Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities?" I think if he has any sense or compassion he will do lets wait and see what happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder if the same would have been payed to joe bloggs from anytown if they had been wrongly named? or isit just because he is a lord? "He has an expensive lawyer...pure and simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? I think if he has any sense or compassion he will do lets wait and see what happens. " He's a Tory. Don't hold your breath. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities?" I heard the story this morning and his lawyer said he wasn't happy with getting compo as he knew it was coming out of the taxpayers pocket. The report also said he was looking at getting roughly 50k and probably being reduced as the bbc were quick to issue an apology. SHOCK. Another fact that panned out to be untrue. I'm pretty sure he doesn't need the money and hope he does give it to charity. Which charity would you give it to? I'd personally give it to a children's charity especially as its near xmas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? I think if he has any sense or compassion he will do lets wait and see what happens. He's a Tory. Don't hold your breath." I agree with sentiment re tory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so according to the ten oclock news he,s looking for more compo from other orginsations that printed it about him!! " Just seen that too, a bit of a u- turn on the statement he made this morning | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money." The BBC didn't mention his name as far as I can tell. To my mind, no compensation is warranted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so according to the ten oclock news he,s looking for more compo from other orginsations that printed it about him!! " good on him, maybe this will start stiffling untrue accusations that people make..... ITV will have to pay out... some newspapers as well, and people on twitter that spread it... I have see some of the names on the "this morning" list on twitter... and I hope they go after them as well... he happens to have money...so he can do something about it, however the people who for example named the lady who raped in the ched evans case knows that the average person doesn't have that money... so they think they are bulletproof... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money. The BBC didn't mention his name as far as I can tell. To my mind, no compensation is warranted." If people do know all the facts and it is unwarranted..so be it. Anyone know all the facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money. The BBC didn't mention his name as far as I can tell. To my mind, no compensation is warranted." newsnight implied it was him twice in two different reports.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money. The BBC didn't mention his name as far as I can tell. To my mind, no compensation is warranted. newsnight implied it was him twice in two different reports...." correct ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money." It is but if he values his name keeping the money will just make him look a little greedy. It will be interesting to see what he does though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so according to the ten oclock news he,s looking for more compo from other orginsations that printed it about him!! good on him, maybe this will start stiffling untrue accusations that people make..... ITV will have to pay out... some newspapers as well, and people on twitter that spread it... I have see some of the names on the "this morning" list on twitter... and I hope they go after them as well... he happens to have money...so he can do something about it, however the people who for example named the lady who raped in the ched evans case knows that the average person doesn't have that money... so they think they are bulletproof..."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
.
they screw everyone..
.
and - we all have to pay monthly or yearly in advance.. for this shafting..
.
and iv been told that they give "old-folks" free BBC !!!
.
no wonder them pensioners seem quite happy..
.
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money. The BBC didn't mention his name as far as I can tell. To my mind, no compensation is warranted. newsnight implied it was him twice in two different reports.... correct ... " I've not hear that. All I heard was 'a senior conservative politician from the Thatcher era'. That hardly narrows it down. Others, including Sally Bercow and George Monbiot drew their own conclusions and must answer accordingly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i dont recall ITV naming him" his name was one of those on the "imfamous" card that schofield handed to cameron on this morning... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"he is proved innocent at this time everyone knows he is innocent his integrety is intact he is not damaged by this mistake should not seek or recieve anything let the police investigsate properly and if he is calling everyones bluff let him suffer the consequences" Do you truly believe being inferred to as a possible child abuser won't stick in the minds of some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i dont recall ITV naming him his name was one of those on the "imfamous" card that schofield handed to cameron on this morning..." I've looked at that clip a number of times and can't identify any of the names allegedly on the card. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i dont recall ITV naming him his name was one of those on the "imfamous" card that schofield handed to cameron on this morning... I've looked at that clip a number of times and can't identify any of the names allegedly on the card." apparently there are 4 names on the card that are identify-able enough (I won't name the other 3.....) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"in some ways there needs to be a reckoning on the abuse and defamation that some people feel they are ok doing using 'social media'.. " the first that it happens, profiles would disappear instantly, no names would get mentioned and a lot of the bluster would stop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities?" Why should he? His name was besmirched and he felt genuinely afraid to leave his home for fear of reprisal attacks, and let's face it, we seem to have become a nation of vigilantes willing to cast the first of thousands of stones without justification or evidence. He deserves his payout and it only the fact that he knew the licence payer would be paying it that he didn't go for more. Now he's decided to take on social networks and end this 'trial by twitter' culture that has pervaded our society. I hope he sees it through and takes these people to court who think they can sit behind the relative anonymity of the internet and spew all sorts of diatribe about whomever is flavour of the month at any given time. If the licence payer is unhappy about footing the bill then let the licence payer let their concerns be noted by writing to their local MP and expressing it. It's time someone stood up to cyberbullies and let it be known that one is responsible for the words that fall out of one's mouth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"he is proved innocent at this time everyone knows he is innocent his integrety is intact he is not damaged by this mistake should not seek or recieve anything let the police investigsate properly and if he is calling everyones bluff let him suffer the consequences Do you truly believe being inferred to as a possible child abuser won't stick in the minds of some." Absolutely. You'll get people who have suffered abuse, or are the family of abuse victims, who are so enraged that they'll see anyone linked, mentioned, or associated as guilty just for their name being spoken about in relation to it. They'll see 'cover-up' where the rest of us see 'injustice'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder if the same would have been payed to joe bloggs from anytown if they had been wrongly named? or isit just because he is a lord? "Only if they could afford the influential brief I would guess. Why joe what about Janet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder if the same would have been payed to joe bloggs from anytown if they had been wrongly named? or isit just because he is a lord?
"The old green-eyed monster again. Joe Bloggs wouldn't have had his name plastered all over Twitter - because he is an unknown, Lord McAlpine did - because he is an influential person and very well known, hence the payout. The legal system caters for people who are not influential, popular or powerful but it takes money to sue someone and a barrister will advise a client if they have a case that can win because losing will cost more than just your barrister fees, you have to pay for the other side's fees too. Everyone has a right to defend themselves in court and you can fight a case without paying up front for it but you have to be prepared to lose and foot the bill for it. An innocent man will pursue it, a guilty man won't unless he can afford to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how much will saviles victims get" The BBC didn't abuse children - Savile did, and he's dead. Lord McAlpine's case is not linked to the Savile case, and in actuality with Lord McAlpine there ISN'T a case apart from the one where the BBC failed to check that the person being 'indicated' on one of their shows as being a paedophile was, and is, an innocent man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities?" No, it's not justified. Can't believe he's wormed his way out of this. Just proves that money can buy "justice" in this country. yes, the least he can do is donate the money to a suitable charity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? No, it's not justified. Can't believe he's wormed his way out of this. Just proves that money can buy "justice" in this country. yes, the least he can do is donate the money to a suitable charity." Wormed his way out of what exactly, the man is innocent ffs! Don't you like irrefutable evidence, like the actual victim saying, "Er, no sorry, that wasn't the guy in the photo the police showed me 20 years ago and told me it was Lord McAlpine." I seriously wonder about the state of people's minds who get called up to do jury service if this is an example of how someone decides to disbelieve hard facts in favour of delusion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? No, it's not justified. Can't believe he's wormed his way out of this. Just proves that money can buy "justice" in this country. yes, the least he can do is donate the money to a suitable charity." and if it had been your name that had been slandered to this level... i would be suing everyone left right and centre... did you ever notice that the sensational story in a news paper was always on pages 1,2,3,4,5 but if they got it wrong.... the retraction was always 1 paragraph right in the corner on page 13 retractions dont sell papers or get you _iewers... its the sensational story that does.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? Why should he? His name was besmirched and he felt genuinely afraid to leave his home for fear of reprisal attacks, and let's face it, we seem to have become a nation of vigilantes willing to cast the first of thousands of stones without justification or evidence. He deserves his payout and it only the fact that he knew the licence payer would be paying it that he didn't go for more. Now he's decided to take on social networks and end this 'trial by twitter' culture that has pervaded our society. I hope he sees it through and takes these people to court who think they can sit behind the relative anonymity of the internet and spew all sorts of diatribe about whomever is flavour of the month at any given time. If the licence payer is unhappy about footing the bill then let the licence payer let their concerns be noted by writing to their local MP and expressing it. It's time someone stood up to cyberbullies and let it be known that one is responsible for the words that fall out of one's mouth." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just find it suspicious that someone who proved to be too rich and powerful to prosecute when it was first brought to The Police's attention, back in the 90s, has proved to be too rich and powerful to prosecute again. ------------- Do you honestly believe the victim would have taken it to this level without first checking a photo of his abuser? " Back in the 90s the 'victim' was a child and was shown a photo and told the man in the photo was Lord McAlpine. The photo may have been of his attacker but the name he was given was wrong. Why there was no further investigation at that time I cannot answer, but suffice it to say that if Lord McAlpine had been the man in the photo and the boy identified him as his attacker, then he would have faced justice at the time. The fact he didn't, either then or now, gives rise to the possibility that he just may well be an innocent victim of mistaken identity. Who knows what sort of power play was going on in North Wales in the 90s for the plice to name McAlpine knowing the person in the photo wasn't him, but fortunately that sort of power play isn't being played out now as the police very quickly informed the victim that the man in the photo wasn't McAlpine. The defence rests, m'lud.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just find it suspicious that someone who proved to be too rich and powerful to prosecute when it was first brought to The Police's attention, back in the 90s, has proved to be too rich and powerful to prosecute again. ------------- Do you honestly believe the victim would have taken it to this level without first checking a photo of his abuser? suffice it to say that if Lord McAlpine had been the man in the photo and the boy identified him as his attacker, then he would have faced justice at the time." Sorry, but I just don't believe that. I think you've missed my point anyway. What I was saying was that I don't believe that the victim would have let it get to this point without knowing for certain who his abuser was. I believe that his sudden back tracking at this late stage is very suspicious.. All I can say is that it has been known in the past for witnessess in serious cases against rich and powerful people to be "persuaded" from giving evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so according to the ten oclock news he,s looking for more compo from other orginsations that printed it about him!! Just seen that too, a bit of a u- turn on the statement he made this morning" A Tory doing a u-turn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just find it suspicious.. All I can say is that it has been known in the past for witnessess in serious cases against rich and powerful people to be "persuaded" from giving evidence." The police showed a teenager a photograph of Person A 30 years ago, and gave him the name of Person Z. They got it wrong. We seem to have forgotten that you couldn't just Google someone then to see what they looked like, and in this case (alleged, in some news reports) the real Person A was a relative of Person Z, and may therefore have looked similar. I fail to see a conspiracy, but if enough people really do believe in this 'no smoke without fire' bollocks then we really are all screwed. Look at the poor bugger in Bristol, destroyed in the press for the crime of being a bit odd and living next door to a murder victim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just find it suspicious that someone who proved to be too rich and powerful to prosecute when it was first brought to The Police's attention, back in the 90s, has proved to be too rich and powerful to prosecute again. ------------- Do you honestly believe the victim would have taken it to this level without first checking a photo of his abuser? suffice it to say that if Lord McAlpine had been the man in the photo and the boy identified him as his attacker, then he would have faced justice at the time. Sorry, but I just don't believe that. I think you've missed my point anyway. What I was saying was that I don't believe that the victim would have let it get to this point without knowing for certain who his abuser was. I believe that his sudden back tracking at this late stage is very suspicious.. All I can say is that it has been known in the past for witnessess in serious cases against rich and powerful people to be "persuaded" from giving evidence. " so do you believe he is guilty? if so, create a twitter/facebook account with your real name and say so... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think you've missed my point anyway. What I was saying was that I don't believe that the victim would have let it get to this point without knowing for certain who his abuser was. I believe that his sudden back tracking at this late stage is very suspicious.. All I can say is that it has been known in the past for witnessess in serious cases against rich and powerful people to be "persuaded" from giving evidence. so do you believe he is guilty? if so, create a twitter/facebook account with your real name and say so... " ...and buy a lottery ticket, and then pray you win.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities?" Think this is just the start, once his lawyers get into tweeter and facebook he could pull in millions ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? Think this is just the start, once his lawyers get into tweeter and facebook he could pull in millions ! " and good luck to him, I hope he does. If anything, it will make people think twice before posting utter bollocks about people of whom they know nothing apart from what they've seen other gobshites post on Twitter/Facebook et al. I used to use facebook quite a bit but have gone off it recently because of all the shit posted on it, and I've never seen the point in Twitter tbh. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fernando Torres's reputation is in tatters too and he get 185k a WEEK "whats JT on btw..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fernando Torres's reputation is in tatters too and he get 185k a WEEK
whats JT on btw..?"It was claimed to be the same as his fine..220k The rich list says his net worth is 26m | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The money should be paid for via the severance pay those firwd are receiving yes their money is via licence payers in reity but at least it hurts them directly." . I agree although he doesn't need the money why should he be compelled to donate it to charity? He's the one who's been wronged, the people who should be paying are those who cocked up in the first place! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fernando Torres's reputation is in tatters too and he get 185k a WEEK
whats JT on btw..?
It was claimed to be the same as his fine..220k
The rich list says his net worth is 26m"thats a lot of expensive lawyers fees.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? Think this is just the start, once his lawyers get into tweeter and facebook he could pull in millions ! and good luck to him, I hope he does. If anything, it will make people think twice before posting utter bollocks about people of whom they know nothing apart from what they've seen other gobshites post on Twitter/Facebook et al. I used to use facebook quite a bit but have gone off it recently because of all the shit posted on it, and I've never seen the point in Twitter tbh." . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? I think if he has any sense or compassion he will do lets wait and see what happens. He's a Tory. Don't hold your breath. I agree with sentiment re tory." Keep politics out of it, It's easy to point out the wrong doers in all parties, Tony Blair for one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how much will saviles victims get The BBC didn't abuse children - Savile did, and he's dead. Lord McAlpine's case is not linked to the Savile case, and in actuality with Lord McAlpine there ISN'T a case apart from the one where the BBC failed to check that the person being 'indicated' on one of their shows as being a paedophile was, and is, an innocent man. " i never mentioned the bbc did i. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Payed or by the licence fee payer. Is that justified? And should he donate that to abuse charities? I think if he has any sense or compassion he will do lets wait and see what happens. He's a Tory. Don't hold your breath. I agree with sentiment re tory. Keep politics out of it, It's easy to point out the wrong doers in all parties, Tony Blair for one." you say keep politics out of it and then single out blair! 
Itake it you mean keep it out if they don't agree with you then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how much will saviles victims get The BBC didn't abuse children - Savile did, and he's dead. Lord McAlpine's case is not linked to the Savile case, and in actuality with Lord McAlpine there ISN'T a case apart from the one where the BBC failed to check that the person being 'indicated' on one of their shows as being a paedophile was, and is, an innocent man. i never mentioned the bbc did i. " You inferred that Savile's victims would get nothing and you did it on a thread about McAlpine's compensation paid by the BBC. The inference to the BBC is there for all to see without actually typing the letters B.B.C. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i wonder if the same would have been payed to joe bloggs from anytown if they had been wrongly named? or isit just because he is a lord? "Based on a similar recent high profile child abuse case where Joe Bloggs was wrongly accused and recieved 75k it was estimated that mcAlpine would recieve a lower payout of 50k due to some other thing which I did not catch but hey ho he was given nearly 4 times that amount so no Joe Bloggs would not have a chance of a similar amount this is despite living on an estate where it would be much harder for him to dodge the abuse than the Lord sitting in his mansion although if he truly is innocent it is still a terrible label to have I dont give a damn if he is a lord he does not deserve any more than a "commoner" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We think its a terrible amount of money to be paid out £185k for what? has it affected his life?" . I hear what you say, but think about it..how would it affect your life if the whole country was accusing you of being a paedophile and you weren't one? It would certainly affect my life, now and in the future even if exonerated.. It's one of the worst things a human being can be accused of, and when it's done falsely and in a cavalier fashion the damages need to act as a deterrent to others who might repeat the claim and also to address the hurt of the injured party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We think its a terrible amount of money to be paid out £185k for what? has it affected his life? What about the poor victims what will they get? money will never help them. This country is all about suing people money money money!" Erm, Lord McAlpine IS a victim!! He was accused of a MAJOR felony, found it was a false accusation and is now getting compensated for the stress this obviously caused him. And Savilles estate has been put on hold in case of forthcoming cases of abuse, (i.e. Compensation for the victims). Maybe that explains why they seem to be coming out of the woodwork just now! Lord McAlpine SHOULD keep the money, it was HIS name slandered! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not enough...The boss resigned and got more than that with his reputation and name not damaged..." good point ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We think its a terrible amount of money to be paid out £185k for what? has it affected his life? What about the poor victims what will they get? money will never help them. This country is all about suing people money money money! Erm, Lord McAlpine IS a victim!! He was accused of a MAJOR felony, found it was a false accusation and is now getting compensated for the stress this obviously caused him. And Savilles estate has been put on hold in case of forthcoming cases of abuse, (i.e. Compensation for the victims). Maybe that explains why they seem to be coming out of the woodwork just now! Lord McAlpine SHOULD keep the money, it was HIS name slandered!" that man is NOT a victim of sexual abuse the only reason he's getting the money is because who he is, if it was a everyday person he wouldn't be getting it or even an apology. Where are the doctors or psychologist reports to say its affected him? As before its because he's a Lord. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We think its a terrible amount of money to be paid out £185k for what? has it affected his life? What about the poor victims what will they get? money will never help them. This country is all about suing people money money money! Erm, Lord McAlpine IS a victim!! He was accused of a MAJOR felony, found it was a false accusation and is now getting compensated for the stress this obviously caused him. And Savilles estate has been put on hold in case of forthcoming cases of abuse, (i.e. Compensation for the victims). Maybe that explains why they seem to be coming out of the woodwork just now! Lord McAlpine SHOULD keep the money, it was HIS name slandered!" that man is NOT a victim of sexual abuse the only reason he's getting the money is because who he is, if it was a everyday person he wouldn't be getting it or even an apology. Where are the doctors or psychologist reports to say its affected him? As before its because he's a Lord. If anyone had gained out it it's him! £185k up! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We think its a terrible amount of money to be paid out £185k for what? has it affected his life? What about the poor victims what will they get? money will never help them. This country is all about suing people money money money! Erm, Lord McAlpine IS a victim!! He was accused of a MAJOR felony, found it was a false accusation and is now getting compensated for the stress this obviously caused him. And Savilles estate has been put on hold in case of forthcoming cases of abuse, (i.e. Compensation for the victims). Maybe that explains why they seem to be coming out of the woodwork just now! Lord McAlpine SHOULD keep the money, it was HIS name slandered!that man is NOT a victim of sexual abuse the only reason he's getting the money is because who he is, if it was a everyday person he wouldn't be getting it or even an apology. Where are the doctors or psychologist reports to say its affected him? As before its because he's a Lord. If anyone had gained out it it's him! £185k up!" I suspect the London Living Wage means McAlpine wage bill for his servants have increased a bit recently. That, plus servicing costs of both his Rolls Royce motor cars and Air Passenger Duty to his collection of holiday homes overseas must have made a dent in his bank balance. £175,000 ish of public money seems the least we plebs can do, eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man, there is such a lot of HNS on here. People who can;t stand rich people just because they're rich. Well, here's the news: They're richer than you because they're smarter than you. They've cut their way in the world and earned what they've got and if you want as much get your finger out your ass and go get a high flying job that pays a fortune, or get involved in politics and move your way up through the party and get into the top jobs. If you can't be bothered, then please stop fookin bitching about those that have worked for what they've got. p.s. HNS = Have Not Syndrome. "Sorry most cerainly do not have that syndrome I pointed out the inequality of the award to a similar one the "Lord" was awarded 4 times the sum the "pleb" (dont mean that in a derogatory way)was awarded despite the opinion of the experts that it would/should be less. And a lot of the rich are only rich because the forefathers plundered far off countries and the wealth was handed down nothing to do with any talent they have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so do you believe he is guilty? if so, create a twitter/facebook account with your real name and say so... " don't be ridiculous | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so do you believe he is guilty? if so, create a twitter/facebook account with your real name and say so... don't be ridiculous" but in a sense that is the point.... maybe this will rein in the crowd who think they can get away with hiding behind a computer on twitter, and think they can almost get away with anything... freedom of speech comes with responsibilty to use it wisely... if you don't there is a consequence... this may be one of them... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And a lot of the rich are only rich because the forefathers plundered far off countries and the wealth was handed down nothing to do with any talent they have." There are far more rich people in the Uk today who made their own money than those who have inherited it. In actual fact, many inherited fortunes from centuries ago have dwindled or been lost completely by unsuccessful progeny down the generations and their once vast estates have fallen into the hands of developers or, if they are protected, The National Trust. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And why him being a Tory lessens the impact to an elderly man being accused of such heinous activities, beggars belief" How is being elderly at all relevant? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"he has now just settled with ITV over the philip schofield stunt on this morning.. £125,000 plus legal costs....." Let's keep a running total eh? lol £185,000 £125,000 (this should be deducted from Schofield's salary) -------- £310,000 -------- | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And a lot of the rich are only rich because the forefathers plundered far off countries and the wealth was handed down nothing to do with any talent they have. There are far more rich people in the Uk today who made their own money than those who have inherited it. In actual fact, many inherited fortunes from centuries ago have dwindled or been lost completely by unsuccessful progeny down the generations and their once vast estates have fallen into the hands of developers or, if they are protected, The National Trust." The rich are rich because the poor are poor and the poor are poor because the rich are rich. It's very simple to understand, even for one who reads papers like the news of the World. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And a lot of the rich are only rich because the forefathers plundered far off countries and the wealth was handed down nothing to do with any talent they have. There are far more rich people in the Uk today who made their own money than those who have inherited it. In actual fact, many inherited fortunes from centuries ago have dwindled or been lost completely by unsuccessful progeny down the generations and their once vast estates have fallen into the hands of developers or, if they are protected, The National Trust. The rich are rich because the poor are poor and the poor are poor because the rich are rich. It's very simple to understand, even for one who reads papers like the news of the World. " How does a poor person become rich then? It has, and still does, happen. I grew up on a council sink estate and I know of five people I schooled with who are now millionaires and it's funny but as soon as they made their money they ALL bought nice mansions as far away from the place we all grew up in as possible. All poor people would become selfish rich bastards given the opportunity, but if you feel for the poor so much you go ahead and give away all your money and assets to them. They'd laugh at you behind your back and say, "Cheers, you mug!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man, there is such a lot of HNS on here. People who can;t stand rich people just because they're rich. Well, here's the news: They're richer than you because they're smarter than you. They've cut their way in the world and earned what they've got and if you want as much get your finger out your ass and go get a high flying job that pays a fortune, or get involved in politics and move your way up through the party and get into the top jobs. If you can't be bothered, then please stop fookin bitching about those that have worked for what they've got. p.s. HNS = Have Not Syndrome. "So Richard Branson , Rupert Murdoch, and the owners of Tata are all, to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals (without some of whom people of your socio-economic class would still be living in hovels and cleaning chimneys at ten years old), scientists, artists etc because they are far richer than most of these people were? What utter nonsense. Rich people are richer than others not because they are 'smarter' than others but because they are greedier , more self-centred, and far more ruthless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money." And no ammount of money would compensate! Mud sticks!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Man, there is such a lot of HNS on here. People who can;t stand rich people just because they're rich. Well, here's the news: They're richer than you because they're smarter than you. They've cut their way in the world and earned what they've got and if you want as much get your finger out your ass and go get a high flying job that pays a fortune, or get involved in politics and move your way up through the party and get into the top jobs. If you can't be bothered, then please stop fookin bitching about those that have worked for what they've got. p.s. HNS = Have Not Syndrome.
So Richard Branson , Rupert Murdoch, and the owners of Tata are all, to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals (without some of whom people of your socio-economic class would still be living in hovels and cleaning chimneys at ten years old), scientists, artists etc because they are far richer than most of these people were?
What utter nonsense. Rich people are richer than others not because they are 'smarter' than others but because they are greedier , more self-centred, and far more ruthless."Largely agree, and there is no evidence that increased 'smartness' has made most of these parasites obtain the riches that they have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What utter nonsense. Rich people are richer than others not because they are 'smarter' than others but because they are greedier , more self-centred, and far more ruthless." Yeah, s'what I said innit. Smarter. Smart is not quantified only by the letters after one's name. Streetsmart is a perfectly legitimate phrase too you know. Would I tried on someone else's toes to get ahead in this world? Fucking right I would, as it puts food in my children's bellies and I know (and have had it done to me) that others would do the same. But I bear them no malice, you carve out of this life what you can or someone else will carve it out for themselves. Like I said, feel free to be philanthropic with your wealth if you like but I'll be keeping mine for my family. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And a lot of the rich are only rich because the forefathers plundered far off countries and the wealth was handed down nothing to do with any talent they have. There are far more rich people in the Uk today who made their own money than those who have inherited it. In actual fact, many inherited fortunes from centuries ago have dwindled or been lost completely by unsuccessful progeny down the generations and their once vast estates have fallen into the hands of developers or, if they are protected, The National Trust. The rich are rich because the poor are poor and the poor are poor because the rich are rich. It's very simple to understand, even for one who reads papers like the news of the World. How does a poor person become rich then? It has, and still does, happen. I grew up on a council sink estate and I know of five people I schooled with who are now millionaires and it's funny but as soon as they made their money they ALL bought nice mansions as far away from the place we all grew up in as possible. All poor people would become selfish rich bastards given the opportunity, but if you feel for the poor so much you go ahead and give away all your money and assets to them. They'd laugh at you behind your back and say, "Cheers, you mug!"" Yes well that is the _iew of most self-centred right wing types. They believe that everyone is as self-centred as they are. The problem with this _iew is that the study of history makes it transparently clear that they are not. For every self centred greedy, rich type in history, there are several who think about other people and the wider world too-and not just famous ones either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals .." How is 'smarter' an Americanism when it is a comparitive of the adjective 'smart'. A smart person would know that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes well that is the _iew of most self-centred right wing types. They believe that everyone is as self-centred as they are. The problem with this _iew is that the study of history makes it transparently clear that they are not. For every self centred greedy, rich type in history, there are several who think about other people and the wider world too-and not just famous ones either. " Yes, and all those French revolutionaries who led the rebellion didn't move into the Palace of Versailles and quaff quails eggs while the decided how the rest of the plebians should be fed. Did they. Grow up man! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"would you give it all to charity" Me? Hell no. It'd just be wasted on poor people. What's the sense in that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What utter nonsense. Rich people are richer than others not because they are 'smarter' than others but because they are greedier , more self-centred, and far more ruthless. Yeah, s'what I said innit. Smarter. Smart is not quantified only by the letters after one's name. Streetsmart is a perfectly legitimate phrase too you know. Would I tried on someone else's toes to get ahead in this world? Fucking right I would, as it puts food in my children's bellies and I know (and have had it done to me) that others would do the same. But I bear them no malice, you carve out of this life what you can or someone else will carve it out for themselves. Like I said, feel free to be philanthropic with your wealth if you like but I'll be keeping mine for my family." But you would think like that-you are a member of what sociologists call the 'Lost Generation" or "Generation X" ie Thatcher's Children and it is people who think like you who have created the mess that most of the world is in now. In England we say "streetwise" not 'streetsmart" which is an Americanism, and if you knew something about my life you'd probably concede that I am likely to be streetwise. I also have several educational qualifications however to prove that I am 'smart" but not being greedy and ruthless I have never become rich and don't want to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes well that is the _iew of most self-centred right wing types. They believe that everyone is as self-centred as they are. The problem with this _iew is that the study of history makes it transparently clear that they are not. For every self centred greedy, rich type in history, there are several who think about other people and the wider world too-and not just famous ones either. Yes, and all those French revolutionaries who led the rebellion didn't move into the Palace of Versailles and quaff quails eggs while the decided how the rest of the plebians should be fed. Did they. Grow up man! " A deeply flawed argument. The French revolution was carried out by the well-off merchant class which wanted to replace the landed aristocracy as the ruling class. As for your last comment, tut tut, getting a bit emotional are we? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals .. How is 'smarter' an Americanism when it is a comparitive of the adjective 'smart'. A smart person would know that. "Tut tut, you need to do some reading of material other than the News of the World, Wishy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals .. How is 'smarter' an Americanism when it is a comparitive of the adjective 'smart'. A smart person would know that.
Tut tut, you need to do some reading of material other than the News of the World, Wishy."A smart person would know that the NOTW doesn't exist anymore. This is like taking candy from a baby (see what I did there, I used a proper Americanism)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also have several educational qualifications however to prove that I am 'smart" but not being greedy and ruthless I have never become rich and don't want to be." Ok, let's debate the issue about 'rich' people and how to redistribute the wealth evenly. Are you promoting a system whereby all the cash is distributed equally between all the people? And all prices are fixed and brought into line everywhere, ie. a loaf of bread costs xyz in Place A as it does in Place B, right across the world. Let's start there and see where it goes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so do you believe he is guilty? if so, create a twitter/facebook account with your real name and say so... don't be ridiculous but in a sense that is the point.... maybe this will rein in the crowd who think they can get away with hiding behind a computer on twitter, and think they can almost get away with anything... freedom of speech comes with responsibilty to use it wisely... if you don't there is a consequence... this may be one of them..." it has nothing to do with "Hiding behind" anything. it's because people are already being sued for this so anyone wanting to state an opinion contrary to what is currently percieved as the truth runs the risk of prosecution. avoiding being sued is just common sense. It doesn't mean that you are any less entitled to your opinion, nor that that opinion is inaccurate or incorrect. Just that you cannot state it. I've stated my opinion in a way that ensures that neither myself nor this site can be prosecuted for it, and that doesn't accuse anyone of anything (nor name any names). Yourself and the poster I quoted have used that to insinuate that people who still don't believe a certain person may be innocent don't have the courage of their convictions, when the reality is that it's just not possible to state that opinion on this on a twitter account with your real name on, as was suggested. which is why I replied "don't be ridiculous" in the first place. it was in response to someone trying to be a smartarse because they got pissy that I didn't share their opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so do you believe he is guilty? if so, create a twitter/facebook account with your real name and say so... don't be ridiculous but in a sense that is the point.... maybe this will rein in the crowd who think they can get away with hiding behind a computer on twitter, and think they can almost get away with anything... freedom of speech comes with responsibilty to use it wisely... if you don't there is a consequence... this may be one of them... it has nothing to do with "Hiding behind" anything. it's because people are already being sued for this so anyone wanting to state an opinion contrary to what is currently percieved as the truth runs the risk of prosecution. avoiding being sued is just common sense. It doesn't mean that you are any less entitled to your opinion, nor that that opinion is inaccurate or incorrect. Just that you cannot state it. I've stated my opinion in a way that ensures that neither myself nor this site can be prosecuted for it, and that doesn't accuse anyone of anything (nor name any names). Yourself and the poster I quoted have used that to insinuate that people who still don't believe a certain person may be innocent don't have the courage of their convictions, when the reality is that it's just not possible to state that opinion on this on a twitter account with your real name on, as was suggested. which is why I replied "don't be ridiculous" in the first place. it was in response to someone trying to be a smartarse because they got pissy that I didn't share their opinion." i didn't get pissy with you at all, I never came back to the thread as your stance bored me as ridiculous bluster but I agree we can agree to disgree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So basically anyonesthat earns more than the average wage loses. Fuck that" Yes Steve, good old socialism: lets rob the money makers and give it to the money losers. There's a flaw in that plan somewhere.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also have several educational qualifications however to prove that I am 'smart" but not being greedy and ruthless I have never become rich and don't want to be. Ok, let's debate the issue about 'rich' people and how to redistribute the wealth evenly. Are you promoting a system whereby all the cash is distributed equally between all the people? And all prices are fixed and brought into line everywhere, ie. a loaf of bread costs xyz in Place A as it does in Place B, right across the world. Let's start there and see where it goes." Hmm. Yes, well you can go and argue about the merits of a planned economy with someone else (though I suggest you argue with other tabloid readers as better educated people might bring up terms such as 'free market capitalism', 'social market capitalism", and "state capitalism, and names such as Friedman and Keynes which may confuse you. The points I made were simple. First, History makes it clear that rich people are not 'smarter' than everyone else as you asserted, just greedier, more selfish, and more ruthless. Second, History makes it equally clear that not all people are as utterly self centred and ruthless as you and your fellow advocates of a dog-eat-dog society are. As I have said to you before, you need to do some reading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals .. How is 'smarter' an Americanism when it is a comparitive of the adjective 'smart'. A smart person would know that.
Tut tut, you need to do some reading of material other than the News of the World, Wishy.
A smart person would know that the NOTW doesn't exist anymore.
This is like taking candy from a baby (see what I did there, I used a proper Americanism) "An intelligent person wouldn't read the News of the World. As a Professor of Media Studies showed using News International's own records of discussions between News International staff, the Nudes of the World and The Sun were and are aimed at people with a reading age of eleven. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals .. How is 'smarter' an Americanism when it is a comparitive of the adjective 'smart'. A smart person would know that. "Try reading a book about the English language to find out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" An intelligent person wouldn't read the News of the World. As a Professor of Media Studies showed using News International's own records of discussions between News International staff, the Nudes of the World and The Sun were and are aimed at people with a reading age of eleven." An intelligent person would read ALL available sources of info and, having read them, decide where any truth lay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His name sullied, his money." Fair enough, not great to be linked with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...to use the Americanism you have obviously picked up in your Murdoch owned News of the World 'smarter' than most of the world's great intellectuals .. How is 'smarter' an Americanism when it is a comparitive of the adjective 'smart'. A smart person would know that.
Tut tut, you need to do some reading of material other than the News of the World, Wishy.
A smart person would know that the NOTW doesn't exist anymore.
This is like taking candy from a baby (see what I did there, I used a proper Americanism)
An intelligent person wouldn't read the News of the World. As a Professor of Media Studies showed using News International's own records of discussions between News International staff, the Nudes of the World and The Sun were and are aimed at people with a reading age of eleven."You mean someone felt compelled enough to conduct a study about the reading ages of people who read said newspapers and recorded discussions between people who worked for a certain employee? Of course they did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also have several educational qualifications however to prove that I am 'smart" but not being greedy and ruthless I have never become rich and don't want to be. Ok, let's debate the issue about 'rich' people and how to redistribute the wealth evenly. Are you promoting a system whereby all the cash is distributed equally between all the people? And all prices are fixed and brought into line everywhere, ie. a loaf of bread costs xyz in Place A as it does in Place B, right across the world. Let's start there and see where it goes. Hmm. Yes, well you can go and argue about the merits of a planned economy with someone else (though I suggest you argue with other tabloid readers as better educated people might bring up terms such as 'free market capitalism', 'social market capitalism", and "state capitalism, and names such as Friedman and Keynes which may confuse you. The points I made were simple. First, History makes it clear that rich people are not 'smarter' than everyone else as you asserted, just greedier, more selfish, and more ruthless. Second, History makes it equally clear that not all people are as utterly self centred and ruthless as you and your fellow advocates of a dog-eat-dog society are. " I'd rather reach the end of my life content with all the material things I've amassed to make my life easier and pass them down to my children than to be running around in rags like Ghandi yelling, "peace, peace" at everyone, or nailed to a cross for asking everyone to be jolly nice to each other. What a pair of mugs those two were (if the latter even existed). Yes, I am a capitalist. A blue blooded through and through dirty stinking acquisitor of wealth, luxury, good food and fine wine. And it's really nice sitting here in my comfy reclining armchair typing on my top of the range laptop while the equally top of the range TV tells me the news of the day. These are the things I've worked hard for, and I'll be fucked if I'm going to support an idealogy that would redistribute my wealth to lazy fuckers that aren't entitled to it. Rupert Murdoch? Not the nicest of people but then he doesn't have to care about what people think of him when he's sitting his equally comfy reclining armchair inside his mansion set somewhere very pleasant. He's rich you see. Rich people can do that. Poor people can't. But they ALL wish they could. Except you maybe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who boast about their material wealth tend to be desperate to show and tell people about it because they are unconfident. Confident people don't need to do that. Well educated people don't need to do that. People who are socially skilled and have a high level of emotional intelligence don't need to do that. " Whilst I agree with you in principal, it usually turns out to be the case that the 'I've got this and I've got that' crowd are indulging in no more than wishful thinking. It doesn't make them bad people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
