Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

As far as I know, I’ve never called those cunts that voted Remain names. No - I do try to avoid it. Although, I’ve been on the butt end of a lot of Anglo Saxon adjectives as a Leaver. I prefer the high quality stuff, when you can get it.

Again I feel you are missing my point. My point is that the core of the complaint of leave voters is that they 'all get tarred with the same brush' (typically a racism brush in their case) whilst doing just that to those who voted remain whilst making such complaints. Not all who voted leave did so because they are racist AND not all those who voted remain claim all leave voters are racist. My suggestion is that if you do not like something being done to you then its probably best to not complain about this whilst doing that very thing to others.

I can’t see how Remainers could be classified as racists or being clones Like Leavers, there were many reasons for the way they voted. From my experience status quote figured high. The only example in 44 months of trench warfare I can think of is Billy Connelly expressing his view on racism within the SNP, in the Brexit context. Perhaps there are examples but if so I haven’t taken them in. Personally, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to highlight that those who seek to overturn the referendum by any means are rank hypocrites in claiming to be respecters of democracy because, despite all the myriad of obfuscating excuses, they’re clearly anything but.

Conversely, along with 17,410,741 other people expressing their view in a democratic vote, many for the first time, I’ve repeatedly been on the receiving end of racist/xenophobe/little Englander/ostrich/Kraut-Frog hater/myopic/stupid/shouldn’t be allowed to vote/red necks/empire nostalgia/fucking morons/ - and other such niceties. You don’t have to go too far for examples do you? It was the losers that started and who sustain this “war”.

You keep saying I’m missing your point. Has it occurred it might be down to you?

[cyprusgrump]

Another difference between Norway and the UK. Norway does not subsidise elitist private education. Ending this in the UK is also in the Labour manifesto.

The 'public school' (meaning fee paying , private) that I went to has the status of a charity. That it caters overwhelmingly only for the comfortably well off through to the super rich does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law. That the 'trust' that still runs it today was originally set up in 1566 by a local man born of humble origins who made his fortune as a merchant tailor with specific aim to 'support the education of poor children' in the Bedford area, yet today does almost the totally opposite of that, does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law.

Having such charity status does not just mean that those well off to super rich get to pay for such service without the bother of having to pay VAT on the fees, thus denying the Treasury of millions of pounds annually. Oh no it is more than just that inequity. When I was there the school ran a donations drive to fund the building of a new indoor swimming pool complex for the school, that was not just better than anything a state school could boast of but better than any municipal pool in the entire county of Bedford and probably most other counties in the entire UK. For every pound donated by UK tax paying alumni towards this objective, and they donated 10's of millions to this one project alone, the UK Treasury would give in addition 25 pence of public money as well because of this 'charity' status. Think about that for one minute. That is Treasuary money much of which has been raised from the taxes of 10's of millions of ordinary hard working UK citizens and residents, that could never hope or dream of being able to afford to send their kids to such a school, used to provide facilities like the new pool complex overwhelmingly to children of the well off to super rich, that those who taxes were used to subsidise it do not have access to. It is obscene. Wanting this to change is not the politics of envy. It is the politics of equity.

It IS time for REAL change.

The disgusting politics of envy!

You'd deny parents the chance to give their offspring a better education than the state does wouldn't you...? Even though they are prepared to pay thousands to do so and continue to pay their taxes for the state education they aren't using!

It is amazing how many Socialists want to ban private education but at the same time choose to sent their own children to private schools!

Yes, we'll ban it, just as soon as Jessica and Jamima have finished their exams!

[cyprusgrump]

So is that true of the NHS too ? That we can have a socialised health care system, but only if we accept it has to be less efficient than a private health care system ? I guess with such views no need to worry if the NHS is safe with you What about roads while we are it. Lets privatise those as well I guess, based on your theory of the world.

You said it!

Currently NHS inflation is greater than GDP inflation... Put simply, if we continue as we are eventually every single penny the country earns will be spent on the NHS, every penny!

The NHS is outrageously inefficient... We simply can't continue as we are, bunging an extra £20bn at it every now and again...

The NHS, time for REAL change...

Good luck honestly selling that policy around the UK and especially in those vital NE labour heartlands in this next GE. Probably better to not honestly and openly make your arguments that we need to replace the NHS with a privatised health system and then let the people decide if they democratically support such. Probably better to claim you are seeking the opposite of that and too be committed to protecting the NHS and chuck some money at it it just before an election and then when in power just continually undermine the NHS as quietly as you can.

Did you register for GESY yet btw Grump ? Nothing like 'being the change you want to see'

Typical socialist cock-waffle!

You know I watched Dianne Abbot on the TV a short while ago saying exactly the same thing...

What is this bizarre socialist claim that there is only a binary choice between 'our NHS' and the American system...?

The NHS is unsustainable and health outcomes are not even very good compared to other systems.

The sensible thing is not to continue to throw good money after bad but to look at all the options and see which other systems can offer better value and more importantly better health outcomes than the NHS does now...

It is unsustainable - it can't continue in its current form.

[Lordo]

Another difference between Norway and the UK. Norway does not subsidise elitist private education. Ending this in the UK is also in the Labour manifesto.

The 'public school' (meaning fee paying , private) that I went to has the status of a charity. That it caters overwhelmingly only for the comfortably well off through to the super rich does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law. That the 'trust' that still runs it today was originally set up in 1566 by a local man born of humble origins who made his fortune as a merchant tailor with specific aim to 'support the education of poor children' in the Bedford area, yet today does almost the totally opposite of that, does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law.

Having such charity status does not just mean that those well off to super rich get to pay for such service without the bother of having to pay VAT on the fees, thus denying the Treasury of millions of pounds annually. Oh no it is more than just that inequity. When I was there the school ran a donations drive to fund the building of a new indoor swimming pool complex for the school, that was not just better than anything a state school could boast of but better than any municipal pool in the entire county of Bedford and probably most other counties in the entire UK. For every pound donated by UK tax paying alumni towards this objective, and they donated 10's of millions to this one project alone, the UK Treasury would give in addition 25 pence of public money as well because of this 'charity' status. Think about that for one minute. That is Treasuary money much of which has been raised from the taxes of 10's of millions of ordinary hard working UK citizens and residents, that could never hope or dream of being able to afford to send their kids to such a school, used to provide facilities like the new pool complex overwhelmingly to children of the well off to super rich, that those who taxes were used to subsidise it do not have access to. It is obscene. Wanting this to change is not the politics of envy. It is the politics of equity.

It IS time for REAL change.

The disgusting politics of envy!

You'd deny parents the chance to give their offspring a better education than the state does wouldn't you...? Even though they are prepared to pay thousands to do so and continue to pay their taxes for the state education they aren't using!

It is amazing how many Socialists want to ban private education but at the same time choose to sent their own children to private schools!

Yes, we'll ban it, just as soon as Jessica and Jamima have finished their exams!

typical tory appologist twisting the realities to suit. nobody is stopping people to send their children to private schools. all that is proposed here is that as it is a private business they should pay their taxes and vat like everybody else and no handouts form the state to support them. the taxes we pay are for our comprehensive schools not private schools, they can fend for themselves.

if you are under the impression that our comprehensive schools cannot cater for our educational needs you are very much mistaken. certainly they have been starved of funding but despite this they can outperformany private school. the top class of any year is as good as any private school you canmention. of course when it comes to jobs and top universities of course theese assholes have priority which has to end. what kind of scosiety restricts entry from normal schools to 5% only andonce that 5% is filled no more children are allowed to be considered no matter what qualificications.

<<<<Laura Spence was a pupil at Monkseaton Community High School, a state school in Whitley Bay, North Tyneside. In 1999, she applied for a place to read medicine at Magdalen College, Oxford (there were one hundred students in her school year, but she was the only one to apply for a university place at "Oxbridge"). Spence had taken ten GCSEs, obtaining the top A* grade in each, and had been predicted (and later achieved) top A-level grades in Chemistry, Biology, English and Geography. Spence was interviewed by Magdalen College but she was not offered a place because — according to the college — other candidates, of whom there were 22 for 5 positions, had equally good qualifications and had performed better at interview. The reason given for Spence's rejection was, as one BBC report put it, that she "did not show potential". The same report said that Spence was one of ten British students to be awarded a $65,000 scholarship by Harvard University, where she later on studied biochemistry. However, Harvard does not award scholarships to attract individual students; it admits students on a need-blind basis and then, separately, awards financial aid based solely on familial need>>>>>

why were the spaces for these 22 children restricted to only 5?
who got theother places?

sooner they actually close the lot the better.
it has nothing to do with envy, and everything to do with fairness. hard work must be rewarded and as can be seen it is not. whcih school you went to is though. you wonder how eton produces so many pms. and they are all ful of shit. the system is gought though right? nothing to do with the system.

[erolz66]

Another difference between Norway and the UK. Norway does not subsidise elitist private education. Ending this in the UK is also in the Labour manifesto.

The 'public school' (meaning fee paying , private) that I went to has the status of a charity. That it caters overwhelmingly only for the comfortably well off through to the super rich does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law. That the 'trust' that still runs it today was originally set up in 1566 by a local man born of humble origins who made his fortune as a merchant tailor with specific aim to 'support the education of poor children' in the Bedford area, yet today does almost the totally opposite of that, does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law.

Having such charity status does not just mean that those well off to super rich get to pay for such service without the bother of having to pay VAT on the fees, thus denying the Treasury of millions of pounds annually. Oh no it is more than just that inequity. When I was there the school ran a donations drive to fund the building of a new indoor swimming pool complex for the school, that was not just better than anything a state school could boast of but better than any municipal pool in the entire county of Bedford and probably most other counties in the entire UK. For every pound donated by UK tax paying alumni towards this objective, and they donated 10's of millions to this one project alone, the UK Treasury would give in addition 25 pence of public money as well because of this 'charity' status. Think about that for one minute. That is Treasuary money much of which has been raised from the taxes of 10's of millions of ordinary hard working UK citizens and residents, that could never hope or dream of being able to afford to send their kids to such a school, used to provide facilities like the new pool complex overwhelmingly to children of the well off to super rich, that those who taxes were used to subsidise it do not have access to. It is obscene. Wanting this to change is not the politics of envy. It is the politics of equity.

It IS time for REAL change.

The disgusting politics of envy!

You'd deny parents the chance to give their offspring a better education than the state does wouldn't you...? Even though they are prepared to pay thousands to do so and continue to pay their taxes for the state education they aren't using!

It is amazing how many Socialists want to ban private education but at the same time choose to sent their own children to private schools!

Yes, we'll ban it, just as soon as Jessica and Jamima have finished their exams!

The issue I raised was that of such private schools being granted charity status. You say nothing about that. Offer no reasons or justification as to why them having charity status is fair and correct. You simply ignore all that and start a rant about something else. Why ? Do you think it is legitimate for such schools to have charity status or not ? If you do think that is legitimate then make your case. The dictionary definition of a charity is "an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."

[erolz66]

What is this bizarre socialist claim that there is only a binary choice between 'our NHS' and the American system...?

Are you aware that there is private health care in the UK in addition to the NHS ? Is there anything in the Labour manifesto that seeks to end private health care in the UK ? There is not, so what actually are you talking about ?

The NHS is unsustainable and health outcomes are not even very good compared to other systems.

The sensible thing is not to continue to throw good money after bad but to look at all the options and see which other systems can offer better value and more importantly better health outcomes than the NHS does now...

It is unsustainable - it can't continue in its current form.

Is this in the Conservative manifesto ? The Brexit one ? Are you a democrat ? Is it up to the people to democratically decide what kind of health service we have in the UK even if they choose a system you personally do not like or think is not right ?

[Pyrpolizer]

They are responsible for placing millions of people below the poverty line in the last 10 years. So yeh, they are criminal bandits alright.

They had the money to really make a difference and shield the Southern States from brutal austerity. The other 24 States had enough money to really bail out those that were carrying too much debt and they would have had a great union.

But they don't have a great union. half the countries want to get the fuck out and they will eventually collapse and good riddance to them

That's because you are confused as to what the EU is all about. It's NOT A FEDERATION!
Austerity measures are the fruit of the century, look at Lebanon which is not in the EU.

[Pyrpolizer]

Another difference between Norway and the UK. Norway does not subsidise elitist private education. Ending this in the UK is also in the Labour manifesto.

The 'public school' (meaning fee paying , private) that I went to has the status of a charity. That it caters overwhelmingly only for the comfortably well off through to the super rich does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law. That the 'trust' that still runs it today was originally set up in 1566 by a local man born of humble origins who made his fortune as a merchant tailor with specific aim to 'support the education of poor children' in the Bedford area, yet today does almost the totally opposite of that, does not matter. It is a 'charity' supposedly and currently in Law.

Having such charity status does not just mean that those well off to super rich get to pay for such service without the bother of having to pay VAT on the fees, thus denying the Treasury of millions of pounds annually. Oh no it is more than just that inequity. When I was there the school ran a donations drive to fund the building of a new indoor swimming pool complex for the school, that was not just better than anything a state school could boast of but better than any municipal pool in the entire county of Bedford and probably most other counties in the entire UK. For every pound donated by UK tax paying alumni towards this objective, and they donated 10's of millions to this one project alone, the UK Treasury would give in addition 25 pence of public money as well because of this 'charity' status. Think about that for one minute. That is Treasuary money much of which has been raised from the taxes of 10's of millions of ordinary hard working UK citizens and residents, that could never hope or dream of being able to afford to send their kids to such a school, used to provide facilities like the new pool complex overwhelmingly to children of the well off to super rich, that those who taxes were used to subsidise it do not have access to. It is obscene. Wanting this to change is not the politics of envy. It is the politics of equity.

It IS time for REAL change.

The disgusting politics of envy!

You'd deny parents the chance to give their offspring a better education than the state does wouldn't you...? Even though they are prepared to pay thousands to do so and continue to pay their taxes for the state education they aren't using!

It is amazing how many Socialists want to ban private education but at the same time choose to sent their own children to private schools!

Yes, we'll ban it, just as soon as Jessica and Jamima have finished their exams!

The issue I raised was that of such private schools being granted charity status. You say nothing about that. Offer no reasons or justification as to why them having charity status is fair and correct. You simply ignore all that and start a rant about something else. Why ? Do you think it is legitimate for such schools to have charity status or not ? If you do think that is legitimate then make your case. The dictionary definition of a charity is "an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."

Sp far we had cherry picking responses in this forum, it looks we started having orange picking from alien gardens

[Lordo]

nobody understand the situation better.

[erolz66]

Lets get this out of the way first

You keep saying I’m missing your point. Has it occurred it might be down to you?

I say I think you have missed my point when I think you have missed my point. Who's fault that may be is to me an irrelevant non question. It could be mine, it could be yours most likely it is a combination of the two but none of that is of any interest to me. All that is of interest to me is to properly understand what you are saying and to have what I am saying properly understood. I will put in as much time and effort to that end as necessary. Identifying when I am being misunderstood is just the first stage in the process, nothing more and nothing less. It is not an accusation. It is not about blame or fault as far as I am concerned.

so

I can’t see how Remainers could be classified as racists or being clones

From what you have written above I think I have got closer to the source of misunderstanding. You seem to me to think I am saying 'if you do not like being called racist when you are not simply because you vote to leave the EU and regardless of anything and everything else you have said or done, then do not call others racist simply because they voted to remain and regardless of anything and everything else they have said or done.'

This is NOT what I am saying.

What I am saying is

Labelling a person who voted leave as racist for no other reason than how they voted and regardless of anything and everything they say is an example of a type of behaviour. It is a type of behaviour that is in the same class as labelling someone who voted remain as therefore being determined to thwart the result being implemented for no other reason than how they voted and regardless of anything and everything they say. It is not the 'thing' - racism - undemocratic - stupid etc etc that is the commonality here. It is the defining of an individual, of who they are and what they believe (their identity) on the basis of a singular thing, in this case how they voted in a referendum, regardless of all else, that is the problem. Doing this to label those who voted leave racist is wrong and problematic. Doing this to label those who voted remain undemocratic is equally wrong and problematic. For exactly the same reasons.

I personally do not and have not ever labelled an individual, or groups, racist simple because of how they voted in the referendum. I make a conscious effort not only to avoid doing this but also to explicitly state I do not believe this is the case. The reason why I make such efforts to not do this is because I know I do not like it when the same type of behaviour is used against me.

When you imply that I label someone as racist for no other reason than how they voted in the referendum, as you did with your 'come on you knew I was a BNP voter' comment, you are just labelling me as someone who does that for no other reason that how I voted in the referendum. You are doing the very thing to me that you complain is done to you and that I personally do not do and make conscious effort not to do. That is my point. You being called racist just because you voted leave is upsetting to you because you are not racist. Me being called the sort of person who calls others racist simply because of how they voted is upsetting to me because I do not call others racist simply because of how they voted. I do not do the former. Have never done it. Have made effort to not do it. You however it seems to me do do the later. A lot.

Personally, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to highlight that those who seek to overturn the referendum by any means are rank hypocrites in claiming to be respecters of democracy because, despite all the myriad of obfuscating excuses, they’re clearly anything but.

There is nothing wrong in seeking to "highlight that those who seek to overturn the referendum by any means are rank hypocrites in claiming to be respecters of democracy because, despite all the myriad of obfuscating excuses, they’re clearly anything but." What is wrong is to decide that someone, anyone, everyone who voted remain is 'seek[ing] to overturn the referendum by any means'. It is no different from deciding that someone, anyone, everyone who voted leave is racist, or stupid, or a little Englander or any other pejorative. Just because some of those who voted leave are racist it does not mean all those who voted leave are racist. The logic and concept is fundamentally flawed. Just because some of those who voted remain seek to overturn the result by any means it does not mean all those who voted leave are seeking to overturn the result by any means. The logic and concept is fundamentally flawed.

The referendum was on if we should leave or stay. The majority result was to leave. You can not leave somewhere or some current status without going somewhere else or moving to some different status. I believe that just as the decision as to if we leave or stay should be decided democratically then so too should the place we go to in order to leave should also be decided democratically. That some may use such an argument with the motive of seeking to overturn the result does not mean everyone who uses it must also therefore be seeking to overturn the result. Any more than because some who voted leave are racist means all those who voted leave must be racist.