The All New Quote Of The Day Thread

[Barman]

Let us not forget that after New York, London is the world's leading services centre. The sector brings in about £60bn in tax every year, more than 10% of the government's entire budget. We need it to succeed, and retain talent – which means paying them world market rates. That's what we do with footballers – John Terry is paid £6.7m a year, Wayne Rooney is on £15.1m and Steven Gerrard picks up £7.2m and got an MBE too. But football clubs are very small businesses compared to banks. Though a world footballing brand, Manchester United's capitalization is just £2.47bn; the market capitalization of RBS is seventeen times bigger, at £41.8bn. Should we be surprised if star performers in RBS are paid seventeen times what Rooney earns? But in fact we baulk when they are paid fifteen times less.

Well said! 

Clicky....

[Steve]

Let us not forget that after New York, London is the world's leading services centre. The sector brings in about £60bn in tax every year, more than 10% of the government's entire budget. We need it to succeed, and retain talent – which means paying them world market rates. That's what we do with footballers – John Terry is paid £6.7m a year, Wayne Rooney is on £15.1m and Steven Gerrard picks up £7.2m and got an MBE too. But football clubs are very small businesses compared to banks. Though a world footballing brand, Manchester United's capitalization is just £2.47bn; the market capitalization of RBS is seventeen times bigger, at £41.8bn. Should we be surprised if star performers in RBS are paid seventeen times what Rooney earns? But in fact we baulk when they are paid fifteen times less.

Well said! 

Clicky....

Indeed

It's a market economy, the whiners should live with that or sod off to North Korea or its like

[Barman]

The main story is, of course, the banning of smoking in cars with horrible screaming brats present. If it calms them down, smoke them. It works with bees, and cheeeldren are similarly noisy and hyperactive.

[Baldy]

The main story is, of course, the banning of smoking in cars with horrible screaming brats present. If it calms them down, smoke them. It works with bees, and cheeeldren are similarly noisy and hyperactive.

 

[Barman]

I’ve been on [drinking] benders longer than this election campaign

 

[Baldy]

I’ve been on [drinking] benders longer than this election campaign

 

   

[Barman]

I shall give in to your demands to suppress freedom of speech, purely because I fear your threats. But don’t for one nanosecond confuse fear with respect. I do not respect you, I despise you and everything you stand for – especially given that your faith is apparently so weak in argument that it requires violent threats to shore it up.

[Baldy]

I shall give in to your demands to suppress freedom of speech, purely because I fear your threats. But don’t for one nanosecond confuse fear with respect. I do not respect you, I despise you and everything you stand for – especially given that your faith is apparently so weak in argument that it requires violent threats to shore it up.

 

[Barman]

Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life

[Baldy]

Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life

 

[Barman]

Mr Buckland calls his law the ‘Cinderella Law’ and states, possibly for the purpose of the required media sound-bite, that his target is the proverbial wicked Step-mother, which makes his proposal all the more nonsensical. Society has never yet found a way of forcing genetic parents to actually ‘love’ the brawling, squalling, mucus covered, little git that God blessed them with; nor to show overt interest into what goes in one end nor out the other. They either do or they don’t, and the threat of ten years peace and quiet at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, far, far, away from the trials and tribulations of dealing with the end result of that unwise coupling isn’t going to seem like much of a deterrent.

Clicky...

 

[Barman]

In a thread about farming elephants rather than banning trade in ivory which obviously results in poaching...

Has anyone ever, under any ivory trading rules, farmed elephants – African elephants in particular? Or is this another fantasy policy from UKIP?

The economics of the situation would seem to be that it’s a lot cheaper to buy elephant tusks from poachers than to farm them. So if you allow the sale of elephant tusks from supposedly legitimate sources, in countries, Zimbabwe for example, where officialdom may not be wholly trustworthy, the result will be a trade in poached ivory.

And this was the reply...

@PaulB – as far as I know (I’m not a member of or a voter for), no, it’s not UKIP policy – any more than you once had a mate who took acid, thought he could fly and jumped off some scaffolding, you trolling liar.

(I’m just about willing to believe a man took acid and jumped off some scaffolding, as per all those urban legends; it’s the idea that you once had a mate which I find incredible.)

What it is is a comment thread on a blog, in which we consider whether

i) Law enforcement can stop the trade in ivory (hasn’t worked with acid, ask your pretend mate, but possibly it can reduce it)

and

ii) Whether some form of legalised trade might allow elephants to take on a value beyond the merely touristic, which would give notoriously greedy and poverty-stricken kleptocracies – such as your leftist fellow traveller Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe – a reason to protect them, rather than look the other way and take their cut of the increased value in the ivory, increased value that is produced by prohibition.

You stupid, snarky cunt.

Haven’t seen you around for a while, I was hoping you were lying in your own piss and shit, dying of thirst in one of your beloved NHS hospitals.

Clicky...

[Steve]

In a thread about farming elephants rather than banning trade in ivory which obviously results in poaching...

Has anyone ever, under any ivory trading rules, farmed elephants – African elephants in particular? Or is this another fantasy policy from UKIP?

The economics of the situation would seem to be that it’s a lot cheaper to buy elephant tusks from poachers than to farm them. So if you allow the sale of elephant tusks from supposedly legitimate sources, in countries, Zimbabwe for example, where officialdom may not be wholly trustworthy, the result will be a trade in poached ivory.

And this was the reply...

@PaulB – as far as I know (I’m not a member of or a voter for), no, it’s not UKIP policy – any more than you once had a mate who took acid, thought he could fly and jumped off some scaffolding, you trolling liar.

(I’m just about willing to believe a man took acid and jumped off some scaffolding, as per all those urban legends; it’s the idea that you once had a mate which I find incredible.)

What it is is a comment thread on a blog, in which we consider whether

i) Law enforcement can stop the trade in ivory (hasn’t worked with acid, ask your pretend mate, but possibly it can reduce it)

and

ii) Whether some form of legalised trade might allow elephants to take on a value beyond the merely touristic, which would give notoriously greedy and poverty-stricken kleptocracies – such as your leftist fellow traveller Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe – a reason to protect them, rather than look the other way and take their cut of the increased value in the ivory, increased value that is produced by prohibition.

You stupid, snarky cunt.

Haven’t seen you around for a while, I was hoping you were lying in your own piss and shit, dying of thirst in one of your beloved NHS hospitals.

Clicky...

   and

[apc2010]

In a thread about farming elephants rather than banning trade in ivory which obviously results in poaching...

Has anyone ever, under any ivory trading rules, farmed elephants – African elephants in particular? Or is this another fantasy policy from UKIP?

The economics of the situation would seem to be that it’s a lot cheaper to buy elephant tusks from poachers than to farm them. So if you allow the sale of elephant tusks from supposedly legitimate sources, in countries, Zimbabwe for example, where officialdom may not be wholly trustworthy, the result will be a trade in poached ivory.

And this was the reply...

@PaulB – as far as I know (I’m not a member of or a voter for), no, it’s not UKIP policy – any more than you once had a mate who took acid, thought he could fly and jumped off some scaffolding, you trolling liar.

(I’m just about willing to believe a man took acid and jumped off some scaffolding, as per all those urban legends; it’s the idea that you once had a mate which I find incredible.)

What it is is a comment thread on a blog, in which we consider whether

i) Law enforcement can stop the trade in ivory (hasn’t worked with acid, ask your pretend mate, but possibly it can reduce it)

and

ii) Whether some form of legalised trade might allow elephants to take on a value beyond the merely touristic, which would give notoriously greedy and poverty-stricken kleptocracies – such as your leftist fellow traveller Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe – a reason to protect them, rather than look the other way and take their cut of the increased value in the ivory, increased value that is produced by prohibition.

You stupid, snarky cunt.

Haven’t seen you around for a while, I was hoping you were lying in your own piss and shit, dying of thirst in one of your beloved NHS hospitals.

Clicky...

 

[Baldy]

In a thread about farming elephants rather than banning trade in ivory which obviously results in poaching...

Has anyone ever, under any ivory trading rules, farmed elephants – African elephants in particular? Or is this another fantasy policy from UKIP?

The economics of the situation would seem to be that it’s a lot cheaper to buy elephant tusks from poachers than to farm them. So if you allow the sale of elephant tusks from supposedly legitimate sources, in countries, Zimbabwe for example, where officialdom may not be wholly trustworthy, the result will be a trade in poached ivory.

And this was the reply...

@PaulB – as far as I know (I’m not a member of or a voter for), no, it’s not UKIP policy – any more than you once had a mate who took acid, thought he could fly and jumped off some scaffolding, you trolling liar.

(I’m just about willing to believe a man took acid and jumped off some scaffolding, as per all those urban legends; it’s the idea that you once had a mate which I find incredible.)

What it is is a comment thread on a blog, in which we consider whether

i) Law enforcement can stop the trade in ivory (hasn’t worked with acid, ask your pretend mate, but possibly it can reduce it)

and

ii) Whether some form of legalised trade might allow elephants to take on a value beyond the merely touristic, which would give notoriously greedy and poverty-stricken kleptocracies – such as your leftist fellow traveller Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe – a reason to protect them, rather than look the other way and take their cut of the increased value in the ivory, increased value that is produced by prohibition.

You stupid, snarky cunt.

Haven’t seen you around for a while, I was hoping you were lying in your own piss and shit, dying of thirst in one of your beloved NHS hospitals.

Clicky...