that were not the case, migrants wouldn’t go there.
Consequently, Boston is booming.
Unemployment in the town is below the national average - 4.4% of economically active people, as against 4.8% nationally.
Boston used to be a sleepy farming town. Farmers used to bring in temporary workers for the short harvest periods.
But as a result of the influx of migrants, the local economy of Boston has diversified and blossomed.
The town now creates work all year-round, meaning that it can sustain a lot more jobs. That also means, of course, that Boston needs migrants to fill those jobs.
As Boston Labour councillor, Paul Gleeson, recently told the BBC:
"There's more harvesting going on throughout the year. And - more importantly - those vegetables are processed in Boston - wrapped and bar-coded for supermarket."
In addition, food grown elsewhere in Europe is now brought to Boston to be processed.
This is, and should be, a success story. Why do so many residents in Boston think otherwise?
Politicians have been quick to blame ‘too many migrants’ for perceived strains in the town of Boston. But, in reality, that’s castigating the wrong people.
It’s easy to scapegoat migrants for problems they didn’t cause. And doing so, actually lets our political masters off the hook. It hides the central problem, rather than addressing it.
Because politicians shouldn’t be blaming migrants for any lack of resources. They should be blaming themselves. For it is they who are at fault.
EU migrants in Britain – and in Boston – are mostly in gainful employment, working hard, spending most of their earnings here, paying taxes, and making significant net contributions to our national and local economies.
Without them Britain – and Boston – would be poorer.
The lack of investment in the local services and infrastructure of Boston – and in other areas of Britain - is not the fault of hard-working migrants. It’s the fault of successive governments which have made places such as Boston a forgotten town.
We need politicians to stop incriminating immigrants, and start devoting their energies into the real problems facing Britain.
EU migrants help Britain to be richer. We should be using that extra wealth they bring to our country to enhance and upgrade towns like Boston.
We need massive investment programmes, to rebuild infrastructure; encourage new enterprises; build many more affordable homes; invest more into our schools, hospitals and GP services; assist with re-education and lifelong learning for all workers; help the unemployed to train for new skills or even to start their own businesses; offer bigger incentives to companies (yes even foreign ones) to relocate to towns where people need more work.
Why isn’t this happening?
Don’t blame Poles or other EU migrants. Blame politicians.
• Words and graphic by Jon Danzig (founder of Reasons2Remain)
• Please re-Tweet:
twitter.com/Reasons2Remain/status/904784727428653056
********************************************
• To follow and support Reasons2Remain just ‘like’ the page, and please invite all your friends to like the page. Help us to ‘Reach a Million’ on Facebook. Go to facebook.com/Reasons2Remain
********************************************
• Please rate Reasons2Remain out of 5 stars. Here's the link: facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/reviews/
********************************************
• Follow Reasons2Remain on Twitter: twitter.com/reasons2remain and Instagram: instagram.com/reasons2remain/
********************************************
• Explore our unique Reasons2Remain gallery of over 1,000 graphics and articles: reasons2remain.co.uk
********************************************
• Reasons2Remain is an entirely unfunded community campaign, unaffiliated with any other group or political party, and is run entirely by volunteers. If you'd like to help us, you will be very welcome. Please drop us a line.
#STOPBREXIT #BOSTON
I didn't do that, I just used my browser's "Find" facility which instantly assured me there was no mention of lottery etc.
Isn't technology wonderful.
.
That's the snag. though isn't it, whose opinion counts.
Censorship is often worse than the problem it seeks to deal with.
.