Enda Kenny on the cover of Time magazine: 'The Celtic Comeback'

tayto lover

Annabella1 wrote: »

Whatever one's views on our Taoiseach and the content of the article,I think it's better that he is on the cover of Time than not.
International investment here depends on confidence and this can't hurt.
Time is a very influential magazine in Europe and the US

It's about how he "fixed" the country.
He did not.

Monty Burnz

tayto lover wrote: »

It's about how he "fixed" the country.
He did not.

What's your point? How will this article harm perceptions of Ireland abroad? How will this deter investors coming here bringing new businesses and new jobs?

Biggins

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You have not acknowledged that lots of the stuff you accused them of not doing was stuff they never promised to do. You have not acknowledged that lots of the things they have not done is due to the fact that they were promised as part of a FG or a Labour government, not a coalition. You have failed to accept that they are working on some of your 'failures'. You have failed to accept that they have not got around to dealing with some of your other 'failures'. And you seem to fail to accept that having a different policy to your preferred policy is not a failure - it's a different choice.

On top of that, you advocate that the government takes illegal actions and acts like some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship.

I have addressed and pointed out failures - then retorded to your points on the.

I cannot help it if you hold a view/opinion of other view our government.
Your views is that my view is "the government takes illegal actions and acts like some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship" - fair enough, that your opinion.

My opinion is that they have lied, double-standardised, and u-turned. I have stated this many times over just as many months
Sorry if you read that amazingly as "the government takes illegal actions and acts like some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship"

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Criticism is important - in fact, it's essential - but your brand of criticism, where you attack every single thing a government does, doesn't do, or hasn't yet had a chance to do, and describe every single point where you don't like their policies as a 'failure'; this type of criticism is completely useless.

I attack their failures and point out their antics. Pardon me for doing that.
Sorry (again) if that upsets you.

Biggins

jank wrote: »

I think your problem is that you are looking for utopia, can you tell me where the **** that is? You think politicians elsewhere in the world are better or dare I say it perfect? Come to Australia and I will show you exactly the same carry on here as in Ireland.

Politicians are a reflection of that nation or society. Brian Cowen, Beritie et all didn't steal power, they were voted in by electoral means...
The problem is with the people as they demand the government bend over fist to satisfy their every whim. That is what is different about Ireland, a massive sense of entitlement on behalf of many.

I think the people would actually like a government that is honest, decent and stands by the very words they speak to them with.

Yes, so far when it comes to Ireland, I and many are dreaming with the continuing present, stayed too long in the Dail elected lot!
The old guard are too set in their ways of outdated working methodology, self-interest and thinking!

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Want more?

No, I think most of us can find your blog by now, thanks.

And also, thanks for sucking the life out of AH!

Monty Burnz

Biggins wrote: »

I have addressed and pointed out failures - then retorded to your points on the.

I cannot help it if you hold a view/opinion of other view our government.
Your views is that my view is "the government takes illegal actions and acts like some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship" - fair enough, that your opinion.

No, it's not my opinion. You talk about the government prosecuting people (how?) and expropriating property. This is illegal. It's not a matter of opinion.

Biggins wrote: »

My opinion is that they have lied, double-standardised, and u-turned. I have stated this many times over just as many months
Sorry if you read that amazingly as "the government takes illegal actions and acts like some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship"

You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. Your solutions to some of their 'failures' are illegal/unconstitutional and/or impossible. This suggests you don't fully understand what you are talking about, or are unwilling to understand.

Biggins wrote: »

I attack their failures and point out their antics. Pardon me for doing that.
Sorry (again) if that upsets you.

As I have said, criticism is essential. But it needs to be reasoned, accurate criticism, and criticism that accepts that there is not a single approach to a problem or a single correct solution. And you should be willing to acknowledge when guys are trying their best, and what stuff they have got right.

tayto lover

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What's your point? How will this article harm perceptions of Ireland abroad? How will this deter investors coming here bringing new businesses and new jobs?

Because it's the same as what went before i.e. more lying and more Bertieism. The country is far from being fixed and taking credit for something that is far from being accomplished is deceit. We are just as likely to go down the tubes as we are to recover, maybe more so.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

...And also, thanks for sucking the life out of AH!

Takes one to know one?

Monty Burnz

tayto lover wrote: »

Because it's the same as what went before i.e. more lying and more Bertieism. The country is far from being fixed and taking credit for something that is far from being accomplished is deceit. We are just as likely to go down the tubes as we are to recover, maybe more so.

So this positive article appearing in the international press harms us how? Have you read the article?

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Takes one to know one?

Jesus, how old are you?

You spend all day every day here, and what have you to show for it?

Thirty thousand posts, that's what. I'm here with years, and if I could number my AH posts in the hundreds, I'd be doing well.

FFS log off and walk the dog or something.

tayto lover

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So this positive article appearing in the international press harms us how? Have you read the article?

Yes. Our problems are far from being sorted as you should well know.
But maybe when we can't tax and cut our way out of this recession we could lie our way out.

Monty Burnz

The question: this positive article harms us how?

The answer:

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes. Our problems are far from being sorted as you should well know.
But maybe when we can't tax and cut our way out of this recession we could lie our way out.

I must be getting stupider by the minute, because this seems to be the answer to a different question.

RoundyMooney

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So this positive article appearing in the international press harms us how? Have you read the article?

I doubt it, considering he'd have to pay for it.

suicide_circus

Brain Stroking wrote: »

People continuously moan about "he promised this" and "he promised that". Obama is hearing the same in the US at the moment. When will people realise that all of those promises HAVE to be made as that is how stupid people vote. Name me one leader of any developed country who came in and delivered every pre-election promise, it doesnt happen.

You base your opinions on politicians pre-election on how capable, sensible and pragmatic a politician is. You never base it on what he tells you in a debate. You base your opinions post-election on where they have come from (ie what did they inherit) and what steps they are taking to strengthen the country's position going forward.

Using the above i think Enda and the present government are doing well. They are far far superior to the "upwards-only rent" days of Fianna Fail who i apply the same rationale to (and they were terrible for the country when in power).

So i read comments here and i wonder where some people are living. The level of sheer inability to think rationally and avoid mob mentality is absent in this country these days.

OK so we shouldn't vote for candidates based on pre election promises because these promises are either disingenuous or just plain lies. But we should vote vote for candidates based on how capable, sensible and pragmatic they are? Given how skilled they are at spin and spewing verbal diarrhea how can we possibly arrive at any reliable assessment of their character or qualities?

Dosnt exactly encourage one do vote, does it? I mean what's the point? There is so much smoke, mirrors and double-speak going on that knowing who or what you are voting for is a virtual impossibility.

Biggins

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, it's not my opinion. You talk about the government prosecuting people (how?) and expropriating property. This is illegal. It's not a matter of opinion.

Seriously?
So if you or I refuse to pay up for something - the state can't come after us one way or another?
...And oif they can - why can't they go after a person or organisation that equally owes money?
Didn't one top TD at the government table even state recently about seizing of church assets of they didn't cough-up?
It will be news to him such actions are illegal.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. Your solutions to some of their 'failures' are illegal/unconstitutional and/or impossible. This suggests you don't fully understand what you are talking about, or are unwilling to understand.

Fair enough - thats your opinion.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

As I have said, criticism is essential. But it needs to be reasoned, accurate criticism, and criticism that accepts that there is not a single approach to a problem or a single correct solution. And you should be willing to acknowledge when guys are trying their best, and what stuff they have got right.

Nothing is black and white but some issues that have not been tackled at all or u-turned on, are still failures.
I welcome good moves by this government but they are so far and few, its hard to spot them many a time.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

I welcome good moves by this government but they are so far and few, its hard to spot them many a time.

If you're saying what I think you're saying-I have yet to see you do this. Even once. One post of unqualified praise for an establishment action/policy/initiative.

Like, what do you do all day? Do you have a black book filled with establishment misdeeds or what? I wish I had half the spare time you seem to have at your disposal.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Jesus, how old are you?

You spend all day every day here, and what have you to show for it?

Thirty thousand posts, that's what. I'm here with years, and if I could number my AH posts in the hundreds, I'd be doing well.

FFS log off and walk the dog or something.

Well if you just going to post a silly statement of

...And also, thanks for sucking the life out of AH!

What do you expect? Just let that slight to unreplied?
You see if you can insult others and recognise things you think see others doing, well guess what, I say you must have experience in doing such things in order to recognise similar!

And frankly, you have fail you show in evidence that I have sucked anything!
After Hours is still here, we still joke A LOT and it will still be here in some guise after our dried up bones have turned possibly to dust!

JustAddWater

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You base your opinions on politicians pre-election on how capable, sensible and pragmatic a politician is. You never base it on what he tells you in a debate.

Your right. Kenny doesn't do debates so you needn't worry bout that

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

If you're saying what I think you're saying-I have yet to see you do this. Even once. One post of unqualified praise for an establishment action/policy/initiative.

Like, what do you do all day? Do you have a black book filled with establishment misdeeds or what? I wish I had half the spare time you seem to have at your disposal.

I wish I had your blinkers.
It must be a nice world you see.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

I wish I had your blinkers.
It must be a nice world you see.

It's a helluva lot more real than yours, I would opine.

Do you enjoy this? How long did that badass blog-pimpin' opening post take to draft, by the way?

Did it feel good?

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Well if you just going to post a silly statement of


What do you expect? Just let that slight to unreplied?
You see if you can insult others and recognise things you think see others doing, well guess what, I say you must have experience in doing such things in order to recognise similar!

And frankly, you have fail you show in evidence that I have sucked anything!
After Hours is still here, we still joke A LOT and it will still be here in some guise after our dried up bones have turned possibly to dust!

Dude, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say...

Lots of jumbled analogies and English, but no actual message.

BTW, what you suck is your own business :eek:

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

FFS log off and walk the dog or something.

Forgot to mention, I don't have a dog.
I do have 4 kids however and every time a new tax/charge/levy and another reason that our government creates for them to go elsewhere beyond our borders, angers me greatly.
Every time they possibly lie, u-turn and double-standard, it exposes the failures they are.

I'm not on my own I suspect with this opinion!

NOTE: Good news from our government - they have seen to it that our kids now can stay for TWO years in Canada, not one as previously.
Well done them!

Monty Burnz

Biggins wrote: »

Seriously?
So if you or I refuse to pay up for something - the state can't come after us one way or another?
...And oif they can - why can't they go after a person or organisation that equally owes money?
Didn't one top TD at the government table even state recently about seizing of church assets of they didn't cough-up?
It will be news to him such actions are illegal.

This may be what you are thinking of:

EDUCATION Minister Ruairi Quinn yesterday admitted publicly for the first time that religious orders don't have the cash or assets to pay their share of the compensation bill for abuse.

And he said he had no intention of bankrupting the orders -- which leaves him facing a massive battle to recover their half of a €1.5bn bill.

The taxpayer is already picking up €750m of the expected final cost but now faces having to pay far more.

<snip>

As the Redress Board, which has made 14,000 awards to date, nears the end of its work, the figure being put on the final cost of the scheme and associated matters is €1.5bn.

The minister accepts the orders are not in a position to come "remotely close" to paying 50pc of the bill but, he said, "they can do something else".

He asked them: "Please give us the title deeds of your educational infrastructure."

The Government is also interested in medical facilities.

Mr Quinn said there was no question of requiring them to vacate properties, or hand over patronage of schools -- rather to make the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, the "landlord" of the property.

Mr Quinn has met the orders in recent months and is in the process of sending letters to the 18 congregations setting out his position, in a bid to bring finality to the long-running saga.

Seems reasonable - only I'd be a lot happier to bankrupt the religious groups. No suggestion of seizing property though.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Forgot to mention, I don't have a dog.
I do have 4 kids however and every time a new tax/charge/levy and another reason that our government creates for them to go elsewhere beyond our borders, angers me greatly.
Every time they possibly lie, u-turn and double-standard, it exposes the failures they are.

I'm not on my own I suspect with this opinion!

Stop bringing your kids into it-you do this every flippin' time!

I have kids too, as do a massive chunk of the populace, yet we manage without bringing them into every single discussion.

Sergeant

Biggins wrote: »

Forgot to mention, I don't have a dog.
I do have 4 kids however and every time a new tax/charge/levy and another reason that our government creates for them to go elsewhere beyond our borders, angers me greatly.

I'm not on my own I suspect!

So you don't want any cuts, but you don't want any tax increases either? How do you propose they fill that gaping gap between what they take in, and what they pay out? Don't need detailed proposals and figures, just a couple of sentences to summarise the main thrust of your thinking.

MOC88

I think he is a massive waste of space and a coward - but getting something like the Celtic Comeback in the times is massive coupled with our lower bond rates recently is fantastic especially for companies thinking about investing

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

...BTW, what you suck is your own business :eek:

I should hope so but RTTH might state cameras are everywhere!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This may be what you are thinking of:

Seems reasonable - only I'd be a lot happier to bankrupt the religious groups. No suggestion of seizing property though.

I personally suspect that because no one in our government has the balls to go after those that own 750 Million to the state (I'm not even saying now about going after the full amount), that they have come up with this latest usable excuse ("religious orders don't have the cash or assets to pay their share of the compensation bill for abuse.") for their inactivity.

Clearly by not perusing the inner org abusers still alive and/or their enablers (Cardinal Brady) - its very obvious they don't wish to take on the religious orgs.
Shame on them!

Biggins

Sergeant wrote: »

So you don't want any cuts, but you don't want any tax increases either? How do you propose they fill that gaping gap between what they take in, and what they pay out? Don't need detailed proposals and figures, just a couple of sentences to summarise the main thrust of your thinking.

I posted on this matter around a week ago.
When I have the time, I will find it (if someone don't find it tn the meantime).

RoundyMooney

Sergeant wrote: »

So you don't want any cuts, but you don't want any tax increases either? How do you propose they fill that gaping gap between what they take in, and what they pay out? Don't need detailed proposals and figures, just a couple of sentences to summarise the main thrust of your thinking.

I reckon he's your archetypal socialist, he wants to live on other people's money.

For a supposed employer, entrepreneur, security consultant, specialist in a vague military/security related field, he seems to have had a lot of time over the years to formulate a political philosophy.

It's a pity he doesn't use that time to generate a few suggestions.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

...It's a pity he doesn't use that time to generate a few suggestions.

*cough*

I did!

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

*cough*

I did!

Please, let us see! Positivity, Biggins!

Monty Burnz

Biggins wrote: »

I personally suspect that because no one in our government has the balls to go after those that own 750 Million to the state (I'm not even saying now about going after the full amount), that they have come up with this latest usable excuse ("religious orders don't have the cash or assets to pay their share of the compensation bill for abuse.") for their inactivity.

Clearly by not perusing the inner org abusers still alive and/or their enablers (Cardinal Brady) - its very obvious they don't wish to take on the religious orgs.
Shame on them!

You see, we are getting into conspiracy theory territory here. My view is that Ho Chi Quinn wants to extract as much cash as he can from the religious bodies without wiping them out completely.

Biggins

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You see, we are getting into conspiracy theory territory here. My view is that Ho Chi Quinn wants to extract as much cash as he can from the religious bodies without wiping them out completely.

"Ho Chi Quinn"

Fair play - I like that!

My view is that once again the religious orgs are taking him (and us) on a ride to nowhere.
(It it seems they are good at, well... riding!
It caused the problem in the first place!)

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

My view is that once again the religious orgs are taking him (and us) on a ride to nowhere.
(It it seems they are good at, well... riding!
It caused the problem in the first place!)

Classy.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Classy.

Your welcome.

P.S. Not true?
Darn those blinkers again!

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Your welcome.

P.S. Not true?
Darn those blinkers again!

Who says "Darn"?

It may be true that sexual proclivities have landed the men in dresses in a spot of bother, but your lame jokes about riding are neither funny, not helpful. These were children!

Attempted populism maybe, but that's par for the course.

You were in FF around the time Michael Woods settled for ten percent from the religious orders (as opposed to Rúairi Quinns fifty), were you not?

Had you much to say, at that time, with regard to that decision?

Would you consider RQ's position a tad more constructive than that arrived at by a member of Opus Dei?

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Who says "Darn"?

It may be true that sexual proclivities have landed the men in dresses in a spot of bother, but your lame jokes about riding are neither funny, not helpful. These were children!

Attempted populism maybe, but that's par for the course.

You were in FF around the time Michael Woods settled for ten percent from the religious orders (as opposed to Rúairi Quinns fifty), were you not?

Had you much to say, at the time?

I say "darn".
I'm grey haired a bit, I'm not up as much as I'd like on the latest lingo!

...And yes, I said a few choice words about the antics of others.
I wasn't very popular with some (I wasn't worried) but at the time I didn't consider myself any less right about various things.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

I say "darn".
I'm grey haired a bit, I'm not up as much as I'd like on the latest lingo!

...And yes, I said a few choice words about the antics of others.
I wasn't very popular with some (I wasn't worried) but at the time I didn't consider myself any less right about various things.

A few choice words...whoa!

So, who's better, a bible bashing member of your own former party, or the guy who's there now, who wants to extract as much compensation from these people as possible, without killing them off entirely?

And which one have you had the most to say about?

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

A few choice words...whoa!

So, who's better, a bible bashing member of your own former party, or the guy who's there now, who wants to extract as much compensation from these people as possible, without killing them off entirely?

And which one have you had the most to say about?

I'm personally up for the latter - no time for the former.

My fear is that once again the orgs are pulling (no joke intended!) a fast one yet again.
They have had practice of dirty tricks over centuries.
Given that the state is hard pressed to go after our later in years, banking culprits, taking on a far much older institution that know much better how to run rings around others, I fear "Ho Chi Quinn" ( Credit to Monty Burnz) is 1. either being 'led up the garden path' or 2. playing along in hoping the issue will quietly die away.

tayto lover

Biggins wrote: »

I'm personally up for the latter - no time for the former.

My fear is that once again the orgs are pulling (no joke intended!) a fast one yet again.
They have had practice of dirty tricks over centuries.
Given that the state is hard pressed to go after our later in years, banking culprits, taking on a far much older institution that know much better how to run rings around others, I fear "Ho Chi Quinn" ( Credit to Monty Burnz) is 1. either being 'led up the garden path' or 2. playing along in hoping the issue will quietly die away.

We should seize their lands. Nothing annoys them more than losing land and they have loads of it and in prime areas. If we made that threat I feel they might come back with an improved offer.

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

I'm personally up for the latter - no time for the former.

With the respect I'd accord anyone on here-you're talking utter, inconsistent nonsense.

Quinn (the Ho Chi thing is on the go with years btw, with Chairman Mayo being a recent addition) was the butt of your ire on here, in many other threads, not least in this thread alone, and now you're expressing a wishy washy preference for him?

I think he's doing a fine job, personally, under difficult circumstances.

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

With the respect I'd accord anyone on here-you're talking utter, inconsistent nonsense.

Quinn (the Ho Chi thing is on the go with years btw, with Chairman Mayo being a recent addition) was the butt of your ire on here, in many other threads, not least in this thread alone, and now you're expressing a wishy washy preference for him?

I think he's doing a fine job, personally, under difficult circumstances.

Where did I say I have a "wishy washy preference" for him?

I expressed that he might be (a) be made a fool of or (b) partaking in wanting the matter to go quietly away?

How in gods name do you take one paragraph and turn it into I have a "wishy washy preference" for him?

Seriously?
Talk about wanting to see only what you want to!
Using those blinkers again?

4zn76tysfajdxp

In fairness Biggins, you can't just immediately accuse everybody you disagree with of being blinkered or blindly devoted to the state. Even if you think they're wrong. It's just not cricket, old boy. I also recommend you cut out the use of exclamation marks altogether to make your posts slightly more palatable. Honestly, people will be a lot more receptive to your points if you do that.

Johro

Brody Brief Frank wrote: »

In fairness Biggins, you can't just immediately accuse everybody you disagree with of being blinkered or blindly devoted to the state. Even if you think they're wrong. It's just not cricket, old boy. I also recommend you cut out the use of exclamation marks altogether to make your posts slightly more palatable. Honestly, people will be a lot more receptive to your points if you do that.

Meh.

Sammy_Jankis

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WAi2txkagVM/SObkAFGBQHI/AAAAAAAACpY/eU5QKMOOodU/s400/george_costanza_jerk_store.bmp

Biggins

Brody Brief Frank wrote: »

In fairness Biggins, you can't just immediately accuse everybody you disagree with of being blinkered or blindly devoted to the state. Even if you think they're wrong. It's just not cricket, old boy. I also recommend you cut out the use of exclamation marks altogether to make your posts slightly more palatable. Honestly, people will be a lot more receptive to your points if you do that.

If a poster here sees something that is not actually there - typed out - I'm going to correct them on it and if necessary where appropriate, say that their view is blinkered due to their staunch party view.

The same could be said of me but then I hope others likewise will point out also where I have read something where they say actually another!

I have NOT said I have wishy washy preference for anyone!
I have NOT espoused that I like Quinn - I pointed out my fears on a matter surrounding him.
How anyone can say in their view that I have so, I will refute such a suggestion!

Even if you think they're wrong.

I'm not allowed respond now to those I feel is wrong?


I don't accuse everybody I disagree with of being blinkered,
Many an opinion I accept if only to see another side of an aspect.
However when someone clearly only wants to see something that is clearly not there in text, I tend to think such views are oddly blinkered thus.

Sorcha16

washman3 wrote: »

Strange thing is when informed people predicted that this crisis was looming and mayhen would ensue they were continously lampooned by people exactly like you. the mind indeed boggles.:mad:

Dude you know zilch about me, least of all my political ideologies so quit the irrational jumping to conclusions please.

Also, let's not forget, we're in this economic quagmire thanks to the Ahern Administration. If people expect the current government to mop up this mess overnight, they're seriously underestimating the extent of financial crisis we're in.

It seems to me that the people bemoaning austerity are expecting some sort of kamikaze return to the Celtic Tiger days, without realising that it's precisely that kind of economy that has ruined our country

tayto lover

What's the "dude" thing about? Did you get a postcard from America?

RoundyMooney

Biggins wrote: »

Where did I say I have a "wishy washy preference" for him?

I expressed that he might be (a) be made a fool of or (b) partaking in wanting the matter to go quietly away?

How in gods name do you take one paragraph and turn it into I have a "wishy washy preference" for him?

Seriously?
Talk about wanting to see only what you want to!
Using those blinkers again?

Well, you're hardly going to tell us all you're wishy-washy, are you? Seriously? If you actually read what I'm writing, you'll see that I referred to your posts elsewhere as well-let's face it, there are plenty to choose from.

For someone who can't see what's written in front of them, not to mind communicating in a similiar vein, you're one to talk about blinkers.

We're so lucky we have you to show us the way! Especially in matters of security and defence...

(...from the Stuff You Know That Others Wouldn't Know Because Of Your Job thread):

-"No matter what you tell people to do, they still do the opposite and get shot at and blown up.

They see the unclear and minute, yet they don't see the big signs coming right at them.

That a single AK47/48 can cause so much damage.

That everything is traceable. Everyone is buggable. No secret stays a secret for long.

The one that wants you dead more often that not, will also be the one smiling at you nicely while he/she shakes your hand."

In response to an assertion that airplanes are safe

-"LOL unless that plane is a X-35 Joint Strike Fighter flying over the Pakistan border on a spy and shoot mission, when the feckers below fire a SAM (Surface to Air Missile) at your ass!
...but thats another story... lol"

"-Thats there is about 200+ ways to kill a human without using an additional weapon/accessory/poison/etc."

"-One tip I tell my staff and people that hire me: if your ever in trouble in a bar/disco/cafe etc and all hell has broken out by flames, fights, gunfire, etc - follow the staff - not the crowd.
You think that would be obvious but so many just follow the crowd and end up paying a price for it.

The staff will (or should if they are any frackin' good) know the quieter, sometimes unknown exit routes and escape passages."

"-If your hiring a security team to watch your back, GENUINELY get to know them.
In this particular close personal protection situation, the more you know about them and their family, the more you will earn their thrust and efforts above and beyond.... (They with experience can smell a fake miles off).

If they see you care about them ("Hows the kids?" - "Need time off for the wife?" Ect...) as much as they are supposed to care for you, your 1000 times safer than the first day they started work for you."

"-I've done work on behalf of the government in areas people don't even know exist - the public have no idea at all about what's done in their name - no idea whatsoever.

Regarding a query as to what Biggins does:

"-Something like that. I get the jobs that sane folk would or should turn down.
(I've seen a lot of stuff and some things I'd honestly like to forget - some stuff still haunts me.)"

Yeah, I wouldn't fancy cleaning the bogs in Tamangoes, either...

Biggins

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Well, you're hardly going to tell us all you're wishy-washy, are you? Seriously? If you actually read what I'm writing, you'll see that I referred to your posts elsewhere as well-let's face it, there are plenty to choose from.

For someone who can't see what's written in front of them, not to mind communicating in a similiar vein, you're one to talk about blinkers.

We're so lucky we have you to show us the way! Especially in matters of security and defence...

...A load of non-relevant stuff only posted to have a dig!

Having posted all that just to have a dig and or muck rake - to quote yourself..

"Classy"

Good way to
1. Try changing the debate.
2. Avoid your absolute inability to read whats in front of you.


Staying on topic.

I posted:

My fear is that once again the orgs are pulling (no joke intended!) a fast one yet again.
They have had practice of dirty tricks over centuries.

Given that the state is hard pressed to go after our later in years, banking culprits, taking on a far much older institution that know much better how to run rings around others, I fear "Ho Chi Quinn" ( Credit to Monty Burnz) is 1. either being 'led up the garden path' or 2. playing along in hoping the issue will quietly die away.

YOU posted back:

Quinn (the Ho Chi thing is on the go with years btw, with Chairman Mayo being a recent addition) was the butt of your ire on here, in many other threads, not least in this thread alone, and now you're expressing a wishy washy preference for him?

Now where EXACTLY have I posted ANY liking for him, wishy washy or not!

WHERE?

Avoid the issue, avoid the question, carry on with attempted digs, carry on with the strange ocular problem you have.

Just carry on and to use your term, stay "classy".