Tory`s win Hartlepool by 6940 votes.

Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
smells like a lot of gammon on this thread.

Would you like to congratulate Ben for his outstanding landslide as well ? Go on you know you want to.
Click to expand...
Not gammon at all, didn't you used to be one of the crew who suggested that was 'racist'?

I just care enough about poverty, inequality, creation of an ever divisive and deprived society to think people like you, who treat it all as some sick joke, are what's wrong with society. Hope that clears it up. Why not go and find another meme from your Britain First style pages you follow on social media as a childish response... run along lad.
 
Andy_W said:
Who gave policies and provided your education, who actually taught you in school, college, uni? Who, delivered you at the hospital? I bet it wasn't majority tories.

They didn't appear out of nowhere, for free, their staff were not free, along this line a lot of the "nothing" you have has been given to you by typically "left" policies.
Click to expand...
[To any "self-made-man"]

He didnt get his BCG jabs and child healthcare for nothing.

Or free access to his GP and Hospital treatment.

Thank goodness for the NHS.

If only my taxes didnt have to contribute to "self" (?) made men to pay for their free healthcare, education, their children,family allowance, subsidised mortgages and interest relief on business loans by the public purse through the Bank of England, their subsidised tax "allowances" and all the support our public services have given them.....

I dont see a problem us all working together to provide for us all to have a good quality of life, with most of what we need and a bit more if possible.
There is no individual without society - but not the other way round.

Whilst self - made man was "working hard", others are caring for the elderly, the sick, the vulnerable, the disabled, the mentally ill, the homeless, those who have been sexually, physically, psychologically and emotionally abused. Nurses, Doctors ....... binmen and cleaners are keeping the roads clean for self-made-man to drive on clean roads and walk on well tendered well lit footpaths.

Power workers work 24 hours every day all year to light his conservatory and power his electric tin-opener. Utility workers maintain and operate utilities so he doesnt have to fill a bucket and catch potentially lethal deseases.

Teachers mark homework and make lesson plans in their own time for his children when they attend school next day.

Steelworkers sweat and toil to produce the raw product to make the luxuries he enjoys. Off-shore workers risk their lives and spend weeks away from their families to provide self-made-mans little luxuries, like oil, petroleum for his SUV and his Luton Van.

Police Officers protect "self - made man" when he needs help.
Soldiers, as young as 18, are "working hard" on the front line, risking their lives, thousands of miles away on foreign soil - whilst self-made - man volunteers other peoples children to go to war. Self made man doesnt need to face live rounds and feeling along for IED`s, because someone else is doing it.

Our money pays for his smooth journey on expensive public roads - with bridges and equipment supplied with public money and made in factories up and down the land - where other people are working hard to pay for the fruits of their labour.

The hospitality workers "work hard" for a pittance to provide the linen to tuck himself in, when booking a hotel, and clean the toilets so he doesnt get germs on his bottom.
Lots of people all working together so that "self made man" can live for "himself".

The reality is that self-made man is not "self - made" at all..

Without us all, then none of us survive.





L
 
Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
smells like a lot of gammon on this thread.

Would you like to congratulate Ben for his outstanding landslide as well ? Go on you know you want to.
Click to expand...
Poor turnout wasn’t it for the free spending mayor vote, I can imagine that was disappointing.

Whose idea was the ridiculous blow up ballon of Bunter? He’s fat enough isn’t he without making him look even worse!
 
Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
smells like a lot of gammon on this thread.

Would you like to congratulate Ben for his outstanding landslide as well ? Go on you know you want to.
Click to expand...
I dont know what "gammon" means, other than with pineapple.
Could you put that in the Queens English please?
I`m afraid I dont have access to Sky TV or Fox News, The Sun or The Daily Star, so you will have to enlighten me I`m afraid.
Nice to hear from you. (y)
 
Chris_Boro said:
"Local independent candidates picked up 18% of the votes, with the remainder shared between the Green Party, SNP and other minority parties."

There's an article if you're able to follow the twitter links.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I found that (later), 1800 surveyed, doesn't say where from mind (occupation, race, setting, or area etc), or show who the indy's were/ closest aligned too or the other splits.

Simple stats like that are meaningless, and if badly timed can make things appear extremely bad, where as in reality, there's a lot against the tories still and that number will really increase by the time a GE comes.
 
WeeGord said:
Not gammon at all, didn't you used to be one of the crew who suggested that was 'racist'?
Click to expand...
Not me. I though it was quite funny actually. How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot.

Frothing, gammon faced hypocritical lefties all over this thread ....... and THAT is what I think is funny.

WeeGord said:
Why not go and find another meme from your Britain First style pages you follow on social media as a childish response... run along lad.
Click to expand...

Will this one do you son ?

1620401637488.png
 
Ingleby_Flash said:
Me and my familly have been Labour for ever, I’m still hanging in there.

The day after the last general election I was in Bishop Aukland on familly business with my sister. I said to her I couldn’t believe it had become a Tory town. She said to me “Look around, it’s a shïthole and it used to be nice when we were kids. People ask what has labour done for them”

People want change, many will vote for anything that isn’t status quo, in my view this was reflected in many Brexit votes and the general election. Labour need to show them policies and a route to a future they want, they aren’t doing that.
Click to expand...
So it was a shiithile after 9 years of tory gov and then voted tory.

Doesn't make sense
 
Konrad_the_Barbarian said:
Not me. I though it was quite funny actually. How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot.

Frothing, gammon faced hypocritical lefties all over this thread ....... and THAT is what I think is funny.



Will this one do you son ?

View attachment 18311
Click to expand...
Your discourse is infectious.

I`m fairly certain it was the philosopher Descartes who said "I think therefore I am" [cogito ergo sum]. This essentially translates into - if man attributes meaning to thoughts and deed then he can replicate this in his actions and interactions with others.

In The Social Construction of Reallity by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman [incidentally my first Sociology O-Level book] they expand the relevance of what is known as "The Thomas Theorem": essentially, this asserts “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 1928).

In case you are pondering the relevance of the "cogito" and the Thomas Theorum, it provides a tool to understand how defining peoples behaviours [thoughts words and deeds] can also influence predictable outcomes. By setting boundaries to what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behaviours, we can control and influence those around us and seek assurance and reassurance from our peers - to justify to ourselves that what we are doing - and how we interact - has validity.

If we go a step further into "defining situations as real" and understand how "labelling" can determine the way we and others interact - ie. labels define others according to their characteristics and behaviours.

Howard Becker developed what became known as "Labeling Theory" in which he postulates:

"This refers to a theory of social behaviour which states that the behaviour of human beings is influenced significantly by the way other members in society label them. It has been used to explain a variety of social behaviour among groups, including deviant criminal behaviour. According to this theory, individuals who are labelled as criminals by society, for instance, may be more likely to engage in criminal activities simply due to such social labeling. By the same logic, positive labelling by society can influence individuals to exhibit positive behaviour. "
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press Glencoe.

The point of highlighting the work of eminent Social Scientists such as Bekker, Berger and Luckman and Thomas (s) is to place in context your own "labelling" on this [and other] thread. I am assuming you have a basic understanding of "labelling theory" (?) at least practically, if not neccessarily, academically?

Amongst some groups of people, what is "acceptable" may not be acceptable in other spheres of human interaction. For instance, racism and other derogatory behaviours may be acceptable in a political organisation whose self - perception is based on an assumption of superiority.

Another example may be labelling someone as a "scrounger" or a "commie", [as a derogatory term] because such language amongst some groups of individuals represents "belonging" - a bond - a commonality. It justifies the behaviour - it gives the group an identity and a validity. A badge.

Perhaps we use labels to effect interaction, with some degree of predictability?
It maybe that by using certain terms and labels on FMTTM , someone may expect a "negative" reaction - this enables people to set their own boundaries and establish a realistic expectation that they can control outcomes: it awards them some kind of "authority" "control" "governance" over the behaviour of others?

I trust that you find my response to what others may define as "unacceptable" as "informative"?

Those who use crude slang and euphemistic labels [this may not include you] sometimes expect a similar response - so the act of defining behaviours can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to elicit a specific [negative?] reponse. [Provocation].

I hope this brief summation provides fuel for thought and intellectual stimulation.

(y)

* Economic History, Political Science and Human Sociology were the three modules I enjoyed most at the Poly ;@))
 
Last edited:
Some real bitterness on here today ......mostly from non Hartlepool people , they decided what they wanted , instead of slaughtering them , ask why labour are becoming increasingly irrelevant even in their old heartland. Sunderland council elections were shambolic for them too amongst other places.
When they lose the "working class" vote in areas like the NE its not just purely racists, gammons, brexit etc , loads of people see them now as a out of touch London cult & thats what they have to remedy .
 
r00fie1 said:
Your discourse is infectious.

I`m fairly certain it was the philosopher Descartes who said "I think therefore I am" [cogito ergo sum]. This essentially translates into - if man attributes meaning to thoughts and deed then he can replicate this in his actions and interactions with others.

In The Social Construction of Reallity by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman [incidentally my first Sociology O-Level book] they expand the relevance of what is known as "The Thomas Theorem": essentially, this asserts “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 1928).

In case you are pondering the relevance of the "cogito" and the Thomas Theorum, it provides a tool to understand how defining peoples behaviours [thoughts words and deeds] can also influence predictable outcomes. By setting boundaries to what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behaviours, we can control and influence those around us and seek assurance and reassurance from our peers - to justify to ourselves that what we are doing - and how we interact - has validity.

If we go a step further into "defining situations as real" and understand how "labelling" can determine the way we and others interact - ie. labels define others according to their characteristics and behaviours.

Howard Becker developed what became known as "Labeling Theory" in which he postulates:

"This refers to a theory of social behaviour which states that the behaviour of human beings is influenced significantly by the way other members in society label them. It has been used to explain a variety of social behaviour among groups, including deviant criminal behaviour. According to this theory, individuals who are labelled as criminals by society, for instance, may be more likely to engage in criminal activities simply due to such social labeling. By the same logic, positive labelling by society can influence individuals to exhibit positive behaviour. "
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press Glencoe.

The point of highlighting the work of eminent Social Scientists such as Bekker, Berger and Luckman and Thomas (s) is to place in context your own "labelling" on this [and other] thread. I am assuming you have a basic understanding of "labelling theory" (?) at least practically, if not neccessarily, academically?

Amongst some groups of people, what is "acceptable" may not be acceptable in other spheres of human interaction. For instance, racism and other derogatory behaviours may be acceptable in a political organisation whose self - perception is based on an assumption of superiority.

Another example may be labelling someone as a "scrounger" or a "commie", [as a derogatory term] because such language amongst some groups of individuals represents "belonging" - a bond - a commonality. It justifies the behaviour - it gives the group an identity and a validity. A badge.

Perhaps we use labels to effect interaction, with some degree of predictability?
It maybe that by using certain terms and labels on FMTTM , someone may expect a "negative" reaction - this enables people to set their own boundaries and establish a realistic expectation that they can control outcomes: it awards them some kind of "authority" "control" "governance" over the behaviour of others?

I trust that you find my response to what others may define as "unacceptable" as "informative"?

Those who use crude slang and euphemistic labels [this may not include you] sometimes expect a similar response - so the act of defining behaviours can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to elicit a specific [negative?] reponse. [Provocation].

I hope this brief summation provides fuel for thought and intellectual stimulation.

(y)

* Economic History, Political Science and Human Sociology were the three modules I enjoyed most at the Poly ;@))
Click to expand...
Very informative roofie, I would have just gone with a plain old insult and ended up back on the naughty step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top