i think it's about time we stand up and be counted on this issue, £1.15 a litre here, of which i believe 63% is tax!!! the working men/women are the back bone of this country, yet at every turn we a robbed by the goverment.
how do they expect us to get to our places of work if these fuel prices keep on rising. then there is the knock on effect, most of, if not all our consumables are delivered by road, as the cost of fuel gos up so must the cost of haulage go up, there by pushing up the cost of the product.
we all sit at work or at home, maybe even the pub (if you can afford it) and moan, yet like sheep we drive the next day and pay the money. a nation of sheep, is that what we have become? out of the whole country there must be a large enough number to stand up and make a difference. i believe one or two major roads being brought to a standstill during rush hour should make those "above" open there ears, think on it, & if you are willing to sacrifice a days work then reply here and lets get something started.
Nick.

Don't be ridiculous. The Government isn't "robbing" you. It is taxing you and spending those taxes on things that it thinks worthy of social spending. You are free to object and vote them out at the next election (please do -- I never voted for them, and would love to see the back of them). That is the way that democracy works. If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries that operate different systems of government, but I somehow suspect you would like them even less.

And if you display your contempt for the democracy that generations have fought and died for by attempting to blackmail the Government into obeying your wishes through road blockades, I hope they have the guts throw the book at you. Unfortunately, the current government probably have as little respect for democracy as you, so will cave in.

Well, you could cause chaos on the roads, but all you will do is piss off ordinary people like you and me. And what does that achieve? Not a lot. You might even 'force' the government to implement more stealth taxes such as the show room tax.

You highlighted a major problem which is that the government see private vehicle drivers as a soft target e.g. showroom tax, road tax etc. But the main contributor to pollution from the roads comes from lorries, buses, coaches etc. So they would do better to increase fuel tax not other road taxes, so at least we could choose to use an efficient car if possible so as to avoid most tax.

Oh and even then other factors cause more pollution e.g. industry and the home. Maybe the government should focus on the major causes of pollution and waste and not the easy target? Perhaps you could point that out to them?

And its also making millions on corporate tax when those oh so lucky fuel suppliers post their billion £ profits

Which it then spends on things that it thinks are worth doing. And if you disagree with how much money they raise or what they spend the money on then you can vote them out at the next election. It's called democracy, and though it has its faults it is generally better than the alternatives... like bullyboy blackmail.

Of course the government adding 65% tax on a product that is essential for UK transportation of goods, emergency services, utilities, basically everything is not blackmail? Unfortunately democracy does not function very well in the UK. Yes we can vote in a new government but as they are all basically clones of each other ,and none listen to the electorate anyway, it is rather pointless. The arguments on this page aginst direct action are just examples of the weak, gutless British electorate who subsequently get walked over and treated like idiots by the government. Baa, Baa, Baa, back to your fiels sheep.

As opposed to getting walked over by bully boys who don't mind preventing me from going about my business so they can make their undemocratic point? Personally, I have no problem with paying fuel duty at its current rate, so why should I suffer being brought to a standstill by those who have proved incapable of winning their argument by democratic means?

As opposed to getting walked over by bully boys who don't mind preventing me from going about my business so they can make their undemocratic point?

And there was I thinking you were an "active" "anti" fascist league supporter!

The last time I looked they were a bunch of bully boys who liked to "walk" over legal political parties legally going about their legal business and don't mind preventing them from going about their business so they can make their undemocratic point

 

Personally, I have no problem with paying fuel duty at its current rate

Then you can obviously afford it.

Unlike the poor who try to work to support themselves, what used to be called "the workers", who spend 25% of their income on transport costs according to the trendy-lefty Guardianista Rowntree Foundation so that they can get to work and earn enough to put bread on the table.

But you're alright Jack, FW, like the rest of the Champagne Socialists, so why should you worry!

 

so why should I suffer being brought to a standstill by those who have proved incapable of winning their argument by democratic means?

Because people are taking a leaf out of the handbook written by people like you in the "anti"-fascist league and George attacking policemen in the miners' strike.

As for democracy.

 

Don't be ridiculous. The Government isn't "robbing" you. It is taxing you and spending those taxes on things that it thinks worthy of social spending.

Like bin and smoking police, baling out corrupt financial institutions based in Labour hearlands, and creating armies of pen pushers in those same areas?

 

You are free to object and vote them out at the next election

As long as population distribution and constituency size don't prevent it.

Currently the tories have to have a 5% to 10% lead to win due to the above and the gLib Dumbs haven't got a cat in hell's chance however big their vote is.

 

And, of course, it depends on what "improvements" to the voting process the current government makes.

Like bringing in new rules that made it easier for their activists to fiddle postal votes, while requiring troops to remember to renew their postal vote every year while being shot at in a shell hole in Bagdad, when they used to automatically get their voting papers wherever they were.

 

( -- I never voted for them, and would love to see the back of them).

Does that mean you voted Tory?

Or do you mean that was the first time you didn't vote for them because they weren't loony-"liberal" left enough for you?

Answers please.

I seem to recall you once boasting that you would never vote for anyone else.

I'm sure you wouold be more than happy to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That is the way that democracy works.

I had a car like that once.

It didn't work.

But that's the way that cars that don't work work!

 

 

If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries that operate different systems of government, but I somehow suspect you would like them even less.

I suppose if some squatters broke into your home, took it over, and made you their slave:

You wouldn't complain.

You'd just try to emigrate?!?!?!?!

And if you display your contempt for the democracy that generations have fought and died for by attempting to blackmail the Government into obeying your wishes through road blockades, I hope they have the guts throw the book at you. Unfortunately, the current government probably have as little respect for democracy as you, so will cave in.

I bet you don't think that when you are manning the barricades!

> I'm sure you wouold be more than happy to correct me if I'm wrong.

Not really enough hours in the day, BJ. However, on this occasion I will make an exception: as it happens, I have never in my life voted Labour. So when you "seem to recall you once boasting that you would never vote for anyone else," you are indulging in your usual practice of "remembering" the Universe as you would like it to be to fit your twisted little preconceptions, rather than the way it actually is.

All we can be profoundly grateful for is that your nasty little Universe is entirely between your ears, and the rest of us can get on with living in the altogether more pleasant reality, leaving only you trapped in the sick world of your own making.

FW sounds like a little poodle, happy to be governed by such a benevolent Big Brother. Sadly not many of us are so wealthy as he/she/it is.

The problem is that fuel tax is levied as a percentage. So the more the underlying product goes up, the more money the government rakes in. And what's more they are planning to add an extra 2p to the tax! Amazing. They are raking in record 'profits' which they can spend on making sure that immigrants get their rights respected, and other good causes.

The way to react is indeed democratically which is why Nu Labour - and their Nu-Speak - got shafted at the Crewe and Wotsit Bye Bye Election.

Dom't be more of an ass than you can help. I am no-one's poodle, and have mo desire to be governed by any Orwellian nightmare. I am just intelligent enough to realize that it is completely ridiculous to paint a government of any political flavour as some kind of money-grabbing monster because the cost of petrol has gone up. For heaven's sake, do the maths. I probably spend around a thousand pounds a year on petrol, so the Government makes maybe 700 pounds in tax from me on petrol. That is a tiny fraction of what I pay them in income tax, and even a small perturbation on what I pay in VAT. So why should I get all sweaty and overexcited about the petrol tax?

So FW you show yourself to be the complete twat that you are. Do go back and read my post which you clearly did not. The government ARE profiting greatly from the increase in oil prices.

The problem with this government is that THEY ARE a money grabbing machine. And incompetent. But they do not see the unintended consequences. Let me give an example. Telecoms has been taken over by Indian engineers. Some years back Gordon introduced IR35 which meant that UK contractors had to pay more tax. Indian contractors do not pay IR35. That favours Indians. Secondly the government have allowed unrestricted entry of Indian engineers. India has 1 billion people, so a much larger pool of workers. So it is hard for UK engineers to compete. UK companies prefer to bring Indians to the UK as they will have worked in India on related work due to outsourcing. They might be crap at the job, but they can claim experience. Also Indians are trained to pass the interviews. Once one gets a job, he/she tells the Indian body shop about the interview, and they can then train the others to get in. UK contractors do not have that advantage. So the net effect is that in many if not most UK telecoms companies, 80%+ of the engineers are Indians. Many are taking UK citizenship because they prefer it here (water and electricity throughout the day for example).

Which is all very interesting, but singularly fails to demonstrate that Government is a "money grabbing machine." In fact, the one thing they are not is a "money grabbing machine," since, unlike any business, they can and do spend more money than they raise. One might well disagree with the things they choose to spend the money on, but only a complete idiot would think that the Government "profits" from oil taxes. They don't; they spend it and more.

FW: you are playing with words in the most tedious fashion and arguing for the sake of it. The point - WHICH YOU KNOW FULL WELL - is that the government are taking more money in the form of tax. Arguing as you do that they do not take more money because they spend it is a cretinous argument. No surprise there then. I can see why your friend Bogush gets so pissed off with you, though why he bothers is beyond me.

There is a key argument here, namely whether or not one believes in a highly centralising state - which you clearly do - or a less centralising one. And if you think those tax pounds are well spent, take a look at the wonderful pensions enjoyed by public sector workers, and the early retirement they are entitled to. Private sector workers look on them with envy. Ahhh, but you are a government drone, with a nice pension. No wonder you support increased tax, and bend over to let them take it from you.

Anyway, there cretins will soon be out. Son of 10p tax fiasco is about to hit, namely the massively increased duty on old cars.

Except it isn't just playing with words, is it? All this nonsense about "money grabbing," and "robbing" implies that the Government is taking our money away and that's the last we will ever see of it. In fact, they spend all of it and then some on public services. There is a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had over whether those services are a good use of our money (indeed, that's why we have the opportunity to vote them out every five years), but unfortunately we never get to that point because of all this blatantly ridiculous bleating about our money being "stolen."

Oh, and, no, I am not employed in the public sector. Happily, my pension provision is plentiful, but that is because I have paid for it. I do not begrudge those in the public sector an equally decent pension because if you did away with it then there would be even fewer decent hard working folk prepared to take on the thankless job, particularly with vindictive idiots nastily stereotyping them all as imbeciles with an easy life.

What an idiot you are. Enjoy your semantics.

The fact is that the government are making a mint from fuel tax. Oil revenues have gone sky high because a) the government gets increased revenue on North Sea Oil sales and b) increased tax on petrol and diesel because the tax is levied as a percentage of the pre-tax sale price. No amount of weasel words from you can deny that. So yes the government is a money making machine. And they have scheduled an additional 2p per litre increase.

If you think a government/council is efficient then you are a fool. (Well, we know you are a fool anyway.)

If you want to know about government spending, don't just focus on cuddly wuddly nurses and police officers. Focus too on Deloitte Touche and other consultancies who a) have placed employees in senior government positions, replacing civil servants, on committees that decide government strategy and b) get awarded massive government contracts. We are not talking millions of pounds here, but billions. Interestingly enough many of the government (such as Patricia Hewitt) have been directly employed by consultancies. There is some massive legal corruption going on. Oh, and various government committees have repeatedly investigated the effectiveness of these massive projects, and concluded that a) there is no accounting and b) when they have been able to understand what is going on, the projects appear to be massively overspent and underdelivered. Then there is the not really legal corruption. Consultancies often bill at full price flights and hotel bills for their employees, but negotiate massive discounts with airlines and hotels. We are talking less than half price here. On several occasions they have been caught out, and decided to pay back massive sums without admitting any wrong doing.

And Labour have been massively expanding the public sector. In some parts of the North the public sector is the principal employer. Not healthy. But then again, the South is the main generator or true wealth in this country, not the supine dependent North.

No wonder some council prats are allowed to get away with legalised theft such as taxing work parking places.

Oh yes, and why do the government need to milk us for yet more money. Not for the cuddly wuddly police, who are being screwed. But for an illegal war.

As the gummint knows full well, whatever the price of fuel is, we have to stump up. Its a daily neccesity to one and all, even the ekko push bike weilding {credit to you} fanatics. Hope you also like your fish & chips ? Trawlers are going out of business now.
And is your house total solar ?

What we object to is TAX TAX TAX

The revolt has begun :)

Council slaughter
BORIS for London Mayor
Crewe election

> What an idiot you are. Enjoy your semantics.
>
> The fact is that the government are making a mint from fuel tax.

Except there are no semantics involved. Just basic understanding of logic. The Government is not "making a mint" from fuel tax. They are raising more revenue which is going some way toward financing their rather expensive wealth redistribution scheme. The idea that they are somehow making this money magically vanish from the UK economy is just plain stupid, and diverts attention away from the more important discussion of the appropriate level of public spending.

> And Labour have been massively expanding the public sector. In some parts of the North
> the public sector is the principal employer. Not healthy. But then again, the South is
> the main generator or true wealth in this country, not the supine dependent North.

Ah yes, the South. The "true" generator of wealth, since it houses all those worthwhile financiers whose money-grabbing attempts to make a quick profit on poorly secured loans and other dubious gambles have put our economy in the mess it is in today. You must be very proud.

Re: fuel costs
May 27 2008, 10:24 AM

>> What an idiot you are. Enjoy your semantics.
>>
?> The fact is that the government are making a mint from fuel tax.

FW: "Except there are no semantics involved. Just basic understanding of logic. The Government is not "making a mint" from fuel tax. They are raising more revenue which is going some way toward financing their rather expensive wealth redistribution scheme. "

What a tedious pedantic twat you are. And devious.

FW: "The idea that they are somehow making this money magically vanish from the UK economy is just plain stupid, and diverts attention away from the more important discussion of the appropriate level of public spending."

Sorry? I never said that. I seem to recall elsewhere that you have a habit of attributing to me things that I never said.


There is just one key point that I made, namely that this government are raising significantly more money from oil tax. Why don't you just accept what is after all a simple true fact, rather than try to bore everyone to death with tedious pedantic nonsense.


> And Labour have been massively expanding the public sector. In some parts of the North
> the public sector is the principal employer. Not healthy. But then again, the South is
> the main generator or true wealth in this country, not the supine dependent North.

FW: "Ah yes, the South. The "true" generator of wealth, since it houses all those worthwhile financiers whose money-grabbing attempts to make a quick profit on poorly secured loans and other dubious gambles have put our economy in the mess it is in today. You must be very proud."

You are not just a twat, but thick and ignorant. Here are some basic facts. Finance is one of the largest earners of revenue in this country. Most of that money comes from overseas. We are bankers to the world. In other words, London is one of, if not the, most important providers of financial services in the world. The reason is in part because we are trusted, due to strong legal regulation of our banking system. The other reason is because of deregulation of the banking sector by Mrs Thatcher and co. which gave us a competitive advantage in the world. In short, financial service sector is a a MASSIVE earner of revenue from overseas.

Oh yes, I forgot, you live in some silly ignorant world where "all those worthwhile financiers whose money-grabbing attempts to make a quick profit [snip] have put our economy in the mess it is in today. " Don't let really intrude on your nice lefty view of the world.

Oh, and if you look at the financial statistics, you will see that the South East really is the wealth generating engine of the UK regardless of what ignorant communists such as you think. Take a look at the Thames Valley, aka Silicon Ditch, with masses of high tech IT companies. Or the the high tech companies in and around Cambridge and Oxford. These places earn money by generating intellectual capital.


But then again, you are probably one of those people who thinks that it is honest to raise money by taxing work place parking. In other words, you favour living parasitically off others who do the real work. Socialists like you should spend less time looking enviously at the wealth of others, and realise that you can get off your arses and earn some yourself.

Impressive how you can write such a lengthy diatribe that contains not a single element of truth.

Just to straighten out your ignorance on one particularly cretinous aspect: I am not a "communist," nor a "lefty" nor even a "socialist." I don't look enviously on anybody's wealth because I can't be bothered to get of my arse and earn some myself. In reality, I am an evil capitalist who runs a reasonably successful engineering company that I started myself, and as such I earn rather a lot of money every year, and pay a great deal of tax.

Oh, and I don't have any particular problem with taxing parking spaces at work, apart from the fact that it doesn't reach those on the school run who are responsible for a significant part of the problem. In the case of my company, I have already reassured my staff that we will not be passing on the charge to them.

So, no, I am not a "thick ignorant twat." Fortunately, you have that angle covered.

FW, just wanted to say that you're not alone here. I respect your voice of reason and your considered, well written posts. As I'm sure I said once before, I'm amazed you can pull it off.

It's hard in the face of blind ignorance and raging self-interest. But we must try, these people know not what they do.

TPG - FIGHTING FOR COMMON SENSE - FIGHTING FOR YOUR FUEL TAX!

Although we are probably at opposite ends of the political spectrum FW, I respect everything you say. I 100% agree with you about road safety and fuel usage but then don't most sensible sane people?

That's one of the strange things about the political spectrum: go far enough to the left and you find yourself on the right, and vice-versa!

FW: "Impressive how you can write such a lengthy diatribe that contains not a single element of truth."

Just goes to show how ignorant you are.

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/media_centre/files2007/A+capital+contribution+-+Londons+Place+in+the+UK+Economy+2007-08.htm

Quote: "Financial and professional business services now generate around 13% of total UK gross value-added."

And that looks to be just from London, ignoring other financial centres such as Bristol.

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=9652

The above link is worth quoting:

Begin quote --------------------------------

The report highlights:

* A £50 billion contribution to the UK economy - some 8.5 per cent of the UK's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) equivalent to around £850 for every man, woman and child in the country;

* Corporation tax payments of £9 billion that would have paid for 36 new hospitals or 600 city academies;

* Employment for three million people with nearly half a million in banks alone ;

* Inward investment by overseas banks in the UK topping £36 billion - the equivalent of £600 from each of us;

* More than £10 billion in dividends to shareholders last year, boosting the values of pension funds and other stock market investments; and

The report also notes that the top five corporate charitable donors in the UK are all banks.

End quote --------------------------------


I will leave you to find supporting evidence for the other statements in my earlier post. An exercise for the student so to speak. In your case, student is an appropriate term, in the sense that you are uneducated, and in need of learning. I'll give you a word of advice: try thinking next time you post. It will help.

"That's one of the strange things about the political spectrum: go far enough to the left and you find yourself on the right, and vice-versa!"

That is a hoary old chestnut, but you would do well to read up on political theory if that is what you think. There are massive and fundamental differences between fascism and communism. OH yes, I forgot, you don't let reality get in the way of a good story.

Ah yes, here is something else I said in that posting that you say contains not a word of truth: "London is one of, if not the, most important providers of financial services in the world."

Ooh, look what I found:

http://www.london.gov.uk/london-life/business-and-jobs/financial-centre.jsp

Quote: "London is the banking centre of the world and Europe’s main business centre."

And here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom

Quote: "The capital, London (see Economy of London), is one of major financial centres of the world, along with New York City, Hong Kong and Singapore.[1]"

And Scotland does not do so badly either:

Quote: "Edinburgh also has a long established financial industry, the fifth largest financial centre in Europe, with many large firms based there, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (the second largest bank in Europe), HBOS (owners of the Bank of Scotland) and Standard Life Insurance."

And here is a government source:

https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukti/appmanager/ukti/sectors?_nfls=false&_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=SectorType1&navigationPageId=/financial_services

Quote: "The UK financial services sector is the single largest contributor to the UK balance of payments."

So, looks like you were talking balls. Again.

You also need to read about the deregulation of the banks by Mrs T and her colleagues, known as the Big Bang of October 27 1986. You will learn something. (Hard for you not to really, since you are starting at such a low base line. Ha ha ha.)

> That is a hoary old chestnut, but you would do well to read up on political
> theory if that is what you think. There are massive and fundamental
> differences between fascism and communism. OH yes, I forgot, you don't let
> reality get in the way of a good story.

Personally, my preference is not so much to read what other people tell me to think, but to figure it out for myself. And it doesn't actually take a particularly hefty intellect to figure out that there is less distance between right-wing libertarian and left-wing liberal than there is between, say, centre-left Conservative and centre-right Liberal.

> http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=9652
>
> The above link is worth quoting:
>
hahahahahahahaha! Your authority of demonstrating that the fiaancial services industry is vital to the UK economy is the BBA, and, according to their website, "The BBA is the voice of the banking industry for all banks who operate within the uk." Kind of sums up the quality of your arguments really.

Kind of entertaining, though, that the report proudly claims that
> A £50 billion contribution to the UK economy - some 8.5 per cent of the
> UK's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) equivalent to around £850 for every man,
> woman and child in the country;
from financial services, because that's pretty much exactly what the incompetence of financial services has cost every man, woman and child in the country through bailing out the mess they made over Northern Rock.

I gave you three separate sources, including a government one. There are many more if you Google. You could also look in any academic economics text book. Clearly you have an intensely egocentric personality that ignores reality in preference to your own self defined version of the world.

But then again, that should have been obvious to anyone foolish enough to read your posts in response to Mann. Posts from you should carry a warning: "May contain nuts".

And how many websites would you like that spell out the cost of the Northern Rock debacle to every man, woman and child in the country? Then there was Black Wednesday -- cheap at only £27 billion, though that neglects the huge costs that the mortgage-holding population had to bear with 15% interest rates. So, yes, the financial services industry does make plenty of money for the UK economy, but it helps to conveniently neglect all the times that it has cost us dear though its greed and stupidity.

> Clearly you have an intensely egocentric personality that ignores reality in
> preference to your own self defined version of the world.

Ah, thrashing around with amateur psychology now, I see. Here's a tip: you weren't smart enough to even guess how wealthy I am, so the chances of you psychoanalyzing me successfully are small in the extreme.

FW: You really are evasive. First you say that my earlier post contained not one truth. When I show that it contained many facts, as confirmed by goodness knows how many sources, you change the subject and argue about some side issue. So, we now agree that my earlier post contained lots of truths, and hence you were talking balls.

Devious must be your middle name. Second thoughts, you are just a thick twat. And ignorant.

But what do we expect from a pinko leftie Trotskyite nutter such as you?

And do read up on Fascism and Communism and you will find out that they bear no resemblance. Then again, someone as thick as you probably thinks that Russia was communist, rather than a brutal dictatorship with a small, corrupt and vicious leadership.

And regarding Northern Rock, the cost is far smaller than the contribution to the balance of payments from one year of the UK finance sector. And it would have been nothing had not Thicko Brown and company intervened.

Revenue generated by financial services "industry" in a year (according to its own trumpet-blowing pressure group): Ā£50 billion.

Cost of taking Northern Rock into public ownership due to the incompetent mismanagement of the financial services "industry": Ā£50 billion.

As for reading up on communism and fascism, fortunately I am already reasonably well read and capable of thinking for myself. However, for your benefit you might do well to put "Libertarian Left Right" into Google, where you will find some 400,000 items, many of which discuss the difficulty in deciding whether this extreme is to the left or right of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, they tend not to draw any definite conclusions or tell you what to think, so you may not find them very useful.

FW: "Cost of taking Northern Rock into public ownership due to the incompetent mismanagement of the financial services "industry": Ā£50 billion."

No. The cost was due to an incompetent government taking the hit that shareholders should have shouldered. And that £50 billion annual revenue from the financial services is just the direct revenue coming in from overseas. It ignores the wealth generated within the country i.e. employment etc. Then we have indirect revenue from financial services.

So you admit that you were talking complete balls when you denied that finanical services is a significant part of the UK economy. You are thick and ignorant. Then again we know that, as no-one but a fool such as you would argue with Bogush, which is a pointless exercise.

Ah, but quis custodiet? After all, surely the only person stupider than someone who argues with Bogush is someone who argues with someone who argues with Bogush. Stupidity squared, one might say.

So you're a successful businessman, FW.

Are you deskbound?

Capable of getting to all your meetings by public transport?

Drive a Smart Car extremely slowly?

 

Which is it that enables someone in your position to get by on so little fuel?

 

Then there's your position on the political spectrum.

I seem to recall you saying that you would never vote Tory.

So what would you vote for?!

And where would that put you on the political spectrum?!?!?

And the government takes more and more from the producers and uses it to, what exactly?

Investing it in student grants and lecturer's wages?

 

Errrmmmmmmm, no:

The money disappears.

While students have to borrow to pay for their lecturers.

And own living costs.

 

So where is the investment?

 

As I believe I have already explained, I rarely use public transport. I just don't mind paying for the privilege of private motoring.

As for money "disappearing," of course it doesn't. It may not get spent on the public services you would like (though I don't seem to remember you being a strong supporter of public investment in students in the past), but it does get spent on public services.

Oh, and FW, typical of your dishonesty, or inability to deal with the truth, you say that propping up Northern Rock cost the taxpayer £50 billion. Well, the amount the government loaned them was £24 billion. But what's £26 billion to someone of your means, or your febrile imagination. And that is a loan, not a gift. The bank aim to repay the loan, though given that most of this government drag their knuckles along the ground when walking, I am sure they will ensure that the money somehow disappears.

You are quite right, I do apologize. It isn't £50B. It is £113B which taxpayers are now responsible for, and will have to pay out of taxes when the financial "wizards" at Northern Rock screw things up again. The £50B is just the money that taxpayers have already put in and underwritten as Government securities.

Buy, hey, if it matters to you that much, you are the winner. Congratulations. I hope you and your smug ignorance will be very happy together.

FW: You should try reality some time. You might like it.

Congratulations again: you are now officially half way to being witty.

Fick Wut said: "Congratulations again: you are now officially half way to being witty."

Zzzzz

I take it back: you still have a way to go before you are a halfwit.

Fick Wut said: "I take it back: you still have a way to go before you are a halfwit."

Zzzz.

ah, repetition of tedious twisting of name and editorial comment. That would get you down to an eighth-wit. You really are a living proof of the power of exponentiation.

FeckWot: I point out your lies, and mis-truths, and all you can do is respond with gentle abuse. Go back to your public sector job and your pinko leftie commie friends.

Oh dear. Can't even get your most basic facts straight I see. I have never worked in the public sector, and have no plans to start. Most of my friends are decidedly right wing, though for economic rather than (anti-)social reasons. As for why my abuse of you is gentle, that's easy: you just aren't equipped intellectually for anything more interesting.

FW: Well, I have out argued you. You stated that my earlier post contained no facts. False. You stated that financial services are not an important part of the UK economy. False. You stated that Britain was not a world financial centre. False. You stated that the Northern Rock cost £50 Billion. False.

You claim to run an engineering company, and yet you show ignorance of basic facts. There is a very strong and unpleasant smell about your claims.

I am afraid that if you think your feeble attempts amount to "out arguing" me, then that says more about you than about me. The very fact that you attach importance to "out arguing" me, or even believe that the concept of "out arguing" me is in any way meaningful speaks volumes.

Fortunately, I attach very little importance to what someone of such low intellectual calibre believes.

FW: You are totally full of bull shit. All mouth and no trousers. You couldn't out argue a particularly retarded slug having a bad day. So come on matey boy/girl, provide some evidence for the assertions you have made, or sidle off with your tail between your legs, like the tit you are, and shut the fuck up. You need to think before you open your mouth, though I suppose it does help to clear out the stale air between your ears.

I don't really need to provide any further evidence. Anyone who wants to read up about the "benefits" of the financial services "industry" is intelligent enough to put "black wednesday" or "northern rock" into Google for themselves. And anyone foolish enough to waste their time reading this exchange can draw their own conclusions from the fact that you continually resort to infantile foul language to "prove" your point.

FW: "you continually resort to infantile foul language to "prove" your point."

You are a complete hypocrite. Most of your recent posts have been nothing but abuse with no substance. If you can't stand abuse, don't give it. If you give it, don't go crying to mummy when someone responds in kind. (I recall complete hypocrisy from you in another thread, where you use the term 'spastic' to abuse Bogush, and then cry to mummy about him using a term in a non-PC manner.

The reasoning in your preceding post is idiotic. No surprise there then. Using your stupid argument, the fact that Rolls Royce went bust and was nationalised means that engineering makes no contribution to this country. Which would be totally false. You haven't got a clue. And you don't run an engineering company.

Oh dear. Not really the time, inclination or patience to explain the difference between mocking without resorting to swearing, and your brand of infantile abuse.

As for "spastic," I thing you have that back-to-front. BJ completely lost it when I referred to one of his spastic tics and launched into a childish tirade almost worthy of you. Go look up the word, and you will see that it was used in its technical, not its infantile abusive sense of the word. However, like you, BJ lacked the (rather modest) level of sophistication needed to perceive the difference.

And I do run an engineering company. So, since you like indulging in amateur psychology and guesswork, let me have a go. You are in rather junior management for a large company. You have never amounted to anything very much because you lack the intellectual imagination. You have been rapidly overtaken in the promotion stakes by lots of young upstarts who, as you see it, crawled their way passed you in some great injustice (though, in reality, they simple out-gunned you in basic intelligence). As such, you are a significant disappointment to your middle class parents. And a disappointment to yourself. And the only way you can deal with your disappointment is by hurling abuse and pretending that no-one else is more successful than you.

FW: "Oh dear. Not really the time, inclination or patience to explain the difference between mocking without resorting to swearing, and your brand of infantile abuse."

Weasel words. One set of rules for you, another set for others. You are a hypocrite.

FW: "As for "spastic," I thing you have that back-to-front. BJ completely lost it when I referred to one of his spastic tics and launched into a childish tirade almost worthy of you. Go look up the word, and you will see that it was used in its technical, not its infantile abusive sense of the word. However, like you, BJ lacked the (rather modest) level of sophistication needed to perceive the difference."

No, you were using 'spastic' as a term of abuse. Yet more weasel words from you. Seems yo be your forte. One set of rules for you, another set for others.

FW: "And I do run an engineering company."

Yes, and Elvis is working at your local Asda. Selling a few stolen car parts at a car boot sale does not amount to running an engineering company. Neither does changing a plug as part of a community service order.

FW: "So, since you like indulging in amateur psychology and guesswork, let me have a go. You are in rather junior management for a large company."

Totally wrong. I am not junior. I am not management. I do not work in a large company.

FW: "You have never amounted to anything very much because you lack the intellectual imagination."

Well about 15 years ago, one of the researchers at a prestigious US university who reviewed one of my papers prior to publication in one of the most prestigious US science journals (Physical Review Letters since you ask) said that it was the most imaginative paper he had ever read. Subsequent papers, published in learned journals, have been much cited around the world, and several people have set up research projects based on work that I did.

FW: "You have been rapidly overtaken in the promotion stakes by lots of young upstarts who, as you see it, crawled their way passed you in some great injustice (though, in reality, they simple out-gunned you in basic intelligence)."

Wrong again.

No, I don't care for the greasy corporate pole. Instead I have made a small fortune by selling my intelligence. Several companies products sold well because I fixed them, and no-one in the companies in question had the intellectual ability to get them working properly.

FW: "As such, you are a significant disappointment to your middle class parents."

Wrong again. One working class. One wealthy upper middle class. And not a disappointment. (well, one of my cousins got a first in Maths from Oxford, which was slightly better than me, so maybe my parents would have like me to have beaten her. Probably not though.)

FW: "And a disappointment to yourself."

Wrong again.

FW: "And the only way you can deal with your disappointment is by hurling abuse and pretending that no-one else is more successful than you."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the big laugh. You really are a tit. Funny how you go on and on about being 'successful'. Seems to matter to you. I think you have a chip the size of a small asteroid on your shoulder.

It is amazing how you have totally avoided the issues earlier on in this thread. Instead of trying to put forward your arguments, you just gave up and now resort to childish boasting. Not surprising really because you are so ignorant. Fancy not knowing that financial services is a major component of the UK economy. Or that the UK is a major financial player in the world. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You ignoramus.

Now run home to mummy little boy/girl, and have a good cry because the adults have been rude to you.

A PRL. Wow. I am impressed. All the more amazing that you are incapable of sustaining a well-constructed coherent argument without resprting to infantile swearing and abuse. Might explain why that career in acedemia eluded you, though.

As for me "going on" about being successful, perhaps you could point to an example. I think you will find that the only time I make any reference to my income, etc, is when ignorant cretins make some wild allegation about my never having done a day's work, sponging off the state, etc.

But then it's about par for the course for you not to let facts stand in the way of "winning" the argument. It's amazing that you got that PRL passed the referees really.

FW: "All the more amazing that you are incapable of sustaining a well-constructed coherent argument without resprting to infantile swearing and abuse. "

For many days now your posts have contained nothing but insults and boasting. In fact ever since you realised how very wrong you were, and that the best way to get out of the hole you had dug for yourself was to attack.

The fact that you didn't know that financial services is a major part of the UK economy is amazing. Or that the UK is a world financial centre. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Just this evening a spokesman from the OECD was on the radio explaining that the UK economy will suffer more damage than other European countries from the credit crisis because it is so dependent on financial services. Ah, but I am probably getting too technical for you. You can't cope with argument. When it gets tough, you run away.

You are a sad individual.

By the way ignorant little diddums, does your mummy realise that you are using the internet? It must be past your bed time by now. Go on, go to bed, get your beauty sleep, so that you will do well at school tomorrow. Soon you will even have to cast aside your short trousers, and go to the big persons school.

FW: "But then it's about par for the course for you not to let facts stand in the way of "winning" the argument. It's amazing that you got that PRL passed the referees really."

How quaint. I provided numerous references for the facts that I stated at the start of the thread. You provided none for the numerous false assertions that you made. You are a bull shitter.

> The fact that you didn't know that financial services is a major part of the
> UK economy is amazing. Or that the UK is a world financial centre. Ha ha ha
> ha ha ha.

That fact that you ever drew such a conclusion just indicates quite how dim you are. Of course my point wasn't whether they were a large part of the economy; my point was whether they were a net positive large part of the economy.

> Just this evening a spokesman from the OECD was on the radio explaining that
> the UK economy will suffer more damage than other European countries from
> the credit crisis because it is so dependent on financial services.

Well, what do you know. Spokesman from OECD confirms that building your country's "economy" on something as volatile and insubstantial as financial services is a bad idea. Imagine the OECD knowing that. Go figure.

>> The fact that you didn't know that financial services is a major part of the
>> UK economy is amazing. Or that the UK is a world financial centre. Ha ha ha
>> ha ha ha.

FW: "That fact that you ever drew such a conclusion just indicates quite how dim you are. Of course my point wasn't whether they were a large part of the economy; my point was whether they were a net positive large part of the economy."

No.

Here is an extract form an ealier post of mine:

"Finance is one of the largest earners of revenue in this country. Most of that money comes from overseas. We are bankers to the world. In other words, London is one of, if not the, most important providers of financial services in the world. The reason is in part because we are trusted, due to strong legal regulation of our banking system. The other reason is because of deregulation of the banking sector by Mrs Thatcher and co. which gave us a competitive advantage in the world. In short, financial service sector is a a MASSIVE earner of revenue from overseas. "

And: "Oh, and if you look at the financial statistics, you will see that the South East really is the wealth generating engine of the UK "

I provided supporting evidence for the above statements, and others in the posting. In fact all I did was paste a tiny number of the online sources, including a government one, that confirm the truth of those statements. In fact it is all very basic stuff known to anyone educated.

Here is your comment on that post:

FW: "Impressive how you can write such a lengthy diatribe that contains not a single element of truth."

So, you are either dishonest, or as thick as two short planks. You can't write one thing, and then when the going gets tough, pretend that you held a completely different opinion. At least not while this thread contains your earlier posts. Maybe you had better learn to edit your posts before you try and weasel out of the hole you are in.

I have noticed before that you twist and turn, stating one thing, then later on claiming to have said something else.

FW: You are a bullshitter.

> So, you are either dishonest, or as thick as two short planks. You can't
> write one thing, and then when the going gets tough, pretend that you held a
> completely different opinion.

Or perhaps I was simply indulging in hyperbole in the mistaken belief that it was blindingly obvious that financial services are a major part of the economy, and the fact that you stated it in your message didn't really register as a particularly significant truth because it is so obvious. My apologies if that was too subtle for you (as your lengthy discourse attempting to prove that you are "right" would seem to indicate).

The fact that "the financial service sector is a a MASSIVE earner of revenue from overseas." is not really in the least bit interesting if it turns out that such reliance on the finacial services industry is to the massive (oe even "MASSIVE") detriment of the country, as suggested by your friend the OECD spokesman.

> FW: You are a bullshitter.

Your insight, intelligence and ability to argue coherently know no beginning.

FW: Yeah, sure. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. And yet you argued for so long that financial services are not important. For goodness sake, you are a total bullshit merchant.

I am starting to look forward to some comments from Bogush, which says something about how pathetic your 'contributions' are.

Blah blah. Sorry, but I never argued that financial services aren't important. They just aren't important in the way that you so tediously claim ("major contributor to the UK economy, drone, drone."). Rather, they are important because they have a very negative impact on the UK economy, as correctly identified by the spokesman from the OECD whom you so conveniently cited.

FW: Carry on bullshitting, and trying to back pedal but it does not wash. You said that there was not one truth in my earlier post. I proved it had numerous truisms. Which you repeatedly denied. But now you change your mind, and confirm that it was correct, and that you didn't really believe what you said you believed, despite the fact that you argued for ages. Ah, but do you really believe what you say you believe today, or tomorrow will you claim to have said something totally different? Does anyone care?

Piss off and play games with someone who gives a fuck. I don't. You're a moron. (And do post a hilarious comment about my wit and biting analysis. I can't wait. Not.)

Bogush: Please please add some entertaining mordant trenchant remarks as per your usual style. (1)

(1) Well, compared to the cretinous 'why not adopt a new standpoint each day' FW anyway!

> I proved it had numerous truisms.

Exactly. Plenty of truisms, but no truth of any interest. Finally you get it. Or, sadly more likely since getting the point clearly isn't your thing, your inability to follow a simple argument is equalled only by your ignorance of the language (apart from a rather tedious grasp of playground swearing).

> I proved it had numerous truisms.

Exactly. Plenty of truisms, but no truth of any interest. Finally you get it. Or, sadly more likely since getting the point clearly isn't your thing, your inability to follow a simple argument is equalled only by your ignorance of the language (apart from a rather tedious grasp of playground swearing).

Regarding insults, you are a complete hypocrite.

And regarding 'truisms', stop trying to avoid the issue, and wander off onto some other issue. I have proved that my earlier statements were true. Hence that you were ignorant of some basic facts about the UK economy. End of story.

Maybe you should set aside some time to improve your basic economic knowledge.

Two characteristics define your posts: 1) ignorance and 2) hypocrisy.

You're full of crap.

(Same post, formatted to correctly attribute quotes.)

> I proved it had numerous truisms.

FW: "Exactly. Plenty of truisms, but no truth of any interest. Finally you get it. Or, sadly more likely since getting the point clearly isn't your thing, your inability to follow a simple argument is equalled only by your ignorance of the language (apart from a rather tedious grasp of playground swearing)."

Regarding insults, you are a complete hypocrite.

And regarding 'truisms', stop trying to avoid the issue, and wander off onto some other issue. I have proved that my earlier statements were true. Hence that you were ignorant of some basic facts about the UK economy. End of story.

Maybe you should set aside some time to improve your basic economic knowledge.

Two characteristics define your posts: 1) ignorance and 2) hypocrisy.

You're full of crap.

So now you are saying that your post isn't full of truisms? I wish you would make your mind up, as it is rather tricky to know whether I agree with you or not when you can't even make up your own mind as to what you mean.

As for improving my basic economic knowledge, you still seem to be labouring under the delusion that I am unaware that financial services are a major factor in the British economy. I am, I assure you, quite happy to stipulate that they are, and have long been aware of this fact. Now that you have "won" that argument (congratulations, you must be very proud), perhaps we could move on to the more substantive argument that I had assumed you were making initially (and I apologize again for incorrectly assuming that you were doing more than retorting trite truisms). Namely, that such reliance on a volatile and insubstantial creation like financial services is healthy for the country's economy, which is a view that I believe to be demonstrably false, but is sufficiently interesting to at least be worthy of rational discussion.

> You're full of crap.

I'm sorry. Did I suggest that rational discussion might be a possibility? Once again, I stand corrected.

FW: "So now you are saying that your post isn't full of truisms? I wish you would make your mind up, as it is rather tricky to know whether I agree with you or not when you can't even make up your own mind as to what you mean."

How odd that you twist around and accuse me of doing what you have being doing throughout this thread.

FW: "As for improving my basic economic knowledge, you still seem to be labouring under the delusion that I am unaware that financial services are a major factor in the British economy."

In which case why did you say that my earlier post contained no truths. And why did you argue for so long that financial services are not a significant part of the UK economy. And why did you argue that the UK is not a major financial centre. But then again, your approach to 'discussion' is to confuse, to lie, to change your mind, to wander off onto side issues and so on.

FW: " I am, I assure you, quite happy to stipulate that they are, and have long been aware of this fact. Now that you have "won" that argument (congratulations, you must be very proud), perhaps we could move on to the more substantive argument that I had assumed you were making initially (and I apologize again for incorrectly assuming that you were doing more than retorting trite truisms). Namely, that such reliance on a volatile and insubstantial creation like financial services is healthy for the country's economy, which is a view that I believe to be demonstrably false, but is sufficiently interesting to at least be worthy of rational discussion."

Well, if you want to totally change the issue at hand, fine, but count me out. I'll let you play with yourself.

> You're full of crap.

FW: "I'm sorry. Did I suggest that rational discussion might be a possibility? Once again, I stand corrected."

You are a total hypocrite. For several days your posts contained nothing but insults. But then again, that's because you realised you were totally wrong earlier on, so tried to bring down the subject to the personal level. Better to attack the person than the argument, which you had lost.

Feel free to deny saying what you said. But when I point out what you said, using quotes, you totally re-interpret what you said. Feel free to claim that you meant something totally different. If you want to 'spin' your posts fine. If you want to back pedal and pretend you are doing otherwise, fine. But I see no point in assigning an iota of credibility to your devious weaselish meanderings.

Sorry if you were too dim to figure out what I meant. I will try and keep it simpler in future.

So. Is the UK's heavy buy in to the financial services "industry" a good thing or not? Or, put another way, is the financial services "industry," in the big picture, good or bad for the UK economy?

A simple enough question for you?

FW: "Sorry if you were too dim to figure out what I meant."

No, you said something totally different. And now you change your tune. Do feel free to change your mind according to the weather, and the time of day. Unfortunately for you the thread still exists, and records what you actually said, rather than what you like to pretend you said.

FW: " I will try and keep it simpler in future."

You do simple very well. It seems to be your forte.

FW: "So. Is the UK's heavy buy in to the financial services "industry" a good thing or not? Or, put another way, is the financial services "industry," in the big picture, good or bad for the UK economy? A simple enough question for you?"

I have no interest in discussing with you, as you have demonstrated a lack of honesty and consistency.

Tell you what, since your question interests you, I'll let you do the research. I can't be bothered to work for free for a dim witted cretin like you. Google should get the answers you need. And once you have figured it out, you can report back here what you have found. On past evidence you are unable to express ideas in a coherent manner, so I won't hold my breath.

Personally, I tend not to rely on Google to tell me what to think. But don't worry, neither do I have to rely on your ability to undertake research and "express your ideas in a coherent manner" (which is quite entertaining coming from someone too dim to know what a truism is, and who thinks "Piss off and play games with someone who gives a fuck" constitutes a put-down worth the effort of typing).

The truly amazing part is that you repeatedly and tediously accuse me of pedantry, yet, as far as I can make out, the reams of drivel you have been writing are all in an attempt to "prove" that I was wrong when I stated "Impressive how you can write such a lengthy diatribe that contains not a single element of truth" when actually, for example, it contained the factually-correct statement that "finance is one of the largest earners of revenue in this country."

Well, whoopeedoo. Yes, that is a true statement, and I was incorrect to state that it wasn't. If your victory over such a vital point is so important to you, then go ahead and bask in your spectacular intellectual victory.

However, as I have been trying to impress on you ever since you started down this tedious little byway, I know full well that finance circulates a lot of money. Everyone knows it. It really isn't such a big deal. In fact, ironically, one of the few worthwhile truths that you accidentally stumbled upon was when you betrayed your profound ignorance by referring to it as a "truism." The more salient question is whether it is a net benefit to society. On that point there could well be a worthwhile intellectual discussion, but sadly you demonstrably lack the necessary equipment to participate.

It is sad that you are so upset because I won't play with you. You will just have to play with yourself.

Au contraire. Trying to pitch things down to your level is quite a strain, so I am relieved that you are giving up the unequal struggle. I'd stick to failing to hack it as a physicist if I were you.

FW: "Au contraire. Trying to pitch things down to your level is quite a strain, so I am relieved that you are giving up the unequal struggle. I'd stick to failing to hack it as a physicist if I were you."

I see you are still having tantrums, stamping your feet on the ground, and hurling abuse because I won't play the game you want to play. I'm sorry, I know you are very lonely, but I find you totally boring, with nothing of any worth to say.

By the way, using French words when equivalent English ones exist does not look clever, just pretentious. And pathetic.

> By the way, using French words when equivalent English ones exist does not
> look clever, just pretentious. And pathetic.

Only to those too dim to recognize even the most gentle form of ironic mocking of their lack of intellect. Fortunately, I don't have to try to look clever: that kind of desperate tactic is reserved for those who don't know the difference between, say, a truth and a truism, and whose natural form of "intelligent" rebuttal is "You're full of crap" or "Piss off and play games with someone who gives a fuck. I don't. You're a moron."

FW: "Only to those too dim to recognize even the most gentle form of ironic mocking of their lack of intellect. Fortunately, I don't have to try to look clever: that kind of desperate tactic is reserved for those who don't know the difference between, say, a truth and a truism, and whose natural form of "intelligent" rebuttal is "You're full of crap" or "Piss off and play games with someone who gives a fuck. I don't. You're a moron.""

Sorry, I was talking at a level that seemed appropriate for you. I didn't want to confuse you, though it seems that you can do that on your own.

You are such a dim witted and tedious hypocrite. Most of your posts are nothing more than pathetic insults.

I bet you can't even hold a conversation with a native French speaker who knows no English can you? All you can do is sprinkle your witless meanderings with the odd word or two of French to pretend you know something you don't. You pretentious twit. And before you ask, yes I can, and I do, and I'm told my French is good, though that is not for me to say.

You really must be a very lonely person if you have to resort to insulting someone to try and get a conversation.

If your command of French is as impressive as you claim, then I am sure you know the rest of the phrase that usually accompanies "au contraire," so may, rather belatedly and with an embarrassingly large amount of guidance, be able to figure out why it was omitted, and hence the rather gentle reason for my original choice of phrase, which was not the simple-minded pretension that you simple-mindedly assumed. It's just a shame that so much of life must pass you by entirely.

My personal favourites in your latest clockwork response were:

> You are such a dim witted and tedious hypocrite. Most of your posts are
> nothing more than pathetic insults.
[...]
> You really must be a very lonely person if you have to resort to insulting
> someone to try and get a conversation.

C'est l'hōpital qui se moque de la charité, one might say.

Oh, and incidentally: you lose the bet. Although, to be fair, French people do tend to smile at my accent and choice of words sometimes, since I acquired most of my conversation while living in Quebec.

Interesting item on the Today Programme this morning, which returns things quite neatly to the cost of petrol and whether the claim that "finance is one of the largest earners of revenue in this country" is true net as well as gross. An economist who works on energy prices suggested that the current high price of oil is largely driven by the "paper barrel" market. Apparently, those whizzes in financial "services" are forcing the price ever higher through an artificial vicious spiral in which they justify pushing the price up on the basis that there must be a shortage because the price is high! They have a strong imperative to do so because if the price were to fall back toward its actual production value then they would lose huge amounts of money from their speculation. Nice to know that we are subsidizing all those tasteful designer suits and (ironically) fast cars every time we fill up.

Fascinating ................. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

T'es ben cave toe la.

As I was saying before the intellectually-challenged intervened.

Interesting item on the Today Programme this morning, which returns things quite neatly to the cost of petrol and whether the claim that "finance is one of the largest earners of revenue in this country" is true net as well as gross. An economist who works on energy prices suggested that the current high price of oil is largely driven by the "paper barrel" market. Apparently, those whizzes in financial "services" are forcing the price ever higher through an artificial vicious spiral in which they justify pushing the price up on the basis that there must be a shortage because the price is high! They have a strong imperative to do so because if the price were to fall back toward its actual production value then they would lose huge amounts of money from their speculation. Nice to know that we are subsidizing all those tasteful designer suits and (ironically) fast cars every time we fill up.

And you still haven't told us how a successful businessman running an engineering company who doesn't use public transport much manages on 20 quid's worth of petrol a week.

You don't sell engines that run on water, do you?

 

 

And you never confirmed  whether or not you had once said that you would never vote Tory.

 

 

Are you actually a "Liberal"?

 

Or an anarchist!

 

Why would it cost me more than £20 per week to drive my car to work and back, and maybe a few weekend jaunts?

I don't believe I have ever said that I would never vote Tory.

According to a US congressional enquiry, the price of crude oil is currently more than twice its fair market value, due to speculators driving the price ever higher on the financial markets. Financial "services" are such a great contribution to the economy of the nation, wouldn't you say?

I see that the poster called FW who has the intellect of a particularly stupid chopped onion has posted yet more nonsense.

The real explanation - as described on R4 today by people in the industry - is inability to open the taps more, partly due to refining capacity. Speculation plays a role, but nothing like the amount some silly politicians think. By the way, I work in the oil industry. Geophysical surveying to be precise.

You would do well to put away your silly left wing chip on the shoulder politics, where all financial people wear red braces, drive Porsches and get obscene bonuses. Such simplistic stereotypes are just that. But then again, you are no more than a Sun reader. You see, I can be generous to you, as I am crediting you with more intellect than you have previously demonstrated. No need to thank me. I like to flatter people. Especially low achievers like you.

Still struggling to actually make any contribution, I see. According to the US congressional report (whose expert witnesses may just show a deeper understanding of the economics of oil than a minion in geophysical surveying), in 2000 only around a third of oil futures were held by speculators (the rest being held by those who actually do something for the economy and use futures to hedge their risk). By 2008, the figure had risen to 71%. But the fact that they are now by far the majority stakeholder in futures couldn't possibly be driving the market, could it? Well, only not if you are solely and completely fixated on "winning" an argument by "proving" that financial services are a major net contributor to the economy. The rest of the World can understand that a shift from a position in which speculators have a minority holding in oil futures to one in which they are the majority stakeholder probably has something to do with the current price position.

On reflection, though, you might be right. If the industry really relies on people of your intellectual capacity and ability to find oil, it is perhaps unsurprising that supply cannot keep up with demand.

So FW, when I said that you have the intellectual capacity of a particularly stupid chopped onion, it seems that I was greatly overestimating your abilities, as you fail to achieve even that level. And you still display an inability to connect to reality, and an ability to twist the truth to suit your own politics of envy.

No, the congressional committee heard from many people, with many opinions. The fact that you do not work in an industry does not stop you thinking you are an expert. No surprise there then, given your inflated ego. If you knew anything about the oil industry - which you don't - then you would know that it is going totally crazy, with new surveys left right and centre. There are many explanations for the current lack of supply. Not just those that you favour because they sit well with your naive views. Speculation is only one issue. Key issues includes instability in major oil producing areas, especially Iraq, Iran and Nigeria. The fact that Iraq is in turmoil reduces supply from what would be a major supplier. Insurgents target oil facilities. And there is the unwillingness of countries such as Saudi Arabia to increase supply, as they are making a fortune. Then there is the lack of refining capacity, due to increased demand. Oh, and the very fact that India and China are massively expanding with near double digit growth year on year might just have a wee bit to do with the demand? Ever wonder why there are food shortages, especially rice in many countries? Because wealthy Chinese and Indians are buying more. And over half the world's concrete is going to China such is the pace of expansion.

As ever, you prove that you are both stupid and ignorant of basic facts, and continually seeing the world through your own prejudices, and your own naive politics of envy, where the world troubles are all caused by bogey men in red braces driving Porsches. Go back to 'reading' your Sun 'newspaper' and leave the rest of us in peace.

You seem to have completely forgotten what must surely be the overwhelming factor: the limited abilities of the poor quality scientists that the oil industry seems to attract.

As for the "politics of envy," happily I earn well into the income range of the whizz kids in financial services, and actually have something of a personal interest in oil prices rising: it increases my margins, and makes the roads less congested. The only real difference is that, unlike the made-up economics of financial "services," I actually produce something for my healthy income.

FW: So you avoid the issues, and respond with nothing more substantial than abuse. You have proven that you were unaware of most of the issues affecting the price of oil. It is quite astonishing that you didn't even know that the BRIC economies, esp. China and India are putting massive pressure on the world's resources. And you earlier proved yourself unaware that the UK is a major world financial centre. (Though you subsequently claimed to be pretending not to know for some obscure twisted reason.) Quite how someone can be as ignorant as you is astonishing. How does one remain as ill informed as you? It is quite a feat to achieve.

Not really in any way comparable to your complete inability to deal with any of the subtleties of worthwhile discussion, such as what does not need to be said because it is so obvious. Of course I am aware of the issues. Of course I am, for example, aware that London is a major financial centre. As it happens, I lived there for fourteen years. The fact that you believe that you have in some sense "won" an argument because I am happy to stipulate these truisms (as you, yourself, described them) says a great deal more about you than me.

FW: I suggest that you make up your mind. You claimed that the cause of rocketing oil prices was speculators. Now you back pedal and claim to have known all along about the other factors. This reminds me of the earlier 'discussion', where for ages you claimed that London was not a major financial centre and that finance was not a significant part of the UK economy. Then you changed your mind and claimed you knew it all along. Do you always make statements, then subsequently claim to have said something completely different?

Shopkeeper: Can I help you sir?
FW: Yes, I'd like an ice cream.
Shopkeeper: Here is your ice cream sir.
FW: I asked for a lolly, why have you given me an ice cream?

Here is some advice for you to follow:

1) Before you post on a subject, do some basic research.
2) When you make a statement, and are caught out by someone who knows more than you (which is not hard), don't subsequently try and pretend that that statement meant something else.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy.

The idea that you could run a business is absurd, and even selling the Big Issue would be too taxing for your limited abilities. You are clearly Bogush's friend George/Georgina, who seems to be a councillor and general fool.

Actually, you will find that only your complete inability to follow the most basic of lines of reasoning led you to conclude that I did not know that London is a major financial centre. As I have now pointed out quite a number of times, the more salient point is whether these finacial "services" are actually a net benefit to the UK economy, but since you are incapable of following even this fairly simple argument, I realize that you are unlikely to have anything to contribute on the subject.

I have many times encountered people more intelligent than myself. Sufficiently many, in fact, to know when that is not what I have encountered. What gave it away? Well, your constant resorting to infantile abuse was one clue. Just as a reminder, these included



FW sounds like a little poodle

So FW you show yourself to be the complete twat that you are.

What a tedious pedantic twat you are.

You are not just a twat, but thick and ignorant.

Second thoughts, you are just a thick twat. And ignorant.

You are thick and ignorant.

FW: You are totally full of bull shit. All mouth and no trousers. You couldn't out argue a particularly retarded slug having a bad day. So come on matey boy/girl, provide some evidence for the assertions you have made, or sidle off with your tail between your legs, like the tit you are, and shut the fuck up.

Now run home to mummy little boy/girl, and have a good cry because the adults have been rude to you.

By the way ignorant little diddums, does your mummy realise that you are using the internet? It must be past your bed time by now

For goodness sake, you are a total bullshit merchant.

You're full of crap.

You're full of crap.

You are such a dim witted and tedious hypocrite



I guess it was the sophistication of your sophistry that really gave it away.

FW: "Well, your constant resorting to infantile abuse was one clue. "

Here are statements by you:

FW: "comparable to your complete inability to deal with any of the subtleties of worthwhile discussion"

FW: "You seem to have completely forgotten what must surely be the overwhelming factor: the limited abilities of the poor quality scientists that the oil industry seems to attract."

FW: "If the industry really relies on people of your intellectual capacity and ability to find oil, it is perhaps unsurprising that supply cannot keep up with demand."

FW: "Still struggling to actually make any contribution, I see."

FW: "As I was saying before the intellectually-challenged intervened."

FW: "Only to those too dim to recognize even the most gentle form of ironic mocking of their lack of intellect."

FW: "Trying to pitch things down to your level is quite a strain, "

FW: "Sorry if you were too dim to figure out what I meant. I will try and keep it simpler in future."

FW: "your inability to follow a simple argument is equalled only by your ignorance of the language"

FW: "That fact that you ever drew such a conclusion just indicates quite how dim you are. "

FW: "Fortunately, I attach very little importance to what someone of such low intellectual calibre believes."

FW: "Oh dear. Can't even get your most basic facts straight I see."


And the above is just a fraction of the abuse from you to me. You are a hypocrite.


Here, yet again for you because you are not on speaking terms with the truth, is an extract form an ealier post of mine:

"Finance is one of the largest earners of revenue in this country. Most of that money comes from overseas. We are bankers to the world. In other words, London is one of, if not the, most important providers of financial services in the world. The reason is in part because we are trusted, due to strong legal regulation of our banking system. The other reason is because of deregulation of the banking sector by Mrs Thatcher and co. which gave us a competitive advantage in the world. In short, financial service sector is a a MASSIVE earner of revenue from overseas. "

And: "Oh, and if you look at the financial statistics, you will see that the South East really is the wealth generating engine of the UK "

Here is your comment on that post:

FW: "Impressive how you can write such a lengthy diatribe that contains not a single element of truth."

And you then went on to weasel your way out of a dead end by stating:

FW: "Or perhaps I was simply indulging in hyperbole in the mistaken belief that it was blindingly obvious that financial services are a major part of the economy"

You are a charlatan.

And when you tried to argue about the Northern Rock fiasco, you gave absurd figures, without any justification. In fact that is typical of you, not to substantiate your claims.

And then there is the issue that you insult other people. You insulted Bogush using the term "spastic" which is downright offensive to disabled people. And you tried to weasel out of that one by some typically disingenuous and contorted nonsense. And then Arthur Gibson was the target of yet more insults from you, where you refer to him as insecure etc, merely becuase he expressed some views on the UK. And they were expressed coherently and without abuse.


You really are a completely dishonest, ignorant, lying little cheat.

You could not follow a logical argument if it left behind it a trail of 2 foot high flourescent green marbles, each marked with "Follow me, I was left behind by a logical argument" accompanied by flashing neon arrows pointing in the direction of the logical argument. Not even if the logical argument was driving an ice cream van, marked "Mr Whippies Logical Arguments" and playing the Logical Song by Supertramp.

You cannot follow logic. You are ill informed. You use the most specious arguments to try and back out of dead ends rather than simply owning up to a lack of knowledge, and making a mistake.

So George/Georgina, time for you to go to bed I think. You need your beauty sleep. After all, you have no personality, and no intellect, so you at least need to stay pretty.

And yet, strangely, not once did I sink to calling anyone a "twat." Oh, and before you get all over-excited again, I accused Mr Mann of having a spastic tic, not of "being a spastic" or whatever infantile insult you had assumed -- go look up the word before you judge other by your own miserable standards.

> So George/Georgina

Oo, I missed that one. Suggesting I might be female as an insult. Nice to see you raising your game to new heights. Well done.

Use of the term 'spastic' to abuse someone is offensive irrespective of your semantic pirouettes, and weasel worded flannel.

The truth is that you insult others, but cannot take insults. And you make statements, but cannot substantiate them. And you dismiss statements of fact from me which are substantiated.

I like to follow the maxim "never argue with a fool", and that is why I will not respond to any more of your nonsense.

I guess it is true that people too dim to be aware that "spastic" has a factual adjectival use, and who habitually throw around mindless adolescent insults like "twat," might have taken mistaken offence at the use of the word. In future, I will try and keep things toned down to your twat-filled level.

>> So George/Georgina

> Oo, I missed that one. Suggesting I might be female as an insult. Nice to see you raising your game to new heights. Well done.

Strange how to you the use of "George/Georgina" doesn't have "a factual adjectival use" but is "Suggesting I might be female as an insult".

Any sane person would simply acknowledge a polite and well mannered recognition of the fact that "FW" is non gender specific and that "George/Georgina" has a gender blind approach to reincarnation.

 

> "spastic" has a factual adjectival use,

Go on then, explain the factual adjectival use that isn't abusive or offensive, FW.

 

Over to you.

 

 

> Go on then, explain the factual adjectival use that isn't abusive or
> offensive, FW

"Spastic. Adj. Of the nature of or characterized by reflexive spasms."

So, for example, "he has a spastic colon" is factual adjectival use of the word that I would hope even you understand is not abusive or offensive. Similarly, referring to your seeming inability to start many posts without an "Errrrrm" as a "spastic tic" or "spastic behaviour pattern" is not abusive. You may be offended by it, but offense has little to do with the choice of language: personally, I find most of what you say offensive.

> It is quite astonishing that you didn't even know that the BRIC economies,
> esp. China and India are putting massive pressure on the world's resources

And yet there was an economist on the Today Programme again, pointing out that China's current rate of annual increase in demand for oil imports is less than half of the USA's current rate of decrease in demand for oil imports, once again underlining that the current pricing has very little to do with high demand, but a lot to do with speculation by the financial "services" industry due to the low rates of interest in the US at the moment.

So now we learn that not only will the incompetence of Lehman Bros and the marginally lower level of incompetence by Merrill lynch lead to many of their employees losing their jobs, but also that the rest of us will suffer the disasterous consequences of their incompetence in the resulting horrendous volatility of the economy. Such a magnificent "contribution" these unaccountable fools are making to our lives.

Once fuel prices drop the time will right be for the government to apply its postponed hike in duty. That will enable more spending on real alternatives to the car and the internal combustion engine so next time these fools won't be able to hold us to ransom quite so easily.

So, just to summarize where things stand on financial services:

The "industry" has got itself into a complete mess by recirculating money repeatedly on the assumption that property prices will continue to rise in perpetuity, in what was essentially a pyramid selling scheme.

The ultimate collapse was the precipitated by the "industry" feeding off itself by short selling of stocks, thus generating even more of a crisis than was warranted, and causing unnecessary distress amongst those who save real money that they have actually earned.

This has led to extreme volatility, with bank stocks fluctuating in price by more than a factor of ten, rather suggesting that they have no intrinsic value.

Indeed, since the US taxpayer has ploughed money into its financial services "industry" to the tune of 300 billion dollars (a thousand dollars per head!) in just the last few weeks, the intrinsic value of these companies would appear to be rather strongly negative.

In fact, to sum up, the financial "services" "industry" only provides a real service to itself by allowing its employees to rake in massive personal profits. It is not in fact an industry since it does not produce anything of worth, but simply feeds off its own internal greed, at everyone else's expense.

So anyone who claims that this country's financial services "industry" is actually a net benefit to UK PLC is either an idiot or in on the scam.

"how do they expect us to get to our places of work" Bus, train, tram, bike, walk ....or get a job nearer home. The days of squandering the earth's resources on pointless travel are over!

>> Go on then, explain the factual adjectival use that isn't abusive or
>> offensive, FW

> "Spastic. Adj. Of the nature of or characterized by reflexive spasms."

>So, for example, "he has a spastic colon" is factual adjectival use of the word that I would hope even you understand is not abusive or offensive. Similarly, referring to your seeming inability to start many posts without an "Errrrrm" as a "spastic tic" or "spastic behaviour pattern" is not abusive. You may be offended by it, but offense has little to do with the choice of language: personally, I find most of what you say offensive.

 

So were you saying I have a spastic colon?

Or that I am a colon?

 

Perhaps I should have phrased the question at a level you could have understood:

 

Go on then, explain the factual adjectival use aimed at a person that isn't abusive or offensive, FW.

 

As you'll probably struggle as usual and go off at a tangent, let me help you out.

 

The reason the Spastics Society changed its name to Scope was that the word Spastic was a "stigmatising label".

To quote them further:

"This was exemplified in the use of the word spastic as a term of abuse or as a negative term when referring to anyone with a visible disability or using a wheelchair."

"in everyday use the word spastic had become a mis-used, unpleasant, offensive word and was frequently used as a term of abuse not only in the playground, but more seriously by adults."