We Deserve Queen’s Award For Industry Says Housing Boss Currently Evicting The Sweet’s Way Families

sweetsway1Housing activists fighting evictions are ‘ludicrous’ and ‘we shouldn’t worry too much about them’ say out of touch housing association bosses defending regeneration schemes which are forcing people out of their homes.

The astonishing comments form part of a feature on London’s growing housing movement which Inside Housing published on their website last week.  The largely positive piece highlighted the anger created by the desperate shortage of social housing in the capital and told the stories of the tenants, homeless people, squatters and frontline housing workers who are fighting back.

Unfortunately it also featured outbursts from whining housing association bosses who complain that social media means that they are now being held accountable for the things that they do.  It’s not fair they say, with the boss of  Notting Hill Housing Association, Kate Davies, even claiming they deserve a ‘pat on the back’ and the ‘Queen’s award for industry’ for all their tireless work decanting and evicting families from their homes.

Davies is in charge of the Sweet’s Way housing estate in Barnet where, as Inside Housing point out, 142 former military homes now mostly containing low income families are being replaced by a redevelopment in which just 59 new properties will be ‘affordable’.  And affordable means rents that could be as high as 80% of those in the private sector, meaning few can really afford them.  None of the new homes built will be available for ‘social rent’, the kind of low but still substantial rents that used to be normal in housing association and council properties.  The current residents who are set to lose their homes have launched a furious fight back but Davies implies she doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about.  She must think we’re fucking idiots.

Simon Dow, boss of the Guinness Partnership, is equally unrepentent.  He concedes his organisation has some responsibility to explain to current tenants ‘where they fit into’ regeneration plans – yet the reality, and problem, is that many don’t fit into these plans at all, such as the Guiness tenants on the Loughborough Estate in Brixton who are facing imminent eviction.  But Dow says he is ‘less interested’ in the views of those not from the estate, meaning the housing campaigners who have worked alongside those facing the loss of their homes to try and stall and prevent evictions.  It is this kind of social solidarity that concerns Dow who concludes that if this militancy amongst tenants spreads throughout the sector then they might have to worry about whether what they are doing is a good idea.

And one of the things they are doing is paying themselves huge sums of money.  In 2012/13 Simon Dow was paid over a quarter of a million pounds.  You read that right – a quarter of a fucking million pounds.  Enough to buy a new home every year.  Kate Davies, of the Notting Hill Housing Association was paid just short of £200,000.  Is it any wonder that they are so out of touch and aloof from the people they are paid with both tax payer’s and tenant’s money to house?

If Davies and Dow actually lived on the estates they are currently demolishing then they might have some understanding of the utter devastation that eviction, homelessness or forced relocation can cause to the lives of already struggling families.  They might realise that one fucking eviction is one too many, and that the chronic lack of social housing means the situation is now at breaking point.  Instead they whinge about government funding cuts whilst still drawing huge wages and complain about tenants being too uppity and not understanding the challenges poor housing bosses face.  Their only glimmer of dissent has been to team up with the other villains in this story – property developers – to join the Homes for Britain campaign, a shoddy front aiming to use the housing crisis as an excuse to build more houses for rich people.

If you find yourself calling riot police on housing campaigners, or using bailiffs to violently evict families from their homes, then you are on the wrong fucking side.  A five year could could tell you that.  The kids currently living in shitty temporary accommodation miles from friends and families know that.  There is no room for argument.  If housing association bosses really don’t like what the government is doing then good, it’s time they did something about it.  Whether that means getting out on the streets, or not co-operating, or even just paying themselves a bit less and paying a few people’s bedroom tax instead, is for them to decide.  Or perhaps they could get out of the way altogether, and let tenants, not highly paid bureacrats, manage the homes and communities they live in.

Visit the Radical Housing Network’s event calendar for details of upcoming protests, action and meetings and keep July 11th free for when Class War’s anti-gentrification Fuck Parade takes to the streets of Camden.

Class War will also be out on the streets tomorrow (Wednesday 27th May) on the state opening of Parliament.  Meet at 11am prompt in Parliament Square.  Later in the day the National Coalition against Fees and Cuts have called a march from 5pm – assemble in Trafalgar Square.

This blog has no sources of funding so here’s a quick reminder that you can help ensure it continues by making a donation.

Join me on facebook or follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

148 responses to “We Deserve Queen’s Award For Industry Says Housing Boss Currently Evicting The Sweet’s Way Families

  1. I think it would be best to cut out the middleman i.e the housing associations and let tenants run their own estates. All those wages could be reinvested into the estate instead. The situation that is now happening shows housing associations are no longer fit for purpose, they are just carrying out the govts social cleansing prog for them. People need to feel safe in their homes and communities for a decent society to evolve.

    • Practically, even in a housing cooperative scenario some paid staff would be essential, as the sheer complexity and workload of day to day management and administration is a full-time job, however, that’s at housing officer and administration staff level, not middle, or upper management, which should be, as you suggest, completely in the hands of tenants.

      Things have become somewhat unreal in the past 20 years or so, with huge stock transfers from councils to housing associations, creating substantially sized housing associations, upon which CEO pay is based on capitation – the greater the number of tenancies, the greater the CEO’s pay – not that the workload of a CEO is dependent on the size of a housing association, being a fairy on a Christmas tree demands the same workload whether it’s on your cheap plastic tree in the corner of the room, or the gigantic Norway Spruce in Trafalgar Square.

      Amalgamations based on the dubious notion of economies of scale have seen many smaller, (and arguably more susceptible to tenant democracy) housing associations ‘merge’ (often more of a shotgun wedding) to become monolithic organisations distant and disconnected from the people whose homes they manage, more afraid of government bodies than they are of the people who rent their homes from them.

      Tenants are the only people who can manage the homes they live in, and it is they who should be on the committee of management making the important decisions that affect their lives.

  2. Too Many Slavery Collaborators like the SilentMajority the Slavery
    Loving Majority in this Country

    The Right to a Place of Residence is a Basic Human Right

    Stuff Thatcherism

  3. Seems to me that all Government Departments have an Agency to which fees are being paid on top of the Government Agency for example, DWP – Maximus, Working Links, Learn Direct etc. HMRC – Concentrix being paid to check working tax credit/child tax credit – who only get paid if they can reduce the claimant’s entitlement. Therefore why have the Housing Department, Job Centre Plus, DWP, HMRC and pay all of these Agencies on top. So are the Government Departments not doing their job? Sick of the whole blooming lot of them.

  4. overburdenddonkey

    they suspend reality to claim people can move elsewhere, not even counting the devastating impacts, fragmentation of families and communities, there is no where else to go….as if there is a choice….behaviourism sucks, it treats people in a vile inhuman way…

  5. The perfect storm for a the emergence of a strong man, a Pyrrhic victory for the inclusive brigade and the pink Utopians.

  6. I thought housing associations were put in place to assist tenants and give them a voice regarding their individual homes and environment. Supposedly better than renting from the Council. It is shocking that these tenants can be evicted and their homes sold off to the highest bidder.

  7. GEOFF REYNOLDS

    “YOUR CHANCE TO IDENTIFY A GOVERNMENT MURDERER”

    https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/letter-to-the-icc-at-the-hague-re-mistreatment-of-the-disabled-and-sick?bucket=38fb&source=facebook-share-button&time=1431616166

    Dear Mrs. Fatou Bensouda

    We are aware that Mr Samuel Miller has written to you to ask if it possible to file an ICC complaint against several British Ministers—namely, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, and Maria Miller for their role in the draconian welfare reforms and the resultant deaths of our society’s most vulnerable.

    We, the undersigned, are adding our voices to Mr Miller’s request for answers to the following questions:

    Are austerity deaths of the sick and disabled in the U.K. considered a crime against humanity by the ICC?

    Would the UNCRPD be taken into consideration by the court?

    Do you believe that the sick and disabled of Britain have a justiciable ICC case?

    ……………….”PUT IAIN DUNCAN SMITH’S HEAD IN A NOOSE”

  8. GEOFF REYNOLDS

    “PUT SMITH WHERE HE DESERVES TO BE”

  9. Jim Morrison Mojo rising

    If you’s put as much effort into finding work as you do Typing on here, you might be in a, erm JOB ? just a thought. The day’s of living the High life on a Giro while the rest of the country goes to work are gone!! you Can’t be that poor and Reliant on food banks if you have money for an internet enabled device, how and why folk choose to live on 100 quid a week is beyond me, spend that on a night out AND MORE.

    • overburdenddonkey

      jim
      giro…?? over 8m in work poverty and on benefits…or as properly known subsidized employers/employment, coz of the shit wages paid…million’s of mortgage payers on subsidized mortgages by keeping wages/inflation, interest rates very low to benefactor city of ldn and right wing voters…a policy that is forcing many thousands out of their homes, house and brownfield land prices through the stratosphere…and you’ve the audacity to gloat about your own personal wastefulness shame on you…!

    • GEOFF REYNOLDS

      …………i worked from age eleven till an unfortunate accidenr at work some thirty years later.
      My disability is physical, unlike yours, mental……………….

      I have been living on the meagre sum of £33 per week for eighteen months and the neighbours let me connect to their internet for free.

      Disability hatred is not a crime, more of a sporting challenge aimed at the most vulnerable by those in a more superior position.

      Your ignorance must be applauded as you obviously voted for the cuts aimed at those at the begging bowl of society, rather than the thieves that pay you to vent your frustration against opposition.

      You hide your name whilst i do not.
      Are you so ashamed to put your name to your remarks?

    • Another Tory shill, would that be Roger under another name? Remember guys, don’t feed the troll.

    • Another Fine Mess

      I wouldn’t bother…..I think we’ve had visits from this idiot before.

    • ur a presumptious little fool, might it not occur to that tiny brain in your head that people do spend time looking for work and that the devices they use to access the internet could be those in public library’s

      no one was or is living the highlife on a giro each week,

    • Mojo:- They do say Ignorance is bliss. (Referring to your good self, of course).

    • Jim Morrison M r – the plural of “you” is “you”, not “you’s”. If you put as much effort into your education as you did insulting people, you would know that. Also, the plural of “day” is not “day’s” but days. And I think when you typed “spend that on a night out AND MORE” you meant to say “I spend that AND MORE on a night out”, as the incorrect syntax gives the claim a totally different meaning. Please, spend some of your earned cash on some individual tuition.

      • FJCP – Like it.

      • Fellow – In fact “youse” (the spelling is not relevant as it’s primarily verbal) is a widely used English dialect word for the plural of “you”. Perhaps you need to widen your perceptions a little… just within the UK would be a start!

      • Fellow – I suggest that you come here to Glasgow and criticise people for putting an “s” on the end of “you”. I’m sure you will get a loving kiss!

        • pt – I’m already in Scotland (and not too far from Glasgow), where the use of “youse” is commonplace in speech, and I know it is commonly used in England as well, but not among those who are well educated in the use of the English language, and not common in written language at all, unless it is in quotes. By the way, I also know what a Glasgow kiss is!

          • ps I don’t criticise those around me who use “youse”, because they are not attacking the unemployed as that unpleasant idiot was, and I don’t criticise those who use “youse/you’s” on here unless they are trolls.

            • Fellow – You need to learn two things:
              1) It’s more rational and effective to criticise the points you disagree with rather than ones you don’t.
              2) Just because you disagree with somebody doesn’t make them a troll.

              P.S. You still have some questions to answer on the May 19 thread.

              • pt – my point to jm m was: People who live in the glass house of semi-literacy shouldn’t come on a blog throwing verbal stones. That person was very obviously a troll and recognised as such by most others on this blog (except, of course, for you).
                The above answers your second point, but please clarify your first one, as I fail to see any rationality or effectiveness underpinning it.
                PS I have no intention of replying any further to you on the 19th May post.

                • pat testing

                  “PS I have no intention of replying any further to you on the 19th May post.”
                  Why?

                • pat testing

                  I guess you don’t want to say why you won’t answer, so I’ll tell you why…… It’s because you CAN’T answer the question about whether you think every person who lived more than 2000 years ago is being punished forever in hell for not believing in Christ!

                  There’s a fundamental difference between science and religion (and is the reason why one of them is dying), which is that one can admit and embrace being wrong, the other can’t.

                • Evo Looshon

                  What you saying pat? That the Earth is only 2,000 years old!?

                • Evo – Did you know that the bible says Noah was 950 years old when he died? Personally I think it was just a typo and they meant 95.

    • Bbernadette H

      Jim M, People are strange!!!!

      • pt: in answer to your “Why”, I have your answer: “I can read your bible any time I want, so that makes your mind (and any discussion with you) completely irrelevant.”
        Christianity is far from dying. Christ is eternal, and his followers are immortal. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” – Revelation 1:8
        The bible does not say that those who lived before Christ was on earth are being punished for ever in hell. Those biblical prophets who predicted the coming of the Messiah certainly did not believe they were destined for hell.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science:
        “According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[6] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[7] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[7] 62% in Medicine,[7] 54% in Economics[7] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[7]”

        • PS – You still haven’t clarified your first point – is that because you are unable to do so?

        • Precisely! As I said, if you only repeat what’s in your bible then your opinion IS irrelevant. However, as you correctly pointed out, your bible doesn’t say whether those people who lived before Christ are suffering everlasting punishment for not believing in Christ. What do you think? Are they?

          Which first point did you think was not clear?

          • pt “Precisely” – Then why are you complaining that I didn’t reply to you??? …”What do you think? Are they?” – I shouldn’t think so – “The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.” Psalm 103:8 – but then, since that’s my opinion backed up by a biblical quote, my opinion on that will be also irrelevant to you.
            “Which first point did you think was not clear?”
            Um, the first one which you made in you list of the two things which I apparently need to learn:
            “Fellow – You need to learn two things:
            1) It’s more rational and effective to criticise the points you disagree with rather than ones you don’t.”
            Please give an example of me criticising the points with which I don’t disagree.

            • Fellow – Previously you were VERY clear that Christians go to heaven and everybody else is punished in hell, but it’s very nice that you’ve changed your mind and you now think the millions of people who lived before Christ are having a lovely time in heaven instead. However, I was just wondering, does that include all the mass murderers, genocidal kings, etc? I was also wondering if your god has any other categories of exception, such as people who never heard of Christ, or who have mental health problems, or who have been brainwashed from childhood to believe in another god, or who live in societies where they would be killed for believing in Christ?

              You said “the plural of “you” is “you””…… then you agreed that in your own locality and elsewhere in the UK it’s often not.

              • pt – I can’t say for sure on things which are not mentioned in the bible, therefore I cannot give you a definite answer on these, just as I did not give you a definite answer on those who lived before Christ was on earth – after all, before that time, the word “Christian” hadn’t even been invented. Personally, I believe, and this is my personal belief which is not mentioned in the bible but which would make sense, that everyone throughout the world has a revelation of Christ at some time in their life, whether it is at the point of death, just before death or long before death, and that there are those who will reject him even at the point of death (very wicked people), and those who will accept him (most people, who are not very wicked). There are also those who have committed the unpardonable sin (a form of blasphemy), and there is no hope for them at all. It would also make sense if those who lived before Christ’s earthly existence had the same experience, since Christ is eternal, but obviously none of them are here to tell of that experience.

                “You said “the plural of “you” is “you””…… then you agreed that in your own locality and elsewhere in the UK it’s often not.”
                The correct plural of “you” is “you”, regardless of whether in speech many people use “youse”. I agreed that many people around me and elsewhere used “youse”, but I did not agree that it was correct, and certainly not used in most forms of written English. I pointed out why I corrected jmmr and not anyone else who used it either in written or spoken form.

                • Every person in the world throughout history has had a revelation of Christ, and nobody except you has ever realised it before? That’s truly remarkable! All those apostles, saints, religious scholars and luminaries through the centuries must have been very unobservant not to have noticed, and I bet they’re up in heaven right now, kicking themselves that they didn’t spot it. This is so important that you really must write a new chapter for the bible. What are you going to call it?

                  Regarding the unpardonable sin of blasphemy you mentioned, I’ve always found it odd that the bible says god will forgive anything done to other people (presumably including genocide, murder, torture, rape, etc.) but he will NEVER forgive anybody who is rude about him. Has god got a bit of an ego problem?

                • Jesus H!"£$%^& Christ!!

                  The one unpardonable sin is “talking the Lord’s name in vain” – Jesus H!”£$%^& Christ!! You only need to have ever banged your finger on a hammer, stubbed your toe, got caught in a traffic jam, … to join Maggie Thatcher, Working Links ‘consultants’ and assorted other evil entities in spending the rest of Eternity Burning in Hell!! Jesus H!”£$%^& Christ!!

                • Jesus H!”£$%^& Christ!! – You just pointed out something I never thought of before. If somebody is named Jesus (many people in some countries are), then will they and all their friends and family get everlasting punishment in hell for taking the Lord’s name in vain?

                • caliper – the one unpardonable sin is not what you and others have claimed – if you read the bible you will see what that is – I am not going to enlighten you. I didn’t say that my theory was fact, just that it was what I believe (perhaps believe is too strong a word), what I THINK might be the case.

                • You think it’s enlightenment??? That’s a joke! Anyway you don’t need to…… your bible says your god will never forgive blasphemy against the ‘holy spirit’ (i.e. himself), and of course everything written in the bible is true, isn’t it? Do you also agree with the bible that the world is about 6000 years old?

    • ps pt calling yourself caliper instead of pat testing in an attempt to avoid admitting that I had demonstrated that I did not need to learn the two things which you said I needed to learn…. nice try.

      • pt – the bible says that before God said “Let there be light” etc “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” – Genesis 1:2. The bible does not say how long the earth lay “without form, and void”, with darkness “upon the face of the deep”, therefore the bible does not claim that the earth did not exist before the six day event which the bible terms creation.

        • Errrrrmmm… you missed the point spectacularly. The question was about the biblical chronology of the age of the world (i.e. from ‘creation’ to now), not the supposed creation time.

          The logon change was nothing to do with you. Sorry to dent your ego.

          • pt – “Errrrrmmm… you missed the point spectacularly. The question was about the biblical chronology of the age of the world (i.e. from ‘creation’ to now), not the supposed creation time.”
            I’m afraid I’m still missing the point – are you saying do I agree that life began on earth at the time the bible said it did? My answer is “YES!”

            “The logon change was nothing to do with you. Sorry to dent your ego.”
            Obviously you can’t bear to dent your ego by admitting that I did not need to learn the two things which you claimed I did ie horror of horrors, you were wrong.

            • Sigh!…… No, I’m asking if you agree that about 6000 years have passed since then, which is why I said “…about 6000 years old?”. You can make that plus or minus a few thousand years if it helps!

              • pt – I haven’t bothered to check – if the bible makes it approx 6k yrs then yes. My question to you about johnny banning you has prompted me to ban myself from replying to you further in these pointless exchanges. You may not be able to find better uses for your time than this, but I consider my time to be a precious resource, and I have wasted enough of it thus far in these meandering discussions which include you claiming I was wrong while denying (via ignoring) the fact as demonstrated by me that you were wrong about something. TTFN

                • pt – PS TTFN as used by me means “ta ta for now” as it originally meant and not anything obscene or containing a swear word. Just thought I’d clarify that before signing off from our conversation.

                • Fellow – These are all closely related questions, in that they go to the fundamental truth, or lack of it, of Christian teachings.

                  So if you agree that it’s been about 6000 years since life was created, do you think the results of carbon-14 dating have all been falsified, or that the whole concept of radioactive decay is wrong? Or do you have some other explanation?

                • ps pt – I’m bypassing my self-imposed ban on replying to you this one time to answer your “how long has live been on earth according to the bible?” – I have realised that the bible cannot possibly claim that life on earth is only 6k years old, because that would mean that Adam, who the bible said lived for 930 years, would form a large part timewise (about a sixth) instead of a relatively short but fundamental part of the history of life on earth according to the bible.

                • So your argument for 6000 years not being a sensible age for the Earth is that Adam lived for 930 years? Errrrr… you don’t do irony, do you?

                • Most creationists (such as you) put the age of the Earth at approximately 5000 to 10000 years. Weirdly, that biblical calculation is based on exactly the same reason which you think proves it isn’t! Normal, non-hypocritical people agree that it’s about 4.5 billion years old, and life began >2.5 billion years ago.

                  You obviously disagree with both, so how old do you think it is? I hope you realise that you’re going to have to rewrite the bible AND many thousands of scientific texts!

      • regarding blasphemy, I think, and this is my personal opinion, which is also not mentioned in the bible, but which would make sense, it is possible that certain extremely wicked actions have a form of unpardonable blasphemy inherent in them, and they also are unpardonable.

        • Your personal opinion isn’t required, because your bible does say very clearly in several places that your god will NEVER forgive blasphemy against the ‘holy spirit’ (i.e. himself). I was just pointing out that you were wrong, that’s all.

        • “So your argument for 6000 years not being a sensible age for the Earth is that Adam lived for 930 years? Errrrr… you don’t do irony, do you?”
          Errrrr – my argument is that the bible does not say that the earth is 6k approx years old, therefore there is nothing to argue about re carbon-14 dating (whatever that is) estimating it at something other than 6k.

        • pt – I am not most creationists, and it doesn’t fit in with the ages of the people listed in the bible to have it at 10k yrs max, as there would only be about the first 10 people who are listed in the bible as having lived whose lives were covered by the bible. I neither know nor care how old the earth is. I don’t know why you would assume that everyone who agrees that LIFE on earth, which is what you have stressed you are arguing about, has been around for about 4.5 billion years is both normal and non-hypocritical. It is a very strange assumption, but then logic is very patently not your strong suit, and human psychology is also clearly not your forte.
          As I said before, my time is precious, and this is I hope the last of my replies to you. Once more, ta ta for now.

          • ps before the fall, the bible tells us that adam was able to eat from the tree of life and live for ever, but as he disobeyed god, he died within what is to god a day. “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” Psalm 90:4. 930 years seems a lot to us but it is a big come-down from eternity.
            “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Genesis 2:17.

          • sorry, correction, “4.5 billion years” should read “>2.5 billion years”

          • “I neither know nor care how old the earth is.”

            In fact your bible details quite accurately how old the Earth is. Some details can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism and there are countless other explanations on the web of you search. However, if you neither know nor care whether your bible is true, then you are making some progress! It is but a small step further to admit that it’s clearly NOT true.

            By the way, what do you think Noah ate in order to live for 950 years?

          • Yet again the religious fundamentalist is unable to sustain any discussion about their faith. They ALWAYS either retreat into sullen silence or resort to a violent response.

            • http://www.christianpost.com/news/does-believing-in-inerrancy-require-one-to-believe-in-young-earth-creationism-114464/
              “The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.”

              And by the way, pt, you failed to demonstrate why everyone who is secular/believes in evolution/old earth is both normal and non-hypocritical. What about those atheistic, evolution, old-earth believers who commit heinous crimes for which they have yet been undetected and uncaught? Isn’t your assertion rather typical of the sweeping generalisations which you claim exist primarily in religion?

              What did Noah eat to get to the age he reached? Probably the same as you will eat until you get to the age at which you meet your maker as pre-ordained for you by the Christian God – food.

              This is hopefully my last reply to you.

              • ps but of course I do personally think that you will receive a revelation of Christ and accept Christ ie become a Christian eventually, even if it as late as at the point of death, and go to heaven, where you will laugh at the silly arguments you used to make when you were on this earth, if you can even remember them by then…

                • I rejected Christian teachings as laughable when I was about 8 years old, so I doubt that I will forget, until death or dementia erase my memories.

              • ““The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years.”

                So which are you? How old do YOU think it is? Either you accept the truth of the chronology clearly stated in the bible, or you don’t.

                The hypocrisy I was referring to is that of people (like you?) who refuse to accept the rational, scientific process which makes your bible look ridiculous, yet are very happy to accept and use all the medical and technological benefits of that same process.

              • P.S. I note that you said “What did Noah eat to get to the age he reached?”. Why not say he lived 950 years? The reason….. because you know it’s completely ridiculous too, but you’re a hypocrite and you can’t admit it.

                • pt – I believe the earth is old, as the link to the writings of someone who has thought much harder about it than me (and than you) demonstrates is not incompatible with a belief in the infallibility of the bible. Obviously you have not bothered to read the contents of the link.
                  I have already posted a link to a list of prominent scientists who are/were also self-alleged Christians – are they also “hypocrites”?
                  Of course I believe that Noah lived for 950 years, and Adam for 930, otherwise I wouldn’t have argued that as one of my reasons for believing that the earth is older than several thousand years. As I pointed out already, just under a thousand years is a big comedown from eternity, which they would have had if it had not been for the Fall. Since I also believe that they would otherwise have lived for ever, why would I not believe that they lived for just under a thousand years?
                  http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-did-man-live-longer-before-flood-of-noah-than-after-it.html
                  I would not be a Christian if I did not believe in the supernatural, and God’s power can trump the natural benefits of science, but God is not against scientific discoveries.
                  For some reason you seem to think that if you do not believe in the supernatural, no-one else genuinely does or should either, and nor should they benefit from the natural.

              • I asked how old you think the earth is, and all you can do is state the bleeding obvious and say “old”! Would you like to try again and give a slightly more specific answer? If (as you said before) you don’t know and don’t care, then why are you continuing to argue for the biblical view?

                I did read the link, but you didn’t write it, and unless you’re willing to say that you agree with everything in it then there’s little point in me disputing it with you. Are you willing to say that?

                Of course some scientists are/were Christians, but nowadays they’re becoming very hard to find! I don’t know of any scientists who professed biblical infallibility whilst agreeing with the methods which disprove biblical infallibility. Do you? If there are then they most certainly are/were hypocrites.

                There’s nothing wrong with believing in the supernatural, but two incompatible accounts of reality cannot both be true. No matter which you think “trumps” the other.

                I’m presuming that you also agree with the biblical view that your god created the planet and all life on it at about the same time, and all the current scientific data about evolution, palaeontology and geology are wrong. Is that so?

                • I believe in what it says in the link as far as I understand and am interested in the matter, but arguments such as this do not really interest me and I would rather believe in that argument than the scientific arguments about the earth’s age since as I said I neither know nor care. I don’t know why I would be required to say that I believe everything in the link in order for you to argue against the argument in the link, since the link contents are an argument in themselves.
                  Many people nowadays accept and trust scientific explanations of things as opposed to biblical explanations of things unthinkingly, unquestioningly and with the blind faith which, paradoxically, aetheists claim is exclusive to religion.
                  It is true that the creationist belief is currently unfashionable, but if a thousand people believe something and one person believes its opposite, the fact that the one person has been outvoted does not make that person wrong.
                  My reference to God’s power trumping science refers to the power of the supernatural over the natural. It does not claim that both a supernatural explanation of something and a natural explanation are true.
                  “I don’t know of any scientists who professed biblical infallibility whilst agreeing with the methods which disprove biblical infallibility. Do you?”
                  No, that would make no sense, but I do know of scientists who profess a belief in the supernatural creationist origin of the world as opposed to the big bang and evolution view of the world, and obviously they do not agree that scientific methods disprove the supernatural creationist origin of the world.
                  Obviously, I am not a scientist, but I believe in the bible and I therefore believe those scientists who claim that science and creationism are not incompatible, since those who have the opposing view have in my opinion no better arguments – but then, as I said, I am not a scientist and have limited understanding of such things and could not possibly write the article myself (which apparently would also exclude you from arguing here against it).
                  The link below is to an article posted by one such scientist. Yes, the list of famous creationist scientists is of past ones, but so what?

                  http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/
                  In the above article:
                  “One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books—if they are creationists, they are not true scientists! In a Letter-to-the-Editor, Steven Schafersman, of Rice University’s Department of Geology, says, for example: “I dispute Henry Morris’s claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists’ with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one’s training or the identity of one’s employer” (Geotimes, August 1981, P. 11).

                  Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean “knowledge” or “truth,” or “facts,” as we used to think, but “naturalism” or “materialism,” according to this new definition. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity, and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.”

                • This is getting to the fundamental point – You are using “belief” and “argument” interchangeably, when they are far from synonymous. Do you believe that everything written in the bible is true, irrespective of evidence either way, or can you present arguments and evidence that it is all true? If your belief is blind and ignorant then that’s OK, though it makes you a fool. If you think what’s written in the bible can be argued, but you don’t have arguments which you understand yourself, then you are both a fool and a hypocrite.

                  The reason why most people accept that scientific thinking is predominantly right is because they use the products of scientific thinking every day – AS DO YOU. Therein lies the hypocrisy of your stance thus far.

                  By the way, the author of the article you cited (Henry Morris) was not a scientist, so I will ignore it as support for your point.

              • P.S. If you think both Adam and Noah lived for over 900 years purely because your omnipotent god said “make it so”, they why not just say that instead of this silly guff about a tree of life, which supposedly one ate from and the other didn’t?

                • pt – neither Adam nor Noah were allowed to eat from the tree of life and life for ever, Adam because of his sin and being driven out of the garden of eden, and Noah because he never had the chance in the first place because of the sins of his progenitors.
                  I pointed out that if I believe that Adam would have had immortality (from the supernatural source of the fruit of the tree of life) if he had not disobeyed God, then believing in 930 natural years is nothing by comparison in terms of belief.

                • Durrrrr… Noah supposedly lived longer than Adam, so whatever Adam ate made no difference. Try maths and logic some time!

                • pt – oh right, so the only people who can write articles about creation/evolution which quote scientists who are also creationists and give examples of those who support/supported creation are scientists? The ICR’s research team is listed as:
                  Dr. Jason Lisle
                  Director of Research
                  Astronomy, Apologetics, Physics;
                  Dr. Tim Clarey
                  Research Associate
                  Geology, Dinosaurs;
                  Dr. Vernon R. Cupps
                  Research Associate
                  Nuclear Physics, Physics;
                  Dr. Randy Guliuzza
                  National Representative
                  Human Body, Apologetics, Engineering Science;
                  Dr. Leo (Jake) Hebert III
                  Research Associate
                  Physics, the Ice Age, Problems with the Big Bang;
                  AND A FEW OTHERS WHICH I CAN’T BE BOTHERED CUTTING AND PASTING. There are also links near their names and photos in case you want to find out more about them.

                  “The reason why most people accept that scientific thinking is predominantly right is because they use the products of scientific thinking every day – AS DO YOU. Therein lies the hypocrisy of your stance thus far.”
                  Several of the products of scientific thinking used daily were invented or developed by creationist scientists.

                  “If you think what’s written in the bible can be argued, but you don’t have arguments which you understand yourself, then you are both a fool and a hypocrite.”
                  Then I suppose everyone who bows to popular opinion and believes unquestioningly in evolution without fully understanding all the arguments for it (and that’s many more people than the main proponents of evolution think there are) is also both a hypocrite and a fool; and you and very few others stand out amongst us all with your rationality, and perhaps you should be arguing with some of the above listed scientists instead of with me.
                  I suppose everyone who uses one kind of treatment for an illness as opposed to another treatment for an illness because they believe one doctor over another or because they know someone who’s been treated by either doctor, without quite understanding how the medicine or treatment works is also a fool.
                  Perhaps I am a fool to have argued with you thus far, but hereby ends such foolishness.

                • pt – I’m posting this further up in reply to your guff about maths and logic: Noah only lived 20 years longer than Adam, and I did say that NEITHER of them were allowed to eat from the tree of life.

                • You STILL don’t seem to know whether you simply believe that everything in the bible is true, or whether you have rational arguments that everything in it is true. Which is it?

                  You proved my point with your argument about doctors. It wouldn’t be because they know someone who was treated by that doctor, it would be because they know someone who was treated SUCCESSFULLY by that doctor. If the treatment was not successful then they wouldn’t choose that doctor (if they could help it). That’s EVIDENCE not BELIEF.

                  Most people have some understanding of evolution and the evidence for it (I know because I have discussed it frequently), so it’s not simply belief. Maybe you have no understanding of it, but don’t assume everybody is as ignorant as you.

              • P.S. I am a scientist and I understand many scientific principles in some detail. Those that I don’t understand, I take the trouble to read about. You could do the same……

                • You have obviously not taken the trouble to read the bible.
                  “We must not build on the sands of an uncertain and everchanging science…but upon the rock of inspired Scriptures.” Sir Ambrose Flemming, British electrical engineer and inventor, 1849-1945

                • Errrr…… the bible requires belief, not understanding. In fact I read quite a lot of the bible many years ago, and I have also read a lot ABOUT the bible, including from you!.

                • pt re the doctors I meant whether they were treated successfully or not – I am happy to be a “fool for Christ”. Whose fool are you?
                  “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18

                • You admit to being a fool who believes blindly in everything in the bible, and apparently have no interest outside its covers. I can’t argue with that.

                  I thought curiosity was something all humans have in common, but maybe people like you are the ‘exceptions that prove the rule’.

                • Fellow – Will you answer one other question for me, I’m rather curious…… When you were at school did you understand what you were taught about evolution but refused to accept it could be real, did you not understand it, or did you go to a school where it was not taught? Or something else?

                • I went to a state school where evolution was taught in a casual, presumptious way, and at the time I was not a Christian and I believed what my teachers told me, although I never gave it much thought. When I became a Christian in adulthood I took my teaching from God and His Word.

                • I’m a person who is curious about almost everything (which is probably why I chose scientific research as my career) so I hope you will humour this, even though it’s rather alien to you.

                  Most Christians I converse with say they have “always” been Christian. That’s patently not true, but as it doesn’t apply to you I’ll leave that aside. Can I ask how the transformation in your belief took place? Was it a sudden event, or a slow process? Was it something which occurred purely within your own mind, or was there an external ‘trigger’?

                • P.S. It seems that a fundamental difference between you and me is that as a child and an adult I ALWAYS gave what I was told considerable thought.

  10. why do you poor people have to go around being so bloody poor they should bring back the death penalty for the likes of you.

    • Why don’t u rich people fuck off and die?

    • Sorry, forgot to call u a Cunt, please forgive me.

    • The government has brought back the death penalty under the auspices of JSA sanctions – death by stress and starvation.

      • It is known that stress increases the level of cortisol in the bloodstream which increases the risk of a heart attack. It has now been found that cortisol increases the amount of middle-body ‘fat’ which is the worst place for the body to deposit fat as it increases the risk of illnesses such as heart disease, type two diabetes and cancer. JSA sanctions and stress are nothing but a slow death death sentence.

        • overburdenddonkey

          medic
          yes malnutrition, causes body stress, and emotional distress…T2D ineffective insulin, the fat deposits are visceral fats, the bodies mech to mop up high BG levels with excess insulin, the insulin cells cannot use in energy/cell membrane transportation, to muscles…cell insulin receptors are damaged via high energy demands and ie lack of efa’s in diet, poor diet…the perfect storm….middle body fats in men and upper in woman…
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_receptor

          • overburdenddonkey

            ps see how stress/distress homeostasis hormonal bio-feedback is actually beneficial short term to boost energy levels, physiological energy scavenger, in hunt for vitals of life… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol noradrenaline, adrenal stimulation…
            but then slowly damages body…perpetual highs and lows in unreliable energy supplies, then ‘make every effort’, mind over matter, system gradually crumbles under immense load’s…fruitless searches, tolls body and mind….

    • pt – Noah only lived 20 years longer than Adam, and I did say that NEITHER of them were allowed to eat from the tree of life.

      • In fact you said that Adam was able to to eat from it. Maybe it was a typo, but I thought that was just another of your random misinterpretations, just like your theory that the age of the Earth is neither thousands of years nor billions of years.

      • On reflection, it couldn’t have been a typo. You cited it in response to the silly idea that humans used to live for more than 900 years. If it wasn’t your reason, why did you mention it? Clearly you are as ignorant of what’s inside the bible as you are of what’s outside it!

        • I did say that “before the fall, the bible tells us that adam was able to eat from the tree of life and live for ever” ie God did not say that he was not to allowed to eat from it. I don’t know the technicalities of how often he would have eaten from the tree of life before the fall, or whether he ate at all from it before the fall. The bible tells us that the fruit of the tree of life contained the source of immortality, and that after the Fall Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden of Eden and were unable to eat from it: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
          Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Genesis 3:22-24
          Obviously, for the REST of Adam’s life AFTER the Fall, and for all of Noahs life, because ALL of Noah’s life came after the fall, they were unable to eat from the tree of life and live for ever, and they lived what to us are lengthy lives but what would have been apparent to them, particularly to Adam since he had once had the tree of life within his literal reach, a poor substitute for the blissful immortality of Eden.

          • If your bible doesn’t say whether Adam did or didn’t eat some magic fruit, then why did you argue that it had something to do with his supposed lifespan of >900 years?

            It’s this kind of rubbish which makes you fundamentalist Christians look a bit daft. As I said before, if you believe in an omnipotent god, what need is there of magic fruit to make somebody live for any length of time he/she chooses?

            • pt – I DID NOT say that eating or not eating the fruit had something to do with him living for over 900 years – just that although it seems a lot to us it was a bit come-down from the eternity which he would have had if he had not disobeyed God. For an alleged scientist you make considerable wrong leaps and wrong assumptions even from what someone has clearly written to a patently wrong deduction. Re your alleged proof that I had contradicted myself when I said only Christians go to heaven, I later said that I personally thought that almost everyone, including you, would have a personal revelation of Christ, even if it was as late as the point of death and accept him ie become a Christian, therefore your deduction about that is also wrong.

              • PS – God makes the fruit and the trees, and if the omnipotent God chooses to make the tree of life the source of immortality, so what? It doesn’t mean (another wrong assumption of yours) that He NEEDED to make the source of immortality the fruit of the tree of life

          • P.S. It would reduce the amount of tedious scrolling if you didn’t keep pasting big blocks of irrelevant drivel from the bible or elsewhere. You can just post a link instead, if you really have to.

          • Your logon name “Fellow JCP Sufferer/Customer” suggests that perhaps you live on benefits. If my taxes are paying for you to sleep late and do nothing except post religious drivel then I wouldn’t be very happy. Is that what you do?

            • pt – Johnny’s blog specifically and publicly verbally supports benefit claimants and is non-judgemental about their reliance on benefits. If you are not happy about having a lengthy argument with someone who is on benefits, then what are you doing here?
              There is no “perhaps” about it – I definitely live on benefits at the moment, although God has another plan for me not too far into the future, the details which I will not be disclosing to you. Unlike you, I use an honest and consistent logon name which reflects the way in which I relate to the blog poster and the commenters on the blog – I’m assuming you don’t actually use a caliper?
              You, not I, are the one who has persistently urged me to continue to reply to you, therefore you have caused the outpouring of “religious drivel”.
              Until banned by the blogger, I will continue to post “religious drivel”, which I consider relevant to my argument, and which you also consider relevant to it otherwise you wouldn’t try to pick holes in the bible quotations.
              I try to refrain from online arguments as I consider them pointless and a waste of my time which (whether or not I receive benefits) I consider to be precious. You obviously do not consider your time to be quite as valuable. I believe that you might be thus far be the person to whom I have made the most replies, as urged to do by you, and yet that is the very thing about which you are complaining.
              I am, however, thankful that you are at last “not very happy” with the continuation of this discussion, as I have been bored for longer by your comments.

              • I meant the paying of benefits rather than the discussion! I claim no benefits, so my time is mine to do with as I wish. In fact I work 12 to 16 hours a day. When I take a break during the day for coffee or food I often sit at the computer and read or write something. What do YOU do to contribute to society? Apparently I also pay for your time, so arguably your time is NOT yours to do with as you wish. Of course discussing the big issues of life in one’s SPARE time is a good thing.

                You didn’t say whether your ‘conversion’ was something which occurred purely within your own mind, or was there an external ‘trigger’.

                • pt – Again, you are on the wrong blog if you think I will agree with the “I’m a taxpayer and pay for your benefits and your time” argument. I don’t have to justify my claiming of benefits to you, or to prove that I am doing anything to contribute to society. You pay taxes because you have to. Those taxes cover many services which you currently use, some of which are of benefit to general society and some which you may need to use in the future (including (which is unthinkable to you) unemployment benefit or some kind of sickness or disability benefit). The fact that I demonstrate to the JCP’s satisfaction that am “actively seeking employment” currently entitles me to benefits, regardless of what I do with any time which is not used in jobseeking activity. Doubtless you agree with IDS, George Osborne, Camoron et al that those for whom there are insufficient jobs should be forced to do 35 hours per week “contributing to society”, but the Workfare programme which was supposed to make that happen never did quite get universally underway as George Osborne and the rest assured the likes of you/threatened the likes of me that it would.
                  Re your question about my conversion: A combination of both.

              • “I definitely live on benefits at the moment, although God has another plan for me not too far into the future, the details which I will not be disclosing to you.”

                Is that what you tell Jobcentre Plus too? I bet they love dealing with you!

                • pt – I tell the jobcentre whatever I need to tell them in order to continue to receive benefits – and I have disclosed neither the details of God’s future plan for me nor the existence of that plan with them, but since the completion of that plan will happen in the not too distant future they will learn of it soon enough.

                • pt correction: “the existence of that plan with them” should read “the existence of that plan to them”

    • pt – I agree with you that no-one has “always” been a Christian, as the bible says that “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
      Becoming a Christian is a conversion.
      Becoming a Christian was for me a relatively quick process, when I became aware that Jesus died for me and that God loved me and wanted to have a personal relationship with me.

      • “I tell the jobcentre whatever I need to tell them in order to continue to receive benefits”

        When I became unemployed a few years ago, I simply told the Job Centre the truth, but obviously your Christian morals are different from mine. They found me a badly paid and unpleasant factory job, but I took it and worked there for 6 months until I could find something better. The job was crap but the people there were honest, friendly and hard-working.

        Apparently scum like you will say anything in order to carry on sitting on your fat arse, endlessly quoting crap from the bible, rather than do some work. You’re claiming benefits until your god’s future plan happens??? What fucking hypocrisy and sloth!

      • “You pay taxes because you have to. ”
        You couldn’t be more fucking wrong, you lazy, hypocritical, pseudo-righteous cunt. I pay my taxes because I believe in a democratic, preferably socialist, society. I would happily pay more if it was spent where it’s needed (and not on WMD and parasitic tossers like you), so I give the difference to charities.

        • “”You pay taxes because you have to.”…..charities”
          I did advise you previously that if you descended into insults and swearing as you did in your arguments with obd my communication with you would cease, and I am actually relieved that it is now doing so. You are clearly a very unpleasant person who comes on blogs such as these purely to goad, insult and verbally abuse other commenters. I gave you the benefit of the doubt previously. When you were unemployed years ago there were obviously more jobs available and no threat of sanctions – telling them you did 34 hours of jobsearch instead of 35 would have no consequences – it’s easy to have the perfect morals which you obviously claim to possess when you have nothing to lose. I do apply for jobs and if the jobcentre “found” me an actual job as they did you, providing I was physically capable of it, I would take it.
          And this is most definitely my last reply to you.

          • You’re wrong yet again. It was 1984, and if you don’t know the significance of that period then look it up. It took me nearly 400 job applications before I found another job.

            How many job applications have you written and sent? How many jobs have you turned down because you’re not “physically capable of it”?

            You know I might even have believed what you say, but for the fact that you’re posting times show that you don’t get up until about 2pm! Go to fucking bed now and get up in morning and actually look for a fucking job!

          • I’ll be keeping an eye open for your posts in future, and I bet I don’t see many before 2pm! If you want to keep on scrounging then obviously you will tell lies to the Job Centre, because the truth is that you lie in bed most of the day, then spend most of the evening and night posting religious hypocrisy on blog sites.

            You are clearly literate and have some intelligence (albeit with some delusions about yourself and the world) so you are very capable of working. You also seem to forget that I live in the same area as you, so I KNOW what the job market is like here.

            • P.S. Note the time. It’s about 10:00am. I’ve been working since 5:30 and I’m just having a coffee break now. What have YOU been doing?

  11. overburdenddonkey

    https://archive.is/ldLxJ
    defending liars is now a matter of principle, it would seem…comments section well worth a look… the challenge fund fund has reached £21000 in a few hrs…

  12. Alistair Carmichael done so much more than lie.

    • overburdenddonkey

      yeah i know….malkies distraction was about shifting focus, it’s failed…

      • Wings Over Somerset

        Wee Nicola has now came out and admitted: “I will be limited the concessions a can wring oot o’ a majority Tory Government”. Can hear the cabers rattling up in Jockland.

        • overburdenddonkey

          wings
          but we already know this and have known this for some time, as there will be 450+mp’s determined to crush the snp…@ least now we have a strong voice and a foothold in WM, the people of scotland and the snp will build on this…watch this space….
          http://theorkneyvole.com/2015/05/27/crowdfunding-against-carmichael-raises-26-353-on-day-one-carmichaelmustgo/

          • Joanna Cherry QC (can’t be short of a bob or two) one of the new SNP cohort on the World at saying saying that she was “minded to vote with the Tories… the Devil is in the detail”. At least she in no keen on scrapping the ECHR: “why should we be the only country in Europe along with Belarus…” Re the Snooper’s charter: “We in the SNP would like to see the detail in the BIll before we make our minds up”

            • * World at One on Radio 4 that should be

            • overburdenddonkey

              listen to again fyi it’s aprox 23mins in after what sounds like owen jones?

            • Now the SNP’s justice spokesperson in Westminster Joanna’s bio doesn’t bode well: Described as a “feminist” and a former advocate depute (public prosecutor) , and is according the the Fat Fascist Alex Salmond “just the type of MP the SNP needs”

              • Wonder what will happen when the Tories introduce the Bill to remove housing benefits from the 18-21 age group – will the “devil be in the detail”… “and if the measure does genuinely offer help and support”. Don’t think these lawyer types can be trusted – they love to play around with words and bastardise the English language.

            • Joanna Cherry an over-privileged toff and like her former colleague and fellow over privileged toff and likewise former advocate depute Alistair Darling QC responsible for the prosecution, nay persecutions of the poor and disadvantaged. You won’t find any over-privileged toffs such as Joanna fucking Cherry behind bars. Very telling that she heads up the “Sex Crimes Unit”. What an an utter piece of shit!

    • Wings Over Somerset

      Wee Nicola has now came out and admitted: “It will be limited the concessions a can wring oot o’ a majority Tory Government”. Can hear the cabers rattling up in Jockland.

  13. Dear Jim ,you are far from the real Jim Morrison as ever could be ….aren’t you dear….and Mr smith ….you will die …and all you riches won’t savxe you.

    • totallygivenup

      thats why giderrs was crying at maggies funeral the realisation that death is the enevitable end for all of us,you cant take it with you damo

  14. GEOFF REYNOLDS

  15. I live off £30 a week hardship payments -VAT.
    Doubt the masters of austerity or shriekers for competition could or would want to compete at that level.

  16. GEOFF REYNOLDS

    What is the Queen’s Speech?

    The Queen’s Speech marks the formal opening of the UK Parliament, and is written by government minister’s to signal what policies it wants to implement over the year.

    The Queen delivers the speech in the House of Lords, even though what’s announced is for the House of Commons.

    The Queen enters with a posse of men in pompous red and gold outfits, tights and funny hats, and a big posh carpet is rolled out for her majesty to walk along until she reaches her gold throne.

    The event starts with ‘black rod’ – a man in black holding a black rod – walking out of the House of Lords into the House of Commons to bring the MPs in. Before he gets to the door it is shut in his face. He then knocks three times and then is let in, to symbolise the House of Commons independence from the monarchy.

    ……………………….”THE QUEENS SPEECH IS A NOD FROM THE INBREDS THAT IT IS ALRIGHT TO SHAFT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOTEM POLE OF LIFE, EVEN FURTHER”…………..

    “A RAT IN AN ERMINE COLLAR”

    • Dan Snow _ Historian

      It is not a “gold throne” at all. A little known historical fact is that the Queen actually sits on a heavily-disguised portable toilet. That is where the expression “on the throne” (having a dump) comes from.

  17. Priti Patel making herself at home imposing third world human rights abuses and poverty to the UK.

  18. What motivates Priti Patel – public humiliation that her family had to seek the charity, compassion and refuge of the British peoples.

  19. ian duncan smith

    wank

  20. Reblogged this on L8in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s