Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
From the latest news it looks like it’s all got Pete Tong anyway, Chelski and Man Citeh have withdrawn from super league, looks like there’s several multi millionaires with egg on their collective faces.
“But can someone tell me why the government has jumped right in and is showing so much interest? Is it just to gain a bit of popularity?”
I think that some of the response by Boris is partly a way of him trying to show he is responsive to the the voters, but the possible revenue loss to the treasury might also be a factor.
The amount of money coming into the treasury through the Premier League and through the rest of football is phenomenal. For instance, The transfer of footballers is subject to VAT However, transfers between football clubs in the EU were relieved of VAT, however I assume this will have changed with Brexit. £1.93 billion was spent on transfers last year. The current wage bill for the Premiership is at £2.8 billion, with income tax being charged at most of it at 45%, that’s a new fitted out aircraft carrier every couple of years.
If the “super” League clubs are expelled from UEFA, FIFA, etc. then in future they would not be have to pay smaller clubs for transfer fees, in the same way that Rugby League teams used to poach Rugby Union players, and now Rugby Union Teams now Rugby League players.
With the six clubs playing half of their games outside of the UK how long will the clubs work out that it’s better to put their training grounds in Dubai, Monaco or Gib and fly the players in, then the players can go non dom and save the tax (or more likely reduce the wage bill).
A large portion of football revenue is paid from outside of the UK and the revenue that comes back (TV money, sponsership, etc.) is paid in the UK. The revenue is on a nice little earner for UK Ltd and I’m pretty sure Boris and his gang won’t be keen on anything that screws up that cash flow.
David Attenborough on BBC “We are going to have to live more economically than we do. And we can do that and, I believe we will do it more happily, not less happily. And that the excesses the capitalist system has brought us, have got to be curbed somehow.”
“That doesn’t mean to say that capitalism is dead and I’m not an economist and I don’t know. But I believe the nations of the world, ordinary people worldwide, are beginning to realise that greed does not actually lead to joy.”
As the man said – “close but no cigar”
It’s touching that Nigel Farage has written about how important Prince Phillip is to the monarchy and what a fantastic public servant. Usually he would cheerfully stick knifes in the inflatable dinghies that any two year old asylum seekers were attempting to use one to cross the Straights of Dover.
With echoes (although somewhat of even less significance than Gorgeous George) of the Worker’s Party of Britain.
Some posters will remember a former long standing member of our party, who rode off on his White Stallion to become an elected councillor for the Seaham Community Party. (and who I believe is going to stand again for election as part of the same party)
It was gratifying that at least the Seaham Community Party has an understanding of decorum and sense of duty, unlike those unwashed heathens of the SPGB. I’m sure our former comrade had a tear in his eye as he read the sad announcement that the SCP put out:
“The Seaham Community Party would like to extend its sadness in the death of HRH Duke of Edinburgh, a man who proudly served in the Royal Navy and saw action at the Battle of Crete, Battle of Cape Matapan and the Allied invasion of Sicily.
Appointed as Admiral of the Sea Cadet Force, Colonel-in-Chief of the British Army Cadet force and Commodore-in-Chief of the Air Training Core.
Prince Phillip worked and supported numerous youth related works and charities throughout his life. The thoughts of everyone at Seaham Community Party are with his family and friends.
Rest in Peace”
Good to see that our former comrade has maintained his proud principles and beliefs
European Union Financial Services Commissioner Mairead McGuinness, discussing Coronavirus on Andrew Marr this morning, stated “the world has literally stopped turning”. So that’s something else for us to worry about then.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-56462390
What you been up to, L Bird????
Never forget …
lBird propagates the view that “workers as a class will exist under socialism”. In his philosophical “socialism”, workers persist as the ruling “class” and capitalists persist as the ruled “class”.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must preserve its social status as the “ruling” class by rooting out — lock, stock and barrel — the production of human thought by experts in all fields of specialist endeavour, research or practice, whether they be scientific or artistic.
Never forget.
For lBird, the “proletarian” class must deprive the “capitalist class” of its democratic rights in order to prevent “elite experts” — in particular, “bourgeois” scientists — from monopolising the production of human thought.
Otherwise, on lBird’s authority, “bourgeois” scientists will carry out terrifying experiments (à la the angel of death, Dr Josef Mengele) upon our “proletarian” bodies.
Never forget.
For lBird, “proletarians” must be generalists. Expert “proletarians” are forbidden lest they become “elitists”.
Never forget.
lBird denies the objectivity of the phenomenal world. Instead, he apprehends the phenomenal world — with Schopenhauer — as a mental representation.
Never forget.
lBird vehemently denies materialism.
Nevertheless, lBird discovers within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the existence of other minds cohabiting a society of social classes, and then discovers/hopes that those other minds belonging to his own social class happen to agree with him in their representation of the world.
LBird then bases the triumph of socialism on his own class’s collective mental representation of the phenomenal world as being infallible in a general, not in an expert, sense.
Therein lies the wanted objectivity of lBird’s idealist representation of the phenomenal world — an idealism he attributes to Marx!
Never forget.
lBird denies materialism,
Nevertheless, lBird discovers, within his rich mental representation of the phenomenal world, the historical process of social construction.
But lBird is ignorant of idealist social construction’s only possible objective foundation in Hegel’s objektiver Geist.
Bereft of Hegel’s idealist motive force, lBird’s social constructionism remains stuck in a vicious circle of thought begetting thought, scarcely distinguishable from the vicious circle of idealist pop post-modernism.
Never forget.
In such a philosophical muddle, lBird absolutely needs to rescue social control over the social production of idealist “thought”. He absolutely must advocate a regime of each surveilling the mental representation of each.
Never forget.
lBird’s adventures in social philosophy have given birth to a monster — the reign of compulsory thought policing.
Never forget.
To us, the fellow’s views are insane.
But apart from that, he’s ok
I think what is being said to you, L Bird, is that in any Socialist society, what is decided by voting will be decided democratically (by voting and other means) and given that there will be (like all societies) lots of decisions to be made it will probably (not certainly) be the case that a degree of decision making will be made by democratic means other than voting.
Examples of this maybe the election of individual delegates, appointment by ballot to various committees, selection by lot, etc.
What we are also saying (and in this case this is crucial) that it is certainly for us as a party, who are a tiny minority, to decide the level or format of such democratic organisation, for any future society. I would go as far as to say that your insistance that one aspect of that society (Scientific Theory) would be required to be decided upon by a series of plebicites is thoroughly undemocratic. Who are you (or we) to decide the democratic structures of a society where all are democratically involved, before the democratic involvement of those in that society.
James 19 –
One of the facts of history that the UKIPers, swilled eyed head bangers, Ultra tories, et al, hate having pointed out to them is that it was their hero Winston Churchill who was the PM when Britain ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.The idea, put forward by some here, that ‘democracy’ has ‘limits’, when discussing social production, is clearly mistaken, because only democratically organised humans can determine their own ‘limits’.
So where does the following statement
The limits to democracy will be set democratically and will likely vary according to the particular circumstances. </em
Not state this????
For me to preempt the decisions about democratic limits would by definition be undemocratic, in the same way that L Bird stating that there will be votes on scientific theories is by definition undemocratic.
By insisting that socialism will necessarily entail voting on scientific theory L Bird is taking an elitist view (that he knows best) and denies the fact that a future society may take the view that it wishes to democratically place limits to democracy around the “scientific theory”.
L Bird is really very guilty of “making recipes for the cookshops of the future”
As the UK is no longer in the EU, and come under the European Convention ON Human Rights, a case can’t be brought at ECHR in Strausberg.
The European Court of Human Rights is a court of the Council of Europe and nothing to do with the EU. Britian joined the Council of Europe in 1949 and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. The Human Rights Act incorporated the ECHR into British Law. Despite what Farage and the slack jawed loons say, leaving the EU has had no impact on this. The Human Rights Act still applies and all UK citizens have eventual recourse to the ECHR
