Are these people a special case

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

Why not stick with the thread rather than being a "nit-picker" over the grammar and punctuation of other posters?

Would you not class this as 'nit-picking', and veering from the thread's subject, or is it not applicable when it's being done by you.

If you understood what he said, it might have been more helpful, and still on topic, if you'd explained it for those of us who didn't.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

That's an impressive sentence.

Might have been more impressive if punctuation had been used, and it made a little more sense, when attempting to read it.

(Just an observation. Don't run off for another couple of months, accusing people of pickin' on you.)

I stand by this post.

After attempting, yet again, to understand what was said, either I've lost the ability to read English, or it's gobbledygook, and would welcome a simple explanation, from someone brighter than myself.

I thank you in advance, but I fear I might be missing some riveting information, if I miss out on what might be a very salient point.

[MargaretR]

In order to lighten the tone
I will give knitting lessons

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

I have close experience of appointed Peers literally flogging themselves

See that's the trouble when you appoint toadies, creeps, and sycophants, to unelected postions of power.

No class.

(As your average, down-to-earth, right-wing, Alf Garnett type bigot, would say.)

Hereditary peers would always pay an underling to do the flogging for them.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

It seems that most people here think we live in a democracy still ..... amazing!

The illusion of one....maybe.

Why does the prospect of anarchy and revolution frighten you?
It may be the only way to purify the system for better things.

I said 'towards truer democracy'.



Does the man who dictates everything you write never have a night off, and allow you the freedom to say what you truly think?

It's terrible. You should search for other, similarly oppressed drones.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

It seems that most people here think we live in a democracy still ..... amazing!

The illusion of one....maybe.

Why does the prospect of anarchy and revolution frighten you?
It may be the only way to purify the system for better things.

an·ar·chy (nr-k)n. pl. an·ar·chies 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Well I'm afraid we can't accept you for the Anarchy in the UK tour, as your devout beliefs re:Bildenberg, and other conspiracy theories, are standard and common to many others, and therefore exempt you as an anarchist.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Why does the prospect of anarchy and revolution frighten you?

I hope Hyndburn Homes don't send round someone to polish your taps, and check the grouting, when your bathroom's finished. Who suddenly announces he's an Anarchist, and doesn't believe housing should be either social, organised, or even funded by anything so respectably bourgeois as paying rent, and then took a big sledge hammer, and started breaking up the new lav, in an act of wanton anarchic revolution!



Let's try to accomplish one small step at a time.

[MargaretR]

I need a functioning bathroom if I am ever to get a knitting circle going

[garinda]

I'm not getting at you, by the way.

I have the utmost respect for those with dearly held devout beliefs, be it religion, a New World Order, or whatever.

I understand that a blind faith in something, for some, is a crutch they need to function.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I need a functioning bathroom if I am ever to get a knitting circle going

Go and stick your needles in the spokes of the Queen's carriage, at the State opening of Parliament.

Sitting round making tea-cosies, hoping you might see a beheading, isn't really going to start your anarchistic revolution.

[andrewb]

Does it? I can't think of any examples where government has been more accountable under two elected chambers. The British system with one elected chamber holding all the power, is far more accountable, as the public can throw out a government. Not that there is or should be a one size fits all solution.

I hope the paragraph is clearer now.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Does it? I can't think of any examples where government has been more accountable under two elected chambers. The British system with one elected chamber holding all the power, is far more accountable, as the public can throw out a government. Not that there is or should be a one size fits all solution.

I hope the paragraph is clearer now.

Much, thank you.

Now I can clearly see that you don't have a clue.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Does it? I can't think of any examples where government has been more accountable under two elected chambers. The British system with one elected chamber holding all the power, is far more accountable, as the public can throw out a government. Not that there is or should be a one size fits all solution.

I hope the paragraph is clearer now.

but can you name any name any other democracy (in what we call "the west") that has hereditary Lords changing and sometimes refusing laws imposed by an elected government... no one is born to impose laws (by the way, you would do a good job as the sheriff of Nottingham)

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Mancie

but can you name any name any other democracy (in what we call "the west") that has hereditary Lords changing and sometimes refusing laws imposed by an elected government... no one is born to impose laws (by the way, you would do a good job as the sheriff of Nottingham)

Now that you mention it, we do have something similar here. We have the Canadian Senate. Senators are appointed by the Lieutennant Govenor in Council (the PM in other words). They are not elected, and they do have the same powers as your House of Lords. They are not hereditary, and they are not lords; but they do perform the same (dis)function.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Mancie

but can you name any name any other democracy (in what we call "the west") that has hereditary Lords changing and sometimes refusing laws imposed by an elected government... no one is born to impose laws (by the way, you would do a good job as the sheriff of Nottingham)

Any other? That doesn't happen in our democracy. They can amend bills to suggest alternatives. The Lords are very good at line by line scrutiny, many of the changes are accepted by the Commons. It is the elected Commons who have the ultimate say on which bills become legislation. Thus the general public know exactly who is in government, who is responsible and who to hold accountable at the ballot box with the current system.