AgentAxeman

probably not quite so vociferously, but i would like to believe that i would understand the deliberacy of it, in that it deflects attention away from the here and now and the very real issues which face us all, today, in this time! however, you could use that argument against anyone who posts an article from ANY paper/website Aye, but you seem to swallow anything the Mail says at face value which is why I asked. what, the same as a lot of people swallow anything the Guardian says? or the telegraph? or the sun? etc. etc.

probably not quite so vociferously, but i would like to believe that i would understand the deliberacy of it, in that it deflects attention away from the here and now and the very real issues which face us all, today, in this time! however, you could use that argument against anyone who posts an article from ANY paper/website

I do have an issue with the writer and the paper involved...but I only brought that up in one post. Elsewhere I've stuck to the content of this article. As prime minister he should apologise on behalf of the nation. A government voted in by living British citizens sent other citizens of it's own abroad to be used and abused as an exercise in cutting welfare costs. If you agree an apology is deserved, who should give it, if not the current PM? And where have you seen evidence of anyone whose thinking on Gordo has been changed following this apology? I've not seen one commentator fooled by this so-called 'masking' of other issues. sorry Happy but i think you're deliberatly missing my point. I've said on many previous occasions that the apology is deserved, and i agree with you that as PM Gordo is the man to make it on behalf of the nation. its just that, IMO, i believe he should apologise for his own mistakes 1st. so you admit its really just a masking exercise?? my work is done!! I think my work is done. You've gone from saying the article was "spot on" and he shouldn't apologise for this any more than he should apologise for pulling the wings off an insect when he was wee, to agreeing that an apology is entirely justified from Gordo himself. I don't see the sequence of his apologies as important, given these people have been waiting 22 years for this one. slight fudging of the dialogue there Happy. what i was asking in that instance is where do the apologies stop? i dont think i ever said the apology was unwarranted?? as to saying the apology is justified, fair enough, it is, but again, In my personal opinion, I believe he should own up to his own shortcomings/mistake, whatever you wish to call it, before he has a pop at someone else's.

I do have an issue with the writer and the paper involved...but I only brought that up in one post. Elsewhere I've stuck to the content of this article. As prime minister he should apologise on behalf of the nation. A government voted in by living British citizens sent other citizens of it's own abroad to be used and abused as an exercise in cutting welfare costs. If you agree an apology is deserved, who should give it, if not the current PM? And where have you seen evidence of anyone whose thinking on Gordo has been changed following this apology? I've not seen one commentator fooled by this so-called 'masking' of other issues. sorry Happy but i think you're deliberatly missing my point. I've said on many previous occasions that the apology is deserved, and i agree with you that as PM Gordo is the man to make it on behalf of the nation. its just that, IMO, i believe he should apologise for his own mistakes 1st. so you admit its really just a masking exercise?? my work is done!!

Sounds like you've had a tough decade Axeman, sorry to hear that. Like most people though I personally have never been more prosperous, at least in a material sense. Without regurgitating the shite that Phillips has stated, what do you think Brown owes you an apology for? au contraire, this decade has been very good to me my heroin addicted friend . I've been married, made money on my house, and become a father twice! I'm in a far better position today than i was 10 yrs ago both materially, physically and spiritually. I dont believe Brown owes ME any apology whatsoever. however, i would hope that he was man enough to admit his own mistakes BEFORE he go's and blames someone else for their mistakes.

maybe you couldnt if they were your misdeeds, however, wtf has Gordon Brown got to do with it? gesture politics of the highest order imo!! Well you edited out the point I made about apologising for deeds that weren't my fault too. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the nation that swept their disadvantaged citizens under the carpet as recently as 40 years ago. Of course it's a gesture...but a valuable one. It was wrong. I had no idea it had happened and recognition of the fact it did from the highest authority will give the victims a significant level of closure. Why should their ill treatment go unobserved? How will apologising hurt us as a nation? I didnt say it would hurt us as a nation? as you say, you have no idea what happened quite simply because it was before your (and mine) time. this makes its possible to distort the facts of what happened (if it was politically advantageous to do so). completely agree it was wrong but i already knew it had happened and i dont need any 'recognition' from the highest authority to know that it was a terrible misdeed. as i said earlier, gesture politics imo. as if he has nowt better to apologise for............... If apologising does no harm, and means a great deal to the many people affected, what's your problem with it? I fail to see any humane reason to object. That woeful article doesn't priovide any either. Something being before my time is no reason I shouldn't know about it. It disgusts me that if my parents had been only slightly more poor, they could have been shipped off to be abused and used as cheap labour. completley agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, he has more up to date actions to apologise for which in all probability, affect more people. once again, distraction & gesture politics imo He's not going to apologise for his actions and those of his government while enacting them is he though. I agree he has lots of his own actions to apologise for. I don't see how this entirely warranted apology distracts us from that different subject though. Even if it does, your problem seems to be different to Philips' anyway. She seems to think the apology proves Gordo hates Britain. i'm not certain if thats meant to be tongue in cheek?? by phillips i mean, not you happy. i dont know phillips but she seems like a bit of a harridan so it wouldnt surprise me if thats what she really thinks. and youre spot on about the fact he wont apologise for his own actions when its so much easier to apologise for others and then guess what? no blame is then attached to wor Gordo! ergo. distraction politics and he (Gordo, as we seem to be calling him now) will then be able to milk the event thus proving what a fine upstanding statesman he is. ergo. gesture politics I don't see how apolgising for this removes any blame whatsoever for anything else. It comes across like you're saying he should either resolve EVERY issue currently on his desk in one fell swoop or he shouldn't bother with any, because anything he gets right is just a political manoeuvre to mask other misdeeds. I never said it did atone for any other misdeed. all i said was i believe he should apologise for his own mistakes and not someone elses 1st. as for the 2nd paragraph, i'm fairly certain you've misunderstood my motive. IF he (Gordo) had performed miracles whilst in office i would praise the man to high heaven. however, imo, i dont believe he has come anywhere near this lofty goal. I am not a Labour supporter nor am i a Labour hater but imo, and in this particular instance, i think he is simply trying to use this very real tradegy to mask other issues that he has at home and at this present time. not for 1 minute have i ever said that the apology to these children isnt deserved because quite simply it is. personally, i believe you have an issue with the article i posted because of the writer and the paper involved.

maybe you couldnt if they were your misdeeds, however, wtf has Gordon Brown got to do with it? gesture politics of the highest order imo!! Well you edited out the point I made about apologising for deeds that weren't my fault too. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the nation that swept their disadvantaged citizens under the carpet as recently as 40 years ago. Of course it's a gesture...but a valuable one. It was wrong. I had no idea it had happened and recognition of the fact it did from the highest authority will give the victims a significant level of closure. Why should their ill treatment go unobserved? How will apologising hurt us as a nation? I didnt say it would hurt us as a nation? as you say, you have no idea what happened quite simply because it was before your (and mine) time. this makes its possible to distort the facts of what happened (if it was politically advantageous to do so). completely agree it was wrong but i already knew it had happened and i dont need any 'recognition' from the highest authority to know that it was a terrible misdeed. as i said earlier, gesture politics imo. as if he has nowt better to apologise for............... If apologising does no harm, and means a great deal to the many people affected, what's your problem with it? I fail to see any humane reason to object. That woeful article doesn't priovide any either. Something being before my time is no reason I shouldn't know about it. It disgusts me that if my parents had been only slightly more poor, they could have been shipped off to be abused and used as cheap labour. completley agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, he has more up to date actions to apologise for which in all probability, affect more people. once again, distraction & gesture politics imo He's not going to apologise for his actions and those of his government while enacting them is he though. I agree he has lots of his own actions to apologise for. I don't see how this entirely warranted apology distracts us from that different subject though. Even if it does, your problem seems to be different to Philips' anyway. She seems to think the apology proves Gordo hates Britain. i'm not certain if thats meant to be tongue in cheek?? by phillips i mean, not you happy. i dont know phillips but she seems like a bit of a harridan so it wouldnt surprise me if thats what she really thinks. and youre spot on about the fact he wont apologise for his own actions when its so much easier to apologise for others and then guess what? no blame is then attached to wor Gordo! ergo. distraction politics and he (Gordo, as we seem to be calling him now) will then be able to milk the event thus proving what a fine upstanding statesman he is. ergo. gesture politics

maybe you couldnt if they were your misdeeds, however, wtf has Gordon Brown got to do with it? gesture politics of the highest order imo!! Well you edited out the point I made about apologising for deeds that weren't my fault too. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the nation that swept their disadvantaged citizens under the carpet as recently as 40 years ago. Of course it's a gesture...but a valuable one. It was wrong. I had no idea it had happened and recognition of the fact it did from the highest authority will give the victims a significant level of closure. Why should their ill treatment go unobserved? How will apologising hurt us as a nation? I didnt say it would hurt us as a nation? as you say, you have no idea what happened quite simply because it was before your (and mine) time. this makes its possible to distort the facts of what happened (if it was politically advantageous to do so). completely agree it was wrong but i already knew it had happened and i dont need any 'recognition' from the highest authority to know that it was a terrible misdeed. as i said earlier, gesture politics imo. as if he has nowt better to apologise for............... If apologising does no harm, and means a great deal to the many people affected, what's your problem with it? I fail to see any humane reason to object. That woeful article doesn't priovide any either. Something being before my time is no reason I shouldn't know about it. It disgusts me that if my parents had been only slightly more poor, they could have been shipped off to be abused and used as cheap labour. completley agree, but at the risk of repeating myself, he has more up to date actions to apologise for which in all probability, affect more people. once again, distraction & gesture politics imo

Maybe Melanie Phillips does spout shite, but i reckon with the Brown article she got it spot on! stop trying to distract from the truth of the article by quoting the authors previous. So you agree with her that by apologising Gordon Brown has proved himself to be ashamed of the country itself? That it amounts to treachery and he should apologise for THAT! Ridiculous. I'd be ashamed of the country if my leaders couldn't recognise we have done some shameful things in the past....it would be even better if he could recognise the shameful things we continue to do. so whats the cutoff point then? when does Gordon start apologising for pulling the wings off flies as a bairn? all i'm saying is he needs to apologise for his own misdeeds before he starts trying to distract us away from those facts by apologising for something that was instituted before he was born. distraction AND gesture politics imo

maybe you couldnt if they were your misdeeds, however, wtf has Gordon Brown got to do with it? gesture politics of the highest order imo!! Well you edited out the point I made about apologising for deeds that weren't my fault too. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the nation that swept their disadvantaged citizens under the carpet as recently as 40 years ago. Of course it's a gesture...but a valuable one. It was wrong. I had no idea it had happened and recognition of the fact it did from the highest authority will give the victims a significant level of closure. Why should their ill treatment go unobserved? How will apologising hurt us as a nation? I didnt say it would hurt us as a nation? as you say, you have no idea what happened quite simply because it was before your (and mine) time. this makes its possible to distort the facts of what happened (if it was politically advantageous to do so). completely agree it was wrong but i already knew it had happened and i dont need any 'recognition' from the highest authority to know that it was a terrible misdeed. as i said earlier, gesture politics imo. as if he has nowt better to apologise for...............

Maybe Melanie Phillips does spout shite, but i reckon with the Brown article she got it spot on! stop trying to distract from the truth of the article by quoting the authors previous.

maybe you couldnt if they were your misdeeds, however, wtf has Gordon Brown got to do with it? gesture politics of the highest order imo!!

I've forgotten nothing. I was the one who started the thread to point out Brown richly deserved a slagging for decisions that have dropped us in the shit. The Sun also deserve a slagging for wholeheartedly endorsing those decisions across the board...and now visciously turning on the party so they can be on the winning team. very true happy, but which team would you prefer to be on? anyway, back to the bashing (ooer missus!) "Gordon, but if you must apologise, what about the things that ARE your fault? Prime Minister Gordon Brown Apology: Gordon Brown to say sorry for the Child Migrant Programme which send youngsters abroad between 1930 and 1970 Before I start, please let me apologise. For... oooh, I don’t know, just about everything including what follows below, along with anything I might have done in the past which might conceivably have damaged or offended anyone. Or while I’m about it, anything I might do in the future. There! Now I feel so much better. Absurd? Of course. But we seem to be living in the Age of Apology. No political or public career appears to be possible without just such a display of public breast-beating. The latest example is Gordon Brown’s expected apology today for the UK’s role during the last century in sending thousands of British children without their parents’ knowledge to lives of great hardship in former colonies such as Australia or Canada. To which one has to ask — why in heaven’s name is the Prime Minister apologising now for this, of all things? For sure, it was a terrible episode in British and Australian history. Under the Child Migrants Programme, between 1930 and 1970 some 500,000 children from British orphanages or children's homes were sent to a 'better life' in Australia, Canada and elsewhere. As they were shipped out of Britain, many of these children were told wrongly that their parents were dead. Many parents were totally unaware that their children had been sent to the Dominions. In many cases, far from having a 'better life', they were educated only for farm work and were treated with great cruelty involving physical, psychological and sexual abuse. So, undoubtedly a shameful episode. But what has it got to do with Gordon Brown, who wasn't even alive when it began and certainly was never in a position to do anything about it? He says 'the time is now right' for the Government to apologise for the actions of previous governments. Accordingly, it appears he is co-ordinating his apology with a simultaneous act of contrition by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. But this is absurd. Governments don't pass down their sins to their successors. A country cannot be held responsible for a policy introduced by a government some eight decades previously. At this rate, it surely can't be long before Mr Brown feels obliged to apologise to the farming community for the 19th-century Corn Laws or to the Queen for the execution of Charles I. What is the reason he has suddenly felt moved to apologise for the 'forgotten children'? Is Britain perhaps teetering on the brink of some gigantic deal vital to the national interest involving trade in kangaroo hide or maple syrup, for which such an act of abasement to Australia or Canada is a required precondition? Given that the Prime Minister appears to be in confessional mode, however, what a missed opportunity this is. With all due respect to the sensitivities of Australia, there are many, many things for which the British people would rather like an apology from their Prime Minister. He could have started, for example, with his ruination of the British economy. He could then have said he was sorry for flogging off our gold reserves at a knockdown price, bankrupting the country with the largest public debt in its history and allowing the banking system to be brought to its knees on his watch. He could have said he was sorry to have changed the culture of this country by stealth through a policy of mass immigration, to have destroyed Britain's ability to govern itself by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, and to have broken his manifesto promise to the British people in doing so. He could then have gone on to apologise for ripping the heart out of the professions, along with our once-peerless Civil Service and police force, not to mention the emasculation of Parliament and the British constitution. And while he was about it, he could have gone down on his knees and begged forgiveness for enslaving ever greater numbers of the British people through the dependency culture, and for destroying the life chances of millions of British children through the onslaught against marriage and the twoparent family along with the destruction of the British education system. His litany of offences could have ended with the act for which no apology can suffice - the heinous crime of committing British soldiers to a war in Afghanistan without a coherent strategy or adequate equipment to safeguard both military and mission. But there has been not one syllable of apology for any of these things for which he and his government are responsible. Instead, he chooses to issue an apology for a policy in which he had no involvement whatsoever. As a result, such a declaration is both proverbial bus. The result has been a veritable epidemic of political apologies. Two years ago, on the 200th anniversary of William Wilberforce's Bill to abolish the slave trade, there was fierce competition to denounce Britain's role in this trade - even though the whole point was that Britain was the country that led the drive to abolish it. That egregious grandstander Peter Hain, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales, even fatuously apologised for the role Wales and Northern Ireland had played in international slavery. Comically, such 'gesture politics' apologies are often made to people who are dead. Thus Gordon Brown's abject apology to Alan Turing - the brilliant wartime Bletchley Park code-breaker, who was also a homosexual and who committed suicide in 1954 after being prosecuted for an act of gross indecency. Similarly grovelling to the grave, the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England issued an apology addressed to Charles Darwin - 126 years after his death - for 'misunderstanding' his Theory of Evolution. But then, the Church of England seems to spend all its time apologising for everything ever associated with it, including slavery, the offensiveness to Muslims of Christian doctrine and missionary activity in the Third World. Indeed, the Church appears to be apologising for the very existence of Christianity itself. And this surely is the most troubling aspect of this mania for acts of abasement. It is that these meaningless apologies for the past tend to be made by those who are busily destroying the present. While political or church leaders wear their consciences on their sleeves by apologising on behalf of (or even to) the dead, the damage they themselves have caused to the present- day condition of Britain or to the Church is incalculable. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that such leaders are actually ashamed of the country itself for which these past misdeeds stand proxy. It is for that treacherous attitude that they really should be apologising."

ffs, a lot of people on here seem to think that the labour party is a victim here, convieniently forgetting the last 13 (or is it 14) yrs of shit. what the sun has done is absolutely no surprise to me.

cheers for the link Laz. just watched it as i've been out all night.

Looks like it. Don't suppose it can hurt to give him a contract till the end of the season with a promise of another one if we get promoted, as he plays an area were we are a bit short. given also that we are playing with big lads up front, i reckon it makes sense to get a winger in to provide crosses.

Hiccy Burpday!!

oh dear, i'm scared. someone please protect me................

I hate Larndan with a passion. Too noisy, too crowded, people too rude & unfriendly. I would be happy if i never had to go there again. just my opinion.

Hi guys, sorry i'm a bit late to the party but can someone stick me on the list for £30. cheers!!

Meh!

if theres any spare, would love an invite. pretty please.................

All sides of british journalism are sickening imo. everyone has their own agenda. you cant blame one or t'other without showing your own bias.

as i've stated in earlier threads, Gordon Brown is NOT the financial wizard he would have us believe. for too long he has spent way beyond this countries means. I understand that he is no longer chancellor and as such has little direct control over how the tax revenue is spent, but the damage was done early in new labours reign when he was. he has consistently sold off the nations assets at low prices (Gold reserves being an example). imo this was done to pay for the huge increase in public sector workers that we have had in the last 13 yrs to try and achieve the "world class services" which they are still trying to achieve. this is not a pop at said workers who for the most part are dedicated, hard working professionals.