Wycombe MP: I quit (From Bucks Free Press)

Will he be staying until the next election, therby making sure he gets his"re-location" allowance and his "re-settlement" allowance, probably totalling £100,000 or more?

Or is he doing the honourable thing and resigning now, thereby giving up the gravy train right now?

Mr Goodman says Wesminster is "ill". Why then leave and not help it back to health? There will be so many new MP's next time. There will be need for some who was there now. I was going to say those who worked there now. But as we now know, not many of them do. We need more people in the House of Commons who have actually worked for a living. An MP who not only has a house in High Wycombe, but who will LIVE here and communte to Westminster. In saying all this, I think Paul Goodman has been a good MP. Compaired to another one we had, & alot currently in Westminster.

What does this prove?

By resigning, are you forgoing your right to the pension, full pay for many months after you resign, and various other allowances worth many tens of thousands of pounds. This is an entirely plastic gesture!

Be a man and earn an honest crust like everyone else. Ever thought of starting your own business and monetising a bright idea you have, or don't you have any?

You may believe as you exit public life this will die away nice and quietly - but it is something within you that dies as you wither on the vine.

Where's the honour, grace and philotimo Goodman, don't your wife and family deserve better?

Well said Punchy. I am wondering tho if he knows something we don't and there is a deeper reason..

One of the few MPs who will be able to walk away from Westminister, when Brown finally calls a general election, with his head held high.

I think he has been a great MP for Wycombe, particularly with being a leading figure in the fight against the cuts at Wycombe Hospital.

I understand his reasons to go. I wonder if the others commenting have read have read his letter in todays paper. He's merely saying, that the House of Commons, for a number if reasons, is no longer the place for him.

Yes, we'd like a man like this to fight to make Parliament well again. But if his heart isn't in it anymore, and it sounds like it isn't, then he's doing the right thing.

Wycombenewbie, aren't you forgetting about the cot and the stairgate?

Forget about Watergate, we've got Stairgategate!

Shame, assuming there are no skeletons, he's a good man but I urge him to reconsider, better to fight the rot from within than from the outside. I have spoken with Paul Goodman a number of times, his expenses are nothing out of the ordinary compared to other MPs, no doubt we will get a Cameron stooge akin to the muppets we have running the County at the moment.

Can someone buy a copy of the BFP and give us an over (4 pages???)

Can someone buy a copy of the BFP and give us an over view(4 pages???)

We need more MP's with some experience of life to represent us,not professional politicians. Maybe we should have meaningful employment outside politics as a prerequisite for anybody to represent us.

Agniesca wrote:
We need more MP's with some experience of life to represent us,not professional politicians. Maybe we should have meaningful employment outside politics as a prerequisite for anybody to represent us.

But that would bar most of them. Cameron has never had a proper job, neither has McBroon or Clegg; David Davis has but he was kicked out because of his speech.

Parliament is full of lawyers who i'm afraid like many Judges, look at the world through rose-tinted glasses.

Well this crisis is certainly sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

If someone feels that something is wrong in the job then really they should try and help that sinking ship, not bail out at the slightest whiff of an oil leak.

By announcing his resignation now, people may think that he has somoething to hide because right now, the people who have resigned so far are those who have done something wrong.

DOES THIS MEAN I COULD APPLY FOR HIS JOB?
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:
DOES THIS MEAN I COULD APPLY FOR HIS JOB? JUDGE

No, only real Judges allowed haha.

Sorry everyone but I just don't buy this.

Salary £64k, second home allowance £13k+ (even though he lives easily within most normal peoples commute distance), and many other expenses to make the total £128k above his salary.

Then when you examine what he has done for his constituents and his voting record in parliament on important issues like climate change and the Iraq war it really is quite poor.

Yet when we get the general election what wil we do?

Yep, you guessed it, vote in yet another tory puppet to forget about us and do as they are told by the leadership.

Oh and Judge, I don't know anyone who would vote for somebody who shouts all the time.

"Oh and Judge, I don't know anyone who would vote for somebody who shouts all the time."

Ian Paisley got away with it for years...

Quite true erm, I stand corrected.

AND he was the only politician who was funnier in real life than his 'spitting image' puppet!!

"Mr Barlow said: “I am surprised he has gone but Labour has an excellent candidate that will rise to the occasion and take the seat.”


Dream on Sunshine, dream on.

Its pretty obvious he is resigning to concentrate full time on the third Mr Bean movie i can't wait !

wayneo wrote:
"Mr Barlow said: “I am surprised he has gone but Labour has an excellent candidate that will rise to the occasion and take the seat.” Dream on Sunshine, dream on.

Thats all labour can do now - dream. After the nightmare of Brown's administation.

smiley cat wrote:

wayneo wrote:
"Mr Barlow said: “I am surprised he has gone but Labour has an excellent candidate that will rise to the occasion and take the seat.” Dream on Sunshine, dream on.

Thats all labour can do now - dream. After the nightmare of Brown's administation.

I think at the moment he is being a fall guy for problems not of his own creation.

The global recession would have affected any party in government and the expenses furore is affecting all main parties but he is the one getting the blame and getting shafted.

I suppose this is what happens when you take responsibility for the party but I am sick of all the Labour hate in the media when the Tories are equally as bad but seem to be coming out unscathed for the same crimes.

All these MPs quitting and blaming Brown for lack of leadership should look at their own part in this sorry business and see that they are to blame. Had they not been greedy bar stewards the government would not be in the situation it is now.

Where have you been since 1997?

I think you'll find this Government, under Brown and laughing boy Blair, are the most despised and hated in living memory.

Yes - despised and hated but only by the Tories! Matched only by the Labour side who despise and hate cameron and the rest of the Eton Mess.

erm wrote:
"Oh and Judge, I don't know anyone who would vote for somebody who shouts all the time."

Ian Paisley got away with it for years...

MY FIRST ACT ON BECOMING M.P. IS TO LOBBY FOR A 'MINISTER FOR FUN' AND YOU ARE ON THE TOP OF THE LIST.
VERY DROLL
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:

erm wrote: "Oh and Judge, I don't know anyone who would vote for somebody who shouts all the time." Ian Paisley got away with it for years...

MY FIRST ACT ON BECOMING M.P. IS TO LOBBY FOR A 'MINISTER FOR FUN' AND YOU ARE ON THE TOP OF THE LIST. VERY DROLL JUDGE

thanks judge, maybe you arent such a big tósser after all...

which is a shame as you would need to be a big tósser to be an MP

Voyeur wrote:
Yes - despised and hated but only by the Tories! Matched only by the Labour side who despise and hate cameron and the rest of the Eton Mess.

I'm not a Tory

The report says HAS QUIT does the Bucks Free Press mean will quit at the end of this Parliament?
The latter seems most likely - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

you are obviously too young to remember thatcher then - she was far worse.

Between her and blair, john major looks really good :-)

That was at wayneo's comment "I think you'll find this Government, under Brown and laughing boy Blair, are the most despised and hated in living memory."

WHy isnt the quote thing working properly?

tom.marlow wrote:
That was at wayneo's comment "I think you'll find this Government, under Brown and laughing boy Blair, are the most despised and hated in living memory."

WHy isnt the quote thing working properly?

It's a BFP trick to prevent criticism to the Conservatives!

OllieNewbury wrote:

tom.marlow wrote: That was at wayneo's comment "I think you'll find this Government, under Brown and laughing boy Blair, are the most despised and hated in living memory." WHy isnt the quote thing working properly?

It's a BFP trick to prevent criticism to the Conservatives!

Now you see Ollie - I would argue that this paper has a definite biase towards the lib dems.
Not that it appears to have done them much good!!!!

tom.marlow wrote:
you are obviously too young to remember thatcher then - she was far worse. Between her and blair, john major looks really good :-)

No, not too young at all, You mean the M Thatcher who made it so that the average man could buy their own homes and buy their own shares, curtailed the Unions and refused to allow the EU dominance that we have today, or maybe the same M Thatcher who was respected the world over, even by her enemies, who presided over the reformation of the Labour markets, rebuilding the shattered economy of the previous Labour Government and to top it off Tom, something that you might be interested in is that she also championed the fight against climate change.

So apart from poll tax (which was John Major's baby), there aint much the lefties can criticise her for.

I can't blame the chap, I can see why the good career he had in journalism must seem preferable. Hopefully he can return to it successfully.

Hmm, maybe I should run for the post, my total lack of involvement in local politics can only count as a plus!

wayneo wrote:

tom.marlow wrote: you are obviously too young to remember thatcher then - she was far worse. Between her and blair, john major looks really good :-)

No, not too young at all, You mean the M Thatcher who made it so that the average man could buy their own homes and buy their own shares, curtailed the Unions and refused to allow the EU dominance that we have today, or maybe the same M Thatcher who was respected the world over, even by her enemies, who presided over the reformation of the Labour markets, rebuilding the shattered economy of the previous Labour Government and to top it off Tom, something that you might be interested in is that she also championed the fight against climate change. So apart from poll tax (which was John Major's baby), there aint much the lefties can criticise her for.

She closed the mines Wayneo and sadly that is her legacy.... that is all peeps want to remember her for..

How did you all vote ?

Look at the results for Buckinghamshire Cons + 2 46 seats , labour -2,no seats the people have decided.

am i the only one wrote:
Look at the results for Buckinghamshire Cons + 2 46 seats , labour -2,no seats the people have decided.

Its called democracy but lets wait for the sour grapes from the lib dems lol!

what party is Goodman in i cant find out from this article if hes a tory i dont give a monkeys

No, I mean the evil witch who shut down the mining industry, sold the council houses, started an unnecessary war, channelled the profits from the north sea oil and gas fields into the pockets of the already rich, privatised and otherwise messed up a range of public services.

Her "championing of the fight against climate change" was bogus - she was notorious for toadying to scientists in order to attempt to gain academic credibility while at the same time seriously damaging research funding and science teaching in universities. I was there, watching it.

The only sensible thing she did was deregulating the financial markets thus providing an opportunity for myself and many other scientists to use our mathematical skills to make a living. But that doesnt seem to popular now. Still that wasnt really her idea anyway.

Be interesting to see how she is perceived in 50 years time. Pity I'm unlikely to be around.

Punchy wrote:
Wycombenewbie, aren't you forgetting about the cot and the stairgate? Forget about Watergate, we've got Stairgategate!

I like that, made me larf that did.

Was that the Mrs Thatcher who was also labeled "The Milk Snatcher" when she stopped school milk!

tom.marlow wrote:
No, I mean the evil witch who shut down the mining industry, sold the council houses, started an unnecessary war, channelled the profits from the north sea oil and gas fields into the pockets of the already rich, privatised and otherwise messed up a range of public services. Her "championing of the fight against climate change" was bogus - she was notorious for toadying to scientists in order to attempt to gain academic credibility while at the same time seriously damaging research funding and science teaching in universities. I was there, watching it. The only sensible thing she did was deregulating the financial markets thus providing an opportunity for myself and many other scientists to use our mathematical skills to make a living. But that doesnt seem to popular now. Still that wasnt really her idea anyway. Be interesting to see how she is perceived in 50 years time. Pity I'm unlikely to be around.

Well Tom - thanks to her I was able to buy my council house - me and a lot of others like me. Hard workers who would not have been able to get a goot on the property ladder otherwise.

Oh and BTW it wasn't just her - my parents bought their council house in 1969 - I don't THINK she was in power then was she?? ;)

But the people who sold you your council house didnt own it did they? The houses were really owned by the community as a whole, paid for by rate payers / tax payers. They were mostly sold at significant discounts on their market value. The end result was a huge shortfall in low cost housing forcing many people to take out mortgages they could barely afford in order to buy houses.

Of course, that resulted in a much more compliant workforce who were much less likely to do anything that would jeopardise their jobs and their ability to pay their mortages.

I wonder who benefitted most from this? Was it really you?

tom.marlow wrote:
No, I mean the evil witch who shut down the mining industry, sold the council houses, started an unnecessary war, channelled the profits from the north sea oil and gas fields into the pockets of the already rich, privatised and otherwise messed up a range of public services. Her "championing of the fight against climate change" was bogus - she was notorious for toadying to scientists in order to attempt to gain academic credibility while at the same time seriously damaging research funding and science teaching in universities. I was there, watching it. The only sensible thing she did was deregulating the financial markets thus providing an opportunity for myself and many other scientists to use our mathematical skills to make a living. But that doesnt seem to popular now. Still that wasnt really her idea anyway. Be interesting to see how she is perceived in 50 years time. Pity I'm unlikely to be around.

1."who shut down the mining industry"

That's what happens when you try and hold the country to ransom,I guess you remember the winter of discontent, the Unions had to be curbed.

2."started an unnecessary war"

Which one was that then?

"But the people who sold you your council house didnt own it did they?"

Clearly it was so unpopular that nobody took it up then? The reason we have a shortage of housing is because there's too much demand brought about by too much immigration, simple as that.

Smiley your talk on immigration is wrong. These people have built great communitys worked hard and added to the culture of this great country. Just walk over the desborough area and see the vibrant life that is there

aug69 wrote:
Smiley your talk on immigration is wrong. These people have built great communitys worked hard and added to the culture of this great country. Just walk over the desborough area and see the vibrant life that is there

Pardon me?

I thoroughly agree with you.
I think that immigrants have bought a lot to the country - I maintain that and I love the different cultures.
All I am saying is we are a small island and we do need to have some control - thats all.
Please do not in any way infer I mean anything else!

tom.marlow wrote:
But the people who sold you your council house didnt own it did they? The houses were really owned by the community as a whole, paid for by rate payers / tax payers. They were mostly sold at significant discounts on their market value. The end result was a huge shortfall in low cost housing forcing many people to take out mortgages they could barely afford in order to buy houses. Of course, that resulted in a much more compliant workforce who were much less likely to do anything that would jeopardise their jobs and their ability to pay their mortages. I wonder who benefitted most from this? Was it really you?

Yes Tom I did benefit.
I resent your inference otherwise.
I would never have been able to get a foot on the property ladder if it had not been possible to buy my house and I would probably still not be an owner occupier.
THAT is keeping people compliant IMO.
With all due respect, there are a lot of working class folk out there who , thanks to being able to buy their houses, have moved themselves up and up.
Sorry and all that - sometimes we do have to think of what is best for us as individuals.
It is easy to think loftily of what is best for society when you are in a nice 4 bedroomed detached house.. and not struggling in a one bedroomed flat :)

aug69 wrote:
Smiley your talk on immigration is wrong. These people have built great communitys worked hard and added to the culture of this great country. Just walk over the desborough area and see the vibrant life that is there

I think you will find it was Wayneo's comment anyway..:)

aug69 wrote:
Smiley your talk on immigration is wrong. These people have built great communitys worked hard and added to the culture of this great country. Just walk over the desborough area and see the vibrant life that is there

I think you will find it was Wayneo's comment anyway..:)

am i the only one wrote:
Look at the results for Buckinghamshire Cons + 2 46 seats , labour -2,no seats the people have decided.

Yes, I think you are the only one.

Labour already lost 2 seats when their 2 councillors defected to the Lib Dems last year.

I believe the actual result was Tory +1, Lib Dem -1, Labour - no change (albeit NIL)!

Maybe he should stand as an Independent on a 'I'll sort Frogmoor out once and for all; I'll get rid of the traffic lights; I'll paint Ivor's doors; I'll dig up the Roman villa; and I'll make it possible to drink a 'Wycoccino' on the banks of the Wye once again...' ticket.

Comparing this lot with Thatcher is just plain ridiculous. At the moment we have a bunch of incompetent self serving buffoons. Thatcher was different altogether. She was a completely callous evil *itch who single handedly started the destruction of Britain's manufacturing base making millions unemployed and ripping apart whole communities while she and her millionaire husband enjoyed power and prestige.

This, she then replaced with an economy based on un-regulated financial and service sectors producing absolutely nothing, but with the temporary backing of North Sea oil money. Claiming wrongly that her destruction of the unions was the main driver.

Thanks a lot Thatcher. You are probably more to blame than anyone for this current mess. Yet you'll still find poor, misguided muppets who think she was good for Britain.

Red Fred wrote:
Comparing this lot with Thatcher is just plain ridiculous. At the moment we have a bunch of incompetent self serving buffoons. Thatcher was different altogether. She was a completely callous evil *itch who single handedly started the destruction of Britain's manufacturing base making millions unemployed and ripping apart whole communities while she and her millionaire husband enjoyed power and prestige. This, she then replaced with an economy based on un-regulated financial and service sectors producing absolutely nothing, but with the temporary backing of North Sea oil money. Claiming wrongly that her destruction of the unions was the main driver. Thanks a lot Thatcher. You are probably more to blame than anyone for this current mess. Yet you'll still find poor, misguided muppets who think she was good for Britain.

So you don't like her then Fred? ;)

In all seriousness altho I am not quite as extreme as you, it is fair to say that thanks to her introducing the internal market into hospitals, and thanks to her government taking away crown immunity in hospital kitchens, the NHS now has all the problems with hospital acquired infections and filth and starving patients.
Outside contractors will never hav the same interest - it is all about profit.

smiley cat wrote:

tom.marlow wrote:
But the people who sold you your council house didnt own it did they? The houses were really owned by the community as a whole, paid for by rate payers / tax payers. They were mostly sold at significant discounts on their market value. The end result was a huge shortfall in low cost housing forcing many people to take out mortgages they could barely afford in order to buy houses. Of course, that resulted in a much more compliant workforce who were much less likely to do anything that would jeopardise their jobs and their ability to pay their mortages. I wonder who benefitted most from this? Was it really you?

Yes Tom I did benefit.
I resent your inference otherwise.
I would never have been able to get a foot on the property ladder if it had not been possible to buy my house and I would probably still not be an owner occupier.
THAT is keeping people compliant IMO.
With all due respect, there are a lot of working class folk out there who , thanks to being able to buy their houses, have moved themselves up and up.
Sorry and all that - sometimes we do have to think of what is best for us as individuals.
It is easy to think loftily of what is best for society when you are in a nice 4 bedroomed detached house.. and not struggling in a one bedroomed flat :)

TOM IS CLEARLY OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.
THATS WHAT COMES OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION.
CLEARLY HE IS ONE OF THESE MATHEMATICAL 'BANKERS' WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO BRINGING OUR ECONOMY TO ITS KNEES.
THESE PEOPLE SHOULD COME WITH A GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING SINCE GREED COUPLED WITH SHEER CRASS INDIFFERENCE TO OTHERS HAVE PUSHED THIS COUNTRY TO THE BRINK OF FAILURE.
GUESS WHAT WE STILL BAIL THESE IDIOTS OUT.
THESE DERIVATIVE TRADERS HAVE PUSHED UP THE COST OF LIVING AND ARE CRITICAL OF ANYONE WHO HAS FOUND A PATH THROUGH ONES OWN INITIATIVE RATHER THAN A RISH KIDS EDUCATION.
MARGARET HELPED THOSE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE MYSELF TO BUY A HOME AND MOVE UP THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SCALE.
AS FOR FIGHTING A WAR IT WAS THOSE ARGENTINIAN WARMONGERS WHO INVADED THE FALKLANDS.
TOME NEED A REAL REALITY CHECK AND STOP EATING ALL THAT FOI GRAS THAT HAS CLEARLY ADDLED HIS BRAIN CELL.
JUDGE

Judge
Tom is a reasoned and intelligent poster on here - unlike yourself.
Now grow up and stop with the silly insults - you are making yourself look foolish.

I probably shouldnt bother to respond to to the judge but I will.

Firstly, for what its worth, I went to a grammar school so if you are going to attribute my personality defects to my education, its the selective system and grammar schools you should blame.

Secondly, I don't trade derivatives for a living. But you should remember that many of us participate in the derivative market. You buy a fixed or capped rate mortgage for example.

Council house sales are just one part of the asset stripping frenzy of the 1980s. Its unfortunate that there seems to have developed from that the notion that we have a right to own property that we cannot afford and that society, one way or another, should subsidise that.

The whole ethos of getting on the "property ladder" at any cost in order to buy an asset in the expectation that it will grow in value at some rate out of all proportion to the growth in the price of other things, is just greed, plain and simple. People borrowing money that they cant afford are actually just as much to blame as the people lending it. I'm sure I'll get taken to task over that view :-)

But now think a bit about why they have to do it? Not a lot of choice is there - no council houses - oh yeah, they all got sold.

Mr Goodman is no different to the rest of the mp's who have taken more than they should. He has abused his position and he should quit and not take anymore from the British Taxpayer. Mr Goodman made the statement that " The House of Commons is ill" It seems corruption is in the House of Commons which Mr Goodman is part of. Sickness spreads and anyone who makes a claim for items such as Mr Goodman has claimed for needs to be isolated and put into quarantine to stop the disease spreading. Some of the claims that Mr Goodman were allowed need to be investigated as the normal British Taxpayer would not be allowed such privileges. The problem for the British Taxpayer is the corruption in high places. Those in authority (supposedly) making rules for themselves whereby they write themselves out of any accountability and yet Lord it over the everyday man. You will find that judges are first in line, no accountability whatsoever. Any complaint made against these people is dealt with by their own kind with no consequence. THIS IS WHERE IT ALL STARTS, EVERYTHING IS DONE IN SECRET. BUT THE LIGHT WILL SHINE ON THE DARKNESS AND THEY WILL RUN TO THE ROCKS

tom.marlow wrote:
I probably shouldnt bother to respond to to the judge but I will. Firstly, for what its worth, I went to a grammar school so if you are going to attribute my personality defects to my education, its the selective system and grammar schools you should blame. Secondly, I don't trade derivatives for a living. But you should remember that many of us participate in the derivative market. You buy a fixed or capped rate mortgage for example. Council house sales are just one part of the asset stripping frenzy of the 1980s. Its unfortunate that there seems to have developed from that the notion that we have a right to own property that we cannot afford and that society, one way or another, should subsidise that. The whole ethos of getting on the "property ladder" at any cost in order to buy an asset in the expectation that it will grow in value at some rate out of all proportion to the growth in the price of other things, is just greed, plain and simple. People borrowing money that they cant afford are actually just as much to blame as the people lending it. I'm sure I'll get taken to task over that view :-) But now think a bit about why they have to do it? Not a lot of choice is there - no council houses - oh yeah, they all got sold.

So in other words Tom, I should have just shut my little working class mouth, be grateful for a roof over my head and not try to ape my betters.
Lol!

Tom I am actually incensed and offended at your accusations that people who buy their council houses are greedy and expect subsidies.
For a start, I am a tax payer, I also pay my council tax. I also actually contribute a LOT to society by the work that I do.
I have NEVER expected anyone to help me with anything, neither did I buy my house with the view to selling it to make a profit.

We bought it to make a secure future for our children -sorry if that isn't for the greater good. Sorry that I DARED to put MY family first before the rest of the world, but actually that is what most of us, ( if we were honest) would do as well.


Your attitude is patronising, idealistic and typical of a Guardian reader who really thinks that "they know best".
Welll guess what - high ideals do not put bread on the table and provide security.
Yes I know there is a darth of low cost housing, but what would you have me do.. go live in the streets so some poor unfortunate can have my house as I had the temerity to buy it?

smiley cat wrote:

tom.marlow wrote: I probably shouldnt bother to respond to to the judge but I will. Firstly, for what its worth, I went to a grammar school so if you are going to attribute my personality defects to my education, its the selective system and grammar schools you should blame. Secondly, I don't trade derivatives for a living. But you should remember that many of us participate in the derivative market. You buy a fixed or capped rate mortgage for example. Council house sales are just one part of the asset stripping frenzy of the 1980s. Its unfortunate that there seems to have developed from that the notion that we have a right to own property that we cannot afford and that society, one way or another, should subsidise that. The whole ethos of getting on the "property ladder" at any cost in order to buy an asset in the expectation that it will grow in value at some rate out of all proportion to the growth in the price of other things, is just greed, plain and simple. People borrowing money that they cant afford are actually just as much to blame as the people lending it. I'm sure I'll get taken to task over that view :-) But now think a bit about why they have to do it? Not a lot of choice is there - no council houses - oh yeah, they all got sold.

So in other words Tom, I should have just shut my little working class mouth, be grateful for a roof over my head and not try to ape my betters. Lol!

You can read that into what I said if you want, but I dont't think I imply that in any shape or form. Your working class mouth is just as big as my working class mouth and like mine is probably better open than closed.

My point is that borrowers are just as culpable as lenders in creating unsustainable house price inflation and the whole range of economic problems that ensue.

smiley cat wrote:
Tom I am actually incensed and offended at your accusations that people who buy their council houses are greedy and expect subsidies. For a start, I am a tax payer, I also pay my council tax. I also actually contribute a LOT to society by the work that I do. I have NEVER expected anyone to help me with anything, neither did I buy my house with the view to selling it to make a profit. We bought it to make a secure future for our children -sorry if that isn't for the greater good. Sorry that I DARED to put MY family first before the rest of the world, but actually that is what most of us, ( if we were honest) would do as well. Your attitude is patronising, idealistic and typical of a Guardian reader who really thinks that "they know best". Welll guess what - high ideals do not put bread on the table and provide security. Yes I know there is a darth of low cost housing, but what would you have me do.. go live in the streets so some poor unfortunate can have my house as I had the temerity to buy it?

Actually, I'm just jealous that you had a council house to buy. I never did.

I'm not sure its fair to accuse me of being patronising. All I'm doing is observing that the obsession with property prices and their disproportionate increase i.e. getting something for nothing, is greed.

No one is innocent!

tom.marlow wrote:

smiley cat wrote: Tom I am actually incensed and offended at your accusations that people who buy their council houses are greedy and expect subsidies. For a start, I am a tax payer, I also pay my council tax. I also actually contribute a LOT to society by the work that I do. I have NEVER expected anyone to help me with anything, neither did I buy my house with the view to selling it to make a profit. We bought it to make a secure future for our children -sorry if that isn't for the greater good. Sorry that I DARED to put MY family first before the rest of the world, but actually that is what most of us, ( if we were honest) would do as well. Your attitude is patronising, idealistic and typical of a Guardian reader who really thinks that "they know best". Welll guess what - high ideals do not put bread on the table and provide security. Yes I know there is a darth of low cost housing, but what would you have me do.. go live in the streets so some poor unfortunate can have my house as I had the temerity to buy it?

Actually, I'm just jealous that you had a council house to buy. I never did. I'm not sure its fair to accuse me of being patronising. All I'm doing is observing that the obsession with property prices and their disproportionate increase i.e. getting something for nothing, is greed. No one is innocent!

Firstly - nowhere have I said that I did it to get a bargain as it were - I resent that.*pokes tongue out*.
Secondly - I apologise for the patronising remark - that was a little harsh!
Thirdly - meet me at midnight with the cocoa and balaclava at the top of west Wycombe hill and we will call it quits!

smiley cat wrote:

tom.marlow wrote:

smiley cat wrote: Tom I am actually incensed and offended at your accusations that people who buy their council houses are greedy and expect subsidies. For a start, I am a tax payer, I also pay my council tax. I also actually contribute a LOT to society by the work that I do. I have NEVER expected anyone to help me with anything, neither did I buy my house with the view to selling it to make a profit. We bought it to make a secure future for our children -sorry if that isn't for the greater good. Sorry that I DARED to put MY family first before the rest of the world, but actually that is what most of us, ( if we were honest) would do as well. Your attitude is patronising, idealistic and typical of a Guardian reader who really thinks that "they know best". Welll guess what - high ideals do not put bread on the table and provide security. Yes I know there is a darth of low cost housing, but what would you have me do.. go live in the streets so some poor unfortunate can have my house as I had the temerity to buy it?

Actually, I'm just jealous that you had a council house to buy. I never did. I'm not sure its fair to accuse me of being patronising. All I'm doing is observing that the obsession with property prices and their disproportionate increase i.e. getting something for nothing, is greed. No one is innocent!

Firstly - nowhere have I said that I did it to get a bargain as it were - I resent that.*pokes tongue out*. Secondly - I apologise for the patronising remark - that was a little harsh! Thirdly - meet me at midnight with the cocoa and balaclava at the top of west Wycombe hill and we will call it quits!

you trying to get into my genes again ? :-)

THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.

Voyeur wrote:
THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.THE JUDGE IS A PRATT.

VOYEUR YOU MAY SAY THATT BUT I COULDN'TT POSSIBLY COMMENTT.

THE JUDGE THANKS TOM FOR HIS CANDID AND FRANK ADMISSIONS.
TO RESPOND.
1. GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
THE JUDGE IS CRITICAL OF THIS ANTIQUATED SYSTEM. IT IS A SYSTEM THAT HAS FAR SUPERIOR FUNDING AND AS SUCH ENABLES THOSE FROM DEPRIVED BACKGROUNDS (LARGER FAMILIES FOR INSTANCE WHERE EDUCATION IS LOWER DOWN THE PRIORITIES FOR SUCH FAMILIES)TO ENTER THIS CLASS DIVIDING SYSTEM. A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO BE DELIBERATELY 'DIVISIVE AND CLASS STRUCTURED'. THESE SCHOOLS RECEIVE BETTER GRANTS AND THIS IS PAID BY US ALL - UNFAIR.
GOOD QUALITY EDUCATION SHOULD BE OPEN TO ALLAND CLASSES SHOULD BE 'STREAMED'
I WOULD CHANGE THE SYSTEM IF ELECTED.

2. HOW CAN SOMEONE LIKE SMILEY BE SAID TO BE PARTICIPATING IN YOUR SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT DERIVATIVE MARKETS BY TAKING A CAPPED MORTGAGE?
THIS IS UTTER NONE-SENSE AND CLEARLY SUGGESTS HOW YOU BANKERS ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED THAT WE ALL HAVE BEEN FORCED TO BAIL YOU OUT. MY SAVINGS AND THOSE OF A GREAT MANY PENSIONERS ARE FACING A BLEAK FUTURE BECAUSE OF YOUR ILK.
THE JUDGE - FOR ONE DIRECTLY REQUESTED THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS.
THEY ARE COVERED BY THE INDEMNITY SCHEME SO SAVERS WERE SAFE - THE ONLY ONES TO SUFFER ARE THOSE WITH SHARES - WHICH ARE AN INVESTMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE WOES OF MARKET FORCES.
YOU WILL SAY THAT OUR PENSION FUNDS ARE MANAGED AND THIS WOULD HAVE IMPACTED ON PENSIONS. WELL LOOK AT BANK SHARES - THE MARKET HAS ADJUSTED AND EVEN IF THE BANKS WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO FAIL OTHER INSTITUTIONS WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE EQUITY FREEING UP THE BAD DEBTS.
GORDON HAS ALREADY CHANGED THE TAX RULES ON PENSIONS WHEN LABOUR CAME TO POWERE AND WHEN HE WAS CHANCELLOR SO PENSIONS ARE WORTH 50% LESS IN ANY EVENT.

3. WHY SHOULD YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THROUGH EITHER YOUR OWN 'HARD-WORK' OR INHERITANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO OWN PROPERTY?
WHY SHOULD WE ALL NOT SEEK TO OWN OUR OWN HOME AND ESCAPE THOSE GREEDY LANDLORDS CHARGING £750 A MONTH RENT TO THOSE WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD TO PAY IT?

PERHAPS TOM YOU SHOULD RE-EVALUATE YOUR FUTURE AND TAKE STOCK OF YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCES TO BENEFIT SOCIETY ALTRUISTICALLY.
THE CURRENT GENERATION SHOULD BE SEEN AS USING THEIR WEALTH (LIKE GATES) TO IMPROVE THE LIFE CHANCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO SEEK TO ACHIEVE A GREATER GOOD RATHER THAN DERIDDING THOSE LIKE SMILEY WHO HAVE DRIVE AND AMBITION TO IMPROVE ONES LOT IN LIFE.
JUDGE
ABOUT THE JUDGE:
THE JUDGE IS A LAWYER LIVING AND WORKING IN STOKENCHURCH
HE IS OF WORKING CLASS AND ONE OF 6 SIBLINGS HE ACHIEVED AN LLB (HONS) DEGREE DESPITE COMING FROM A DIFFICULT SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND.
HE INTENDS TO STAND AS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MP

just a couple of points your honour.

A fixed rate mortgage IS a derivative contract. Its a bet on the interest rate over the term of the contract. This is a matter of definition not opinion.

My issue with property ownership in this discussion is primarily about the asset strippping tories of the 1980s, forcing councils to sell property that was owned by the community as a whole and thus not theirs to sell. I don't criticise any individual for what they have done. We each evaluate the ethics of what we do and usually manage to sleep at night.

If you want to attain any credibility, will you please desist from making assumtptions about people's lives and backgrounds.

In the 17th century George Jeffreys became known as thr "hanging judge". You are well on the road to becoming knows as the "wan king judge"; not necessarily because you are a pale monarch.

Ah well.
If the judge is going to stand as a lib dem, we can all relax.
They are all a load of comedians..:)

Poor Voyeur has flipped! I saw him out of my window in Buckingham Drive dressed in a Donald Duck hat. This was an attempt to support the Lib Dems, there can be no other explanation why Labour would do this. What with supporting Lib Dems and the Tory 'is he hanging on for his pension' MP, Labour seem to have an identity crisis!!!!