Visit the historic Lancashire Textile Project with over 500 photos and 190 taped interviews|2|0
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    77  78  79  [80]  81  82   Next Page  Last Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted -  11/01/2009  :  06:04
New Year, new topic. If you want to see the old one do a forum search for same title but 2008.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
Replies
Author
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    77  78  79  [80]  81  82   Next Page  Last Page
 
tripps
Senior Member


1404 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 11:22
It was obviously posted "from the hip",  but I'd class it as fair comment, and far from childish.

There is a time however when saying nowt is preferable.

Edited by - tripps on 24/05/2011 11:23:52 AM


Go to Top of Page
panbiker
Senior Member


2300 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 13:10


quote:
Bradders wrote:


quote:
Another wrote:
I have deleted a  post I mde earlier which was negative and childish.  Nolic

Doh ! .....Missed that one.

It wasn't about an extended holiday in France or Belgium , by any chance, was it ?


I saw it but I'm applying for an injunction so you can't press me for it's contents.



Ian Go to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 13:47
I'll just have to pick it up on Twitter then ...eh !


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 16:59
Sorry Belle it hasn't hit the headlines up here but I would see it as wrong.
See Bradders has lost the stammer.
Why is it that if you disagree with someones comments you are wrong ? Debate is centered around different views, are you trying to stiffle that !!! I disagree because of my life's experiences, but hey ho.
Wagons in a circle boys and girls!!! because that's what it looks like from here.

Edited by - frankwilk on 24/05/2011 6:58:49 PM



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
belle
VIP Member


6502 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 17:17
Sing along now everyone "it's not what you do it's the way that you do it,it's not what you do it's the way that you do it..etc"


Life is what you make itGo to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 18:09
Spot on, Belle !.......

Frank , I'd like to explain.......A family acquaintance played Gollum in a BBC  version of "Lord of The Rings"....(Peter Woodthorpe)....His characterisation emphasised the "Ssssssses" written by Tolkien....Gollum always refers to himself , in the third person , ...e.g . "it's  hidden it (the ring) in  it's pocketsesss ,..... my preciousesssss !"...     It's not a stammer....... ( it's a literary device)  

As the site's officially recognised reptile , I shall continue to use it as I see fit . 

Here's a link ....wonderful acting !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqbg-_EfzrQ

 

Edited by - Bradders on 24/05/2011 6:18:28 PM

Edited by - Bradders on 24/05/2011 6:38:02 PM

Edited by - Bradders on 24/05/2011 6:42:10 PM


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 19:00
Edited by - Bradders on 24/05/2011 6:18:28 PM

Edited by - Bradders on 24/05/2011 6:38:02 PM

Edited by - Bradders on 24/05/2011 6:42:10 PM

Ups the stammer is back !!!





Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 19:02
Spot on Belle says Bradders so that's two wagons in the circle already !!
It's not what you do, it's who say's it that appears to matter more. That was my point.



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 19:04
Oh I see Bradders your acting, well that is a surprise !!



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 19:48
I'm with you , Colin.....I've  just deleted my response to the above nonsense (X3).....

 

 

 


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
belle
VIP Member


6502 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 20:06
If we are in the circle of wagons then presumably we are trying to defend oursleves against attack.. who do you see the attacker as being?

Edited by - belle on 24/05/2011 8:06:44 PM


Life is what you make itGo to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 24/05/2011 : 23:30
Geroniwilk..!


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 25/05/2011 : 05:23
Tripps is right, sometimes it's better to say nowt. However, there is an elephant in the room and people are reacting.

Frank, every post you make is aimed at stirring up controversy by shifting the goalposts, avoiding rational response and attacking everyone. People are fed up with it. Sit back and reconsider whether addressing people's opinions positively would perhaps be better. For instance, you could read my original post again. I'll give you a clue, it was about the power of the internet.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 11/06/2011 : 10:17

THE VIEW FROM THE BUNKER, JUNE 2011

I've just heard a respected BBC foreign correspondent saying that the biggest problem the Syrian government has is that “it has lost control of the story”. He went on to give a rational explanation for this assessment but I won't bore you with it. What intrigued me was the phrase itself because it seems to flag up the importance of controlling the media and the importance of the image in today's world. We have all seen the power of advertising and the use of publicity to manufacture everything from political parties to 'B' List celebrities.

My question is, what can we do to defend ourselves against this assault? I am often taken to task because I 'harp on the past', not everyone agrees with my contention that we can best understand what is happening in our lives by having a look at what happened in similar circumstances in the past. True, times have changed, the world is a different place and I can understand why people use this as evidence that past circumstances don't apply. Of course, in a way they are right, but my contention is that this doesn't mean that basic principles have changed.

Let me give you one example. I look back to the inter-war period and note that after WW1 the general intellectual feeling was that we needed to return to the palmy days of late Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Sound money, laissez faire economic and social policies with no central control from government. The War Coalition's policy of control of basic industries and investment in rationalisation, though successful, was ditched by 1920, Montague Norman successfully boosted the exchange rate to almost pre-war levels and in the process damaged exports and industry to the point where they started to slide into depression. This wasn't the only reason this happened of course but, with hindsight, we can see that they made things much worse. The same thing happened during the 1930s when another attempt was made to achieve sound money, the disaster of going back onto the gold standard. All this changed during WW2 of course when Keynesian theories of deficit-financed stimulation of key parts of the economy enabled us to get industrial production up to a point where we could repair some of the damage caused to industry in the inter-war years and win the war. Then followed the enlightened reconstruction policies of the Atlee Labour government which by improving housing, social care, health and command of the economy enabled a good start to dragging us out of the hole we were in and incidentally redistributed wealth.

You've got the picture, for the US think Reconstruction, exactly the same process. I transfer this scenario to where we are now. A massive financial crisis caused from 1960 on by the demolition of the controls placed on the financial industry after 1929. The rise of the great capital holders who espoused Friedman Chicago School economic theory because it enabled them to gain control of the flows of capital. Basically, all public money flowed upwards away from the producers with entirely predictable results on income distribution. This blind adherence to monetarism, bolstered by the banks control of the media message that they were too big to be allowed to fail resulted in governments ditching the well understood mechanism of the multiplier effect where money is injected into the economy at low level and allowed to work its magic on incomes, consumption and eventually corporate profit. Instead it was thrown directly to the banks where all it did was support the system that had caused the failure in the first place.

Having spent the capital, any government that took charge had to find a way of attacking the structural deficit. The route that has been chosen by the ConDem coalition is to cut public spending. Allow an ailing economy to depress wage rates and incomes (Far more non-jobs that don't produce a proper living wage) and thus depress consumer spending which is the most important driver of the economy. I pause and look at what I have written. My God I'm boring! I shall stop making my case for what got us to where we are now, I've done enough to make my view clear based on history. The question is what happens next?

I don't know how many of you have read Naomi Klein's splendid book, 'The Shock Doctrine'. If you haven't seen it, seek it out, it's a good read and an entirely convincing thesis demonstrating the use of crisis, whether natural or induced, to modify social and economic systems to produce the desired result, monetarist policies designed to move the capital upwards. Now as I see it this powerful mechanism isn't totally one-way. It was the shock of WW2 allied with the lessons learned in the 1930s that dragged both the US and UK economies away from monetarism and towards the use of capital for reconstruction. No, I'm not advocating another world war to produce the shock but what I am putting forward is that it may be that some shock capable of modifying behaviour comes to our rescue again. It may be that this injection of pain into all levels of the economy could trigger the rethink that we need to get us back on track. So where could this miracle come from?

Remember the Japanese earthquake? Apart from the obvious tragedy of loss of life and damage to the infrastructure it has thrown the economy back into depression and the government is going to have to rethink all its policies to manage recovery. The shock has produced a reaction and changed policy. Think about energy and commodity prices, the imbalance in the world economy we are seeing with the transformation of China (India not far behind), the effects of climate change and world population increase. I'm sure you can think of a few more to add to the list. Politicians tend to think in the sort term and I can detect no evidence that any government is seriously addressing the long term possibility of external shock. The nearest they get to it is asking OPEC to pump more oil as the price inexorably rises. The last quarter's minuscule variation in GDP figures is headline news, not NASA's splendid long term graph of the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I'd argue that the latter is far more important than the former but I haven't got the pressures of political survival and the next election weighing on my shoulders.

To go back to the importance of the message. One of the most depressing aspects of government at the moment is the all consuming importance of spin and 'the message'. Ally this to the oft voiced opinion that 'these matters are too complicated for the electorate to understand' and you begin to get a measure of my frustration. I admit to sounding like Jeremiah and I don't like it but apart from the minutiae of my life, I don't see many reasons to be cheerful once I peer out of the bunker at the wider world. Perhaps I'm just getting old and losing my marbles. I may be wasting my time reading history and drawing lessons from what I see. I could be totally wrong about everything. Perhaps in the words of Desiderata 'And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should'. (Mind you, I never did trust Desiderata, Susi taught me well!) I know of only one way to get an assessment, go public, expose my thinking to my peers and wait for a reaction. Over to you....

SCG/11/06/11


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page

thomo
Barlick Born Old Salt


2021 Posts
Posted - 11/06/2011 : 12:34
I think the difficult part is striking a balance between what you know to be fact and what has happened in the past, and the possibility that some things have changed beyond the sphere of ones knowledge. If you look at what is termed as "Arab Spring" you see a people fighting against oppressive regimes, and it creates a natural feeling of sympathy, and yet earlier on Gaddafi who is considered to be somewhat mad, blamed it all on Al Qaeda, there is also then the possibilty that he may be right, for another way of promoting your cause is by getting someone else to do it for you regardless of the cost, and that organisation cares not at all about who gets hurt as long as they can achieve their goal. Get the mob to do the dirty work and then move in and reap the benefits. As I say its just a possibility, only time will tell.


thomo Go to Top of Page
Topic is 84 Pages Long:
Go to Page
  First Page  Previous Page    77  78  79  [80]  81  82   Next Page  Last Page
 


Set us as your default homepage Bookmark us Privacy   Copyright 2004-2011 www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk All Rights Reserved. Design by: Frost SkyPortal.net Go To Top Of Page

Page load time - 0.656