Confused by Brendan Barber

Fella

Very confused. Heard him on the TV literally 2 minutes ago spitting bile about "the rich" & how under the coalition they'll get richer while the poor suffer.

And yet Brendan Barber is on a salary of £117,000 (paid for by his poor members).

I'm confused, £117,000 a year makes him rich by most standards.






All I can think of is that he's lowlife hypocritical scum living large off the poor whilst simultanously pretending to hate the rich.

chewmylegoff

Fella wrote: »

Very confused. Heard him on the TV literally 2 minutes ago spitting bile about "the rich" & how under the coalition they'll get richer while the poor suffer.

And yet Brendan Barber is on a salary of £117,000 (paid for by his poor members).

I'm confused, £117,000 a year makes him rich by most standards.






All I can think of is that he's lowlife hypocritical scum living large off the poor whilst simultanously pretending to hate the rich.

what was his message? that we should vote labour back in to make sure that the rich don't get richer whilst the poor get poorer. didn't seem to work very well last time...

Fella

His lack of any kind of message was quite astonishing. Just a hate-filled rant really.

Loughton_Monkey

What we need is a two week strike by every public service worker. This would save up to 4% of the annual wage bill of these public 'servants'.

A month would be better.

Norfolk_Jim

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

What we need is a two week strike by every public service worker. This would save up to 4% of the annual wage bill of these public 'servants'.

A month would be better.

And accident and emergency cases could just die? Sounds like a bonanza for undertakers, criminals, arsonists or international invaders - for a month anyway

u704446

Fella wrote: »

Very confused. Heard him on the TV literally 2 minutes ago spitting bile about "the rich" & how under the coalition they'll get richer while the poor suffer.

And yet Brendan Barber is on a salary of £117,000 (paid for by his poor members).

I'm confused, £117,000 a year makes him rich by most standards.

All I can think of is that he's lowlife hypocritical scum living large off the poor whilst simultanously pretending to hate the rich.

And because a rich person says it - it's therefore not an accurate description?

Generali

Fella wrote: »

Very confused. Heard him on the TV literally 2 minutes ago spitting bile about "the rich" & how under the coalition they'll get richer while the poor suffer.

And yet Brendan Barber is on a salary of £117,000 (paid for by his poor members).

I'm confused, £117,000 a year makes him rich by most standards.




All I can think of is that he's lowlife hypocritical scum living large off the poor whilst simultanously pretending to hate the rich.

It makes him one of the 1% in fact!

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

:money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money:

Loughton_Monkey

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

And accident and emergency cases could just die? Sounds like a bonanza for undertakers, criminals, arsonists or international invaders - for a month anyway

No problem.

We could police the streets with volunteers in uniform with no more rights than a normal person.

We could enlist the armed forces to provide security.

We could fill our hospitals with immigrants, Philippinos, people who can't speak English.

We could fill the schools with uneducated, lazy people who only want to work 5 hours a day, 30 weeks a year.

We could let in migrants unchallenged by any uniformed passport officials.

We could put a complete stop on building any form of public housing.

No wait! I think we're already doing all that.

Norfolk_Jim

I had expected a better response than that load of steriotyped Daily Mail material.

u704446

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We could fill the schools with uneducated, lazy people who only want to work 5 hours a day, 30 weeks a year.

But we were all students once! :rotfl:

Loughton_Monkey

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

I had expected a better response than that load of steriotyped Daily Mail material.

But if it's 'steriotyped' then it's definitely the Guardian. For Daily Mail, it's 'stereotyped'.

As I read neither rag, I will continue to give my own responses.