Another Hero bites the dust.

[prendrelemick]

First Jimmy Savile, now Lance Armstrong.

What do we expect from our Heros, can they possibly live up to those expectations?

Can you still hold such people in high regard? do you feel betrayed?

[Lokasenna]

I never particularly cared about either of them, so I certainly don't feel betrayed. Though I must admit I always found Sir Jimmy to be more than a little creepy...

What worries me in both cases is the time it has taken for all this to come to light. By the sounds of it, both men were engaging fairly openly in criminal behaviour (albeit very different crimes) for a many years - that it has taken so long for all this to get into the public and legal forum suggests just how obscuring the big corporations and businesses that surround these figures can be.

By the sound of it, the BBC has a few more skeletons in the closet of a similar nature. I wonder what will be next? David Attenborough sniffs glue? Noel Edmonds firebombs Ukrainian villages for fun? David Dimbleby is a member of the Nazi party?

[Emil Miller]

First Jimmy Savile, now Lance Armstrong.

What do we expect from our Heros, can they possibly live up to those expectations?

Can you still hold such people in high regard? do you feel betrayed?

J.Saville a hero ? He didn't do a thing that anybody else could have done. Standing up and talking a lot of rubbish about pop groups puts him firmly on the list as a jumped up zero rather than a hero.
As for Armstrong, that's another matter: allowing for the fact that he has besmirched international cycling with his drug assisted victories, among those who race in international cycling tours he was a formidable cyclist who was not the only one implicated in drug taking. The folly of 20th century laissez faire is now coming home to roost with cricket next on the list of sports contaminated by cheating. When you relax the rules, whether it be in banking, sport or any other sphere, cheats and charlatans start to prosper.

[TurquoiseSunset]

Well, at the very least I expect them not to sexually abuse anyone or do anyting else that's criminal or hurtful to others. I expect that of everyone.

Otherwise I think it's unfair to expect normal people to be anything but. We are not really in a position to dictate what they can or cannot do with their lives, unless it directly impacts us or others negatively. For example, I think it's unfair to expect the Duchess of Cambridge to keep her top on even in private because she's royal now. She's a human being just like me and everyone else. If it's okay for me to go topless on a private estate then it should be okay for her too, without all the cries of "inappropriate" and "irresponsible role model", etc.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Unless I'm mistaken, Armstrong has passed EVERY drug test he has ever taken, and he has taken a lot--more than most cyclists. Beyond claims from other people, there's no evidence. The French don't like him, bottom line. They don't like that an American has won their race more than anyone else, and they were going to keep hounding him until he gave up, and he finally did.

[cacian]

'Another hero bites the dust...... and another drinks its rust''
Nice title for a thread.

First of all I would like to say that the only hero I now of is the one that goes to war.
Or a fictional one that exists in books and films.
I could happily say a gladiator is a hero.
Braveheart is another.
Famous people, for whatever reason, become known for what they look like or what they do.
Saville for me is not a hero but just a someone who got lucky then became famous and then got knighted.
Good things comes to those who do good stuff. That is life.

The whole Saville case looks rather shady.
I think someone wanted his name dirtied and so came up with an ingenious idea and that is to accuse them of being someone who apparently abused girls between 13 and 16.
This is one other possibility that needs to be looked at.
The law has not done that.
The other is that Saville is not here to defend himself.
As the law states not guilty till proven otherwise.
The media has had a heavy hand on accusing someone and making sure it made the headlines.
There should be a law that states to protect those not present in case they are suddenly accused of sexual predatory.

A case that comes to mind is the head of IMF.
The media made accusations and made him look as the accused and then it turned it to be false accusations.
Has the media got the right to accuse people publically and gets away with it if the accused is not guilty?
This is more urgent I feel.
If the media gets away with this then it would get away with anything.
I feel sorry for the next target.

[prendrelemick]

Unless I'm mistaken, Armstrong has passed EVERY drug test he has ever taken, and he has taken a lot--more than most cyclists. Beyond claims from other people, there's no evidence. The French don't like him, bottom line. They don't like that an American has won their race more than anyone else, and they were going to keep hounding him until he gave up, and he finally did.


That was me ^ about Jimmy Savile, until the anecdotal "evidence" began to pour in.

He was not Knighted for being famous and talking to pop groups, but for his good works - and he did a lot of good works - he devoted his life to them, raising millions of pounds, not to mention the profiles of many charities, especially those involved with sick children. (That sounds sinister now.)

However, hypocracy being what it is, it turns out nobody really liked him, :rolleyes5: His friends thought he was a bit sinister all along.

Anyway he was a Hero and an inspiration to me, now I'm just sad.


RIP Jimmy Savile, philanthropist and pedophile?.

[Hawkman]

“The evil that men do lives after them,
the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Jimmy Saville was honoured for the good work he was evidenced to have done. It doesn’t necessarily mean he was a saint in private, but his name is now blackened forever on hearsay and alleged offences. What actual evidence is there that he did the things he is accused of? Why did no one speak up at the time? It’s not as if public figures have not been exposed before. People who interviewed him during his lifetime said he was a bit weird and had a strange relationship with his mother, but to the best of my recollection no one actually suggested he was a peadophile.

Saville operated in the world of hip, trendy pop-culture, with its groupies and wannabes, where teenage girls would throw themselves at personalities. As far as the BBC is concerned, I’m sure that if anyone had been heard screaming “Rape!” and running from his dressing room, word would have got out and Police called in pretty short order. Surely? Perhaps they were bought off. Perhaps there is a conspiracy of silence which permeates the BBC and every pop DJ is assaulting underage girls and groping female coworkers. I don’t doubt for a moment, that in that world, personalities take advantage of their position to get as much sex as they can, but frankly I’d be less surprised to hear that Saville was gay (he never married) than a peadophile. Ultimately, there can now be no hard evidence to support the allegations. Does it actually do any good to blacken the man’s name after his death when he has no opportunity to defend himself or clear his name? One can’t liable the dead, so the stories emerging from “witnesses” will go unchallenged, and they can say what they like without fear of consequence should they be lying.

The media are also free to exploit the situation for the same reason. Stories, especially bestially salacious ones, sell like hot cakes.

We seem to have got to a state in society where any adult seen talking to a child is immediately suspect as being a pervert or child molester. Teachers cannot maintain discipline in their classes for fear of malicious accusations of abuse from children who very well understand their power to ruin an adult’s life with a word. The classroom has become an arena where the teacher is expendable. Any accusation will result in immediate suspension followed by prurient investigation, which even if it clears the individual’s name, the very fact that it has taken place will forever mark him and make him suspect. I wonder if we should suspect that anyone who wants to teach children is a potential peadophile and not allow them the opportunity. Will all teaching eventually be handed over to computers to safeguard the kiddies?

As for Lance Armstrong, I can’t really comment. I only know what I have read. As has been pointed out previously, he never failed a drug test during his career, but a habitual winner is now automatically suspect and professional jealousy is a powerful motivation to blacken a winner’s name. Maybe he is a cheat, maybe he isn’t, but you can be sure that tall poppies will always be targets.

[prendrelemick]

The Lance Armstrong scenario is interesting. All the others were doing it as well it seems. So if everyone else was cheating, that means he was still undeniabley the best and deserved to win.

However as the tallest poppy in the field he will be the main target here.

[Emil Miller]

That was me ^ about Jimmy Savile, until the anecdotal "evidence" began to pour in.

He was not Knighted for being famous and talking to pop groups, but for his good works - and he did a lot of good works - he devoted his life to them, raising millions of pounds, not to mention the profiles of many charities, especially those involved with sick children. (That sounds sinister now.)

However, hypocracy being what it is, it turns out nobody really liked him, :rolleyes5: His friends thought he was a bit sinister all along.

Anyway he was a Hero and an inspiration to me, now I'm just sad.


RIP Jimmy Savile, philanthropist and pedophile?.

There appears to be an element of naivety here. Saville was knighted because the public need working class heroes and much the same goes for others in the pop industry of which he was essentially a hanger on. The charity angle is what people in that position do, often as a smokescreen for their nefarious pursuits such a drug taking and sexual impropriety.
It's worth recalling that Saville had previously been investigated for sexual abuse: nothing came of it but, at the time, I wasn't in the least surprised because it was all part and parcel of an industry where impressionable young females were said to follow pop groups around the country.
The charity game isn't only used by those like Saville but Gerald Ronson the hugely wealthy business man has also been awarded the CBE for his donations and he is President of the NSPCC. He is also one of the notorious Guiness Four who went to prison for a massive fraud involving the Guiness Share price.

I used the Guiness affair as the basis for a similar type of fraud in my book Pro Bono publico and interestingly, one of the Guiness Four was Anthony Parnes, a share trader known in the City as 'The Animal' and who I believe was related to Larry Parnes who ran a stable of pop singers and who, coincidentally, is very much in line with a comic character in my last novel A Tangled Web.

[cacian]

First Jimmy Savile, now Lance Armstrong.

What do we expect from our Heros, can they possibly live up to those expectations?

Can you still hold such people in high regard? do you feel betrayed?

On second thoughts I feel there is no betrayal of such because:
a) there is no proof that he did apart a bunch of angry women getting together to claim he attacked them. So it their words against him but he is dead.
So what is the point.
and
b) the only betrayal there is that of those who believe he is guilty. That is bad.
Don't be quick to judge?!! I thought someone said that.
People make a lot of stuff up and this one is just another one the media created to hit the headlines again.

[Hawkman]

I used the Guiness affair as the basis for a similar type of fraud in my book Pro Bono publico and interestingly, one of the Guiness Four was Anthony Parnes, a share trader known in the City as 'The Animal' and who I believe was related to Larry Parnes who ran a stable of pop singers and who, coincidentally, is very much in line with a comic character in my last novel A Tangled Web.

Personally, I find it tedious when individuals shamelessly plug their own work in a discussion thread. Show a little class eh?

[Emil Miller]

Personally, I find it tedious when individuals shamelessly plug their own work in a discussion thread. Show a little class eh?

Personally, I find it more than a little tedious when people mistake an incidental comment that is nevertheless germane to the thread as a plug for a books that have been around for years and would have been plugged before
had I so wanted but, nevertheless, you are welcome to your opinion no matter how erroneous it may be.

[prendrelemick]

I bow to no one in my cynicism of the celebrity endorsement culture - don't get me started on Princess Di ! However I believe Savile was genuine about his charitable undertakings. He really wanted to help and make a difference. For instance, he helped raise money to save a church near us, and became an honourary church warden. 40 years later he still turned up to services occasionally, and was still a warden. he remained on personal terms with many of the congregation until his death. Those are the kind of stories that were going round about him until a week ago...

[Delta40]

So, what are people's thoughts on Gary Glitter?

[Hawkman]

Well GG was caught bang to rights in his lifetime, was tried in a court of law where hard evidence was produced and he was subsequently convicted. No argument with that.

[Emil Miller]

So, what are people's thoughts on Gary Glitter?

A bald pop singer who wore a fright wig and happened to be a paedophile.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Unless I'm mistaken, Armstrong has passed EVERY drug test he has ever taken, and he has taken a lot--more than most cyclists. Beyond claims from other people, there's no evidence. The French don't like him, bottom line. They don't like that an American has won their race more than anyone else, and they were going to keep hounding him until he gave up, and he finally did.

This is not the case. The ones pursuing Armstrong was always the USDA, not the French. In fact earlier in the year I think the French cycling body were refusing to be dictated to by the USDA in regards to stripping Armstrong from his titles. I'm not sure what the situation is now because of the mounting evidence.

I was reading about it in the Guardian today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/11/armstrong-usada-sophisticated-doping-scheme

In the article it talks about how Armstrong forced his team mates (11 of them who have now testified against him) into taking drugs. It also explains how they were two steps ahead of the drug tests and how Armstrong has paid over $1 million to a Dr Ferrari who it seems was pretty clued up with the doping. Lance claimed not to have had anything to do with him. The USDA have a 1000 page document against him. All of this is terrible for the sport of cycling once again because it was not just Lance at it either. Disappointing.

[prendrelemick]

I'm not convinced you can force a team mate to take drugs against his will, however the case seems pretty damning against them all.

Can he be prosecuted?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not convinced you can force a team mate to take drugs against his will, however the case seems pretty damning against them all.

Can he be prosecuted?

Well according to the article it was a case of take them or you are out of the team. It also raises the bar in that if 'everyone' is taking them then you have to in order to compete on level terms.

[Emil Miller]

I bow to no one in my cynicism of the celebrity endorsement culture - don't get me started on Princess Di ! However I believe Savile was genuine about his charitable undertakings. He really wanted to help and make a difference. For instance, he helped raise money to save a church near us, and became an honourary church warden. 40 years later he still turned up to services occasionally, and was still a warden. he remained on personal terms with many of the congregation until his death. Those are the kind of stories that were going round about him until a week ago...

The ongoing police investigation and the forthcoming BBC's own enquiry into J.Saville's alleged behaviour should ultimately reveal the truth of the allegations but one must ask oneself whether this woman is lying and, if so, to what purpose?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19905006

[LitNetIsGreat]

The ongoing police investigation and the forthcoming BBC's own enquiry into J.Saville's alleged behaviour should ultimately reveal the truth of the allegations but one must ask oneself whether this woman is lying and, if so, to what purpose?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19905006

What's annoying is the fact that these women didn't come out before he died. The police say that were he alive today he would be up on at least two cases of rape and a handful of molestation charges.

[cacian]

A bald pop singer who wore a fright wig and happened to be a paedophile.

I am guessing he propably read too much into Lolita.
If the book was the influence then I raise my case. Such heneous behaviour has got to stem from somewhere.
Everyone learns something from somewhere.

[prendrelemick]

There is no way they can all be lying. So I think we can say he committed sex crimes. Does that mean all the good he did is now bad? At the moment all signs and plaques and street names and hospital wards that bore his name are being changed. He is being wiped from the record.

[Emil Miller]

There is no way they can all be lying. So I think we can say he committed sex crimes. Does that mean all the good he did is now bad? At the moment all signs and plaques and street names and hospital wards that bore his name are being changed. He is being wiped from the record.

If what the woman in the video is saying is true, then using his cover as a children's charity worker to molest a brain damaged girl is simply evil.

[Paulclem]

If what the woman in the video is saying is true, then using his cover as a children's charity worker to molest a brain damaged girl is simply evil.

Simply evil is too much of a simplification. There is absolutely no doubt that Saville did a lot of good work which did not act as a cover for sex crimes - for example running loads of marathons for charity. It is also clear that he did commit crimes though, and that is really disappointing. Any good work he did is overshadowed by these serious crimes, but my point is he must have known both the wrongness and the rightness of the things he did. Humans are anything but simple.

Perhaps our definition of hero is the flaw. Fame and celebrity circles clearly contain many flawed, delusional and downright unpleasant people who are nevertheless held up as icons. Perhaps the temptations and opportunities are too great without a very strong character - and the things that make strong character are not to be found in pampered adulation.

Perhaps the term hero should be changed to those ordinary people we can respect.

[cacian]

There is no way they can all be lying. So I think we can say he committed sex crimes. Does that mean all the good he did is now bad? At the moment all signs and plaques and street names and hospital wards that bore his name are being changed. He is being wiped from the record.

I think they are.
It is very easy to organise a party of liars.
I watched three of them giving their stories on TV. You could tell the way they were talking the were lying and were very bad at it.
Anyway I stand by him.
The accusers are the big lie and he is the innocent. That is my verdict.

[prendrelemick]

I'm glad you think so Cacian. I think there is too much stuff coming to light.

For myself I am going through the classic stages of Denial, Anger and Acceptance.

Paul: I chose the term "Hero" because I read a Tweet on Twitter about Lance Armstrong that went:-

"He can't of done it. He was the inspiration I used to recover from my deathbed when I had cancer."

That's pretty poignant. Should he (Armstrong) and indeed other heros who fail to measure up, be more reviled because of what they meant to people.

[cacian]

There is no way they can all be lying. So I think we can say he committed sex crimes. Does that mean all the good he did is now bad? At the moment all signs and plaques and street names and hospital wards that bore his name are being changed. He is being wiped from the record.

Well people will feel differently about this case for the very reasons that they were some many women and yet not one came forward.
This is why I do not believe it.
The whole thing could be a set up from a long time ago when he was famous and young and women flocked around him.
Lots of filming was done and many pictures were taken with these women, his accusors, with him.
This is a possibility remember the world is not a very nice place and there are many people out there who would want things done to others in this way.
The other thing is that the man is not here to defend himself.
In the eyes of the law accusing someone and pronouncing him guilty in their abscence is a breach of the law.
An accused has to be present to receive his or her verdict and for Saville it is not the case.
So far as the law is concerned this remains pure speculations.
The women could be lying through their teeth and the media is laping it up because it can and because it wants to sell newspapers. It is the money round the big daddy collecting his wages on the back of innocent dead people.
It is very easy to accuse someone who is dead.
There are two side to a story and as fas I am concerned his side has not been heard and until then he remains not guilty.
That is all I can say.

[JuniperWoolf]

"He can't of done it. He was the inspiration I used to recover from my deathbed when I had cancer."

*cringe* See this is why hero-worship is wrong, there's too much riding on the perfection of a human being who you don't know. Maybe we should deliberately choose imperfect heroes.

[cacian]

*cringe* See this is why hero-worship is wrong, there's too much riding on the perfection of a human being who you don't know. Maybe we should deliberately choose imperfect heroes.

Let's not 'hero anyone' I think is the best policy.

[Emil Miller]

Simply evil is too much of a simplification. There is absolutely no doubt that Saville did a lot of good work which did not act as a cover for sex crimes - for example running loads of marathons for charity. It is also clear that he did commit crimes though, and that is really disappointing. Any good work he did is overshadowed by these serious crimes, but my point is he must have known both the wrongness and the rightness of the things he did. Humans are anything but simple.

To my mind Saville was a narcissiscist who would do virtually anything to attract attention to himself. I don't want to make a big thing about him, because he was a talentless individual who was part of the 'pop scene' and even derogatory mention makes him appear more important than he was.
One of my former colleagues told me that he was on holiday at a seaside resort (I don't remember which one) when he saw Saville driving along the seafront in a convertible wearing swimming trunks and with a towel draped around his neck and it was obvious that he was playing the big I am, which is how he usually came across to me on the few occasions that I saw him on television.

[prendrelemick]

*cringe* See this is why hero-worship is wrong, there's too much riding on the perfection of a human being who you don't know. Maybe we should deliberately choose imperfect heroes.




Or why choose a hero at all?

Admiration of other human beings seems to be hard wired into us.

[cacian]

To my mind Saville was a narcissiscist who would do virtually anything to attract attention to himself. I don't want to make a big thing about him, because he was a talentless individual who was part of the 'pop scene' and even derogatory mention makes him appear more important than he was.
One of my former colleagues told me that he was on holiday at a seaside resort (I don't remember which one) when he saw Saville driving along the seafront in a convertible wearing swimming trunks and with a towel draped around his neck and it was obvious that he was playing the big I am, which is how he usually came across to me on the few occasions that I saw him on television.

Yes but that does not prove he did it.
The danger about these allegations is that it can be done to others in the near future.
If we are to take these rumours are truth then we have in fact closed the gap upon ourselves and made it possible for other more sinister rumours to come through. I feel sorry for those who get it next.
I think the law must make it clear that sexual allegations must come forward as soon as it happens whilst the people involved are present ie alive otherwise they are deemed to lies.
This is to make it clear to others who intend to jeorpordies people's lives and think they can get away with it.
And the media is to butt out as the law to control unecessary rumours from spreading.

[Emil Miller]

Yes but that does not prove he did it.


I am not saying that it does, but what I was implying was that he had the characteristics of someone who sought attention and, like so many people involved in his particular sphere, it was public attention that made them appear much bigger than they were. He would probably have pushed a snowball up Mount Everest with his nose 'for charity' while people conveniently overlooked the publicity garnered in the process.
It may have been this publicity-generated 'fame' that frightened his accusers from coming forward at the time because who would have dared accuse such a paragon of virtue?

[cacian]

I am not saying that it does, but what I was implying was that he had the characteristics of someone who sought attention and, like so many people involved in his particular sphere, it was public attention that made them appear much bigger than they were. He would probably have pushed a snowball up Mount Everest with his nose 'for charity' while people conveniently overlooked the publicity garnered in the process.

Sure but I think it is normal for anyone to seek attention.
The media was making profit out of it all the time and he let them.
The problem here is that he did not see this coming had he known this was coming I am sure he would not have allowed so much tv coverage about him.
In a way the media is to blame.
If these allegations are to be proven false then the media must be reprimanded.


It may have been this publicity-generated 'fame' that frightened his accusers from coming forward at the time because who would have dared accuse such a paragon of virtue?
I do not believe that.
The media is your friend when it comes to things like this.
One knows one is protected if the media is to know about it.
Like some many stories in the press this is just another repeat.
These people did not have any reason to fear for themselves.
This is my humble opinion.


Or why choose a hero at all? Admiration of other human beings seems to be hard wired into us.

A hero?
which hero? :p
Just people is better.
The problem with handing out titles is that one day something will come around and bite one for it.
Nothing wrong with just people. Keep it simple it is much tidier.

[Emil Miller]

Sure but I think it is normal for anyone to seek attention.
The media was making profit out of it all the time and he let them.
The problem here is that he did not see this coming had he known this was coming I am sure he would not have allowed so much tv coverage about him.
In a way the media is to blame.
If these allegations are to be proven false then the media must be reprimanded.


I do not believe that.
The media is your friend when it comes to things like this.
One knows one is protected if the media is to know about it.
Like some many stories in the press this is just another repeat.
These people did not have any reason to fear for themselves.
This is my humble opinion.

Well of course the media benefited, after all, they created him, but as with all media created performers it's a symbiotic relationship where one feeds off the other. It's looking increasingly likely that at least some of the allegations will prove to be true and it's ironic that now that Saville is dead, the media will still continue to make money out of their creation.

[Paulclem]

To my mind Saville was a narcissiscist who would do virtually anything to attract attention to himself. I don't want to make a big thing about him, because he was a talentless individual who was part of the 'pop scene' and even derogatory mention makes him appear more important than he was.
One of my former colleagues told me that he was on holiday at a seaside resort (I don't remember which one) when he saw Saville driving along the seafront in a convertible wearing swimming trunks and with a towel draped around his neck and it was obvious that he was playing the big I am, which is how he usually came across to me on the few occasions that I saw him on television.

No doubt about that. I thought he was stilted and odd when he spoke to people, and I always thought he looked like a Grandad in lycra.

I read an article about him once where it was clear he intentionally used his celebrity to promote charity as well. He obviously used it for abuse too.




Paul: I chose the term "Hero" because I read a Tweet on Twitter about Lance Armstrong that went:-

"He can't of done it. He was the inspiration I used to recover from my deathbed when I had cancer."

That's pretty poignant. Should he (Armstrong) and indeed other heros who fail to measure up, be more reviled because of what they meant to people.

I don't think so, but perhaps the reaction is a symptom of disappointment. The press will always relish the fall of a supposed hero.

It works both ways as well; heroes are unlikely to fully live up to it, just as villains don't.

[stlukesguild]

Emil- When you relax the rules, whether it be in banking, sport or any other sphere, cheats and charlatans start to prosper.

It's interesting to hear you... a sworn conservative... admit as much. Laissez-faire capitalism and calls for loosening the rules and oversight have long been part and parcel of the American conservative mantra.

[Alexander III]

Emil- When you relax the rules, whether it be in banking, sport or any other sphere, cheats and charlatans start to prosper.

It's interesting to hear you... a sworn conservative... admit as much. Laissez-faire capitalism and calls for loosening the rules and oversight have long been part and parcel of the American conservative mantra.

The English learnt a long time ago not to trust their bankers.

[Emil Miller]

Emil- When you relax the rules, whether it be in banking, sport or any other sphere, cheats and charlatans start to prosper.

It's interesting to hear you... a sworn conservative... admit as much. Laissez-faire capitalism and calls for loosening the rules and oversight have long been part and parcel of the American conservative mantra.

Indeed they have, and The Financial Services Bill that deregulated the City of London under Margaret Thatcher came at a time when the UK was practically bankrupt. Freeing up the financial services sector was necessary to ensure that we were able to pay off the billions that the UK had already borrowed from the IMF because of the previous administration's profligacy.
Laissez- faire doesn't mean that CEOs of financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs should be in cahoots with government officials to deliberately abandon the Glass Steagall Act that actually preserved the financial system of the USA, and by extension that of Europe, from precisely the catastrophe it was designed to prevent. Laissez-faire, in economic terms, means not overburdening the system with excessive taxation to the extent that there is insufficient capital for growth and employment.
Relaxing the rules doesn't mean throwing them out of the window.

[prendrelemick]

Here come the bottom feeding lawers:-

"It's not the money that's important, we just want justice! "

"So, who can we sue?"

[cacian]

Here come the bottom feeding lawers:-

"It's not the money that's important, we just want justice! "

"So, who can we sue?"

LOL

No point in suing because it costs money.
Use a different type of press and start your own banking system private to you and get out of the euro it is nothing but trouble.

[Emil Miller]

LOL

No point in suing because it costs money.
Use a different type of press and start your own banking system private to you and get out of the euro it is nothing but trouble.

We are not in the Euro but if you mean get out of the EU then I agree.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please keep in mind that discussion of current political issues is not allowed on this Forum.

Such posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[cacian]

We are not in the Euro but if you mean get out of the EU then I agree.

Hi Emil sorry I mean in the EU.
Scher my sincere apologies. It won't happen again.