SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Better corporate regulation might have helped though. A company should not be able to claim profits at the same time it is piling on debt. Same with buyouts where the debt used to buy is placed back on the company bought. Shouldn't be allowed and would help in many businesses, not just water.

Water privatisation was a total con job though.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Raven said:
It doesn't need more tax, because more tax just means we pay more.

What it needs is bringing into public hands, profit goes into infrastructure and investment in cleaner technologies...you would likely cut bills at the same time.
Click to expand...
There's not a lot of progress to be made in water distribution technology. It's the pipes that are the problem. We designed our sewerage at 3x dry weather flow - which is woefully inadequate. And it's crumbling about us and lacks capacity in general. There's a whole heap of infrastructure costs.

I agree it should be in public hands - but if we take the profit out of it then we're still no better than maintenance (because the money that has been going to shareholders is equal to the amount that is maintenance) - but we don't have headroom for capital investment without additional on bills or a massive tax grab somewhere else.

We could solve a lot of problems in society by having a maximum wealth cap. The stupidly rich should absolutely be allowed to exist. But the obscenely rich? Nope. We need to stop that. They've hoovered up enough wealth to feed, clothe and house every person on the planet in relative comfort and the work that has been done to create that wealth for them - which is dead money - is wasted.

That money needs to go back into the economy and be useful again.
 
Tom

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,324
Raven said:
It doesn't need more tax, because more tax just means we pay more.

What it needs is bringing into public hands, profit goes into infrastructure and investment in cleaner technologies...you would likely cut bills at the same time.
Click to expand...

Our water network requires hundreds of billions in investment, including many more reservoirs built. You don't get that through a bit of profit. The money needs to come from elsewhere and I say it should come from the vast corporate profits our media seems to want to keep quiet about. I wonder why...
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Meh

knight rider kitt GIF
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Do you think she felt bullied into prosecuting after all the shit that's gone on?

www.bbc.co.uk

Hermoso files legal complaint over Rubiales kiss

Jenni Hermoso has filed a legal complaint over the kiss by Spanish football federation president Luis Rubiales after the Women's World Cup final.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Watch the video.
 
Tom

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,324
Perhaps we should just assume that she's old enough to make her own decisions. It's perfectly reasonable to be "not bothered" by something, but on reflection be pissed off about it.

All this could have been avoided if the guy had just apologised. He wouldn't have treated male footballers in the same way.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Tom said:
All this could have been avoided if the guy had just apologised. He wouldn't have treated male footballers in the same way.
Click to expand...
And the kiss by the owner of the horse?

Or does she get a pass because she's a woman?

Who gives a fuck if she's suddenly "decided" (yeah right) she's pissed off frankly. That's not the puritan world I want to live in.

Nor, frankly, do loads of women.
 
Raven

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,758
Went live on the year-long project today, smashed it. Except for over eager dickheads logging in early.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Tom said:
What's that got to do with the footballer?
Click to expand...
You're being deliberately obtuse there Tom.

It's the same situation reversed on sex alone, clearly. And yet no outrage, no calls for prosecution and the same lack of consent.

And that's totally OK, says a shitload of women who don't want to bow to the new puritanism and don't want to live in the world the new puritans are creating.
 
Tom

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,324
It isn't the same situation, it's other people doing other things. Has he indicated he has an issue with it?
 
Overdriven

Overdriven

Dumpster Fire of The South
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
12,729
Raven said:
Went live on the year-long project today, smashed it. Except for over eager dickheads logging in early.
Click to expand...

Time, Cost, Quality, fuckwits understanding that the release time is there for a reason.

Pick 2.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Tom said:
It isn't the same situation, it's other people doing other things. Has he indicated he has an issue with it?
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same situation. A person of one sex (in a position of power) rushing up to a person of another sex and kissing them smack on the lips during the excitement of the aftermath of a sporting event.

Whether he has an issue or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the action itself should be prohibited. Because there's no physical way to police this by offence taken - it's either allowable human interaction, or it's always wrong and always sexual assault.

It's totally unworkable any other way. And I don't want to live in a world where you can't get excited and kiss someone on the lips, on the off chance that they might take offence.

And neither do loads of women - as I've linked to before. Who the hell has the right to tell them that they're wrong for feeling the way they do - and more than that - intending to outlaw aspects of human social interaction that they welcome?

As they eloquently put:
Just like in the good old witch-hunt days,what we are once again witnessing here is puritanism in the name of a so-called greater good, claiming to promote the liberation and protection of women, only to enslave them to a status of eternal victim and reduce them to defenseless preys of male chauvinist demons
Click to expand...

It's puritanism pure and simple and it needs to be given the short-shrift that it deserves.

Giving someone a kiss in excited eleted celebration is absolutely fine. If the other person is upset/takes offence - then they need to talk about it in private. Nobody else should get involved - it's between those two people and fuck all to do with society at large.

Unless we want to live in some socially totalitarian hell.
 
Tom

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,324
Scouse said:
It's exactly the same situation. A person of one sex (in a position of power) rushing up to a person of another sex and kissing them smack on the lips during the excitement of the aftermath of a sporting event.
Click to expand...

Is it? Do you know the relationship between the two? No, because neither appears to have said much about it. We do, however, know that the footballer who got kissed didn't want to be kissed, and didn't like it. Because she said so pretty quickly. And the person doing the kissing responded by doubling down and insisting he did nothing wrong.

So yeah, you're inventing this analogy right now.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Tom said:
Is it? Do you know the relationship between the two?
Click to expand...
Yes. She's the horse owner, and his boss. Her husband was nearby. Maybe the power imbalance in that relationship (she pays his wages after all) means he's reluctant to say anything? Who knows and, importantly, who cares.

It's just a kiss in the heat of a celbratory moment. All the points you raise (again) in your post have already been addressed above. You're simply avoiding them.

I'm not "inventing the analogy" - you're in denial of the bleeding obvious.
 
Tom

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,324
Scouse said:
Yes. She's the horse owner, and his boss. Her husband was nearby. Maybe the power imbalance in that relationship (she pays his wages after all) means he's reluctant to say anything? Who knows and, importantly, who cares.

It's just a kiss in the heat of a celbratory moment. All the points you raise (again) in your post have already been addressed above. You're simply avoiding them.

I'm not "inventing the analogy" - you're in denial of the bleeding obvious.
Click to expand...

Well you don't know, and you seemingly care.

Me, I'd rather just not align two unrelated incidents to support whatever argument it is you're putting forward.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,571
Explain how two kisses on the lips in the euphoria of sporting events are substantially different please @Tom.

Edit: and "whatever argument"? Are you struggling to understand it? It's pretty clear...
 
DaGaffer

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,478
Tom said:
Well you don't know, and you seemingly care.

Me, I'd rather just not align two unrelated incidents to support whatever argument it is you're putting forward.
Click to expand...

You're wilfully ignoring the double standard.
 
Jupitus

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,350
Scouse said:
Yes. She's the horse owner, and his boss. Her husband was nearby. Maybe the power imbalance in that relationship (she pays his wages after all) means he's reluctant to say anything? Who knows and, importantly, who cares.

It's just a kiss in the heat of a celbratory moment. All the points you raise (again) in your post have already been addressed above. You're simply avoiding them.

I'm not "inventing the analogy" - you're in denial of the bleeding obvious.
Click to expand...

Scenario - ahead of the race she says to Jockey 'if you win this it would be funny if I give you a massive kiss on the lips, you agree?'... replies 'it would be, yes, but let me win the race first!'..... just sayin'

How do we know that didn't happen???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom