SPEAKER'S CORNER

User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

Listening this morning to a British doctor in Gaza recounting how much worse it has been than when he was in Syria. Civilians being bombarded with shells, not just from Israeli tanks but from warships offshore, and bombs and missiles from F-16 fighter jets screaming above them. Israel claims it has to fight back because of the Hamas rockets although it has its Iron Dome system that shoots them all down. We've been hearing about this for a while now but this morning I was struck by an analogy. Imagine how the world would react if soldiers behind riot shields had children throwing stones at them and they reacted by machine-gunning the children. Would the governments around the world be so complacent about that? Would the US Government still support those soldiers, provide them with the machine guns?
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

Tiz. I agree but would point out that 'Iron Dome' isn't infallible. The comparison I have been making is that one missile, one plane and 298 lives in Ukraine is described as a global crime. I can't for the life of me see the difference between that and the present terrible events in Gaza.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

Stanley wrote:Tiz. I agree but would point out that 'Iron Dome' isn't infallible.
That prompted me to search for more information on its effectiveness and I came across this transcript of a US TV programme. Scroll down the page and click on the words `Show full transcript' then look for Theodore Postol. His view is that it doesn't shoot down the Hamas rockets and it's the air raid warnings that really protect Israelis. But Raytheon who make the Iron Dome make a lot of money out of selling it and it makes the people feel safer when they see the iron Dome missiles exploding even if they aren't hitting anything. Interesting. I wonder if this is true or is misinformation?
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/31/i ... e_evidence
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

The missiles function like old fashioned AA shells, they explode close enough for the shrapnel to bring the target down. One thing is certain, Raytheon will not advertise misses! However, Iron Dome seems to be generally regarded as the best system available.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

Perhaps none of the others work either! That reminds me, did you see that another couple have been in court over the `bomb detector' scam? The main perpetrator was a man from Yeovil. The worst aspect of all about the scam is that so many individuals, organisations and governments have fallen for it, all around the world and spent vast sums of money on the fake gadgets. All they had to do was open one of the boxes and they'd see it couldn't work. But then lots of people believe in homoeopathy...
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

I heard the report on R4 Peter. Am I right in thinking that some authorities are still using them? Probably can't bear to admit they were conned.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
Bruff
Avid User
Posts: 841
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 08:42
Location: Hoylake, Wirral - for the moment

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Bruff »

''But then lots of people believe in homoeopathy...''

Barlick's MP for one.

And Mr Treddinick MP, homeopathy fan and promoter of linking health interventions to astrological charts, has secured himself a place on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee!

Truly we live in an age of idiocy when such imbeciles can achieve elected office - plausible idiots have always been with us but it's a sad commentary when people fall for such obvious bonkerdom in the 21st century.

Richard Broughton
User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

Bonkerdom, I like that, a useful word these days - thanks Richard.

The Guardian, 9 June 2014:
"Why are countries still using the fake bomb detectors sold by a convicted British conman?
Pakistani security personnel still guard Karachi's Jinnah airport using versions of Jim McCormick's phoney bomb detector. They are not alone in having a seemingly unshakeable belief in the ADE 651"...."McCormick and other fraudsters, such as Gary Bolton, exported thousands to clients around the world"..."Less ambitious criminals used to sell them as golf ball detectors in the 1990s."
Full story here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortc ... hi-airport
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

"Bonkerdom, I like that, a useful word these days - thanks Richard." Hear hear! I shall use it!
I think we can elevate Nigel Lawson to bonkerdom....
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

Much discussion on the wireless this morning about improving transport links across the Pennines to allow the cities in the Manchester-Leeds area to compete with London and the south-east. It's all very well trying to move people and stuff faster but there's more to it than that - we need to decide what they and it are all going to do to boost economy. How about designating this area a centre for engineering, science and technology? It's already well on it's way to being that but it needs government to give its backing and long-term commitment. The area could aim to have the best educated people in the country, especially in the technical field. Better and more education is the way to escape that `grim north' image.

Talking of better transport links across the Pennines and around the north, the early Manchester-Liverpool railway got a mention on the radio. But so far I haven't heard anyone in the media bubble mention the pioneering Manchester–Sheffield electric railway of the 1950s which carried freight and express passenger trains through the Woodhead Tunnel. The Wikipedia page would tell them all they need to know - and it's a good read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester ... ic_railway

And here's a link to a photo of one of the electric engines, Ariadne, preserved in Manchester. It's in the livery of Netherlands Railways who bought it when the English line closed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Class_1 ... dustry.jpg
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

I've been watching this sudden upsurge of interest in the North as well Tiz. It's mainly electioneering of course but indicates that London and the SE has been so successful at exploiting other parts of the country that it is now reaching the stage where it is choking on its own affluence. Historically London has functioned like a colonising state. The North and other industrial areas were useful places for destructive resource extraction and smokestack industry. London preferred to keep its hands clean and function in paper shifting industries like government and the financial sector. The problem now is that the cracks are showing, shout as much as they like but government and the financial sector have failed the rest of the country. This is one of the major reasons why there is Scottish agitation for independence. The problem is not in the North but in London itself, it has reached the stage where it is parasitic and something will eventually have to be done to redress the balance. Look at comparative indicators like the amount per head spent on public transport, there are many other examples, not least property prices. Best analogy I can think of is cancer, uncontrolled expansion.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
PanBiker
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 16395
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 13:07
Location: Barnoldswick - In the West Riding of Yorkshire, always was, always will be.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by PanBiker »

I have been doing a bit of housekeeping on the site and came across this thread which always used to be popular but has dropped off the perch so to speak. Thought I would give it a bump. I will also mention that I have created a new forum in the Government Department Category for the DWP and moved the State Pension topic into it. A sight bit of OCD kicking in here I reckon, everything in it's place. :extrawink: Not usually like this, it's more about the shape of things with me. :smile:
Ian
User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

Looking back at those 2014 posts I notice the mention of homeopathy. Things have changed since then, notably that `NHS England found "no clear or robust evidence to support the use of homeopathy on the NHS' and it `recommended that GPs and other prescribers should stop providing it'. Thank goodness for that decision. I notice that homeopathists tried to claim it could be used to treat covid-19 and got their paper published in the Journal of Public Health - it quickly had to be retracted!
Retraction Watch
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

I was struck by what I wrote six years ago about London. Even more true today and of course a hot potato at the moment!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

An American friend of mine sent me this. You may have heard Sandel on the BBC, he does an occasional series called 'The Public Philosopher'.

Disdain for the Less Educated Is the Last Acceptable Prejudice

It’s having a corrosive effect on American life — and hurting the Democratic Party.

By Michael J. Sandel

Mr. Sandel is a political philosopher.

New York Times, Sept. 2, 2020

Joe Biden has a secret weapon in his bid for the presidency: He is the first Democratic nominee in 36 years without a degree from an Ivy League university.

This is a potential strength. One of the sources of Donald Trump’s political appeal has been his ability to tap into resentment against meritocratic elites. By the time of Mr. Trump’s election, the Democratic Party had become a party of technocratic liberalism more congenial to the professional classes than to the blue-collar and middle-class voters who once constituted its base. In 2016, two-thirds of whites without a college degree voted for Mr. Trump, while Hillary Clinton won more than 70 percent of voters with advanced degrees.

Being untainted by the Ivy League credentials of his predecessors may enable Mr. Biden to connect more readily with the blue-collar workers the Democratic Party has struggled to attract in recent years. More important, this aspect of his candidacy should prompt us to reconsider the meritocratic political project that has come to define contemporary liberalism.

At the heart of this project are two ideas: First, in a global, technological age, higher education is the key to upward mobility, material success and social esteem. Second, if everyone has an equal chance to rise, those who land on top deserve the rewards their talents bring.

This way of thinking is so familiar that it seems to define the American dream. But it has come to dominate our politics only in recent decades. And despite its inspiring promise of success based on merit, it has a dark side.

Building a politics around the idea that a college degree is a precondition for dignified work and social esteem has a corrosive effect on democratic life. It devalues the contributions of those without a diploma, fuels prejudice against less-educated members of society, effectively excludes most working people from elective government and provokes political backlash.

Here is the basic argument of mainstream political opinion, especially among Democrats, that dominated in the decades leading up to Mr. Trump and the populist revolt he came to represent: A global economy that outsources jobs to low-wage countries has somehow come upon us and is here to stay. The central political question is not to how to change it but how to adapt to it, to alleviate its devastating effect on the wages and job prospects of workers outside the charmed circle of elite professionals.

The answer: Improve the educational credentials of workers so that they, too, can “compete and win in the global economy.” Thus, the way to contend with inequality is to encourage upward mobility through higher education.

The rhetoric of rising through educational achievement has echoed across the political spectrum — from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton. But the politicians espousing it have missed the insult implicit in the meritocratic society they are offering: If you did not go to college, and if you are not flourishing the new economy, your failure must be your own fault.

It is important to remember that most Americans — nearly two-thirds — do not have a four-year college degree. By telling workers that their inadequate education is the reason for their troubles, meritocrats moralize success and failure and unwittingly promote credentialism — an insidious prejudice against those who do not have college degrees.

The credentialist prejudice is a symptom of meritocratic hubris. By 2016, many working people chafed at the sense that well-schooled elites looked down on them with condescension. This complaint was not without warrant. Survey research bears out what many working-class voters intuit: At a time when racism and sexism are out of favor (discredited though not eliminated), credentialism is the last acceptable prejudice.

In the United States and Europe, disdain for the less educated is more pronounced, or at least more readily acknowledged, than prejudice against other disfavored groups. In a series of surveys conducted in the United States, Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium, a team of social psychologists led by Toon Kuppens found that college-educated respondents had more bias against less-educated people than they did against other disfavored groups. The researchers surveyed attitudes toward a range of people who are typically victims of discrimination. In Europe, this list included Muslims and people who are poor, obese, blind and less educated; in the United States, the list also included African-Americans and the working class. Of all these groups, the poorly educated were disliked most of all.

Beyond revealing the disparaging views that college-educated elites have of less-educated people, the study also found that elites are unembarrassed by this prejudice. They may denounce racism and sexism, but they are unapologetic about their negative attitudes toward the less educated.

By the 2000s, citizens without a college degree were not only looked down upon; in the United States and Western Europe, they were also virtually absent from elective office. In the U.S. Congress, 95 percent of House members and 100 percent of senators are college graduates. The credentialed few govern the uncredentialed many.

It has not always been this way. Although the well-educated have always been disproportionately represented in Congress, as recently as the early 1960s, about one-fourth of our elected representatives lacked a college degree. Over the past half-decade, Congress has become more diverse with regard to race, ethnicity and gender, but less diverse with regard to educational credentials and class.

One consequence of the diploma divide is that very few members of the working class ever make it to elective office. In the United States, about half of the labor force is employed in working-class jobs, defined as manual labor, service industry and clerical jobs. But fewer than 2 percent of members of Congress worked in such jobs before their election.

Some might argue that government by well-educated university graduates is something to welcome, not regret. Surely we want well-trained doctors to perform our appendectomies. Aren’t highly credentialed leaders best equipped to give us sound public policies and reasoned political discourse?

Not necessarily. Even a glance at the parlous state of political discourse in Congress should give us pause. Governing well requires not only technocratic expertise but also civic virtue — an ability to deliberate about the common good and to identify with citizens from all walks of life. But history suggests little correlation between the capacity for political judgment and the ability to win admission to elite universities. The notion that “the best and the brightest” are better at governing than their less-credentialed fellow citizens is a myth born of meritocratic hubris.

If the rhetoric of rising and the reign of technocratic merit have led us astray, how might we recast the terms of moral and political aspiration? We should focus less on arming people for a meritocratic race and more on making life better for those who lack a diploma but who make important contributions to our society — through the work they do, the families they raise and the communities they serve. This requires renewing the dignity of work and putting it at the center of our politics.

It also requires reconsidering the meaning of success and questioning our meritocratic hubris: Is it my doing that I have the talents that society happens to prize — or is it my good luck?

Appreciating the role of luck in life can prompt a certain humility: There, but for an accident of birth, or the grace of God, or the mystery of fate, go I. This spirit of humility is the civic virtue we need now. It is the beginning of the way back from the harsh ethic of success that drives us apart. It points beyond the tyranny of merit toward a less rancorous, more generous public life.

Michael J. Sandel is a professor of government at Harvard and the author of the forthcoming “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?,” from which this essay is adapted.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

Later, Michael Sandel is on Start the Week talking on the same subject.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Tizer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 18812
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 19:46
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Tizer »

An interesting article and I have sympathy with much of it but it seems to convey a sense of less-educated people being unable to stand up for themselves. I wonder if part of the present problem is that we've all, educated or not, become more sensitive (`woke' perhaps) and the less-educated generations now are envious of the educated rather than being proud of their own abilities and knowledge. I left school at 15 and went straight into work and it wasn't until my 20s that I took up education again, and then later went back into work. I've had plenty of contact with people at all levels of education and in the past those without degrees didn't show envy for what I'd got - they were always more likely to accuse me of not having the knowledge and skills about the things they were very familiar with! Perhaps the equivalent people now have lost that confidence and express envy instead?
Nullius in verba: On the word of no one (Motto of the Royal Society)
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

Peter, part of the problem is that on the level of 'manual labour' very high levels of skill and dexterity were necessary, think of weaving etc. Today those skills have been transferred to the machine and the workers reduced to minders in many cases. There was pride in doing a difficult job that others couldn't attempt. Not a lot of that about these days.
(My mate Marx warned about it and the evils that would ensue in Das Kapital over 150 years ago!)
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89874
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: SPEAKER'S CORNER

Post by Stanley »

I tripped over this this morning in the archive and can't find it on the site. Worth reading again, it was one of the precursors to Brexit.....

A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM?

Right, you’ve guessed it, I’ve been quiet for a while but this might be a biggy, I shall have to take a tight rein.

The problems associated with any discussion of this matter in Britain is that it is inextricably linked to the creation of a written constitution and of course this in turn has implications for the status of the monarchy. There is tremendous inertia in the system which will have to be overcome before any significant changes can be made.

We have to address one glaring contradiction before we can go any further. This long-running debate has been triggered by David Cameron, leader of the Conservative opposition in Parliament who was looking for a political lever which he could use to show that his party actually has policies. What he proposes is that we should withdraw from participation in the European Convention on Human Rights by substituting an Act of our own which would be ‘more British’. This leaves aside the fact that every country in Europe except Uzbekistan has a domestic human rights act and subscribes to the European one as well. So the position is that we have a European Bill of Rights in full operation but the proposal is to ditch this and substitute our own. Without delving too deeply into the matter, let’s agree that there is a measure of anti-European sentiment at work here but I doubt if anyone would admit this is part of the agenda.

This proposal has another major flaw. The only way to deprive British Citizens of the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, the position which existed before full adoption of the Convention by the present government, is to effect a major constitutional change by passing an Act which would bar them from doing so. Such a change would trigger an enormous political storm, one of the major components of which would be a demand for a written constitution with far-reaching effects on the monarchy and the powers of the Establishment.

Over my lifetime I have seen a gradual shift of political and ‘constitutional’ power which has reduced subservience to monarchy and the establishment. This has been done by gradual change and the permeation of more liberal attitudes throughout society. I think we may have reached the point where this organic change will have to be codified if the boat is rocked and this could be an unexpected consequence of Mr Cameron’s bright idea. I repeat that I am convinced that he is doing this for purely political reasons and I firmly believe that any change of this nature must be done after full national and non-party debate. He is an inexperienced politician who is on the verge of a massive mistake and he could live to regret it.

I think it was in 1988 when I was in Australia that the Constitutional Commission was in progress to try to draft a replacement for the constitution which had evolved over the years under colonial rule. After much deliberation the only thing that they agreed on was that it should start ‘We the People…..’ Bill Bryson in ‘Made In America’ (p.67) reminds us that in May 1787 representatives from all over America met at the old State House in Philadelphia in what came to be called the Constitutional Convention. When most of the rudiments had been agreed the delegates appointed a Committee of Detail to convert the proposals into a document. One of the committee members, John Rutledge was an admirer of the Iroquois and recommended that the committee familiarise themselves with the treaty of 1520 that created the Iroquois confederacy. This document began with the words ‘We, the people, to form a union……’. 500 years later, I wouldn’t mind taking a bet that when we eventually drag this country kicking and screaming into a modern and hopefully more equitable world we shall have a constitution that starts with exactly the same wording.

[Mee, Charles L., Jr. The Genius of the People. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
On page 237, at the beginning of the chapter titled "Details," Mee notes that the Committee of Detail (on the U.S. Constitution) met daily. "[John] Rutledge [chairman of the committee] always admired the Iroquois Indians, particularly their legal system, which gave autonomy for their internal affairs, but united them for purposes of war." Mee says that Rutledge opened a meeting of the Committee of Detail by reading from an Iroquois treaty dated 1520, which began "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..." Concludes Mee: "He commended the phrasings to his colleagues -- and so, in some part, the preamble to the new constitution was based on the law of the land as it had been on the east coast before the first white settlers arrived." {Wykepedia}]

So…. What are the chances that Mr Cameron’s initiative will result in any significant change to the basis on which the United Kingdom is ruled? In terms of his specific proposals, almost zero I suspect, he is not raising this matter in the crucible of creating a new nation as was the case in 1787 in Philadelphia. He is struggling to create the blue water of difference between his party and the others for purely political considerations. I do not know what the route is but I am certain this is the wrong place to start. We hear a lot nowadays about ‘the name of the game has changed’, usually from politicians who wish to make fundamental change to the existing rights of the people. We have seen Habeas Corpus damaged, the principle of trial by jury restricted and the introduction of greatly increased police powers which restrict the rights of the citizen, all in the name of clear and present danger.

The world has indeed changed. Tony Blair said the other day that we were fighting 21st century crime with 19th century laws. He has a point but equally, we are governing the country using even older mechanisms, many of which date back to feudal times. Perhaps it is time to convene a Constitutional Commission and give it the task of producing a new framework of government which would include a Bill of Rights, a written constitution and a re-assessment of the functions of Monarchy. This not necessarily the modern version of the Apocalypse, it is the sane and equitable way to ensure that ‘We, the people…’ have a secure future.

Will it happen? Eventually it must be done. Modification of ancient law and tinkering at the edges on a short term basis will not produce a good result. Mr Cameron may be on the right lines but he is too timid, if he really wants blue water he must be more radical and go for full reform. Like the atomic reaction, there is a critical mass which will ensure a chain reaction. Far better to create this deliberately and with proper thought than allow small leakages of damaging reform which only result in instability.

SCG/26 June 2006
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
Post Reply

Return to “Current Affairs & Comment”