Meister Jag

Spot on and even Mr Bunnet likes this!! Like an oil tanker turning, he's moving to the left... The Mighty Quinn will no doubt see things in his own Alf Garnett "Jesus was English" kind of way.

Times are tough mate, need to keep the energy levels up and all that!

I was actually away with my shooting party and couldn't get a mobile signal. The salmon run locally is late July and, yes, I have a beat. Toodle-pip!

Here we go, it's lets have a go at Guardian readers and stoodents time. You really are Jaggybunnet's Mini-Me; problem is that our resident Tory is in a class of his own when comes to trying to wind the forum up. Why not try to analyse the tax and then come on and tell us why it's fair. For example, there's been no word on those who let out entire London properties while billing taxpayers for a second flat's rent. A good example of such a public-spirited individual is the Communities Minister Don Foster. Even the Lib Dem' lapdogs are allowed to make a quick buck while they dine at the master's top table. The poor get screwed every time. One rule for one lot as they trouser as much cash as they can because they know how the system works. In the real world - and I know you live in your own personal hell, hating everyone - those living in council flats or renting from housing associations face a 14 per cent benefit cut if the local authority decides they have a spare bedroom and stand to lose a full quarter of their housing benefit if they have two or more spare rooms. All in all, more than 660,000 households will be affected with each losing an average £728 a year. If you're on benefit that's quite a lot of money. With the average housing benefit pegged at around £107 a week, that's the equivalent of stopping each household's payments entirely for a month and a half. How fair is that? So why is this being done? Could successive governments have failed to build enough affordable council houses to meet needs? Meanwhile, there's evidence that folk like Foster can build up massive rental property portfolios and make a mint from who? Well you and me and the taxpayer that's who. Don't we ultimately pay the Housing Benefit bill? But all you'll see are scoungers and dole cheats. This is nothing to do with socialism by the way; only fairness I'm just pointing out that if this or any government was serious about tackling get rich quick scams, this one would have been stopped yonks ago. The audit trail goes back to your blessed Thatcher incidentally. Council houses were a national asset that she sold off. Replaced them with basically sweet f*** all!

Signed and shared. Good luck with this.

Cheers Jaggy, words, for once, fail me. But please leave my Ronson alone! The things they teach young men at public schools.

Looks good mate, will be there and will ensure the word goes out. Some line-up for only six quid btw!! Dare I ask, will there be free...

P.S. Send me a PM with your email address and I'll pass it onto Siego. He's into cricket big time and looking for any Jags fans who are into the bat 'n' ball game to join him in going to matches etc. Think there have been a few over in Edinburgh of late - Scotland playing English counties etc.

Tell us more...

Superb, and Jaggy's even found a bum chum who's even more right-wing barking than him. You tell him Jaggy son, no competition on this forum! There's really only room for one of Thatcher's children on this forum and you're the big dog. (Trying to pull this back on message right to the end. why do I bother!) Can I throw something at your civil partnership? Thinking flowers or even coal for luck (an old Fife tradition).

Hi and sorry for the delay in responding. I'm having a self-imposed sabbatical from the forum. Exam time, mature student and head up my a*** just now; but I'll get there. (Note to self: WTF didn't you stick in at at school!!). Anyway, Loch Glow is a favourite haunt for many fishing clubs; mainly because, as far as commercial fisheries go, it's cheap (think because of the civil service ownership thing so it isn't all about profit). Prices were something like £8 for all-day and four fish. TBH, if you're into stockie-bashing you could probably catch and hide. The top parts of the loch generally cater for the danglers as not too far to take your carry-out! Further round the wading is good but it is quite a big stretch of water so be prepared to walk. Mainly stocked rainbows with a few wild broonies. My team of flies would be Clyde-style, small and black: spiders, blae and black, bluebottle (all on a black theme). The wind can be a bast*** so generally intermediate line for me - can get them out then work them at semi-depth. But floating when it's calm would be ok. (Winter would be a sinking line to get depth; but you'd need to have serious neoprenes to wade in the cold!) I don't especially like stocked fisheries and prefer wild water - even if I don't catch. I guess it's just getting away that's the enjoyable thing. Tight lines mate Cheers MJ

I had a feeling that some of our songs would be debated to death as, in truth, they probably tread a fine line and I don't know if being part of a football crowd is an adequate defence. Although for the record, 'Hello Hello' is one that we are famous for and I'm all for keeping it. The sentiments expressed therein set us apart from the OF and this is a song born out of struggle. (Which is a long-winded way of saying it's a way of telling anyone who wants to listen that we don't give a f*ck about what the OF stand for. Many agree and, for example, quite a few English fans of my acquaintance - who hate the big guns of the English Premiership and who they feel are destroying their game - are aware of our small-numbered and principled stance.) I think the above hits the nail firmly in the head and for me is of more concern. Purely on grounds of taste and will we be able to sing it often next season? But as for 'Hello Hello', if we've got to change it (please don't lose it!), why not either water it down ' the we don't give a f*ck' sentiments expressed elsewhere in the thread as if it keeps someone away from a fine (club or individual) then this discussion will have been worthwhile. Take it as read that this is probably where this is heading with this thread being used as evidence that the words were changed and the arresting officers jumped in without understanding the words, sentiments or context. But at the end of the day a fine will still be the punishment - public disorder, use of foul abusive language, breach of the peace or whatever. There's always a way not to make the police look stupid and trying to be smart-arsed in court usually doesn't work. The other alternative is to hold it in the back pocket for games where it will surface and to run the risk. This year with increased crowds a few old songs were getting a blast. I guess Mary from Maryhill is probably another questionable song. An old favourite but in today's PC age, one that is sexist yes, puerile yes, but in terms of football chants or songs, is it that bad i.e. would the polis step in? Next we'll be banning the Alan Archibald song on the grounds that it's funny; but some wives and girlfriends might not like it. Moving on to the 'Firhill Boys are in Town' should this too be banned? Some may say that, with success, our casual element is on the rise; so will this be used to explain their future actions? Should the North Stand Song Writers Guild post here to get clearance before songs are introduced at games? Probably…

He know like a lot of stuff!!!! It's the only way I can put it. He is a truly Great Man!

I'm also in receipt of that email and it's quite a read; plus I know hee haw about cricket (although I have to confess to playing seven-aside for many years as it got me special leave from work. But enough of my fraudulent past). Not sure how to respond and I note that there's still no word on SS 00 being returned to the fold.

No worries KNI and apologies if I went off on one. I usually save that for the Penicuik Commie wannabe! I take your point regarding the neo-con interventionist approach but still make the point (reasonably) that money lies at the heart of all that they do. IMO, their god is Mammon. I could go on about the role of Israel in global capitalism but will leave that for another day. On this one we'd probably agree with each other. But enough from me... Cheers MJ

Not like you to provide a political analysis Jaggy, some of it confirms that you're beginning to move to the left. Re-read your post and then think Tony Benn. You remain a work-in-progress.

Apologies, I've stayed away from the forum for the past few days. I've re-read my post and still believe what I've said is factually correct. I was referring to what Thatcher and her cronies delivered and to their legacy. So Heath nationalised a famous old British firm. Why? Look at what a later Tory governments allowed to happen; aided by their New Labour chums. Is this firm still in state hands and producing for the good of the nation? Erm, no, not even owned by a British holding company. It's too easy and politically naive to pick out good things delivered by any political party e.g. didn't Thatcher introduce Disability Living Allowance and an earlier Liberal government kick-start the Welfare State (Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906). But upon analysis, we weren't exactly groundbreakers as the Germans beat us to the notion of a welfare state. Good old Bismarck started paying state pensions back in the 1800s. But the real point is that politics is littered with those who've introduced one or two good ideas or even changed sides; and often for good reason. Doesn't make them great leaders, great politicians or even half-decent people. It's too easy to name (and shame?) all the neo-cons, so why not mention the likes of Wurmser and Abrams? One was accused of being a spy the other was heavily involved in Iran-Contra scandal. Between them they helped give us the clique that sold us the Iraq war. More names to add to your list of shame. All very libertarian and always acting in the best interest of the average citizen. Come on... But maybe you like the folk you've named for what they've achieved by way of lasting change. However, the fact is that these guys were instrumental in shaping their vision of a new world order. I mean, what's a war amongst friends if a few million (billion?) dollars can be made in profit. The fact is that successive British governments have been happy to jump on board the neo-con de-regulation steamroller; with the purpose being to minimise state involvement and control and in so doing allowing profit to be maximised. After all, capital drives the aforementioned individuals and isn't money behind their think tanks e.g. the wonderfully named Project for a New American Century. But you'll probably disagree and think that they're trying to emancipate mankind from the constraints of socialism. In fairness and this is where I'll meet you half way, the relative coherence of neo-conservatism as an ideology and a strategy has led some on the left to become pessimistic about the possibilities for opposing it. But this is a mistake. A full analysis of the weaknesses of the neo-cons is probably beyond the scope of this post as I'd have Jaggy and others reporting me. However, one easy point can be made - neo-cons systematically try to dismantle many of the structures that limit and regulate the operation of the market, both with regard to relationships between capital and labour and with regard to relationships between different capitalist enterprises. As such they cannot but increase the potential instability in the economic system. Weren't many of these limits originally put in place and designed to restrain such instability? But the good news is that as the squeeze comes due to austerity measures, the conditions required to secure a permanent change in society become more apparent. One day the workers of the world will call a halt to this madness. I always like to end on a note of optimism.

Of course I read it, but I only provide answers from my perspective. I like my posts to be petty and ill-informed. This is what I do best. Spouting good old left-wing rhetoric. You love it, I know you do... Conservatives are class traitors so must never be trusted. Why can you be bothered defending what you know to be wrong? Put simply, conservatives of any type hate any government's attempts at the redistribution of wealth or any interference in the economy by regulation. They view welfare entitlements as enabling individuals to shirk responsibility for their own lives so hate anyone relying on the government to take care of them. They reason, wrongly IMO, that the more the government takes responsibility for personal well being away from the individual, the weaker and more dependent society will become. So harsh, so neo-con. In your world, only the strong will survive and flourish; and if government has stolen your job, your pride and hope then you've got to dust yourself down and get on with it. What utter tosh; this is why people have revolutions! You know it doesn't have to be this way. Peace and love brother, x

Read it and weep comrade!

Are we stil talking about the liberals?

At least we've steered this back onto Thatcher so well done Jaggy. I actually can't believe that you keep back issues of Women's Own, but nothing surprises me about you. Bet that copy is well thumbed, I mean Thatcher at her poisonous best... Reminds me why you keep laminated pictures of her. A wee thought: What if the State has caused the problems in the first place? (I'm talking all shades of the Westmisnter spectrum.) The electorate puts trust in the government to act in the best interests of the people, but if they don't deliver, what happens? No come back and the we all remain as miserable as a Fifer with piles. I've actually read Thatcher's comments before; this is the usual uncaring Tory bollocks that some folk get off on. Cameron is currently waffling on about "those who work hard, pay taxes" etc. (He should tell his mates as a few of them are failing to pay some £120m in taxes!) It's all the fault of the poor, the work-shy and the sick etc. But what if it was never a level playing field and what if we really live in a closed them and us society? Do you not think that some folk would look to change the system or at best be given a chance to find a job? But in general terms, even dear old Marx identified that there was a class that didn't wish to engage in society. At risk of raising your BP (always the objective of my posts), I actually have sympathy for those that Thatcher refers to in your magazine. They may have been let down by society. They are the victims. I don't believe that they're all wasters. To be honest, she was quite good at looking after her own sorts and leaving those without to rot. So it will come as no surprise where my sympathies lie. I know, you love me...

Do the SNP government know that there's a lot of hot air generated in Penicuik? You could be the saviour of our nation, a national treasure. Just like the Krankies. Just feed him a few Daily Mail stories and whoooof, there he blows! It is said that his bluster could heat a small town. How ironic, Jaggy the man of Empire returns home to save Caledonia. History will credit you with the new Enlightenment. P.S. WTF has this got to do with the late Hilda? Some true headlines: "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher, 1988 "There is no such thing as Margaret Thatcher" - Society, 2013

The mighty Loch Glow - home of, if memory serves, the Civil Service Angling Club (Rosyth and District); which might explain the empties! I think the CS open it up to clubs to have the odd outing at reasonable cost; the reason why I've been a few times. As a spot, I've generally caught well on the fly; but it can be windy as feck. I once had the pleasure of watching an Osprey catch about 100-yards away fro where I was wading. Nice fish taken in one swoop. (I'd been freezing my knackers off waist deep in a gale for a few hours!) Such is the plight of the lonely angler.

Sorry if I picked you up wrong . Too busy planning an invasion of Cowdenbeath; round up the trouble makers and send them off to the Gulag. No poetry and scones for them. Just forced reading of Das Kapital until you can recite it backwards. Then and only then will comrades be allowed to watch socialist porn (specially chosen by a comrade known to this forum but currently serving a suspension of sorts). It wasn't that long ago that we all aspired to being able to retire at 50 and many adverts used to show greying 50-somethings planning trips to New York with their grand-weans. But not now - greying 70-year olds are still hobbling off to work unable to afford holidays due to pension funds being destroyed by crooked bankers and their mates in the City. Capitalism really works! (That's sarcasm!!)

I'm shocked! If he's built up a fortune and can chuck it early then why not? Why should we have to work until we drop? (I know, I'm now defending TMQ, my old mate Missing Words may have a point!) The Mighty Q might have taken up basket-weaving or may groom competition hamsters or something. He may even read Francis Gay in the Sunday Post. Fact is, we don't know; but because he's retired doesn't mean he's finished. Retirement for some is not the end it's the beginning... There's always a political education to be had and he could join the party of struggle and grow a beard etc. Model himself on Lenin or Trotsky or just stop shaving and go for the full Karl M look. As the great man said: What is to be done? Well lots actually.