politics dammit!

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

politics dammit!

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

I will vote corbyn in the next election I meant

I spose it's got to be tried out before its scrapped

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
I will vote corbyn in the next election

I won't.

JoanOfArc wrote:
buy my fridge from a government owned company

You are obviously too young to remember the year long wait to get a telephone line. I worked for the government once and they are the most inefficient spendthrift bureaucratic luddite organisation I have ever had the misfortune to be involved with. My utopia is to close large chunks of the government down.

JoanOfArc wrote:
am I the only person that's frigging well sane and clear sighted in this country??

You're not. Sane nor clear sighted that is.

Parklife!

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
so, a universally popular idea with the masses would be great because then the main parties would have to adopt it. JUST LIKE THEY DID THE NHS.

Two of my ideas. Neither will be adopted because turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas either.

Quash The Quangos

Did you know there are nearly 1,200 unelected bodies with power over our lives? Why not scrap them and save billions?

Scrap The Pension Contribution

A third of council tax is spent providing for local government employees pensions who typically only make a 25% contribution, the rest is paid for by the working public. The same is true for national government. MPs not only get massive pension subsidies, but even get contribution made when they are booted out.

We pay thousands of pounds boosting the private pensions of highly paid medics and bureaucrats in the health service and likewise in education. Even worse, these pensions are not subject to the £1million pot limit imposed on those who have to fund their own pensions. These are people in highly paid secure employment whose nests are feathered by those who are eeking out a living and unable to generate their own pension.

A simple solution is to ensure that NO organisation can make a direct contribution to a pension, and it should be fully funded from salary. No tax dodging, no national insurance evasion. Would save billions.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

While I'm at it (sorry Tango, you won't like this!)...

Half The House

820 lords, 650 MPs. 120 ministers. Why so many? Couldn't we get by with half that number? Do the same with the London Assembly (25), Scottish Parliament (129), National Assembly of Wales (60), Northern Ireland Assembly (108) and every local council (63 in mine, likely to be the similar throughout the country). Not only do you save on their wages but you save on all the ancillary staff. And if it proves effective, half the numbers again. That what they did in the last department I worked in, shrunk from 24 to 3 people in one year. No one got replaced until I left as I did some productive work so they recruited three people offshore to replace me Anyway, for my department saving of about £2million/annum, billions saved if applied to the state.

Jules · The biggest Geldof fan in the world, bar none!

Ditch most of the Lords.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Jules wrote:
Ditch most of the Lords.

My ideas are gaining popularity already!

Jules · The biggest Geldof fan in the world, bar none!

But I'm voting Corbyn in the next GE. biggrin Wish it was very soon.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Jules wrote:
But I'm voting Corbyn in the next GE. Wish it was very soon.

I am leaving the country if he gets in. Don't know what the :D is about. I wish it was soon cos if they had the election tomorrow Labour would be obliterated. Averaging 10% down in all the polls (which generally overstate Labour support) with no prospect of a seat in Scotland, I suspect all the remaining Labour MPs in marginals would have to sign on the following Monday. They have nearly bankrupted the country twice in my lifetime, they ain't gonna get another chance. The young don't vote and the pensioners will remember the Seventies and the Bliar/Brown omnishambles when they put their cross on the ballot paper.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

I don't normally have a good word to say about him but fair play to Phil Collins who said he'd leave the country in 1997 if Labour were elected. He did.

David Bowie did likewise. Heroes.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

The Champagne/Cocaine Socialists...

Harold Wilson and James Callaghan both sent their children to private schools. Tony Crosland and Shirley Williams, the architects of Labour's comprehensive schools policy, both went private. Diane Abbott...

Pulling up the ladder, so they can maintain the public school elite. Socialist scum. The lot of them.

Tango · In the Long Grass

ArrGee wrote:
While I'm at it (sorry Tango, you won't like this!)...
Half The House
820 lords, 650 MPs. 120 ministers. Why so many? Couldn't we get by with half that number? Do the same with the London Assembly (25), Scottish Parliament (129), National Assembly of Wales (60), Northern Ireland Assembly (108) and every local council (63 in mine, likely to be the similar throughout the country). Not only do you save on their wages but you save on all the ancillary staff. And if it proves effective, half the numbers again. That what they did in the last department I worked in, shrunk from 24 to 3 people in one year. No one got replaced until I left as I did some productive work so they recruited three people offshore to replace me Anyway, for my department saving of about £2million/annum, billions saved if applied to the state.

Eh, fewer lords (if any) definitely, and we have WAY too many Ministers who get paid a fortune, Cameron keeps adding more in (as has Corbyn to his Shadow teams - there appear to be people shadowing nothing sometimes, although they don't get higher pay). Not convinced about shrinking number of MPs like, with population increases if they're actually doing their job properly they should already be insanely busy actually helping people. Having said that, some of them do nack all, which is a problem no one has yet solved but is ultimately up to the electorate, really.

If you want some entertainment, ask me about 'my' party next time you see me, it's not for the permanent record of the internet! Mind you, if I'm really soddin' lucky I might be well out of this politics lark by then.

Jules · The biggest Geldof fan in the world, bar none!

It's good to have some Lords - sometimes. They should be elected.

I'd hardly call Corbyn a champagne socialist. Far from it. You're think of Bliar and co. Not my scene. I nearly went Green, due to them.

This present government is vicious, especially towards the most vulnerable in society. It's shocking. They are taking cars away from people who are physically disabled. That's their independence. Some can work because of their mobility car. Now what? Dumped on the scrap heap. I suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, I feel the pain and fear they are sending our way. If I was married, I'd be in a poverty trap and not be able to work, because I'd have no support to enable me to. and they talk about 'incentivising disabled people to work' by reducing their income. They are disgusting and make me sick. Bring on a fairer society for all.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Tango wrote:
MPs ... if they're actually doing their job properly they should already be insanely busy actually helping people. Having said that, some of them do nack all, which is a problem no one has yet solved but is ultimately up to the electorate, really.

Our last MP claimed thousands for a second home. In Zone 3. And his replacement is a total waste of space as we all found out around here. Backbenchers happy to take the salary and stand in the high street the week before the election never to be seen for five years.

Jules · The biggest Geldof fan in the world, bar none!

My MP, Labour, is excellent. He's been very supportive over the years to a good many people including me.

It was disappointing to find out he'd claimed £100,000 in expenses a few years back. I'm not sure whether he's reduced that more recently, I do hope so. Not the worst, but not impressive either.

Jeremy Corbyn, apparently, claimed £8.95 in expenses last year. That's less than I do in my 2 day a week job.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Jules wrote:
I'd hardly call Corbyn a champagne socialist. Far from it. You're think of Bliar and co. Not my scene. I nearly went Green, due to them.
This present government is vicious, especially towards the most vulnerable in society. It's shocking. They are taking cars away from people who are physically disabled.

If I was married, I'd be in a poverty trap and not be able to work, because I'd have no support to enable me to. and they talk about 'incentivising disabled people to work' by reducing their income.

Corbyn is the epitome of a champagne/cociane socialist. Went to private school and a selective school, yet seeks to deny everyone else the opportunity. So it is fair enough for him to get a good education, but no one else.

Vicious? How so? Let's take the car situation. The government has told a quango that they have to reduce their costs. They have a choice. Fall on their swords and give up their six figures salaries with gold plated pensions or take cars off the disabled. So they take the cars off the disabled.

As for the marriage situation, I pay for being marrried. And support four people with my salary. If anything all of us married people should divorce immediately and join in with everyone sucking out all the benefits and adding to the debt mountain.

Personally, for what it's worth, I think the government are right in what they are trying to do namely cut state expenditure, but until they truly grasp the nettle and get rid of the gold plated pensions and six figure salaries all it will result in is the denial of benefits.

In the UK 7% of the population attended private school, yet hold close to 100% of the positions of influence be it in politics, the judiciary and even the media. The moment this started to be eroded by the influence of those from humbler backgrounds who attended selective schools, the access was restricted. And now an old Etonian is is charge. Nepotism is the true political face of the UK.

Ultimately, government (and religion) is the mechanism by which the rich are protected from the poor* (*Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations). In the 300 years since the start of the age of enlightenment every time the poor threaten the status quo, the means of improvement are removed to protect the privileged. I'd like to think that globalisation would lead to a more improved society (fair and equal is simply not possible), but the evidence is that wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer.

I believe in small government, empowering the individual and equality of opportunity. Essentially, an economic liberalism which does not align with any of the major UK parties, and is probably only represented these days in a lite version by the US Democrats.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Jules wrote:
My MP, Labour, is excellent. He's been very supportive over the years to a good many people including me.

It was disappointing to find out he'd claimed £100,000 in expenses a few years back. I'm not sure whether he's reduced that more recently, I do hope so. Not the worst, but not impressive either.

Jeremy Corbyn, apparently, claimed £8.95 in expenses last year. That's less than I do in my 2 day a week job.

Every Labour MP we had foisted upon us has been a waste of space backbencher whose only interest was to feather their own nests and send their kids to private schools. There have been some good Labour MPs, Frank Field, Martin Salter and Alan Johnson come to mind but on the whole the Labour of the South East are nepotistic ex-Oxbridge PPE graduates.

Jules · The biggest Geldof fan in the world, bar none!

My MP is Andrew Smith. He didn't do a great job with our pensions, but locally he's well respected and extremely hard working. I consider myself lucky to have him as an MP. People who aren't actually labour vote for him round here. We are in the South East.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Scrap The Employment Tax

Abolish national insurance with immediate effect. Not only do people pay up to 12% on their earnings their employers also have to pay up to 13.8%. So for the pleasure of working, people have an effective tax rate of close to 50%. Meanwhile those with large investments and doing absolutely nothing just pay the prevailing income tax rate. Increase the income tax rate so those who don't work pay more and those who do work pay less. It is not an insurance anymore, it is a tax as there is next to no link between contributions and benefits. Remove the tax on employment. increase wages, allow employers to employ more people and remove all the bureaucracy. Even if it is tax neutral, it will result in extra productivity and help reduce the debt. Another win.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

ArrGee wrote:
JoanOfArc wrote:
I will vote corbyn in the next election
I won't.
JoanOfArc wrote:
buy my fridge from a government owned company
You are obviously too young to remember the year long wait to get a telephone line. I worked for the government once and they are the most inefficient spendthrift bureaucratic luddite organisation I have ever had the misfortune to be involved with. My utopia is to close large chunks of the government down.
JoanOfArc wrote:
am I the only person that's frigging well sane and clear sighted in this country??
You're not. Sane nor clear sighted that is.
Parklife!

Arrgee I've heard that argument a million times! since whenever did a labour politician know diddly squat about running business?? and you talk about the government like it's only a handful of people. things move on Arrgee, we might find people who are savvy as hell businessmen in the government in the future. and when was the government ever really out to make PROFIT. you need people from the private sector to work alongside the government. my bet is there are plenty of savvy business men and women out there that would be well up for the challenge were the governmental people to get their heads out their arses and LISTEN on how to make a profit.

since when did any government owned enterprise make any profit arrgeee lol. I've heard plenty of times about the government being inefficient. WHY do you think this is so? why is it inefficinnet? cannot it not be fixed?? in case you hadn't noticed, people in government change over the years. new fresh blood from people that haven't spent their entire lives as politiicans lol people from all walks, all perspectives and insight. not this kind of inbred state of affairs that is NOW.

so anyway arrgee I spose you'll be glad when they privatise the NHS wholly for once and for all because it is so inefficient.

because that's where your way of thinking will get us instead of working out the issues. instead of sorting it out. not just give up on ideals and justice and fairness!

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

ArrGee wrote:
I don't normally have a good word to say about him but fair play to Phil Collins who said he'd leave the country in 1997 if Labour were elected. He did.
David Bowie did likewise. Heroes.

heroes arrgee?? because they sodded off to their tax havens to live in luxury and didn't give a toss about England??

why the eck are they heroes to do that? if they felt so strongly why didn't they use their platforms to make a statement. why didn't they put their money behind the movement they believed in??? because they aint heroes ArrGee. I'm not putting them on pedestals, not even Bowie. he was extrodinary musically but lets face it, he was a sap when it came to politics just like almost every other dick that's ever been on tv.

and phil Collins was a total bore musically when he went solo. I personaly found his music extremely uninspiring.

haha it was the sort of music that lacked the sort of passion it might have taken to stay in England and put the world to rights.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

ArrGee wrote:
Scrap The Employment Tax
Abolish national insurance with immediate effect. Not only do people pay up to 12% on their earnings their employers also have to pay up to 13.8%. So for the pleasure of working, people have an effective tax rate of close to 50%. Meanwhile those with large investments and doing absolutely nothing just pay the prevailing income tax rate. Increase the income tax rate so those who don't work pay more and those who do work pay less. It is not an insurance anymore, it is a tax as there is next to no link between contributions and benefits. Remove the tax on employment. increase wages, allow employers to employ more people and remove all the bureaucracy. Even if it is tax neutral, it will result in extra productivity and help reduce the debt. Another win.

sounds dodgey to me arrgee..... wouldn't that result in even more severe austerity measures? unlessyou took an idea like mine on board that is and found the dosh from profit won fair and square by efficient working profit making publically owned enterprise.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

Arrgee, this 'extra' productivity....... for what? because we need to produce more? or because we will get growth if we do? if its for growth then this consumer driven frenzied society will become even more consumer driven..... spend more and more and more. the more money we have the more expensive things will get. believe me those big businesses will bleed you dry. whether you pay national insurance or not. you put an awful lot of faith into privately owned business saving the day don't you. things are more or less driven by your friend Adam Smith's invisible hand as it is. and look where it's got us?? as you so rightly pointed out, fewer people holding more and more of the world's wealth. do you think this would stop if you got rid of national insurance? isn't this right along the lines that big business wants? so you become ever more dependent on them as they seek more and more control?

in a nutshell the more you take off the already super rich, the more they will take back. imo.

you may well be up on economics more than me Arrgee and you would be forgiven if you don't wish to get further into online conversation with me about all this. although any more input from yourself would be appreciated, most certainly. cheers.

-- Edited by JoanOfArc on Tuesday 9th of February 2016 01:32:27 AM

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

anyway what's completely and utterly unfair is that we are slogging our guts out paying taxes and national insurance only for the government to go ahead and squander it all!

where the hell is the sense in that.

if we're to continue to contribute to the public coffers then at least have it invested in profit making exercises rather than just spend it.

it's like paying a ridiculous amount in rent when you have the money for a deposit to buy your place and thereby make an investment as you pay your mortgage instead of all that rent money being spent.

no one in their right mind would probably spend spend spend if they could see how some investment would cushion them in the future or guard against tough times, or when the money has GONE.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

is the bigger picture really any different?

does it really have to be any more complicated.

surely we can apply micro economics here to macro economics quite easily?

that's why I'm saying it needn't be rocket science.

I would rather just make profit than bring all these rules in about tax this insurance that, where the outcome really is left up to speculation.

I feel my plan is more fool proof.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

course there's no reason why both our ideas Aargee couldn't co-exist

but which would come first? I think my option would be good to kick off with. start small. baby steps.

otherwise arrgee you're talking sudden revolution of a sort. and that may result in mayhem. I don't like anything sudden. it makes me nervous.

anyway, good luck on your quest. maybe the country will Vote Aargee yet. but I've a feeling it will be an immensely unpopular idea as I would have thought that certainly in the short term there would have to be more austere measures put in place than ever.

however, I will consider what you've said on my journey. I'm not dissing it entirely as I've not had time to consider the ramifications entirely.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

ArrGee wrote:
'Two of my ideas. Neither will be adopted because turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas either.'
ok, so maybe scrap that if you don't think it will get voted? very clever lol. ;)

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

seems you all trying to find more scraps anyway, by getting rid of ministers and lords n stuff

well good luck with that

hope your scraps go round enough

me? I'm onto the bigger bucks :D haha ya never know ya might get a few crumbs from me as well - OR - would that be a higher standard and quality of living eh?

go ahead scrabble around for peanuts.

I'd rather be the organ grinder that's for sure

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
anyway what's completely and utterly unfair is that we are slogging our guts out paying taxes and national insurance only for the government to go ahead and squander it all!

That is the first statement of yours I wholly agree with.

So I am surprised you disagree with my proposal to scrap the employment tax aka National Insurance.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
ArrGee wrote:
I don't normally have a good word to say about him but fair play to Phil Collins who said he'd leave the country in 1997 if Labour were elected. He did.
David Bowie did likewise. Heroes.
heroes arrgee?? because they sodded off to their tax havens to live in luxury and didn't give a toss about England??

Heroes, because they decided to live in luxury. Don't we all want that? I'm not sure why people would give a toss about the UK anymore. Over taxed, priced out of decent accommodation, laden with debt before they even start work. If I was 21 again with £50,000 debt and paying rent hand over fist to a buy to let chancer, I'd leave. That said , I did leave for a while in the late eighties and almost again in the mid-nineties so I have form!

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
so anyway arrgee I spose you'll be glad when they privatise the NHS wholly for once and for all because it is so inefficient.

You made one hell of a leap there, I never wrote anything like that. The NHS is different, as it is a matter of life and death. Privatising the NHS wouldn't work because it is effectively a monopoly and has zero competition. Well not unless you scrap the whole thing entirely and let people rely on private health care where all you get is what you can afford.

My first step would be to remove most if not all of the highly remunerated NHS bureaucrats. Expand the training of doctors and nurses, so there aren't chronic shortages that lead to the excessive outlay for locums. There are also some expensive treatments provided by the NHS that could be removed. And also as prevention is better than cure, look to extend preventative care and screening. And get drunks to pay for their emergency care on a Friday/Saturday night.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
When was the government ever really out to make PROFIT. you need people from the private sector to work alongside the government. my bet is there are plenty of savvy business men and women out there that would be well up for the challenge were the governmental people to get their heads out their arses and LISTEN on how to make a profit.

Governments by their nature cannot make profit. They raise their money via taxation not profitability. If they ain't making enough dough, they increase taxes or borrowing. Why would any entrepreneur work to solely profit the government? If they did there would have to be something in it for them.

Governments should be small and only provide the necessary infrastructure that is not profitable. Politicians on the whole are not businessmen. Well, except Donald Trump. He could probably make a government profitable.

Jules · The biggest Geldof fan in the world, bar none!

ArrGee wrote:
JoanOfArc wrote:
ArrGee wrote:
I don't normally have a good word to say about him but fair play to Phil Collins who said he'd leave the country in 1997 if Labour were elected. He did.
David Bowie did likewise. Heroes.
heroes arrgee?? because they sodded off to their tax havens to live in luxury and didn't give a toss about England??
Heroes, because they decided to live in luxury. Don't we all want that? I'm not sure why people would give a toss about the UK anymore. Over taxed, priced out of decent accommodation, laden with debt before they even start work. If I was 21 again with £50,000 debt and paying rent hand over fist to a buy to let chancer, I'd leave. That said , I did leave for a while in the late eighties and almost again in the mid-nineties so I have form!

I honestly can't say I'm bothered about luxury. Glad I have decent accommodation and, at present, can manage to pay for it. Others may not consider a tiny matchbox decent, but it does me and I'm not hankering after anything more.

Corbyn isn't anything unusual, he's just an ordinary Labour person. Nothing particularly extreme about him, just normal grass roots, but in a modern society. That's all. We've moved so far to the right, coupled with media scaremongering, people think he is some kind of extreme Loony left. Not at all.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

Sack everyone at HMRC

They must be the most useless incompetent spanners on Earth. I transferred departments at work and they sent HMRC a P45, I have a copy. I know that was all done properly at our end because I have the correct tax code on my payslip. Now they changed my tax code to K1520. Which means that rather than having a personal allowance of £11K I have a negative allowance of £15K! I have been on the phone for ages (over 50 minutes) and they want the details from the fcuking P45 again. And they can't explain a fictitious underpayment that apparently they told me about. (They never did, I have all my correspondence with them for the last five years, no mention of it). They haven't removed the so called underpayment, oh no, they are going to call me back because they don't have the details on why they are trying to leave me with no money in my next pay cheque. Probably going to make it all up tonight. I am going to have to stop working at this rate cos they want more in tax than I will earn next year. Looks like I will be paying tax at 100% plus, so I don't know why The Beatles were moaning about a mere 95%. Little wonder Bowie and Collins left. Heroes.

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee wrote:
Sack everyone at HMRC

https://online.hmrc.gov.uk/shortforms/form/P2?dept-name=&sub-dept-name=&location=43&origin=http://www.hmrc.gov.uk

This form can only be used for queries relating to your PAYE Coding Notice.

You should only fill this form if you think your 2016-17 PAYE Coding Notice is wrong.

We aim to deal with your query within 15 working days.

If you think that it is wrong!!! I know they got it wrong. No thinking needed.

They merely aim to do it in that time. Much like I aim to win the lottery in the next 15 days. If I call my bank and dispute a payment, I get the money back immediately while they investigate. With the taxman you keep paying until they finish their investigations which they only aim to complete in 15 days. Might take a lot longer though.

They ain't changed much down the years...

"Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, and call off Christmas."

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee wrote:
Sack everyone at HMRC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11056408/HMRC-powers-to-raid-bank-accounts-could-see-return-to-cash-under-the-mattress.html

HMRC wants the power to dip into peoples personal bank accounts to take money it says is owed in tax.

Today they told me I owe then money because they can't process a P45 correctly and plucked a so called underpayment out of thin air. If they had this power they would have cleaned me out and left me with empty pay cheques.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

JoanOfArc wrote:
our public money to be used to make profit by going into business

They are in the extortion business. Even the mob leave you with a few bob.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

Extortion - Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

ArrGee · Back To Boomtown

ArrGee wrote:
Sack everyone at HMRC

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/07/hmrc-tax-avoidance-dispatches-greg-wise-channel-4

I knew this would be a murky business, but wasnt prepared for the murk I found with the HMRC....

...impossible for the likes of us to see an Inspector face-to-face, so we go through the ignominy of calling their helpline and listening to a 3-week-trained operator reading from a crib-sheet.

...Ray and his friends work for nothing, trying to help people who pitch up to the centre, often suicidal, after receiving a letter from HMRC saying they have been overpaid working tax credits and now owe tens of thousands. Its money they dont have and they face a system they just cant navigate. But if they dont pay, they go to jail. No gentlemanly treatment here.

HMRC will gather the low-hanging fruit, but will turn a blind eye to the serious amounts being aggressively avoided.

I am going to change my name to Google.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

Arrgee sorry to hear about all this palava and hassle you've been experiencing with HMRC, sounds a nightmare!

how the eck do you spell hasstle anyway hassle hassel gawd knows

-- Edited by JoanOfArc on Friday 12th of February 2016 12:01:02 AM

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

it's hassle apparently

still doesn't look right

Mark L · Loudmouth

It's an age old phrase that many people use - "You shouldn't talk about religion or politics." Why is that? The obvious answer is that they can cause conflict. But it doesn't have to be that way. Like most important topics, religion and politics are positions that are held tightly by many individuals who have strong convictions. That's okay. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore these potentially volatile topics all together. Because of their great importance, shouldn't that be more reason to discuss them lovingly and with great respect? Can't we speak passionately and lovingly and come out on opposite ends of an issue and still be friends?

Bob will have all of this uppermost in his mind no doubt when he appears on Question Time tomorrow at 10.45pm on BBC1 smile

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

bit of friendly mud slinging doesn't necessarily have to be the end of the world either

yes we can all be loving, I think that's very nice

when everyone else is telling eachother to f off with love, are you going to sit there politely and say 'why don't we all love eachother instead? lol

what I mean is a friendly f off and c word here and there, doesn't necessarily mean disrespect

you see some of us have quite different cultures to eachother in a way, even if from same country in a way.

boundaries can sometimes be pushed with eachother to that effect.

eg. anyone who really is not worthy I try not to refer to as a C. I'm more likely to say C is too good for him/her. particular friendships I use the C word lovingly.

so its all a matter of interpretation. another person would be offended. but someone who knows me well and who I share a special affinity with will get exactly what I mean and we'll have a ball about it.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

Germaine Greer said it when she said the C word is something to be cherished and worshipped. I couldn't agree more. there is something beautifully lushcious about calling certain friends the C word. there is something really quite splendid about it. and it makes me laugh, beaming from ear to ear lol.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

if I call a friend a C. you know it's from a passionate loving heart.

JoanOfArc · The Fine Art of Surfacing

so cutting so pure so to point so mouth wateringly sharp and direct. you effing C. I think I love you more than I ever thought, you C

it's a word you save for special moments. it's a word you savour as you say it.

but every friendship has it's own unique stamp. I don't call all my friends C's. there are just one or two whereby it just feels right.

and it makes the friendship all the more special