• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "The Curse Of McBroon"

Collapse

  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardCranium View Post
    No worries - put it down to our dodgy education system.
    I'd put it down to my memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardCranium
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Ooops!

    Thanks, forgot that bit!
    No worries - put it down to our dodgy education system.

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardCranium
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Brown is a Scot governing the English, now who the hell thought that was gonna work?
    Anyway, the problem is not that Brown is a Scot. The Scots are perfectly capable of managing a country, have repeatedly demonstrated political expertise and are renowned for their financial management capabilities.

    The problem is that Brown is utterly incompetent.

    I doubt they'd let such a poor money manager back over the border, and I wouldn't blame them.

    I wonder if he was expelled and sent into exile?

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardCranium View Post
    You don't know?

    Elizabeth Tudor was most concerned that religious massacres should not break out again amongst her subjects, therefore, she wanted a protestant to take the throne. Also, having got shot of the Pope's control, there was no desire to let that come back.

    King James VI of Scotland was one of the potential successors to Elizabeth and he made it clear he would remain protestant. Other potential successors were either Catholic, or could be turned.

    Also, unity of Scotland and England had been desired by much of the nobility and the merchant classes for centuries; nobody really benefited from the perpetual feuding.

    King James VI saw the chance to take the English throne. Queen ELizabeth I (and her advisors) saw the chance for stability despite Elizabeth having no child heir.

    The deal was: he was not to criticise or feud with England and to be a devout protestant, and should he outlive Elizabeth, he would get the throne.

    He did, and he did.

    Thus did King James VI of Scotland become King James I of England.
    Ooops!

    Thanks, forgot that bit!

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardCranium
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Elaborate. Please?
    You don't know?

    Elizabeth Tudor was most concerned that religious massacres should not break out again amongst her subjects, therefore, she wanted a protestant to take the throne. Also, having got shot of the Pope's control, there was no desire to let that come back.

    King James VI of Scotland was one of the potential successors to Elizabeth and he made it clear he would remain protestant. Other potential successors were either Catholic, or could be turned.

    Also, unity of Scotland and England had been desired by much of the nobility and the merchant classes for centuries; nobody really benefited from the perpetual feuding.

    King James VI saw the chance to take the English throne. Queen ELizabeth I (and her advisors) saw the chance for stability despite Elizabeth having no child heir.

    The deal was: he was not to criticise or feud with England and to be a devout protestant, and should he outlive Elizabeth, he would get the throne.

    He did, and he did.

    Thus did King James VI of Scotland become King James I of England.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zippy
    replied
    Two (+) gearboxes (for the rotors) required to operate together.One gets fckd then it takes the other out ...
    Lack of maintenance = catastrophic falure. Ask MI5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by RichardCranium View Post
    For starters, Queen Elizabeth I.
    Elaborate. Please?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cliphead
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Brown is a Scot governing the English, now who the hell thought that was gonna work?
    Time to call in Agent X

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardCranium
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Brown is a Scot governing the English, now who the hell thought that was gonna work?
    For starters, Queen Elizabeth I.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Brown is a Scot governing the English, now who the hell thought that was gonna work?

    Leave a comment:


  • Addanc
    replied
    Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post
    That's why he sold our gold reserves when the price was at an all time low
    He caused the all time low by announcing the fact that he was going to sell the gold

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by Menelaus View Post
    As those of us who follow Guido Fawkes (www.order-order.com) are aware he's generated a theory of correlation which is that whatever the opposite of the Midas touch is, Gordon Brown's got it.
    I loved the video of William Hague's speech in Parliament about Blair's bid to be President of Europe. Even the Labour benches couldn't stop laughing (because Gordon Brown wasn't there, and the joke was on him).

    Leave a comment:


  • contractor79
    replied
    our democracy is essentially a non-democracy, an illusion

    Leave a comment:


  • George Parr
    replied
    Yep, and what is worse, he told the markets he was going to do it just to make sure the price was kept down. His incompetence knows no bounds.

    LONDON: 6 July 1999 – The sale today of the first tranche of 25 tonnes of UK gold was a disaster for the gold market with the price falling to a new low, and for gold producing countries and for Britain, said the World Gold Council.
    The result of the first auction by the Bank of England was worse than many feared, said the WGC. The price of $261.20 accepted by the Government was significantly below yesterday’s market price and more than $26 below the price on 6 May, the day before the Government announced the disposal of 415 tonnes from its reserve of 715 tonnes, through a series of bi-monthly sales.
    At this price the people of Britain are being ‘short-changed’ by the Chancellor by a staggering £450 million ($600 million), “ said Miss Haruko Fukuda, Chief Executive of the WGC.
    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    Leave a comment:


  • SantaClaus
    replied
    Yep, Brown has definitely got the opposite of the Midas touch.

    That's why he sold our gold reserves when the price was at an all time low

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X