GTC Fee Watch

This discussion is closed.
Martin
Badges:
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
User 1951 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
[q1]> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:54:53 +0100, *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >What do you think a vote of no confidence is. And the Queen can call an election at any time -[/q2]
[q2]> >she is, after all, The Constitution. Certainly a more refined constitution than the fundamentally[/q2]
[q2]> >flawed US constitution, riddled with various ad-hoc amendments.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Well I can't speak for the US constitution but placing power in the hands of an inbred tax-dodging[/q1]
[q1]> millionairess parasite may not be the best possible method [/q1]

Please don't talk about Maggie like that.

--
Martin

(remove barrier to reply)
*Ace*
Badges:
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
Hi martin,

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:32:02 +0100, in uk.education.teachers martin put fingers to keyboard and
tapped away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected] k>

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > Hi SLieber24,[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > What do you think a vote of no confidence is. And the Queen can call an election at any time[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Tosh - she wouldn't be allowed to - and if she did, the monarchy would fall in hours.[/q1]

She can and she has done. She sacked the Australian Prime Minister a few decades ago and called a
general election.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> It would be similar (but even more outrageous) to her declining to give royal assent.[/q1]

It's unlikely to happen, but I can see circumstances where it may. She'd certainly need a massive
groundswell of public opinion in her favour to be able to pull off such a move without throwing the
nation into turmoil.

Had Germany a monarchy system, such as ours, in 1935, Hitler could have easily been ousted
from power.

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Martin
Badges:
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
*Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> Hi User 1951,[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Would you prefer power to be placed in the hands of someone who has a teenage intern giving him[/q1]
[q1]> blow jobs in his equivalent of the Cabinet Room?[/q1]

Why should her age matter?
`P
Badges:
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
"*Ace*" <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> Or the hands of an alcoholic?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Or a failed actor?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Or a peanut farmer?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
They stood for election though, didn't they.

When did you vote for a candidate for the office of PM/First Secretary to the Treasury (whatever his
official title actually is)?

Hmmn . . . . .

And why don't we have "none of the above" on our ballot papers . . . . ?

And why can't we de-elect a politician . . . . or have politicians who forget to declare an
"interest" barred from office/parliament?

And why can't we "elect" people to sit on LEAs etc . . . . ?

Out system is flawed and corrupted by nepotism and political "contributions" it makes the "pork
barrel" politics of America look "whiter than white", to borrow a phrase from the man who is
definitely changing the face of British politics - he makes Charles I and Oliver Cromwell seem
positively benign and fraternal in comparison.

--
`p
*Ace*
Badges:
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
Hi `p,

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:34:48 GMT, in uk.education.teachers `p put fingers to keyboard and tapped
away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected]>

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "*Ace*" <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > Or the hands of an alcoholic?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Or a failed actor?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Or a peanut farmer?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]> They stood for election though, didn't they.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> When did you vote for a candidate for the office of PM/First Secretary to the Treasury (whatever[/q1]
[q1]> his official title actually is)?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hmmn . . . . .[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> And why don't we have "none of the above" on our ballot papers . . . . ?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> And why can't we de-elect a politician . . . . or have politicians who forget to declare an[/q1]
[q1]> "interest" barred from office/parliament?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> And why can't we "elect" people to sit on LEAs etc . . . . ?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Out system is flawed and corrupted by nepotism and political "contributions" it makes the "pork[/q1]
[q1]> barrel" politics of America look "whiter than white", to borrow a phrase from the man who is[/q1]
[q1]> definitely changing the face of British politics - he makes Charles I and Oliver Cromwell seem[/q1]
[q1]> positively benign and fraternal in comparison.[/q1]

So you believe a system where judges are accountable to the public rather than the interests of
justice are a better alternative?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> --[/q1]
[q1]> `p[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
*Ace*
Badges:
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
Hi SLieber24,

On 11 Jun 2002 19:54:40 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected] b-fd.aol.com>

[q1]> I must apologise to all. I asked a learned friend - who's been around longer than probably most of[/q1]
[q1]> you, about the way elections work here. I was given the impression, a couple of years ago, that[/q1]
[q1]> the PM/Parliament - e.g. the ruling party - picks its time to resign. I was not informed, or did[/q1]
[q1]> not notice (likely the latter) that Parliamentary elections are every 5 years, unless the PM and[/q1]
[q1]> government resign earlier.[/q1]

So, as usual you splurted nonsense which you know nothing about...

When will you agree that London Weighting makes up part of a London teacher's pay?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Most apologetic. I really did not understand that you do have scheduled elections. I take at least[/q1]
[q1]> 50% of what I said back.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 50% - because it's still the case here where you don't have enough checks and balances to keep the[/q1]
[q1]> gov't from abusing its power. A "White Paper" can do so much damage. To get a bill through[/q1]
[q1]> congress without losing is like pulling teeth, in the US. Much legislation that one sees in the[/q1]
[q1]> news had been years in the making....[/q1]

Is that why kids in the US lay their hands on guns with impunity and go around shooting their
classmates and teachers?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
[q1]> Sandi[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Martin
Badges:
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> In article <bmacgug270ej6uq8r0f6d7rukb0iq8c [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q1]
[q1]> <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> So you agree you don't have a Bill of Rights for your people.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The framers of the Constitution said, upon finishing and signing it, "This[/q1]
is
[q1]> the worst document ever created - except for all the others."[/q1]

No comparison drawn with the un-documented one, I see!

[q1]> And it's flexible, to move with the times, more or less - and with checks[/q1]
and
[q1]> balances that England sorely lacks.[/q1]

Tosh - that's what the second chamber, parliamentary scrutiny committees, fourth estate
etc provides.

[q1]> Your "white paper" is law.[/q1]

Once passed, yes - requiring several stages.

[q1]> No questions asked, no consultation, no balloting of the people affected.[/q1]

Get your well-informed buddy to tell you about green papers.

[q1]> Although I didn't quite understand the reason for the House of Lords, at least it was[/q1]
some
[q1]> sort of check on the power of whomever managed to get elected. That[/q1]
power's
[q1]> been taken away - or rather, eroded now.[/q1]

No it hasn't - it has always been possible for the elected lower house ultimately to over-rule the
upper. It's just very unusual for the Lord's party majority (tory) not to be that of the elected
government. This is the first time ever that a Labour gov't has won a second consecutive effective
working majority in the commons. Anyone in UK over the age of 10 has lived most of their life under
the Tories.

[q1]> Eventually, you will have your dictatorship - it's already started.[/q1]

T'was always thus. We elect a government - and then expect them to get on with it (max for five
years). We don't (or shouldn't) expect them to to come back every five minutes for referenda or
plebicites (sp?) re. colour of coffee of cups, primary school curriculum, etc.

[q1]> Seriously, do you ever look at what your alleged "elected" officials do[/q1]
and
[q1]> wish you could turn back the clock, just a bit?[/q1]

Of course - always have, always will. So does the gov't!!!! And that's why we change party of gov't
periodically. And there's no "alleged" about it. We don't stoop to miscounting the votes (AFAIAA!!)

[q1]> In the local ministerial elections, the ones that put people in the House[/q1]
of
[q1]> Commons, if a majority eventually get in - through piecemeal - can they[/q1]
toss
[q1]> out the ruling PM?[/q1]

It was ministers who kicked out Maggie.

--
Martin

(remove barrier to reply)
Martin
Badges:
#48
Report 16 years ago
#48
SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> I was not informed, or did not notice[/q1]

See - if it wasn't for the GTC, you might never have known this!!!

[q1]> (likely the latter) that Parliamentary elections are every 5 years, unless the PM[/q1]
and
[q1]> government resign earlier.[/q1]

They don't resign - they call a general election. They remain in power until the result is known.
Then, if they lose, they move out immediately. None of this hanging round for 2 months removing the
W's from keyboards!!

[q1]> Most apologetic. I really did not understand that you do have scheduled elections.[/q1]

Actually, they are more frequent than in US - despite option to stay for 5 years. Eg UK 16 elections
since WW2, US only 14.

[q1]> I take at least 50% of what I said back.[/q1]

That's nearly a working majority ;-)

[q1]> 50% - because it's still the case here where you don't have enough checks[/q1]
and
[q1]> balances to keep the gov't from abusing its power. A "White Paper" can do[/q1]
so
[q1]> much damage.[/q1]

Where _are_ you coming from on this? A white paper is simply a piece of (draft) legislation (a
"bill"). It's what the legislature (parliament) is paid to enact.

[q1]> To get a bill through congress without losing is like pulling teeth[/q1]

In USA, it always involves bribes and promises to state senators / congressmen

Ours just involves repulsive threats (from the whips)

--
Martin

(remove barrier to reply)
`P
Badges:
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
"*Ace*" <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message
news8ndgu4mmkef0e9uebpudhg9eegf7n6d9 [email protected]...
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> So you believe a system where judges are accountable to the public rather than the interests of[/q1]
[q1]> justice are a better alternative?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

I'd rather have judges that were pragmatically interested in the *Commonwealth* and not in the law
as a game of semantics.

Our judges represent the Queen remember, when they sit on the bench it is no accident that it
resembles a throne and is above the heads of all overs.

Elect them, but make it for a decent tenure of 10 or 15 years.

And on another tack, I'd rather have the old Lords back rather then the closed list system for the
few we will be able to elect.

--
`p
Martin
Badges:
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> In article <[email protected] k>, "martin" <[email protected] k> writes:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >They don't resign - they call a general election. They remain in power until the result is known.[/q2]
[q2]> >Then, if they lose, they move out immediately. None of this hanging round for 2 months removing[/q2]
[q2]> >the W's from keyboards!![/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> They do resign.[/q1]
No - the PM asks (and will always get) the monarch's "royal prerogative" to dissolve parliament
(unless it's gone full 5 year term, in which case dissolved automatically).

You need to distinguish between the legislature and the executive. The former vanish to their
constituencies to seek re-election, but the latter (in addition) retain their exec responsibilities
(+ salary, cars etc).

[q1]> According to my learned friend - more learned than what most here are spouting[/q1]

Careful - you've just found someone called Colin to explain something about UK parliamentary system.
That doesn't mean posters here don't know what they're talking about - or don't know anything about
the US system.

[q1]> Colin said that it is quite rare that they wait the full five years[/q1]

Attlee 1950; Home 1964; Callaghan 1979; Major 1997; That's four out of the 9 post-war PM's
(excluding Blair - too soon to know in his case). Not "quite rare", tell Colin. Incidentally, all
lost the general election, except Attlee who struggled on without a working maj. for a year or so,
and then lost.

Never thought about this before, but it's interesting to note that (apart from Attlee) all the above
became PM when incumbent resigned. Only Major ever led his party to a Gen Election victory.

[q1]> We have an election every 2 years. It's only the presidential election[/q1]
that is
[q1]> every 4 years - not at all the same thing and most certainly not a[/q1]
comparision
[q1]> to yours. We don't elect all our congressmen at the same time, as you do[/q1]
with
[q1]> your parliament. The House of Reps is every 2 years, the Senate every 6, presidential every 4.[/q1]

Yes, I do know that. But it means that (unlike UK) the majority wish of the "people" is never
reflected at any point in time. It may avoid wild swings, but I question its efficacy if you want a
(reasonably) united team to run UK plc.

[q1]> Erm....again, from someone who understands how these things work - if it's[/q1]
a
[q1]> "white paper," it's as good as law. Have you had any situation where a[/q1]
white
[q1]> paper was not enacted?[/q1]

No - but it gets modified at the various stages (1st and 2nd readings, committee etc) and recently
you've seen examples of government (the executive) accepting alterations to get a bill throught
the Lords.

[q2]> >In USA, it always involves bribes and promises to state senators / congressmen[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> As here.[/q1]

Not generally (AFAIK) - just a question of the whips keeping the lobby fodder in line.

--
Martin
c.c. Colin ;-)

(remove barrier to reply)
Martin
Badges:
#51
Report 16 years ago
#51
SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> In article <[email protected] k>, "martin" <[email protected] k> writes:[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >T'was always thus. We elect a government - and then expect them to get[/q2]
on
[q2]> >with it (max for five years). We don't (or shouldn't) expect them to to come back every five[/q2]
[q2]> >minutes for referenda or plebicites (sp?) re. colour[/q2]
of
[q2]> >coffee of cups, primary school curriculum, etc.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> They should - especially for things which sorely affect the electorate.[/q1]

Would never get anything done. And what would be left for the government to do?

A typcial consequence of allowing votes in individual issues is that the economy would be screwed
up. Everyone would vote for masive spending on public transport, more pay for nurses and teachers
(yes - them too!) but would also vote for lower taxes.

[q1]> At least we at the grass roots can keep the idiot in check. You can't keep yours in check - they[/q1]
[q1]> ride roughshod over you.[/q1]

Yes we can - the ballot box every few years.

[q1]> Say, do have an idea of when they're going to start monitoring the[/q1]
newsgroup as
[q1]> well as the emails, paper mail, etc. here?[/q1]

You'll soon know - when GTC becomes democratic and free! (trying to keep on thread :-) )

Martin

(remove barrier to reply)
*Ace*
Badges:
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
Hi SLieber24,

On 12 Jun 2002 05:14:13 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected] b-fq.aol.com>

[q1]> In article <iurcgucgfj7bfsahph02rjlpndhasgq [email protected]>, *Ace*[/q1]
[q1]> <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> writes:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >> I must apologise to all. I asked a learned friend - who's been around[/q2]
[q2]> >longer[/q2]
[q2]> >> than probably most of you, about the way elections work here. I was given[/q2]
[q2]> >the[/q2]
[q2]> >> impression, a couple of years ago, that the PM/Parliament - e.g. the ruling party - picks its[/q2]
[q2]> >> time to resign. I was not informed, or did not notice[/q2]
[q2]> >(likely[/q2]
[q2]> >> the latter) that Parliamentary elections are every 5 years, unless the PM[/q2]
[q2]> >and[/q2]
[q2]> >> government resign earlier.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >So, as usual you splurted nonsense which you know nothing about...[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> As usual? That's a bit rude, Mr. T**t. At least *I* admit when *I'm* wrong.[/q1]

Once doesn't make the rule.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >When will you agree that London Weighting makes up part of a London teacher's pay?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Nope. And the paperwork, government documentation, HT info and other teacher info supports my[/q1]
[q1]> position, darling.[/q1]

Then they are wrong. I teach in London and am paid London Weighting, therefore it is part of my pay.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >>[/q2]
[q2]> >> Most apologetic. I really did not understand that you do have scheduled elections. I take at[/q2]
[q2]> >> least 50% of what I said back.[/q2]
[q2]> >>[/q2]
[q2]> >> 50% - because it's still the case here where you don't have enough checks[/q2]
[q2]> >and[/q2]
[q2]> >> balances to keep the gov't from abusing its power. A "White Paper" can do[/q2]
[q2]> >so[/q2]
[q2]> >> much damage. To get a bill through congress without losing is like pulling teeth, in the US.[/q2]
[q2]> >> Much legislation that one sees in the news had been years[/q2]
[q2]> >in[/q2]
[q2]> >> the making....[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >Is that why kids in the US lay their hands on guns with impunity and go around shooting their[/q2]
[q2]> >classmates and teachers?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]> Impunity? Nope.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> But look to your own backyard, SFB. At least we do take action against kids who are[/q1]
[q1]> criminally-inclined. The level of lawlessness *here* from kids who get away with it with impunity[/q1]
[q1]> (150 crimes and all the kid gets is a "supervision order???") is utterly disgusting.[/q1]

So you support the US's handing out of 25 years without parole for a 19 year old who stole a
video recorder?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I think I'm through with you. You're just spouting off about things you know nothing about for the[/q1]
[q1]> sake of attacking. Probably through some frustration in personal and/or professional life. Plonk![/q1]

Do you admit to being a plonker?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
[q1]> Sandi[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
*Ace*
Badges:
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
Hi SLieber24,

On 12 Jun 2002 05:14:10 GMT, in uk.education.teachers SLieber24 put fingers to keyboard and tapped
away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected] b-fq.aol.com>

[q1]> In article <[email protected] k>, "martin" <[email protected] k> writes:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >> I was not informed, or did not notice[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >See - if it wasn't for the GTC, you might never have known this!!![/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LOL![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >> (likely the latter) that Parliamentary elections are every 5 years, unless the PM[/q2]
[q2]> >and[/q2]
[q2]> >> government resign earlier.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >They don't resign - they call a general election. They remain in power until the result is known.[/q2]
[q2]> >Then, if they lose, they move out immediately. None of this hanging round for 2 months removing[/q2]
[q2]> >the W's from keyboards!![/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> They do resign. According to my learned friend - more learned than what most here are spouting -[/q1]
[q1]> esp. agincourt - in order to call the general election - once agreed by parliament or party, the[/q1]
[q1]> PM visits the queen to offer resignation for the entire parliament. Then they call the general[/q1]
[q1]> election. It can be done at any time in the 5 year cycle - most usually when things are going well[/q1]
[q1]> for the ruling party. Colin said that it is quite rare that they wait the full five years as[/q1]
[q1]> things could be opposite of what the ruling party might be. I can repost his explanation for you,[/q1]
[q1]> if you wish. I have most of them in my files.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >> Most apologetic. I really did not understand that you do have scheduled elections.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >Actually, they are more frequent than in US - despite option to stay for 5 years. Eg UK 16[/q2]
[q2]> >elections since WW2, US only 14.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> We have an election every 2 years. It's only the presidential election that is every 4 years - not[/q1]
[q1]> at all the same thing and most certainly not a comparision to yours. We don't elect all our[/q1]
[q1]> congressmen at the same time, as you do with your parliament. The House of Reps is every 2 years,[/q1]
[q1]> the Senate every 6, presidential every 4.[/q1]

Oh... You want to go down the road of whatever nation has the most elections is the most
democratic do you?

We have the European Elections, Local Government elections, General Elections and a splattering of
referenda.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >> I take at least 50% of what I said back.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >That's nearly a working majority ;-)[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> 50% - because it's still the case here where you don't have enough checks[/q2]
[q2]> >and[/q2]
[q2]> >> balances to keep the gov't from abusing its power. A "White Paper" can do[/q2]
[q2]> >so[/q2]
[q2]> >> much damage.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >Where _are_ you coming from on this? A white paper is simply a piece of (draft) legislation (a[/q2]
[q2]> >"bill"). It's what the legislature (parliament) is paid to enact.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Erm....again, from someone who understands how these things work - if it's a "white paper," it's[/q1]
[q1]> as good as law. Have you had any situation where a white paper was not enacted?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >> To get a bill through congress without losing is like pulling teeth[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >In USA, it always involves bribes and promises to state senators / congressmen[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> As here.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >Ours just involves repulsive threats (from the whips)[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]> LOL![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> ----------------------------------------------------[/q1]
[q1]> Sandi[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Remove NoSpam to reply.[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
*Ace*
Badges:
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
Hi martin,

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:52:25 +0100, in uk.education.teachers martin put fingers to keyboard and
tapped away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected] uk>

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> SLieber24 <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > In article <[email protected] k>, "martin" <[email protected] k> writes:[/q2]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >T'was always thus. We elect a government - and then expect them to get[/q3]
[q1]> on[/q1]
[q3]> > >with it (max for five years). We don't (or shouldn't) expect them to to come back every five[/q3]
[q3]> > >minutes for referenda or plebicites (sp?) re. colour[/q3]
[q1]> of[/q1]
[q3]> > >coffee of cups, primary school curriculum, etc.[/q3]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > They should - especially for things which sorely affect the electorate.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Would never get anything done. And what would be left for the government to do?[/q1]

Here I have to side with Sandi. The Swiss system of government means that they have several
referenda per month, on single issues. They have a very stable political system albeit propped up by
hoarded Jewish gold.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A typcial consequence of allowing votes in individual issues is that the economy would be screwed[/q1]
[q1]> up. Everyone would vote for masive spending on public transport, more pay for nurses and teachers[/q1]
[q1]> (yes - them too!) but would also vote for lower taxes.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > At least we at the grass roots can keep the idiot in check. You can't keep yours in check -[/q2]
[q2]> > they ride roughshod over you.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Yes we can - the ballot box every few years.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > Say, do have an idea of when they're going to start monitoring the[/q2]
[q1]> newsgroup as[/q1]
[q2]> > well as the emails, paper mail, etc. here?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> You'll soon know - when GTC becomes democratic and free! (trying to keep on thread :-) )[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Martin[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> (remove barrier to reply)[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
User 1951
Badges:
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:54:33 +0100, *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote:

[q1]>Would you prefer power to be placed in the hands of someone who has a teenage intern giving him[/q1]
[q1]>blow jobs in his equivalent of the Cabinet Room?[/q1]

I daresay if you didn't like it you could vote for someone else...no such option with the inbred
parasites of the House of Windsor.

Incidentally I would not have voted for either of the capitalist parties in America but I don't
live there.
******************************** ****
**** http://user1951.tripod.com ****
Information about films,
Jack London, Lara Croft
Shakespeare and ICT program of study
last updated 30 05 2002
Martin
Badges:
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
`p <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "*Ace*" <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > Or the hands of an alcoholic?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Or a failed actor?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Or a peanut farmer?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]> They stood for election though, didn't they.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> When did you vote for a candidate for the office of PM/First Secretary to the Treasury (whatever[/q1]
[q1]> his official title actually is)?[/q1]

First Lord of the Treasury

Except for a few twits from the Lords, the whole Cabinet is made up of elected MPs. In the States,
the Pres (subject to scrutiny and approval) picks his own exec - a much better system, since MPs
rarely have the ability or experience to run anything properly, but US pres has few restrictions on
who he can pick. But it does make it right, in this case, that the US pres is elected directly by
the people. And even better, they get a say in the choice of their party candidate at the primaries.

Unfortunately, the UK system gets abused from time to time when PM appoints direct to Lords in order
to get his nominee into Cabinet (eg Thatcher and David Young).

--
Martin

(remove barrier to reply)
*Ace*
Badges:
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
Hi `p,

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:09:57 GMT, in uk.education.teachers `p put fingers to keyboard and tapped
away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected]>

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "*Ace*" <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news8ndgu4mmkef0e9uebpudhg9eegf7n6d9 [email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > So you believe a system where judges are accountable to the public rather than the interests of[/q2]
[q2]> > justice are a better alternative?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I'd rather have judges that were pragmatically interested in the *Commonwealth* and not in the law[/q1]
[q1]> as a game of semantics.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Our judges represent the Queen remember, when they sit on the bench it is no accident that it[/q1]
[q1]> resembles a throne and is above the heads of all overs.[/q1]

Do US judges sit below or on the same level of those they judge?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Elect them, but make it for a decent tenure of 10 or 15 years.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> And on another tack, I'd rather have the old Lords back rather then the closed list system for the[/q1]
[q1]> few we will be able to elect.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> --[/q1]
[q1]> `p[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (238)
27.23%
No (636)
72.77%

Watched Threads

View All