threegee

I caught part of it the other day. Must say i wasn't paying too much attention until the "Tynemouth" word aired.

This illustrates the well documented political tactic of fragmentation in order to subjugate - embraced by our EU overlords. Knocking the shire off Bedlington should have alerted keener minds, but the salami-slicing politicos had their excuses lined up, and they sounded so so plausible at the time. Efficiency - reorganisation - unity - more "influence" - a better future... Remember this when the EU debate gets under-way: it's not what they say that matters, it's what they really intend! What they really intend is already out there if you care to look. It's an expansionist European superstate with its own super-scale military which will be well laced with Teutonic DNA. Look no further than the Ukraine to see a tiny taste of the future. The EU is one of those mass delusions of history, and the politicos who allow our country to dig ourselves in deeper (and be bribed with our own money) the fools of history. Anyone of an age knows our involvement was founded on a blatant and deliberate lie, but the salami-slicing politicos are allowed to continue by younger generations who haven't had the breadth of experience. Let's lower the voting age again - that's only fair! Oh, and "if there is any proposal in the next parliament for a transfer of powers to Brussels we will have an in/out referendum". Notice the "in the next parliament" weasel words? Those powers were transferred on 1st November and the salami-slicing politicos kept their mouths firmly shut on the matter! So.. what has the EU got to do with our Bedington's present predicament you say? Well, it just a different aspect of exactly the same thing, and fool if you think it's over - it's only just begun! Wise up and use your democratic right to say no-more - whilst you still have it!

I think you can still detect something Russian, nuclear, and that wasn't armed in the Lake District. If I remember correctly this one was notable because it turned right and flew the channel too - thus unsettling the great and the good.

Not talking about revolution Maggie, I'm talking about the people taking back power by proper democratic process. Of course you could always write a rude word on the ballot paper instead! And, I'm not talking about government influence; that's always been reasonably taken care of, so it's possible to see the BBC being leaned on from that aspect. What I'm talking about is a much more insidious control by London centric liberal elitists. People who are bent on limiting the range of debate in order to give the illusion of representing the range of opinion. You can see this at work daily in the way public contributions on the BBC website are moderated. When the debate goes into realms that they find awkward - starts to reflect real public consensus - it is shut down entirely. This has little to do with party affiliations - it's control by a self-serving over-class who've never had a real job in their lives, and believe themselves morally superior to huge chunks of the population. This is the real reason for the disillusion with the political process, and why ever fewer people vote LibLabCon. People aren't as stupid as this over-class takes them for! Most can't put their finger on the reasons for this disillusion, but they do know there is smoke and mirrors at work. When they say "they are all the same", they need to think a little more deeply as to why this is. This isn't a conspiracy I've dreamed up, it's a pretty universal thought across the political spectrum. Take your pick of who's perspective you want to look at it from, but the basic conclusion is universal. https://www.google.com/?q=uk+political+overclass

I didn't expect you to agree with any, so I'm gratified. The BBC has a special role as the state broadcaster. You can't opt out of funding them. There has always been special trust placed in them. But, I'm one of an increasing number of people who believe that they are betraying that trust and pursing the agenda of an over class. My argument is not for abolishing them, but putting broadcasting on a level playing field. How do you feel about the license fee? There are going to have to be some changes, but - like most things - decisions have been kicked down the road (until 2017). Interesting that you mention the Cuban Missile crisis at this time. Are you aware that you likely came within 50 miles of a Russian nuclear warhead the other day? Far closer than at any time in the cold war! And... the Greens and SNP demand abolishing our nuclear deterrent, which kept us safe through the last century! The Greens also want us to "end our special relationship with the USA". Doh! Animal Farm? Oh, I think the Pigs have been running the farm for a very long time now. Time for the people's turn again!

Say as you find Maggie! Hardly abuse, or personal. He's actually a Cultural Marxist; so OK, I take fool back - he's no fool, he simply takes others as fools! He's fully entitled to his opinions, but he takes my money, and represents a distorted view of the world to my kids, and the rest of the nation, as the norm. He can have all the young male consenting "totty" he wants, but he's not entitled to represent it as either normal behaviour, or tell me I must approve of it! In fact originally I rather liked him, but he's changed, and not me. It's not simply his flaunting his sexuality as some sort of superior state of being, it's his other elitist attitudes. We've come along way from sticking Oscar Wilde in Reading Jail, and all of that is undeniably for the better. But, in an increasing number of cases these days the tolerance now shown is not reciprocated, instead it is capitalised upon. He comes across very snide and condescending, and I wouldn't accept that in a heterosexual, so I'm not making excuses for him because he's a homosexual - which apparently is what I'm required to do by the BBC thought police. Unlike the BBC I think that any form of discrimination is wrong, so I simply don't accept their doctrine of positive discrimination. This is just one of many reasons why the formerly balanced BBC is past its sell-by-date. It always had element of elitism, but it was a benign and inclusive elitism that aimed to enlighten and promote a national purpose. It was pretty much apolitical, and on the rare occasions it strayed over the line sharp corrections were administered and all were happy. These days all pretence of that has gone. The audiences don't appreciate the morph because it has been gradually introduced in the name of progress. It's not progress - it's bloody frightening, and wide open to exploitation by a future totalitarian government. Paranoia? I think not! One thing Nick Clegg is right about is to be very very worried about what is presently being enacted in the name of national security. If the same subversion of tradition values is applied to national government as has already been enacted at the BBC, Winston Smith will be reciting 2 + 2 = 5 and believing it before the BBC hits its centenary.

Not even going to waste minutes of my life going there Malc! He's an immediate turn-off when he shows up on TV. An out-of-touch elitist fool is the very best that can be said about him. That, of course, explains why he's so jolly popular with our moral guardians at The Ministry of Truth - the Beeb! Yet another notch in the long campaign to scrap the licence fee. Hit the b**(^%s where it hurts - no, not there - in the pocket!

If only it were that simple! People class an email addy as theirs; they don't factor in that it can be trashed at someone else's whim. Most people don't even keep a record of who they give it to, so any change results in massive inconvenience, and lost contact with service providers and friends. There's legislation that phone numbers must be readily portable, but it hasn't occurred to regulators (yet) that it should be extended to ISP provided email. Failing this there should be a very clear health warning, with the alternatives clearly spelled out right at point of sale. A simple redirection protocol is already an integral part of email, so there can be absolutely no BS'ing in this respect. My point is that what Virgin is doing is wholly unnecessary, as the cost to do the right thing by customers or ex-customers is minimal. Virgin is short-sighted, and it will backfire on the brand name - that's for sure!

Yes, but upsetting 100,000 people to save a couple of hundred pounds a month in ongoing running costs for basic email/redirects, is a very short sighted view of profitability. He didn't even need to do that, he could have stipulated that TalkTalk alias the email for a few years, and that would cost nothing If you asked Branson what his brand is worth he'd answer billions, yet he's quite prepared to sully it on the assumption that customers are total idiots! At least with Mick O'Leary (Ryanair) he had the basic decency to tell the truth about how he viewed his customers, without the comes extreme responsibility BS.

Working here now. We'll have to stop buying this cheap Asian rubbish!

You're better off back in the more sheltered NE Malc. Those chilly East Anglian fens aren't the place to be this time of year, and at our time of life! I wonder if the University of East Anglia CRU winter heating bills are available on FOI request? Likely they'd show up heavily redacted anyway! http://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/news/more-snow-on-the-way-after-storms-1-6517157

"Potentially Historic Blizzard", hmm... The old ones are always the best: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

I hesitated to use the rape word to create a pun here, but once again this shows the folly of using an ISP provided domain as your primary email address. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/11377380/Virgin-broadband-customers-told-were-moving-you-to-TalkTalk-and-youll-lose-your-email.html So... Branson has finally worked out that there isn't big money in providing Internet infrastructure, and he's cutting his customers lose? The excuse given for trashing their email doesn't stand up to examination though. What utter tosh! When Cable and Wireless decided to get out of retail Internet they had the decency to leave an old server running and maintained for more than a decade to do the right thing by their customers. Only when there was next to no traffic did they pull the plug. The cost of this would be a drop in the ocean to an organisation like Virgin. What they are actually saying is we think you are fools and there will be no impact at all on the credibility of the Virgin brand name. Well I think a tiny boycott on Virgin products could easily force a rapid change of mind. In any event if you are still with Virgin you shouldn't even consider allowing them to profit further by being paid by Talk Talk for your custom. There are plenty of better providers out there! And finally: Reads well, but do you really mean any of it - apart from the last one of course?

Whitley Bay and proposed Amble store get chop too! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11333964/Tesco-closures-is-your-local-store-getting-the-chop.html Is this the Tesco No Added Stores Double Concentrate on Profits Juice? Anyway, it stinks too!

I HAVE joined the Labour Party - it's just that all the Labour leadership left a long while ago, and it has since been renamed UKIP! Else, how do you explain the present love affair with international capitalism, the EU, and distinctly non-British values? The only non-revisionist thing new age Labour advocate is retaining our national defence, but a coalition with the SNP, or God forbid Communism with Plants, is going to cover that one for them!

The essential problem is when and how are men supposed to know what is chosen? Women are never duplicitous; women never reconsider things; women never have regrets; women have perfect memories of past events; women always know their own mind. These are statements of fact - in a feminazi world! The only fact I'm sure of is that there are a lot of highly confused young males out there who are constantly being fed mixed messages, and have no voice. A clear case for legislation demanding plain packaging I think. OMG that's the burka - but we are going there already, so that's OK!

Yes, yes, but you have to add a few cherubs for the ladies to feel good about!

Buy hey, you are "objectifying women" Malc. That seems to be something rather bad. How bad never seems to have occurred to classical artists. And, that classical art "objectifies women" never seems to occur to feminists. Or at least there's something creepily "classist" about the whole current furore. Torch the National Gallery, I say; lets be done with it, so the Cultural Marxists can concentrate on their next great issue! Or... maybe, just maybe, there are different forces at work in some of those female minds? No, no, I'm certainly not going there! Cartoons of Muhammad are one thing, but there are certain practical limits.

Ah, an immigration denial! That's what half the Labour Westminster elites do! Or at least what they all do half of the time. It's the overall pressure on services and wages. Immigrants go to where the jobs are, and where other immigrants have already shown the way - so they ghettoise. The other strategy to justify the unjustifiable is to say "yes, we recognise that we made a huge mistake, we must have a serious debate about this." Either way what they mean is that we have b-all intention of carrying on any differently: immigrant votes (together with the gullible and inexperienced young) are the only way we are going to keep our seat in the Labour carriages of the gravy train. That's not taking any account on the pressure on UK wages, or the pressure on services, or the revenue loss. Temporary immigrants repatriate most of their wages, so that cash is lost to the local economy. The ones who don't repatriate their earnings bring their families to put more pressures on the social services like the NHS. Services they could only dream about at home! Immigrants don't feed at the trough of the Westminster elites, they take their metaphorical food from the tables of the least well off! That's generally the people who still buy in to the myth that Labour is for the workers. What was once true is now a cruel deception Tony! If I was a socialist I'd be calling working class Labour voters class traitors! I don't go in for labels though - blue haired doesn't mean that a person is less worthy of respect as you so rightly point out. It's what people say, and crucially what they do, that matters. Right now you're being very selective about NOT applying mindless labels, and NOT seeing past the superficial. The superfice is that anyone in the Labour Party (except a few exceptionally dumb, tribal, local politicos) cares one iota about the traditional Labour constituency. Even dumb old Ian Lavery has worked out that something is very wrong: You know what Ian: your own constituents think you don't know too much! You still can't see that you are being used as a shill by that "elite in Westminster". He can't make the logical leap to supporting a party which is genuinely democratic; the only one that represents working class opinion and interests. It's takes a lot of courage to admit you've been misled, and particularly that you yourself have been leading other people down the wrong path. Some intelligent Labour people have already made that transition, and many more will follow. You should seriously consider it yourself! [i resisted the temptation to add more links, but there are links aplenty. ]

Wrong thread Tony! This is the one where you were supposed to express support for (blue haired) feminazis! Not being called on to defend "the objectification of women" has totally ruined my day!

Yay! A belated New Year's gong goes to Eggy! And.. the photo is of course of Anna Neagle, who hardly gets a mention today even assuming current generations know the name. Such is tinsel-town fame!

Oh, no! Not another my Nokia 1100 is all the phone I'll ever need! The natives in the Amazon basin would scoff at that these days!

Solid rumour says it will be launched ahead of schedule on 2nd March. It will have a minimum of 3GB of RAM like recent models in the Note series, but 4GB is a possibility. This contrasts with 1GB in recent iPhones, the stingyness of which has many Apple fans unhappy. Here's the rest: 64-bit eight-core 14nm CPU which is 50% faster5.1-inch Quad HD Super AMOLED display with a 577ppi density, stunning outdoor visibility, super dim mode for late night.A huge 20 megapixel OIS camera sensor and a 5 megapixel f/1.8 front-facing camera with real-time HDR32 / 64 / 128GB of storage2550mAh batteryBuilt-in wireless chargingFour hours of usage on a 10 minute chargeQuick connect chargingSamsung Pay: works with 90% of existing magnetic stripe payment terminals, and NFC payment terminalsMetal and glass bodyGorilla Glass 4Cat 6 LTEBuilt-in wireless charging is a big plus as it saves having to get hold of a special Qi back or find a mechanically unsatisfactory third party receiver coil. The new body is premium and a deliberate getaway from the plastic construction that on-line reviews often criticise (unjustly I think, because this has saved countless expensive drop disasters). Is it an x86 based product and a step change from ARM? The 14nm CPU might just provide a clue, though none of the rumours mention such a major change of direction.

A red flag has just taken up your come on challenge Tony. Bishop Auckland Labour mayor defects to UKIP and it's from the Beeb, so every word must be true and unbiased! ...and, Labour councillor Ann Golightly sounds undelighted about the last council meeting, but my money's on an eventual defection from her too... This really won't do, so I'm thinking of writing to Nige to demand he instructs Labour Bishop Auckland Council to stop making the odd few remaining Labour hold-outs feel uncomfortable. No point writing to Ed because they've all stopped listening to him!

I think there's more than one level of reasoning where an Al Murray vote could make more sense - and be more socially cohesive - than a LibLabCon one.