[Archived] News comment

[Amo]

And it's well past time he should be forgiven.

He's entitled to an opinion.

Not when that opinion breaks the rulez.

Seems the one with the personal prejudice here, is you.

[Mike E]

And it's well past time he should be forgiven.

He's entitled to an opinion.

There's 'an opinion'.

There's also something which amounted to: 'Yay! People I don't know who never hurt me or mine, but are of a nationality I hate (so must be scumbags) are dead!'

[Al]

Not when that opinion breaks the rulez.

Seems the one with the personal prejudice here, is you.

Why on Earth do you say that? It's not me that wants anyone banned.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Not when that opinion breaks the rulez.Seems the one with the personal prejudice here, is you.

I don't understand. Al and Jim have crossed swords on many occasions. I don't think you are justified in your accusation. Plenty of people on this site @#/? me off but I wouldn't advocate that they are permanently silenced. Maybe you're taking yourself a bit too seriously.

[Al]

I don't understand. Al and Jim have crossed swords on many occasions. I don't think you are justified in your accusation. Plenty of people on this site @#/? me off but I wouldn't advocate that they are permanently silenced. Maybe you're taking yourself a bit too seriously.

The voice of reason at last.

Yes I have crossed swords with Jim in the past. I very often do not agree with what he says, particularly his politics, but I defend his right to say it. A permanent ban is just saying that you refuse his right to an opinion because it contradicts yours.

[Amo]

Why on Earth do you say that? It's not me that wants anyone banned.

Because you want him reinstated just...because.

If he wasn't such an @sshole, he'd still be here.

I don't understand. Al and Jim have crossed swords on many occasions. I don't think you are justified in your accusation. Plenty of people on this site @#/? me off but I wouldn't advocate that they are permanently silenced. Maybe you're taking yourself a bit too seriously.

Because there's a difference between being contentious for good reason and being flat out offensive. It's not exactly the first time he's done it, and he's lucky he wasn't banned sooner imo.

[jim mk2]

If he wasn't such an @sshole, he'd still be here.

I've just been reading through this thread and the above comment is very offensive. If the moderators were consistent they would ban you too.

[Al]

I've just been reading through this thread and the above comment is very offensive. If the moderators were consistent they would ban you too.

Absolutely correct. That is flat out offensive.....just because.

[Amo]

I've just been reading through this thread and the above comment is very offensive. If the moderators were consistent they would ban you too.

Am I wrong?

Also, I wouldn't care if I was banned. It would help my mental state.

[yoda]

Am I wrong?

Also, I wouldn't care if I was banned. It would help my mental state.

But then we would not get to see your avatar's

[thenodrog]

Osborne is a very political chancellor and this budget was no different with clear election bribes aimed at the haves while the have nots as usual were ignored.

What a daft contradiction that is in your first sentence! 'Clear election bribes' would be aimed at the majority of the electorate surely and not a small section of it? A General Election does not incorporate a means test you know.

There is a clear case for pensions reform (which Balls acknowleged) Is there? Why? but as Balls pointed out the fact pensioners will be able to access their funds for spending purposes the way is wide open for another mis-selling scandal by the sharks in the City. Is that the best you (and he) could do? So OAP's shouldn't be able to access their own funds? So when actually will they get it? Whats the point of saving if you cant ever get it back?

The budget in fact wasn't a "blinder" but a complete non-event that did nothing to address the long term problems caused (in 2008 by New Labour) the financial crisis, the economic imbalances in this country, the growing poverty gap and the north south divide. As Balls said, it's very difficult to criticise a budget that amounted to a load of hot air and very little substance. Balls was stymied.

[thenodrog]

It will probably set up some sort of 'giveaway' budget to certain people who they want to vote for them next year. Pensioners, land owners, those with mortgages, share holders, City types.........mostly the usual crowd that the Tories are friends of. Of course, the flip side will be the usual bleatings of austerity that will leading to further welfare cuts, pay freezes for the emergency services and public sector and all the rest of that sort of thing. In effect, those with a bit of money will feel slightly better off and happier, whilst the working classes and those who have the temerity to be disabled or struggling will probably get the boot again.

Don't be daft. They are already assured of their votes! When there is nothing to gain why push on an open door? A budget that suits the rich minority and ticks off the majority would be suicidal. I think you need to re-visit the implications for the majority. You buggers have been brainwashed from the cradle! Think for yourselves ffs!

[thenodrog]

The above post must be some sort of joke. The "hole" was caused by the bankers whose greed and avarice caused the worst financial crisis and recession since the 1930s. The "tough times for the many" has certainly been borne by those at the bottom of society while those at the top who caused the problem have carried on as if nothing had happened - and been handed tax cuts by Osborne to make them feel even better. The best way to balance the country's accounts over the past 4 years would have been a growth agenda instead of an ideological exercise in cutting the size of the state. The "right thing" with public pay would be to give workers a decent rise after all they have suffered over the past few years while taxing heavily the bonuses of the undeserving in the boardrooms and in the City.

The Financial Services Authority was put in place in 2001 by Tony Blairs govt and three years after New Labour had got into power it was discontinued and replaced in 2012.

Lifted from the FSA website.....

FSA objectives

As the financial regulator for the UK, we use a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to fulfil our statutory objectives.

Our powers and objectives are given to us by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). We also aim to promote efficient, orderly and fair financial markets and follow our principles of good regulation.

We are an independent body and we receive no government funding – we are funded entirely by the firms we regulate. However, we are accountable to the Treasury and, through them, Parliament.

[thenodrog]

The voice of reason at last.

Yes I have crossed swords with Jim in the past. I very often do not agree with what he says, particularly his politics, but I defend his right to say it. A permanent ban is just saying that you refuse his right to an opinion because it contradicts yours.

His opinion probably hasn't changed and his right to express it hasn't either. All that has changed is that he just cant do it on BRFCS.

As for opinions my post about the budget attracted quite a response, Jimmk2 has attracted comment but my post about a rash of paedophilia in Blackburn as reported in the LT and sexual attacks carried out on young girls by muslim men didn't attract one response.

[thenodrog]

I've just been reading through this thread and the above comment is very offensive. If the moderators were consistent they would ban you too.

Rubbish! We need quality moderators not Orwells 'Thought Police'...... we went about 190 miles down that road and it didn't work!

[jim mk2]

The Financial Services Authority was put in place in 2001 by Tony Blairs govt and three years after New Labour had got into power it was discontinued and replaced in 2012.

.

And the Tory party when in opposition constantly criticised the then Labour govt for over-regulating the City.

Rubbish! We need quality moderators not Orwells 'Thought Police'...... we went about 190 miles down that road and it didn't work!

Not when it is not applied consistently. Calling someone an ar**hole deserves a red card as much as the banned poster.

Osborne is a very political chancellor and this budget was no different with clear election bribes aimed at the haves while the have nots as usual were ignored.

What a daft contradiction that is in your first sentence! 'Clear election bribes' would be aimed at the majority of the electorate surely and not a small section of it? A General Election does not incorporate a means test you know.

There is a clear case for pensions reform (which Balls acknowleged) Is there? Why? but as Balls pointed out the fact pensioners will be able to access their funds for spending purposes the way is wide open for another mis-selling scandal by the sharks in the City. Is that the best you (and he) could do? So OAP's shouldn't be able to access their own funds? So when actually will they get it? Whats the point of saving if you cant ever get it back?

The budget in fact wasn't a "blinder" but a complete non-event that did nothing to address the long term problems caused (in 2008 by New Labour) the financial crisis, the economic imbalances in this country, the growing poverty gap and the north south divide. As Balls said, it's very difficult to criticise a budget that amounted to a load of hot air and very little substance. Balls was stymied.

1 They are election bribes because they are aimed at people who have turned away from the Tories. Like everything Osborne does, it was a political move.

2 Pensions have needed reforming - as you have acknowledged in your second sentence.

3. The financial crisis was caused by the City of London and the greed of the banks in particular. Balls wasn't "stymied" because as he said, you can't criticise something as ineffectual as this Budget.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The financial shysters of this country will be rubbing their hands in glee. All these elderly people with their pots of money will be easy meat.

[Steve Moss]

The financial shysters of this country will be rubbing their hands in glee. All these elderly people with their pots of money will be easy meat.

But don't these same "elderly people" have "pots of money" because they were prudent with their savings and investments? Why would their character change now?

Some will doubtless lose money. That's down to market capitalism; some investments (risk) pan out and some don't. It isn't necessarily the fault of "financial shysters."

[Guest Norbert]

Don't be daft. They are already assured of their votes! When there is nothing to gain why push on an open door? A budget that suits the rich minority and ticks off the majority would be suicidal. I think you need to re-visit the implications for the majority. You buggers have been brainwashed from the cradle! Think for yourselves ffs!

You consistently vomit up what may be described as a Daily Mail caricatures of Muslims, the unemployed, anyone who disagrees with you etc. in your consistently arrogant, self important, jumped up posts and you have the temerity to say I don't think for myself. Murdoch and co. has done a right job on you.

[Tom]

The voice of reason at last.Yes I have crossed swords with Jim in the past. I very often do not agree with what he says, particularly his politics, but I defend his right to say it. A permanent ban is just saying that you refuse his right to an opinion because it contradicts yours.

Do you no think there should be standards? The comment was vile nothing personal about it, there are posting guidelines and I felt Jim was far beyond the line of decency with the comments made (which I didn't see until people reported it which is what we ask people to do)

He'll be back at some point I'm sure but it's been less than 2 months hardly a lifetime.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

But don't these same "elderly people" have "pots of money" because they were prudent with their savings and investments? Why would their character change now?

Some will doubtless lose money. That's down to market capitalism; some investments (risk) pan out and some don't. It isn't necessarily the fault of "financial shysters."

Unfortunately Steve as people get older their faculties diminish. That includes their mental faculties, there's plenty of evidence of that fact on this site. The person that was smart enough to accumulate a pot of money in early life may not by smart enough to invest it wisely in old age. The TV and Radio shows over here that devote themselves to consumer issues are full of stories of gullible old people being conned out of their lifetime savings. My mum is in her mid eighties now and she is extremely suggestible to all sorts of ideas ,not all of them concerning money or investment. It's certainly a worry for my sister and myself.

[Doug]

Unfortunately Steve as people get older their faculties diminish. That includes their mental faculties, there's plenty of evidence of that fact on this site. The person that was smart enough to accumulate a pot of money in early life may not by smart enough to invest it wisely in old age. The TV and Radio shows over here that devote themselves to consumer issues are full of stories of gullible old people being conned out of their lifetime savings. My mum is in her mid eighties now and she is extremely suggestible to all sorts of ideas ,not all of them concerning money or investment. It's certainly a worry for my sister and myself.

Tyrone, I suggest you and your sister take some control of her assets.

My father suffered with dementia for many years before he passed away, and my sister and I had to do this by 'enduring power of attorney'. It's a pain to set up and you have to submit accounts every year but it does remove the worry and is easy once you get the hang of it.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Tyrone, I suggest you and your sister take some control of her assets.

My father suffered with dementia for many years before he passed away, and my sister and I had to do this by 'enduring power of attorney'. It's a pain to set up and you have to submit accounts every year but it does remove the worry and is easy once you get the hang of it.

Thanks for that advice Doug. My mum isn't quite at that stage yet but it can't be far off.

A year or two back a pal of mine and his wife were taken jointly for about £140k. They were both smart people in full possession of their faculties but got a bit greedy I suppose. They were getting 3 or 4 percent above base rate on their investment for a year or two then it all went tits up. Their " Financial Adviser " was basically running a " Ponzi " scheme to fund his gambling addiction ! He eventually got four years in jail and they got about 2p in the pound back.

[Al]

Do you no think there should be standards? The comment was vile nothing personal about it, there are posting guidelines and I felt Jim was far beyond the line of decency with the comments made (which I didn't see until people reported it which is what we ask people to do)

He'll be back at some point I'm sure but it's been less than 2 months hardly a lifetime.

Yes I do believe there should be some standards but as he has been banned he is unable to defend himself. I thought somebody should.

I'm going to stop doing this sort of thing. I tried to defend people who use Electronic Cigarettes and got abused even though I don't smoke and dogs although I no longer own one. In future I'll just look after myself. Maybe I'll get less aggro.

[jim mk2]

Thanks for that advice Doug. My mum isn't quite at that stage yet but it can't be far off.

A year or two back a pal of mine and his wife were taken jointly for about £140k. They were both smart people in full possession of their faculties but got a bit greedy I suppose. They were getting 3 or 4 percent above base rate on their investment for a year or two then it all went tits up. Their " Financial Adviser " was basically running a " Ponzi " scheme to fund his gambling addiction ! He eventually got four years in jail and they got about 2p in the pound back.

That's terrible story and one that will happen time and again in future as the financial vultures in the City cash in on Osborne's budget by grabbing pensioners' hard-earned savings.