Jump to content

Recommended Posts

candycat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> daizie Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Blimey , any sighting of a chav, an England

> flag

> > or a dangerous dog ?

>

>

> I actually find that comment quite offensive. I

> live in council accomodation but am not a chav, do

> not own a dangerous dog & am not flying the

> england flag. You imply that every council tenant

> is the lowest of the low, but I can assure you,

> that is not the case. Maybe you should not be so

> narrow minded!


Oh thats a shame i want you all to be the same cant you try ?

CandyCat

Far be it from my tepid nature to get involved in any sort heated debate, but I couldn't help but notice that at no point in any of Dazie's posts did she imply council tenants are the 'lowest of the low'. Please could you confirm in which post this was implied as I seem to have missed it, having read through them all several times ?

santerme

You obviously have nothing better to do, this is supposed to be a forum for sensible discussion for sensible up standing people ! Yet all you seem to do is pick on peoples technical errors in the messages. It is that sort of attitude that i believe is indicative of the moral decline of this nation....

Kidneypunch! Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

It is that sort of attitude that i

> believe is indicative of the moral decline of this

> nation....


Kidney Punch, you said 'indic' which is so like nearly almost the same as like, IN DICK it couldn't be more similar if it tried..

You're so morally declined, dude it's just not true.

Seriously, man I'd decline anything you offered if you was my waitress. Trus' me geez.

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes! What was so funny, my mum wiped my bum on a

> sheet while my dad sat on the couch effing and

> cursing in disgust, i remember it well (tu)


---------------------------------------------------------


::o Please tell me that this didn't take place last week..

Kidneypunch! Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> santerme

> You obviously have nothing better to do, this is

> supposed to be a forum for sensible discussion for

> sensible up standing people ! Yet all you seem to

> do is pick on peoples technical errors in the

> messages. It is that sort of attitude that i

> believe is indicative of the moral decline of this

> nation....


...?

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...