The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
(oh god he's off on another rant...yeah I know)
Ok, explain this because maybe I just don't understand and I'm willing to listen to you.
Why do we have a defence industry that costs us over 14 billion a year to maintain, yet the NSPCC is a charitable organisation?
How is that right that the government underwrites missile sales to the Middle East, Kenya etc, but an organistation that works to prevent the hideous practice of child-abuse has to rely on donations from the public?
Anyone?
Why did we abolish student-grants and introduce student-loans, meaning those that wish to educate themselves and better their position end up in debt, yet Labour spent £17 million on PR for their election manifesto?
I'm not seeing the logic here.
Things that would aid us as a nation, taking care of children subjected to the most horrific abuse gets nothing except what you and I hand over from our earnings?
That's not right.
I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to groups like the NSPCC, I'm saying we shouldn't have to.
It should be number one priority, to take care and protect little kids, not rely on our goodwill to assist.
Not when Lord Irving spends £14,000 on redecorating his apartment at the tax-payers expense.
Same with dealing with failing inner-city schools.
These things are the cornerstones of future rules of you and I, but it appears they are allowed to fall into neglect and disrepair so they close, meaning kids either have no where to get educated, or have to travel miles out of the way at the parent's expense?
Education in this country is free, by law.
So why abolish the grants?
We seem only to eager to spend billions in the wake of a terrorist attack in America, yet this money was not available for things like teacher training and nurse-salaries.
It's not right.
Can anyone explain why the NSPCC relies on charitable donations, whilst Gordon Brown is announcing plans to introduce identity cards at the cost of 1.2 billion pounds???
Is it me? Am I the only one that thinks this is wrong?
(probably)
Ok, explain this because maybe I just don't understand and I'm willing to listen to you.
Why do we have a defence industry that costs us over 14 billion a year to maintain, yet the NSPCC is a charitable organisation?
How is that right that the government underwrites missile sales to the Middle East, Kenya etc, but an organistation that works to prevent the hideous practice of child-abuse has to rely on donations from the public?
Anyone?
Why did we abolish student-grants and introduce student-loans, meaning those that wish to educate themselves and better their position end up in debt, yet Labour spent £17 million on PR for their election manifesto?
I'm not seeing the logic here.
Things that would aid us as a nation, taking care of children subjected to the most horrific abuse gets nothing except what you and I hand over from our earnings?
That's not right.
I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to groups like the NSPCC, I'm saying we shouldn't have to.
It should be number one priority, to take care and protect little kids, not rely on our goodwill to assist.
Not when Lord Irving spends £14,000 on redecorating his apartment at the tax-payers expense.
Same with dealing with failing inner-city schools.
These things are the cornerstones of future rules of you and I, but it appears they are allowed to fall into neglect and disrepair so they close, meaning kids either have no where to get educated, or have to travel miles out of the way at the parent's expense?
Education in this country is free, by law.
So why abolish the grants?
We seem only to eager to spend billions in the wake of a terrorist attack in America, yet this money was not available for things like teacher training and nurse-salaries.
It's not right.
Can anyone explain why the NSPCC relies on charitable donations, whilst Gordon Brown is announcing plans to introduce identity cards at the cost of 1.2 billion pounds???
Is it me? Am I the only one that thinks this is wrong?
(probably)
Tax on degree holders too...
Damn stupid idea, tax people because they seem to be more intelligent. Does that mean that anyone in the Royal Family or famous people who get an honoury degree will be taxed more? Does it, hell. They'll find a way around that.
Mind you, most of the govenment probably never got a degree anyway....strange that.
The tax system is all messed up. It should be that the more money you earn, the more tax you pay, indescrimate of whether you are a businessperson or a king/queen. No one should have tax breaks unless it's because they can't afford the cost of living.
Our country is getting more expensive to live in, and it's even difficult to get enough money for a small mortgage these days.
Damn stupid idea, tax people because they seem to be more intelligent. Does that mean that anyone in the Royal Family or famous people who get an honoury degree will be taxed more? Does it, hell. They'll find a way around that.
Mind you, most of the govenment probably never got a degree anyway....strange that.
The tax system is all messed up. It should be that the more money you earn, the more tax you pay, indescrimate of whether you are a businessperson or a king/queen. No one should have tax breaks unless it's because they can't afford the cost of living.
Our country is getting more expensive to live in, and it's even difficult to get enough money for a small mortgage these days.
Note Blair trying to get the Euro currency in in his speech too....
One that annoys me (not quite as mich of a priority as the NSPCC though) is the fact that 1/6th of road tax is spent on the roads, and 1/5th of nhs payments is spent on the nhs.
The relevance? wheres the "fund the army" tax? or the "labour's latest campaign" tax?
Drives me potty! the lot of 'em!
One that annoys me (not quite as mich of a priority as the NSPCC though) is the fact that 1/6th of road tax is spent on the roads, and 1/5th of nhs payments is spent on the nhs.
The relevance? wheres the "fund the army" tax? or the "labour's latest campaign" tax?
Drives me potty! the lot of 'em!
Well, the majority of Braveheart was actually filmed in Ireland, with an Australian actor, yet it's about Scotland.
Hmmmmmm......
Hmmmmmm......
Its all messed up!
however some americans that I have spoken to like tony blair, they also like clinton and some think that Braveheart was all about Ireland.
however some americans that I have spoken to like tony blair, they also like clinton and some think that Braveheart was all about Ireland.
What makes me laugh is that in Blairs speech today, he was babbling on about how we should work together to stop the atrocities in Kosovo, Kenya and The Congo etc, and abolishing world debt, helping needy countries etc, yet 3 weeks ago, no one seemed to give a rats ass.
Also, suddenly America has seen that it needs to be part of a community, and be nice to people, so they are thinking of signing up to the Kyoto agreement.
Could they just eb saying that to get the help they need from people who otherwise may not have given it?
Also, suddenly America has seen that it needs to be part of a community, and be nice to people, so they are thinking of signing up to the Kyoto agreement.
Could they just eb saying that to get the help they need from people who otherwise may not have given it?
It's not you Mewtwo.
makes you head hurt doesn't it?
makes you head hurt doesn't it?
Have you herd the news reports today? Britton pledging millions of to Afghanistan (which would normally be my gripe) but then in the same news program is another report on Britton playing a leading military role in the "Afghanistan attacks".
So putting things into context. We (Britton) threaten Afghanistan with military attacks, forcing even more poverty stricken civilians to flea there homes. After this assuming the reports are correct we launch an air attack (in what ever form) Afghanistan but because we are British we then go and drop millions of pounds of aid to the so called "enemy of democracy".
Is it me or does that sound ludicrous?
So putting things into context. We (Britton) threaten Afghanistan with military attacks, forcing even more poverty stricken civilians to flea there homes. After this assuming the reports are correct we launch an air attack (in what ever form) Afghanistan but because we are British we then go and drop millions of pounds of aid to the so called "enemy of democracy".
Is it me or does that sound ludicrous?
Agree.
War, the understood definition, can only be declared on a country, not an individual or group of people.
And I saw the "1st aid-trucks from the UK arrive in Afghanistan this week".
Why now?
Why wait until we are part of a "coalition" that intends to bomb that country before we start to help?
Afghanistan has been suffering at the hands of the Talaban for almost 7yrs now, and we've done nothing to help (primarily because of the US involvement with Bin Laden and aid supplied to fight Iraq interest)
So, we're off to bomb and maim a country already on it's knees to pursue a group that have denied responsibility and we offer aid to them 1st?
Reeks of
"Look public, we are helping these people, we are huminatarians. So, any further action taken against this people can be written off because we care so much we are, for the 1st time ever, sending aid to a country suffering from drought and famine"
War, the understood definition, can only be declared on a country, not an individual or group of people.
And I saw the "1st aid-trucks from the UK arrive in Afghanistan this week".
Why now?
Why wait until we are part of a "coalition" that intends to bomb that country before we start to help?
Afghanistan has been suffering at the hands of the Talaban for almost 7yrs now, and we've done nothing to help (primarily because of the US involvement with Bin Laden and aid supplied to fight Iraq interest)
So, we're off to bomb and maim a country already on it's knees to pursue a group that have denied responsibility and we offer aid to them 1st?
Reeks of
"Look public, we are helping these people, we are huminatarians. So, any further action taken against this people can be written off because we care so much we are, for the 1st time ever, sending aid to a country suffering from drought and famine"
I particulalarly like the way that the Labour Party refused to bow to left wing pressure to increase public spending, pledged not to increase the top tax brackets to boost the existing welfare state (let alone charities!) but are now preparing the public for a possible tax hike to pay for an assualt against a largely invisible enemy.
And by the way, whatever the politicians and news organisations tell you this is not a war. A war is a legal term, and it doesn't apply here. They are using the word to shape opinion as, in times of war, the state can get away with suppressions of basic freedoms which would be considered beyond the pale in peace time.
And by the way, whatever the politicians and news organisations tell you this is not a war. A war is a legal term, and it doesn't apply here. They are using the word to shape opinion as, in times of war, the state can get away with suppressions of basic freedoms which would be considered beyond the pale in peace time.
(oh god he's off on another rant...yeah I know)
Ok, explain this because maybe I just don't understand and I'm willing to listen to you.
Why do we have a defence industry that costs us over 14 billion a year to maintain, yet the NSPCC is a charitable organisation?
How is that right that the government underwrites missile sales to the Middle East, Kenya etc, but an organistation that works to prevent the hideous practice of child-abuse has to rely on donations from the public?
Anyone?
Why did we abolish student-grants and introduce student-loans, meaning those that wish to educate themselves and better their position end up in debt, yet Labour spent £17 million on PR for their election manifesto?
I'm not seeing the logic here.
Things that would aid us as a nation, taking care of children subjected to the most horrific abuse gets nothing except what you and I hand over from our earnings?
That's not right.
I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to groups like the NSPCC, I'm saying we shouldn't have to.
It should be number one priority, to take care and protect little kids, not rely on our goodwill to assist.
Not when Lord Irving spends £14,000 on redecorating his apartment at the tax-payers expense.
Same with dealing with failing inner-city schools.
These things are the cornerstones of future rules of you and I, but it appears they are allowed to fall into neglect and disrepair so they close, meaning kids either have no where to get educated, or have to travel miles out of the way at the parent's expense?
Education in this country is free, by law.
So why abolish the grants?
We seem only to eager to spend billions in the wake of a terrorist attack in America, yet this money was not available for things like teacher training and nurse-salaries.
It's not right.
Can anyone explain why the NSPCC relies on charitable donations, whilst Gordon Brown is announcing plans to introduce identity cards at the cost of 1.2 billion pounds???
Is it me? Am I the only one that thinks this is wrong?
(probably)
Ok, explain this because maybe I just don't understand and I'm willing to listen to you.
Why do we have a defence industry that costs us over 14 billion a year to maintain, yet the NSPCC is a charitable organisation?
How is that right that the government underwrites missile sales to the Middle East, Kenya etc, but an organistation that works to prevent the hideous practice of child-abuse has to rely on donations from the public?
Anyone?
Why did we abolish student-grants and introduce student-loans, meaning those that wish to educate themselves and better their position end up in debt, yet Labour spent £17 million on PR for their election manifesto?
I'm not seeing the logic here.
Things that would aid us as a nation, taking care of children subjected to the most horrific abuse gets nothing except what you and I hand over from our earnings?
That's not right.
I'm not saying we shouldn't donate to groups like the NSPCC, I'm saying we shouldn't have to.
It should be number one priority, to take care and protect little kids, not rely on our goodwill to assist.
Not when Lord Irving spends £14,000 on redecorating his apartment at the tax-payers expense.
Same with dealing with failing inner-city schools.
These things are the cornerstones of future rules of you and I, but it appears they are allowed to fall into neglect and disrepair so they close, meaning kids either have no where to get educated, or have to travel miles out of the way at the parent's expense?
Education in this country is free, by law.
So why abolish the grants?
We seem only to eager to spend billions in the wake of a terrorist attack in America, yet this money was not available for things like teacher training and nurse-salaries.
It's not right.
Can anyone explain why the NSPCC relies on charitable donations, whilst Gordon Brown is announcing plans to introduce identity cards at the cost of 1.2 billion pounds???
Is it me? Am I the only one that thinks this is wrong?
(probably)