|
|
Post by borchester on Jun 20, 2024 8:57:06 GMT
Just seen episode 1, which was a bit disappointing to be honest.
I was hoping for a pleasant few minutes of Teutonic tottie, but all we got was the usual bollocks fit for Guardian viewers.
You have a silly opinion that would have been far better if you had kept it to yourself. There are four episodes for those with an open mind, such people are able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Hard words see2.
Most of us have known for quite a spell that the nazis' attitude towards women was effectively Kinder, Küche, Kirche . But if you and the rest of the Guardian readership need that spelled out in TV programs as shallow as a squirt of gnat's pee, well there you go
I like the idea of Hitler encouraging soldiers on leave to shag everything in sight. I thought that was what they did anyway, but once again, a surprise to see2
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 6:29:18 GMT
You have a silly opinion that would have been far better if you had kept it to yourself. There are four episodes for those with an open mind, such people are able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Hard words see2.
Most of us have known for quite a spell that the nazis' attitude towards women was effectively Kinder, Küche, Kirche . But if you and the rest of the Guardian readership need that spelled out in TV programs as shallow as a squirt of gnat's pee, well there you go
I like the idea of Hitler encouraging soldiers on leave to shag everything in sight. I thought that was what they did anyway, but once again, a surprise to see2
Seeing as I recommended watching the program your Insinuated insult --"but all we got was the usual bollocks fit for Guardian viewers."-- did not go down well. There are actually some very incisive comments made about Hitler and the Nazis which I found interesting. So no, its not all about shagging. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 7:11:19 GMT
You really are as stupid as your posts indicate Your BBC link even proves that Sir Keir Starmer (I am a socialist/kneeler/believe that some women have a penis/in my opinion working people have less than £1000 in the bank and never pay for services they can get for free- other people with more than £1000 in the bank on PAYE or self employed aren't '' working people'' etc etc) has an exclusive just for him pension scheme that no-one else can benefit from by a personal law named after him.
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013That is FACT , it's not propaganda and I'm only surprised that an ardent lefty like you , who worships the mantra ''for the many , not the few'' doesn't find this unconsciously hypocritical Sir Keir Starmer - for the few , not the many I am not a "Lefty" if you can't post without telling lies and further stupidities, then maybe you should look for a Junior Forum. -- "The legislation means Sir Keir is exempt from paying tax on pensions savings over £1m. It is not clear whether the Labour leader has saved enough to have benefited from the scheme.Sir Keir said the government's tax exempt scheme would only benefit the "richest 1%".The rules for the DPP's pension are set by the government of the day, and followed the precedent for all DPPs.
Accusations of hypocrisy are opinions by a Tory MP. Its just the usual Tory denigration ploy made in order to mislead the easily led. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 22, 2024 7:19:46 GMT
The easy way to put this argument to bed would be for the first action of a Starmer Government to repeal the special law regarding Starmer's pension and for him to be treated the same as everyone else.
Job done.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 9:02:50 GMT
The easy way to put this argument to bed would be for the first action of a Starmer Government to repeal the special law regarding Starmer's pension and for him to be treated the same as everyone else. Job done. I believe he has already said he would. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 22, 2024 11:52:13 GMT
You really are as stupid as your posts indicate Your BBC link even proves that Sir Keir Starmer (I am a socialist/kneeler/believe that some women have a penis/in my opinion working people have less than £1000 in the bank and never pay for services they can get for free- other people with more than £1000 in the bank on PAYE or self employed aren't '' working people'' etc etc) has an exclusive just for him pension scheme that no-one else can benefit from by a personal law named after him.
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013That is FACT , it's not propaganda and I'm only surprised that an ardent lefty like you , who worships the mantra ''for the many , not the few'' doesn't find this unconsciously hypocritical Sir Keir Starmer - for the few , not the many I am not a "Lefty" if you can't post without telling lies and further stupidities, then maybe you should look for a Junior Forum. -- "The legislation means Sir Keir is exempt from paying tax on pensions savings over £1m. It is not clear whether the Labour leader has saved enough to have benefited from the scheme.Sir Keir said the government's tax exempt scheme would only benefit the "richest 1%".The rules for the DPP's pension are set by the government of the day, and followed the precedent for all DPPs.
Accusations of hypocrisy are opinions by a Tory MP. Its just the usual Tory denigration ploy made in order to mislead the easily led. 
You certainly know how to tell'em -you should be on stage (The Pensions Increase ( Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 Remind me - how many people have athis personally named by law pension scheme just for them and no-one else whilst voting to exclude everyone else from enjoying the exclusive tax privileges it offers - especially hypocritical for a socialist ? Oh don' bother I remember - the answer is no-one) |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 22, 2024 11:55:35 GMT
The easy way to put this argument to bed would be for the first action of a Starmer Government to repeal the special law regarding Starmer's pension and for him to be treated the same as everyone else. Job done. He could also easily have applied to have his personal statutory instrument voided at any time over the past 11 years since it was passed into law , had he wanted to be treated the same as everyone else |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 16:22:01 GMT
I am not a "Lefty" if you can't post without telling lies and further stupidities, then maybe you should look for a Junior Forum. -- "The legislation means Sir Keir is exempt from paying tax on pensions savings over £1m. It is not clear whether the Labour leader has saved enough to have benefited from the scheme.Sir Keir said the government's tax exempt scheme would only benefit the "richest 1%".The rules for the DPP's pension are set by the government of the day, and followed the precedent for all DPPs.
Accusations of hypocrisy are opinions by a Tory MP. Its just the usual Tory denigration ploy made in order to mislead the easily led.
You certainly know how to tell'em -you should be on stage (The Pensions Increase ( Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 Remind me - how many people have athis personally named by law pension scheme just for them and no-one else whilst voting to exclude everyone else from enjoying the exclusive tax privileges it offers - especially hypocritical for a socialist ? Oh don' bother I remember - the answer is no-one) Typical Righty continuing to try to denigrate anyone they disagree with. As it is a Conservative construction for Heads of the DPP on retirement, I have no way of knowing the answer to your question. The voting "to exclude everyone else who isn't a retiring head of the DPP" for the answer to that you would need to ask the Tories who invented the system. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 16:29:57 GMT
The easy way to put this argument to bed would be for the first action of a Starmer Government to repeal the special law regarding Starmer's pension and for him to be treated the same as everyone else. Job done. He could also easily have applied to have his personal statutory instrument voided at any time over the past 11 years since it was passed into law , had he wanted to be treated the same as everyone else Well as not everyone else is a retired head of the DPP, he isn't the same as everyone else. Do I see a green eyed jealous approach complaint? Or just a Rightist seeing an opportunity to denigrate a member of the opposition? Starmer is a capitalist, looking to be the PM of a capitalist country. So what's your beef? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 22, 2024 16:50:13 GMT
He could also easily have applied to have his personal statutory instrument voided at any time over the past 11 years since it was passed into law , had he wanted to be treated the same as everyone else Well as not everyone else is a retired head of the DPP, he isn't the same as everyone else. Do I see a green eyed jealous approach complaint? Or just a Rightist seeing an opportunity to denigrate a member of the opposition? Starmer is a capitalist, looking to be the PM of a capitalist country. So what's your beef? No he isn't, he's a self-avowed socialist. Don't you know anything about your idol? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 17:01:25 GMT
Well as not everyone else is a retired head of the DPP, he isn't the same as everyone else. Do I see a green eyed jealous approach complaint? Or just a Rightist seeing an opportunity to denigrate a member of the opposition? Starmer is a capitalist, looking to be the PM of a capitalist country. So what's your beef? No he isn't, he's a self-avowed socialist. Don't you know anything about your idol? Advocating capitalism, have you still not learnt that actions speak louder than words? If he believes in the fairness of much of socialism and behaves like Blair with a social conscious not socialism then he can't go far wrong. But one needs an open mind to see the truth, fixed opinions just wind up making a fool of you. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 22, 2024 17:16:44 GMT
No he isn't, he's a self-avowed socialist. Don't you know anything about your idol? Advocating capitalism, have you still not learnt that actions speak louder than words? If he believes in the fairness of much of socialism and behaves like Blair with a social conscious not socialism then he can't go far wrong. But one needs an open mind to see the truth, fixed opinions just wind up making a fool of you. So you're saying he's lying. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 22, 2024 17:56:06 GMT
I'm not a lefty
You certainly know how to tell'em -you should be on stage (The Pensions Increase ( Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 Remind me - how many people have athis personally named by law pension scheme just for them and no-one else whilst voting to exclude everyone else from enjoying the exclusive tax privileges it offers - especially hypocritical for a socialist ? Oh don' bother I remember - the answer is no-one) Typical Righty continuing to try to denigrate anyone they disagree with. As it is a Conservative construction for Heads of the DPP on retirement, I have no way of knowing the answer to your question. The voting "to exclude everyone else who isn't a retiring head of the DPP" for the answer to that you would need to ask the Tories who invented the system.
Your answer really takes the biscuit/is probably one of your most ridiculously stupid and ignorant yet ( though there are many candidates for top spot from you) You pretend that don't know exactly how many people benefit from the statutory instrument? The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013Reading the title of the statutory instrument out loud and tracing he letters with your finger should assuage your pathetically feigned uncertainty and give you a red hot clueAnyone who can read knows that the sole beneficiary of this extra special just for him and no-one else is named in the title of the law
Sir Keir Starmer : For the few , not the many |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 22, 2024 18:00:37 GMT
He could also easily have applied to have his personal statutory instrument voided at any time over the past 11 years since it was passed into law , had he wanted to be treated the same as everyone else Well as not everyone else is a retired head of the DPP, he isn't the same as everyone else. Do I see a green eyed jealous approach complaint? Or just a Rightist seeing an opportunity to denigrate a member of the opposition? Starmer is a capitalist, looking to be the PM of a capitalist country. So what's your beef? Starmer isn't a capitalist , far from it and overtly labelled himself a socialist only three weeks ago -I'd have though a lefty hero worshiper like you would have known that ? He said: “I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive.
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-first#:~:text=Speaking%20to%20the%20BBC%20on,country%20first%20and%20party%20second.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 22, 2024 21:01:02 GMT
Advocating capitalism, have you still not learnt that actions speak louder than words? If he believes in the fairness of much of socialism and behaves like Blair with a social conscious not socialism then he can't go far wrong. But one needs an open mind to see the truth, fixed opinions just wind up making a fool of you. So you're saying he's lying. I agree. No, you are saying that, I'm saying that as a prospective PM and having learnt from Corbyn's mistakes he has moderated his views. Which became obvious following his becoming the leader of the Party, and then being in a position to modernise the party. A social minded approach, as used by Blair, appealed to the UK voter so I give Starmer full marks for being very sensible. |
|
