Unleashed

MaizieD

^But no doubt he will have the last laugh, coining in the royalties.^

I don't think that the book has sold as well as anticipated. But he's fine. He got a massive advance from the publishers. Let's hope they've learned their lesson...

From what I have read, his publishers advanced £3m and the sales are forecast at £1m, it was sold at half price almost immediately, but that is how it goes in publishing.

One bit of cheering news though is that his publisher, Harper Collins, is owned by News Corp. (Murdoch)

Pam1969

There's a lot of bullying on here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's been a free country for a long time.

All politicians lie. Starmer has been the worst, broken promises to every 'sector' from pensioners to farmers. A considerable mess.

There is no bullying. There are opinions, some of them strong ( mine included), there is discussion, there are facts. Actually, I get irritated by allegations of bullying getting thrown about, it is insulting.

Having a different opinion is not being a bully.

Koalama

@BevSec
I'm inspired to get this book now, I'm a bj fan, and glad he was pm whilst covid was on, can't think what state we'd be on with this shower of idiots now. A come back with him and Farage would be just brilliant.

But nobody seems able to say why?

petal53

What an ironic thread.
Posters have been complaining on other threads about Starmer being described in less than flattering terms, and denying that any other PM has been described in an unflattering way.

As for me, I’m saying nothing about either of them.

😂😂😂

As for ^no bullying* - I must have been glancing through a parallel thread.

No, I don't like BJ and I'm not going to buy his book but I don't think BevSec deserves some of the remarks directed at her personally.

It always happens.

This is what ACAS describe as bullying:

‘Although there is no legal definition of bullying, it can be described as unwanted behaviour from a person or group that is either: offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting. an abuse or misuse of power that undermines, humiliates, or causes physical or emotional harm to someone.’

Can you explain how a thread with 20 or 30 posters on it, every one of whom has something to say, and a different point of view to express constitutes bullying, because I can’t see it? Yes, one or two remarks, from different people with different political standpoints are controversial or provocative - but bullying?

I suppose the point is to be able to state ones own viewpoint but without making derogatory personal comments to other posters..

I am naturally a pale blue, very left of centre leaning Conservative; l would rather have a truly central and centrist party, but it doesn't exist. I have never liked Boris Johnson - l have always thought of him as the British Donald Trump - but l know that a lot of people from did and do like him. I was rather amused today, though, that in British Sign Language, Boris Johnson is represented by putting a hand on one's head as if to stop a toupée flying away!

Allira

petal53

What an ironic thread.
Posters have been complaining on other threads about Starmer being described in less than flattering terms, and denying that any other PM has been described in an unflattering way.

As for me, I’m saying nothing about either of them.

😂😂😂

As for ^no bullying* - I must have been glancing through a parallel thread.

No, I don't like BJ and I'm not going to buy his book but I don't think BevSec deserves some of the remarks directed at her personally.

That is really kind of you, thank you.

Chocolatelovinggran

Societies don't have to be communist to have clear policies on equality of opportunity, and a fair wage for everyone.
Norway is such a country.

I quite agree about equal opportunities and a fair wage. Its not fair, however, to financially penalise those families who are sacrificing to enable them to send their children to private school. That is levelling down.

BevSec

MaizieD

Can I just clarify, when you say about asking for enough for everyone, who are you asking it of?

The first thing that springs to my mind is that if someone employs a person to work for them they should pay them enough to enable them to live this 'decent life'. If the employer can't afford to do that then they should do whatever job they're paying for themselves.

If we're talking about a business the employer should not expect to pay employees, who are the ones who enable profit to be made, a wage which is too low to enable a 'decent life'. If the business can't support its employees as well as its owner then it has clearly no real value to society.

I absolutely agree with you

I am sincerely glad that we have found a point of agreement.

I'm not asking for a redistribution of existing wealth from the rich to the poor. History is full of examples where attempts to do that go badly wrong. Like Soviet communism.

But we could initially look at making the tax system more progressive and closing the loopholes which the wealthy can exploit in tax avoidance schemes. It is an absurd situation when a very wealthy PM (Sunak) only paid 22% of his income in taxes, when the poorest 10% of the population pays 34% of their income in taxes (government figures)

Then we could look at making it more difficult for people to accumulate excessive wealth (though you might not approve of that ) Levelling the tax 'playing field' would be a start. Windfall taxes on excessive profits, price regulation, stricter competition rules to prevent companies buying up all their competitors and creating monopolies, better regulation of minimum wages to ensure that everyone in work is paid a living wage. Better financial regulation. When you start looking at financial markets and company buyouts you find that individuals and companies can get away with strategies which look to the onlooker as though they should be illegal. Better control over government procurement so companies can't negotiate contracts which give themselves excessive profits.

Writing the post you quoted really set me thinking. If a company can't make enough profit from their product to be able to pay all their workers a decent living wage then there must be something wrong with the company. It is either overpaying its owner or directors and shareholders, or it's not actually producing something that the public is prepared to buy.

I have a lot of social history books, as that is an interest of mine. For generations, centuries, even, poor people have been saying 'we work very hard(usually in appalling conditions) and make money for the rich, but we can barely feed and house ourselves and our families. Surely we deserve better than that?' It's not envy, it's desperation.

It didn't help that somehow religion managed to establish a belief in all 'classes' that your position in life was appointed by God and that those above you in the hierarchy were actually superior to you. Superior beings, and it was verging on the blasphemous to question this or to try to change your circumstances.

It looks unbelievable in this day and age. Or does it? There is still some sort of reverence for wealth and a belief that the wealthy 'deserve' it. Even that they are going to generously share it with with the lower orders through charitable activities...

MaizieD

BevSec

MaizieD

Can I just clarify, when you say about asking for enough for everyone, who are you asking it of?

The first thing that springs to my mind is that if someone employs a person to work for them they should pay them enough to enable them to live this 'decent life'. If the employer can't afford to do that then they should do whatever job they're paying for themselves.

If we're talking about a business the employer should not expect to pay employees, who are the ones who enable profit to be made, a wage which is too low to enable a 'decent life'. If the business can't support its employees as well as its owner then it has clearly no real value to society.

I absolutely agree with you

I am sincerely glad that we have found a point of agreement.

I'm not asking for a redistribution of existing wealth from the rich to the poor. History is full of examples where attempts to do that go badly wrong. Like Soviet communism.

But we could initially look at making the tax system more progressive and closing the loopholes which the wealthy can exploit in tax avoidance schemes. It is an absurd situation when a very wealthy PM (Sunak) only paid 22% of his income in taxes, when the poorest 10% of the population pays 34% of their income in taxes (government figures)

Then we could look at making it more difficult for people to accumulate excessive wealth (though you might not approve of that ) Levelling the tax 'playing field' would be a start. Windfall taxes on excessive profits, price regulation, stricter competition rules to prevent companies buying up all their competitors and creating monopolies, better regulation of minimum wages to ensure that everyone in work is paid a living wage. Better financial regulation. When you start looking at financial markets and company buyouts you find that individuals and companies can get away with strategies which look to the onlooker as though they should be illegal. Better control over government procurement so companies can't negotiate contracts which give themselves excessive profits.

Writing the post you quoted really set me thinking. If a company can't make enough profit from their product to be able to pay all their workers a decent living wage then there must be something wrong with the company. It is either overpaying its owner or directors and shareholders, or it's not actually producing something that the public is prepared to buy.

I have a lot of social history books, as that is an interest of mine. For generations, centuries, even, poor people have been saying 'we work very hard(usually in appalling conditions) and make money for the rich, but we can barely feed and house ourselves and our families. Surely we deserve better than that?' It's not envy, it's desperation.

It didn't help that somehow religion managed to establish a belief in all 'classes' that your position in life was appointed by God and that those above you in the hierarchy were actually superior to you. Superior beings, and it was verging on the blasphemous to question this or to try to change your circumstances.

It looks unbelievable in this day and age. Or does it? There is still some sort of reverence for wealth and a belief that the wealthy 'deserve' it. Even that they are going to generously share it with with the lower orders through charitable activities...

What a good and informative post, I agree with all you have said here. There is indeed a fascination with the wealthy, when the Titanic sank it was the wealthy who lost their lives that people were most interested in, that was apparent in the Titanic museum in Belfast. I do so agree too that the poverty of the past although people worked hard, was heartbreaking.

I too love social history, its a real interest of mine and I have got many books on this subject. One is maternity and its short stories by women about their experiences, which are again heartbreaking, because they were poor they sometimes got very poor care, especially those in the workhouse. I also agree about religion. I watched The Mill and that was equally heartbreaking for those poor children taken from the workhouse and set to work long hours in a mill. Thank goodness that life today is much better in this country and we have safety nets now.

Not sure if this was in a genuine bookshop, but pic sent to me

I too love social history, its a real interest of mine and I have got many books on this subject.

There you are, we're almost soulmates, BevSec 😂

(Apart from your terrible taste in PMs, of course...)

MaizieD

^I too love social history, its a real interest of mine and I have got many books on this subject.^

There you are, we're almost soulmates, BevSec 😂

(Apart from your terrible taste in PMs, of course...)

Yes indeed, we will just have to agree to differ on that ☺️

Bullying is down to how behaviour inc. communication makes people feel, same as harassment, control and other behaviours. Cause and effect. I think that bullies get angry when they don't get their own way despite bring as forceful as they can with their opinion expression such as "are you for real or is this a joke?". Bullying is often through communication rather than physical. My father was one. I walked away. Worked well for me.

Pam1969

Bullying is down to how behaviour inc. communication makes people feel, same as harassment, control and other behaviours. Cause and effect. I think that bullies get angry when they don't get their own way despite bring as forceful as they can with their opinion expression such as "are you for real or is this a joke?". Bullying is often through communication rather than physical. My father was one. I walked away. Worked well for me.

Well put Pam. Its in the choice of words used, which can come across as angry. The key is toleration of the views of others.

I think we are allowed to be angry? Farage makes me feel angry and embarassed to be British to be honest.

BevSec

Pam1969

Bullying is down to how behaviour inc. communication makes people feel, same as harassment, control and other behaviours. Cause and effect. I think that bullies get angry when they don't get their own way despite bring as forceful as they can with their opinion expression such as "are you for real or is this a joke?". Bullying is often through communication rather than physical. My father was one. I walked away. Worked well for me.

Well put Pam. Its in the choice of words used, which can come across as angry. The key is toleration of the views of others.

In my opinion anger directed towards politicians and their actions isn’t bullying, even if that anger upsets the people who feel differently. I do agree that when somebody implies that a poster is stupid for thinking x, that is potentially bullying, although very often on controversial threads it’s a two way dialogue with both parties equally scathing, so then it isn’t.

Not directed specifically at this post, but I think some people do deliberately start controversial posts in the knowledge that those who disagree will respond - and I’ve never understood why. It would be far more productive and informative for everybody if facts not bias were in original posts so that there’s at least a chance of a civil discussion.

In my opinion anger directed towards politicians and their actions isn’t bullying, even if that anger upsets the people who feel differently
I agree, it's par for the course.

I do agree that when somebody implies that a poster is stupid for thinking x, that is potentially bullying
I agree

Comments are likely to be pretty vigorous with some of the posts in this thread, I agree the line is crossed when someone says stuff like "are you for real" or "get a life" "stupid".

Some O/P's or thread titles (not this one!) do seem designed just to provoke and it kills real discussion by putting backs up from the start.

Wyllow3

Comments are likely to be pretty vigorous with some of the posts in this thread, I agree the line is crossed when someone says stuff like "are you for real" or "get a life" "stupid".

Some O/P's or thread titles (not this one!) do seem designed just to provoke and it kills real discussion by putting backs up from the start.

Yes comments can be quite rigorous sometimes! Its fine to be angry with politicians, just not with each other (not implying you are by the way)

Wyllow3

Comments are likely to be pretty vigorous with some of the posts in this thread, I agree the line is crossed when someone says stuff like "are you for real" or "get a life" "stupid".

Some O/P's or thread titles (not this one!) do seem designed just to provoke and it kills real discussion by putting backs up from the start.

Yes, and mostly this is a polite thread but some posts cross a line, for instance this one amongst others:

you remind me sooooo much of BJ which of course would be a compliment to you, but certainly not meant as one!!!

Asking if someone is for real etc when in fact so many people did vote for BJ is insulting not just the poster but all those other voters, some of whom may be on GN but hesitant to post.

PS I didn't vote for him so no need to insult me 😁

PS I didn't vote for him so no need to insult me 😁
That wasn't directed at you, Wyllow3!

All OK, I didn't think that.

Reading back through the thread, it seems most of those sort of comments have come in from one or two liners from people not joining in the main debate, which of course included discussions on "is it Envy" "is it levelling down or up", pretty strong stuff as its a question of basic philosophy on the political spectrum.