"King" Fred gets house smashed...

baby_boomer

adambro wrote: »

They have committed a crime and so any jury should convict them. To suggest that they would be excused because they targeted Goodwin is completely ludicrous.

You've little sense of the inherent feeling for natural justice on a jury - or the past behaviour of British juries in letting people off - e.g. for petty crime capital offences in the 18th Century.

Put me on a Fred Goodwin house vandalism jury and I've only got to persuade one person out of the other eleven that we should do the right thing and acquit .

GeorgeHowell

RayWolfe wrote: »

Interesting. So you start a discussion with statement of opinion (bona fide? loaded? who knows?) and when challenged, you don't want to play anymore. Ah well, debate is not to every one's taste but might I suggest that, if you don't want an argument, don't start one? May I also suggest you learn the difference between rhetoric and sarcasm? Finally may I invite you back when you have finished your O Level history?
By now.

As I was saying elsewhere, the last refuge of the lost argument is to attack the poster rather than the points that he/she makes. I don't think I have started an argument, in that I have not mentioned any other poster by name, or criticised their specific comments, posting style, or perceived intellect, level of maturity, or parentage. My "crime" appears to have been to attack the Labour Party.

That post above contains nothing constructive, but is just a pop at me, such that I have to respond in similar (but hopefully less emotive) vein. No doubt makes you feel better, but adds nothing to the discussion, and is just boring for other readers. You also seem to have the impression that I am a young poster, or perhaps you choose to imply that in order to try to appear superior. Wrong in fact.

GeorgeHowell

whiteflag wrote: »

Perhaps that there was no viable alternative.

Its an interesting concept that people that dont agree with you must be irrational. Not everyone reads the Telegraph and therefore may be able to form alternative opinions.

There is always a viable alternative, but whether it is a desirable one is another matter. Some people's voting for Blair was no doubt completely rational -- all those who comprise what has become known as the 'client state' :- the Scots and Welsh who are subsidised by the English, public service employees whose pay and benefits are subsidised by the private sector, those on benefits who are subsidised by those working. Blair very cleverly bought votes from these groups, and it worked. The 'many cases' that I referred to, however, where voting for him was not rational, were the essentially non-politically aligned floating voters who were conned by him into believing that New Labour was the best thing for the country and for themselves. They have clearly mostly now reverted, as is evidenced by the 10%+ Conservative poll lead (and more in the key marginals I should wager), with Labour's projected share of about 31% representing its entrenched rump of client state afficianados and champagne socialists.

RayWolfe

Watch out for the next exiting instalment from Central Office sometime soon.

GeorgeHowell

RayWolfe wrote: »

Watch out for the next exiting instalment from Central Office sometime soon.

Or perhaps exciting, as I have no immediate intention of exiting.;)

whiteflag_3

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Or perhaps exciting, as I have no immediate intention of exiting.;)

always poor show to correct spelling errors:rolleyes:

GeorgeHowell

whiteflag wrote: »

always poor show to correct spelling errors:rolleyes:

I agree. But in fact I made a tongue-in-cheek observation about an ironic ambiguity which arose from what appeared to be a typing error.

There really was no need for you to comment.

RayWolfe

whiteflag wrote: »

always poor show to correct spelling errors:rolleyes:

You're right, but it was funny and George did give a wink.

whiteflag_3

RayWolfe wrote: »

You're right, but it was funny and George did give a wink.

yes I know, but I just couldnt help myself

Primrose

I have no problems with people who have made their money honestly and ethically and who in the process, have helped other people earn a decent living too.
I do have problems with those who have made their money at the expense of others and who have been personally greedy beyond belief, especially when this has been done in a position of authority and power. Leadership and power infers a sense of social responsibility and high ethics and sadly we've seen some pretty unacceptable examples of this in public and business life recently. I don't condone violence but can understand the huge anger and desperation of those who have lost homes, jobs, pensions or savings because of the current financial crisis. They want somebody to blame and those they feel are responsible just seem to keep come up smelling of roses, peerages or freshly printed bank notes.