Online Porn To Be Blocked In All Households
Re: Online Porn To Be Blocked In All Households
Simon Hughes always did like to be all things to all people.
Re: Online Porn To Be Blocked In All Households
Was thinking about this again last night and I started wondering.
Assuming this goes ahead, how will it affect the UK based producers, especially the single models who shoot content and manage their own site?
There will be people who are put off and will not want to opt out who currently are a member, have been a member or are a potential future member of a site and that's all lost income.
Assuming this goes ahead, how will it affect the UK based producers, especially the single models who shoot content and manage their own site?
There will be people who are put off and will not want to opt out who currently are a member, have been a member or are a potential future member of a site and that's all lost income.
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Andy - please knock it off
It was you who made the blanket assertion that 'Nearly every charity is run by left-leaning people'. If that is so then there have to be reasons, one of which I suggested might be that right wing leaning people could possibly have a problem empathising with those in a worse situation than themselves. I think the present government's actions clearly show they have little acquaintance with, nor understanding of, the problems that many now face, problems that I would say are largely due to the deliberate policies of this government of millionaires.
As for your list of philanthropists, whilst clearly they are not of the left, they are people who have or had a smattering of a social conscience and often had a liberal/non-conformist inclination.
As for your list of philanthropists, whilst clearly they are not of the left, they are people who have or had a smattering of a social conscience and often had a liberal/non-conformist inclination.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Andy
With the greatest respect, you are missing the point being implied completely.
Let me explain the approach to charity and philanthropy to you from an extreme right wing perspective:
Charities like Oxfam, rabidly left wing. Why? Because the people in them are not rich and spend their time spending all the money being collected on expensive hotels, round the world trips and exclusive meetings with African dictators.
Philanthropists. Dead rich and therefore cannot be rabidly left wing. People who have earned their money fair and square unlike those unemployed scroungers and people who work in charities.
Alas one of the main characteristics of extreme right wingers is that they have only a passing acquaintance with knowledge and facts.
For example Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland, in a typical weaver's cottage with only one main room, consisting of half the ground floor which was shared with the neighboring weaver's family. The main room served as a living room, dining room and bedroom. He spent a great deal of his money on projects of social and education advancement because he realised how important these were for people who had had a poverty stricken start in life like himself. Now this is hardly the George Osborne approach to life is it? THe poor need to be given a good kicking so that they can aspire to be Boy George.
Lever was a member of the Congregationalist Church and applied its ideals in his business life. He couldn't be a Commie bastard like all these bishops today who slag off Cameron and Osborne's welfare policies because the Communist Party hardly existed then. He joined the Liberals.
John Cadbury was another of these really left wing religious nutters. He was a Quaker. And we know what left wing people Quakers are, don't we? They rattle on about child poverty and crap like that.
Elizabeth Fry was very influenced by the preaching of an American Quaker. By the time of the first World War almost all Quakers in Britain and many in the United States found themselves committed to what came to be called "liberalism," which meant primarily a religion that deemphasized corporate statements of theology and was characterized by its emphasis on social action and pacifism.
So in short what extreme right wingers believe is. People with no money. Pile of shite who either go on the dole or scrounge other people's money in running charities. Philanthropists, money coming out their arses so they can't be commie toerags or be anything other than Tories lambasting the poor for moral lassitude and for bringing it on to themselves.
Except a lot of the cack that gets talked by extreme right wingers is bollocks.
Hope this helps.
Let me explain the approach to charity and philanthropy to you from an extreme right wing perspective:
Charities like Oxfam, rabidly left wing. Why? Because the people in them are not rich and spend their time spending all the money being collected on expensive hotels, round the world trips and exclusive meetings with African dictators.
Philanthropists. Dead rich and therefore cannot be rabidly left wing. People who have earned their money fair and square unlike those unemployed scroungers and people who work in charities.
Alas one of the main characteristics of extreme right wingers is that they have only a passing acquaintance with knowledge and facts.
For example Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland, in a typical weaver's cottage with only one main room, consisting of half the ground floor which was shared with the neighboring weaver's family. The main room served as a living room, dining room and bedroom. He spent a great deal of his money on projects of social and education advancement because he realised how important these were for people who had had a poverty stricken start in life like himself. Now this is hardly the George Osborne approach to life is it? THe poor need to be given a good kicking so that they can aspire to be Boy George.
Lever was a member of the Congregationalist Church and applied its ideals in his business life. He couldn't be a Commie bastard like all these bishops today who slag off Cameron and Osborne's welfare policies because the Communist Party hardly existed then. He joined the Liberals.
John Cadbury was another of these really left wing religious nutters. He was a Quaker. And we know what left wing people Quakers are, don't we? They rattle on about child poverty and crap like that.
Elizabeth Fry was very influenced by the preaching of an American Quaker. By the time of the first World War almost all Quakers in Britain and many in the United States found themselves committed to what came to be called "liberalism," which meant primarily a religion that deemphasized corporate statements of theology and was characterized by its emphasis on social action and pacifism.
So in short what extreme right wingers believe is. People with no money. Pile of shite who either go on the dole or scrounge other people's money in running charities. Philanthropists, money coming out their arses so they can't be commie toerags or be anything other than Tories lambasting the poor for moral lassitude and for bringing it on to themselves.
Except a lot of the cack that gets talked by extreme right wingers is bollocks.
Hope this helps.
Re: Andy
You can always tell when an extreme left-winger is losing an argument ? they lie, insult and smear. They learn it at the knee of Alastair Campbell, the high priest of malignant spin.
David Johnson wrote:
> Let me explain the approach to charity and philanthropy to you
> from an extreme right wing perspective:
>
> Charities like Oxfam, rabidly left wing. Why? Because the
> people in them are not rich and spend their time spending all
> the money being collected on expensive hotels, round the world
> trips and exclusive meetings with African dictators.
Again assuming that you believe I hold extreme right wing views, please show me where I have stated ? explicitly or implicity ? any of the above.
>
> Philanthropists. Dead rich and therefore cannot be rabidly
> left wing. People who have earned their money fair and square
> unlike those unemployed scroungers and people who work in
> charities.
Again, please show me where I have stated ? explicitly or implicity ? any of the above.
>
> Alas one of the main characteristics of extreme right wingers
> is that they have only a passing acquaintance with knowledge
> and facts.
Unlike all those left-wingers who having had an often private or near private education followed by Oxbridge (Blair, Mandelson, Straw, Balls, Cooper, Harman, Burnham, Milliband E, Eagle A, Wilson, Benn AW, Milliband D, Twigg, Eagle M, Reeves, etc etc), pull the drawbridge up and leave the "poor" to suffer a "comprehensive education". After all, they know best.
>
> For example Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland,
> in a typical weaver's cottage with only one main room,
> consisting of half the ground floor which was shared with the
> neighboring weaver's family. The main room served as a living
> room, dining room and bedroom. He spent a great deal of his
> money on projects of social and education advancement because
> he realised how important these were for people who had had a
> poverty stricken start in life like himself.
>
> Lever was a member of the Congregationalist Church and applied
> its ideals in his business life. He couldn't be a Commie
> bastard like all these bishops today who slag off Cameron and
> Osborne's welfare policies because the Communist Party hardly
> existed then. He joined the Liberals.
>
> John Cadbury was another of these really left wing religious
> nutters. He was a Quaker. And we know what left wing people
> Quakers are, don't we? They rattle on about child poverty and
> crap like that.
>
> Elizabeth Fry was very influenced by the preaching of an
> American Quaker. By the time of the first World War almost all
> Quakers in Britain and many in the United States found
> themselves committed to what came to be called "liberalism,"
> which meant primarily a religion that deemphasized corporate
> statements of theology and was characterized by its emphasis on
> social action and pacifism.
And NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEY WERE A SOCIALIST! I put it in caps so Johnson, D can read it more easily. After all, he has cut and pasted the above from an American website. So much easier than formulating your own arguments, isn't it Davey Boy?
>
> So in short what extreme right wingers believe is. People with
> no money. Pile of shite who either go on the dole or scrounge
> other people's money in running charities. Philanthropists,
> money coming out their arses so they can't be commie toerags or
> be anything other than Tories lambasting the poor for moral
> lassitude and for bringing it on to themselves.
Again, please show me where I have stated ? explicitly or implicity ? any of the above.
>
> Except a lot of the cack that gets talked by extreme right
> wingers is bollocks.
And a lot of the cack that gets talked by extreme left wingers is hypocrisy in action.
>
> Hope this helps.
Ditto.
David Johnson wrote:
> Let me explain the approach to charity and philanthropy to you
> from an extreme right wing perspective:
>
> Charities like Oxfam, rabidly left wing. Why? Because the
> people in them are not rich and spend their time spending all
> the money being collected on expensive hotels, round the world
> trips and exclusive meetings with African dictators.
Again assuming that you believe I hold extreme right wing views, please show me where I have stated ? explicitly or implicity ? any of the above.
>
> Philanthropists. Dead rich and therefore cannot be rabidly
> left wing. People who have earned their money fair and square
> unlike those unemployed scroungers and people who work in
> charities.
Again, please show me where I have stated ? explicitly or implicity ? any of the above.
>
> Alas one of the main characteristics of extreme right wingers
> is that they have only a passing acquaintance with knowledge
> and facts.
Unlike all those left-wingers who having had an often private or near private education followed by Oxbridge (Blair, Mandelson, Straw, Balls, Cooper, Harman, Burnham, Milliband E, Eagle A, Wilson, Benn AW, Milliband D, Twigg, Eagle M, Reeves, etc etc), pull the drawbridge up and leave the "poor" to suffer a "comprehensive education". After all, they know best.
>
> For example Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland,
> in a typical weaver's cottage with only one main room,
> consisting of half the ground floor which was shared with the
> neighboring weaver's family. The main room served as a living
> room, dining room and bedroom. He spent a great deal of his
> money on projects of social and education advancement because
> he realised how important these were for people who had had a
> poverty stricken start in life like himself.
>
> Lever was a member of the Congregationalist Church and applied
> its ideals in his business life. He couldn't be a Commie
> bastard like all these bishops today who slag off Cameron and
> Osborne's welfare policies because the Communist Party hardly
> existed then. He joined the Liberals.
>
> John Cadbury was another of these really left wing religious
> nutters. He was a Quaker. And we know what left wing people
> Quakers are, don't we? They rattle on about child poverty and
> crap like that.
>
> Elizabeth Fry was very influenced by the preaching of an
> American Quaker. By the time of the first World War almost all
> Quakers in Britain and many in the United States found
> themselves committed to what came to be called "liberalism,"
> which meant primarily a religion that deemphasized corporate
> statements of theology and was characterized by its emphasis on
> social action and pacifism.
And NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEY WERE A SOCIALIST! I put it in caps so Johnson, D can read it more easily. After all, he has cut and pasted the above from an American website. So much easier than formulating your own arguments, isn't it Davey Boy?
>
> So in short what extreme right wingers believe is. People with
> no money. Pile of shite who either go on the dole or scrounge
> other people's money in running charities. Philanthropists,
> money coming out their arses so they can't be commie toerags or
> be anything other than Tories lambasting the poor for moral
> lassitude and for bringing it on to themselves.
Again, please show me where I have stated ? explicitly or implicity ? any of the above.
>
> Except a lot of the cack that gets talked by extreme right
> wingers is bollocks.
And a lot of the cack that gets talked by extreme left wingers is hypocrisy in action.
>
> Hope this helps.
Ditto.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Matey, matey, matey
"'Nearly every charity is run by left-leaning people. I mean charities that people support like Barnardo's and the like, not public schools that have charitable status.'"
"I don't think too many of the great philanthropists: Carnegie, Leverhulme, Cadbury, Fry even Bill Gates would have described themselves as left wing."
!wink! !wink!
"I don't think too many of the great philanthropists: Carnegie, Leverhulme, Cadbury, Fry even Bill Gates would have described themselves as left wing."
!wink! !wink!
Public relations...
Carnegie only got involved in the helping others business as PR after helping to murder strikers at his steelworks after they striked due to the exploitation and then after the Johnstown dam disaster caused by him and his little club of other bottomfeeders.
Funny thing about the great and the good is that they never consider not paying tax to be morally wrong and try to justify that their social reponsilibilties are met by charities or projects they set up which is nothing more than a big ego trip for them (also tax deductable I imagine)
Saying that gotta hand it to bill gates though even though he hasn't exactly left himself short of cash.
Funny thing about the great and the good is that they never consider not paying tax to be morally wrong and try to justify that their social reponsilibilties are met by charities or projects they set up which is nothing more than a big ego trip for them (also tax deductable I imagine)
Saying that gotta hand it to bill gates though even though he hasn't exactly left himself short of cash.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
"Carnegie only got involved in the helping others business as PR after helping to murder strikers at his steelworks after they striked due to the exploitation and then after the Johnstown dam disaster caused by him and his little club of other bottomfeeders."
I am not condoning any of his activities in dealing with strikers.
However with regard to a PR job that you refer to, I suspect that the steelworkers strike you reference was in 1891-2 after he had published two years earlier The Gospel of Wealth, in which he asserted that all personal wealth beyond that required to supply the needs of one's family should be regarded as a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the community. In addition his philanthropy predated the events you reference.
The sale of Carnegie Steel in 1901 allowed him to implement that, big time.
Before his death in 1919, Carnegie donated $350 million to hundreds of organizations and individuals around the world. He funded universities, donated $60 million to establish more than 2,800 libraries and established pensions for professors and the workers in his mills. He poured more than $25 million into peace efforts and demonstrated his love for music by constructing New York?s Carnegie Hall and donating more than 7,000 organs to churches. This must be the equivalent of many billions in current terms.
Lot of PR!
I am not condoning any of his activities in dealing with strikers.
However with regard to a PR job that you refer to, I suspect that the steelworkers strike you reference was in 1891-2 after he had published two years earlier The Gospel of Wealth, in which he asserted that all personal wealth beyond that required to supply the needs of one's family should be regarded as a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the community. In addition his philanthropy predated the events you reference.
The sale of Carnegie Steel in 1901 allowed him to implement that, big time.
Before his death in 1919, Carnegie donated $350 million to hundreds of organizations and individuals around the world. He funded universities, donated $60 million to establish more than 2,800 libraries and established pensions for professors and the workers in his mills. He poured more than $25 million into peace efforts and demonstrated his love for music by constructing New York?s Carnegie Hall and donating more than 7,000 organs to churches. This must be the equivalent of many billions in current terms.
Lot of PR!
Re: Gentleman
Check this out..http://history1800s.about.com/od/organi ... e-1892.htm
I've never heard of his gospel of wealth which by the the dates you've stated make it even hypocritical considering he was spouting that before this incident and general practices he had instigated via the man he employed to improve his profit margins.
As for the Johnstown disaster http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/history.html
So considering how much blood this man had on his hands some libraries and other things which can proudly have his name on it in a effort to rebrand himself isn't exactly selfless.
Gotta say this copy pasting and Internet searching can make anyone look mighty clever, I should start using this on a regular basis.
I've never heard of his gospel of wealth which by the the dates you've stated make it even hypocritical considering he was spouting that before this incident and general practices he had instigated via the man he employed to improve his profit margins.
As for the Johnstown disaster http://www.jaha.org/FloodMuseum/history.html
So considering how much blood this man had on his hands some libraries and other things which can proudly have his name on it in a effort to rebrand himself isn't exactly selfless.
Gotta say this copy pasting and Internet searching can make anyone look mighty clever, I should start using this on a regular basis.