There Are Some Sad People In Brussels.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: crazyewok

No I agree, it's just those trade deals take a long time to iron out. If you are forced to do in it in 2 years, what are the odds that those trade deals will heavily favor special interest groups instead of the working class and poor?

See where I'm getting at? This is a very very good excuse for globalists and corporatism to just change your entire country.

~Tenth

This has been my thinking for the last couple of weeks now. Parliament wont be able to completely overhaul all the UK legal system to cope with leaving the EU. So the government will do it and you can bet they will be changing everything to their favor and the favor of all the people who grease their palms.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: grainofsand

I really had no choice and beside's Europe is a doomed project, that or the people of Europe are doomed as the Troika are the one's really running it, sadly we are still under there thumb but let's keep a watch and see what happen's eh.

I thought abour remain as I was disgusted with that young MP's murder (normally I would line the lot of them up and shoot them but she was Actually a nice person just on the other side of the view point and her murderer was an absolute nutter) but in the end voted out and am growing increasingly pleased that I did, someone has to put a stop to the corporation's Nazi's running roughshod over our right's of course we also need to fix our own parliament now and that is going to be a hell of a lot harder as those cockroaches infest it something shocking.

I think you couldn't be more right. The momentum group keeping Corbyn in power even it seems against his own will is an infestation that will kill the labour party. I wonder what that will mean for any kind of opposition - what do you think? Nice you'd like to see people being shot, that's again very clear headed. I love the maturity of the debate.

Sorry for the late reply, Yes my word's were a little harsh and FIRED would be a better choice as I am typing for an international community here and were I come from Shot mean's the same thing not killed with a gun or murdered hence the seeming contradiction in my statement.

However to cut a long story short you do know that many in the Tory Heirarchy and the New Labour are guilty of Treason against both Britain and the NATO alliance, I am of course referring to the south african nuclear weapon's scandal in which the late Mr's Thatcher, David Cameron and the late but now infamous (and according to one whitness who found his body murdered/silenced with a bullet hole in his temple sitting in his burning car) Doctor David Kelly the former UN weapon's inspector where deeply involved, essentially they brought the nuclear bomb's out of south african supposedly to be disposed of, left them in an unguarded and unsecure compound in the country of Oman and of course then claimed that the Missing warhead's had simply vanished - it was not investigated and of course the Tory party then recieved a 19 million pound donation from the Saudi's and Labour recieved one a 1 million pound donation.

wikispooks.com...
atrueindependentscotland.com...
petereyrepatch.blogspot.co.uk...
Now quite simply he should never have been allowed into the government never mind being a prime minister because this was a treasonous act that was against our own nation's long term security and safety and of course his government has also be green stamping constant approvals of arm's deal's with Saudi Arabia despite the evidence they are litterally using those weapon's to target civilian's in there war with Yemen.

Now we all know that Thatcher's unasumming looking husband Dennis whom kept to the shadow's was implicit in some very evil scheme's and investment's in dictarorial regime run african country's as well as how they lost billion's of there hidden wealth when those nation's finally achieved a sembland of democracy so her son tried then to stage a coup against one such nation.

We all know how Tony Blair and Bush should both be on trial at the Hague for war crime's that have so destabilised the near middle east that the likes of Isis have been able to get a foothold were previously they had virtually no support.

Given these fact's how can any of these lout's on green chairs in the house be regarded as trustworthy or to put it another way would you trust that man to protect your granny's life saving's (I damn well would not).

Other than Dennis skinner and a couple of other's MP's with genuine moral fibre (Dodgy Dave as he called Mr Cameron before being sent out of the house like a naughty little boy for refusing to retract the statement and showed up also the MP's of the labour party whom have no Moral Fibre or they would have followed him out) I can see very few that I even think are decent human being's, the Green party being an exception and though she is probably going to work the coup de'gras on the UK I find that I quite like the Scots leader as she seem's a decent woman whom cares about HER voter's.

The rest of them need to get out of there and work in a real job, in a factory or sweeping floor's on low wages just to see how it is - remember LDS refusing to put his money were his mouth was when he refused to prove he could live on the low level of state handout's and that despicable little man Osbourn, an aberration of abhorrent self serving out of touch humanity if there ever was one.

As for NEW LABOUR they are just the same toffee's in a different wrapper though the desperation vote for the OLD LABOUR Corbyn has shaken them up but they are now trying to oust him as they do not have any intent of giving he electorate what they want and only want to keep there own place in the old boy network beside there Tory's Colleagues.


So no Not shot, perhaps ran over slowly with a bulldozer or something, just enough so that they know what it is like to be ill and disabled and have no help from a heartless westminster elite whom have never worked a genuine day of hard work in there lives.

Grown up enough for you.
www.globalresearch.ca...



TO the post author sorry if this seem's to be off thread, it is not but an explanation of my previous statement to a replying poster thereof.

Now back to the thread.

Let's just say the people won

I'm still in shock , as it seems weird to know our vote counted and we have made a huge difference .

I used to vote labour , but I don't think anybody has a clue what there doing anymore !

It just feels great to pull the rug from under there feet of the people who thought it would never happen 😌

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

I do get what you are saying, but here is the thing.

Most of those who voted to leave did so to stem the tide of people coming here.

That's weird, grainofsand suggests how horribly bigoted that makes them. So, are you saying most who voted to leave are horribly bigoted?

Look, the decision has been made, whether you or others like it or not discussions will at some point need to take place. Seeing as I'm more Irish and Polish by descent than English (born here, one parent half Polish, the other fully Irish) I think I've as much right as anyone to an opinion on how we as a country should ensure those that came to live here have as much right as those who left here to live/work elsewhere - it's not all in our court.

Maybe a poor bit of phrasing on my part since I was trying to answer the bit about your bnp loving neighbours.

I must say though, the rest of your post baffles me. You want to use these people as bargaining chips?

They are human beings. No way.
Not in my country.
I'm not the most progressive of blokes, I admit, that though is beyond the pale.

I don't want to use anyone as bargaining chips, but whether you like it or not, people in the EU working in the UK and people from the UK working in the EU will be part of the discussion - you don't like that? Neither do I, suggesting I do is silly, I'm talking facts.

As you said, the majority voted to cut down immigration, not just my neighbours, the people in your street, or the next street - don't please try and tarnish me by stating a fact.

Did you not read my earlier post where I repeated what Leadsom said? She point blank refused to consider the status of EU nationals living here as up for discussion. She effectively guaranteed their right to remain, which is the right thing to do.
Never mind what the EU might threaten to do with expat Brits, we shouldn't be drawn into this particular tit for tat thing on this issue.

Sure, we can have no guarantees off the EU yet, but we can guarantee how we will treat people can't we?

Leadsom is a candidate for the Prime Minister role. Leadsom, the former banker and hedge fund manager is also the person who promised £350 million a week to the NHS, while at the same time committing money to other areas which today receive EU funding. Since when did you start believing what Tory ministers tell you?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: uncommitted

So you, me, and Sprocket agree that we would oppose kicking settled EU nationals out.
We also agree that having equitable controls on immigration for people from all over the world is sensible for local authorities to plan.

What is it you think we all disagree on?
Just the vote itself and you voted remain perhaps?

Why not move on and work together towards a strong nation which looks after it's people? You had issues when I said I'd fight any immigration snatch squads (if it ever happened, you know, hypothetically) WTF was that all about? How could you have issues with that?

I think you are just bitter about losing the vote and you are making silly things up to argue against. It appears almost trollish to me, but hey, carry on, it's up to other members to decide whatever it is exactly that you are whinging about in this thread.

It's pointless being bitter, anyway, I'm lucky enough to have two passports. It was your pathetic call to fight 'snatch squads' that I was responding to in particular and how childish you came across and of course your 'millions of friends' who would be there with you when the sad truth is, it's the millions who voted to stay who would be a damn sight more sympathetic.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Denoli

I get your anger, I really do.
Just think on this, EU rules forced the privatisation of Royal mail, forbade the renationalisation of steel and railways.
When we are free, we can elect people who might go down that route if we want.

Get your facts right please. The Royal Mail was almost at the point of financial collapse, trust me I'm in a much, much better position to know that than you would think. EU rules opened up the right of other mail carriers to use part of their infrastructure for a cost, that didn't force its nationalisation, it had been on the cards for successive governments for more than 20 years. If it wasn't for the explosion of online shopping I can guarantee you right now the Royal Mail as we know it wouldn't exist now. Cast your mind back not too long and it was a bloated union heavy monster stuck in the '70's.

Stop talking bollox, there's no point now in trying to use nonsense to justify your reasoning.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ForteanOrg

No The U.K. has not politicaly collapsed as that Dutch tosser claims it has.

Maybe you should keep your powder dry. We haven't actually left anything yet - we won't for at least 2 if not closer to 5 years.

The labour party seems to be doing a good job of imploding though does that count?

a reply to: LABTECH767

Right............................... Whatever you say.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

I do get what you are saying, but here is the thing.

Most of those who voted to leave did so to stem the tide of people coming here.

That's weird, grainofsand suggests how horribly bigoted that makes them. So, are you saying most who voted to leave are horribly bigoted?

Look, the decision has been made, whether you or others like it or not discussions will at some point need to take place. Seeing as I'm more Irish and Polish by descent than English (born here, one parent half Polish, the other fully Irish) I think I've as much right as anyone to an opinion on how we as a country should ensure those that came to live here have as much right as those who left here to live/work elsewhere - it's not all in our court.

Maybe a poor bit of phrasing on my part since I was trying to answer the bit about your bnp loving neighbours.

I must say though, the rest of your post baffles me. You want to use these people as bargaining chips?

They are human beings. No way.
Not in my country.
I'm not the most progressive of blokes, I admit, that though is beyond the pale.

I don't want to use anyone as bargaining chips, but whether you like it or not, people in the EU working in the UK and people from the UK working in the EU will be part of the discussion - you don't like that? Neither do I, suggesting I do is silly, I'm talking facts.

As you said, the majority voted to cut down immigration, not just my neighbours, the people in your street, or the next street - don't please try and tarnish me by stating a fact.

Did you not read my earlier post where I repeated what Leadsom said? She point blank refused to consider the status of EU nationals living here as up for discussion. She effectively guaranteed their right to remain, which is the right thing to do.
Never mind what the EU might threaten to do with expat Brits, we shouldn't be drawn into this particular tit for tat thing on this issue.

Sure, we can have no guarantees off the EU yet, but we can guarantee how we will treat people can't we?

Leadsom is a candidate for the Prime Minister role. Leadsom, the former banker and hedge fund manager is also the person who promised £350 million a week to the NHS, while at the same time committing money to other areas which today receive EU funding. Since when did you start believing what Tory ministers tell you?

Well, you vote for May, who refused to give such a commitment then, if you want to.

Without a time machine and a crystal ball, we can't know whether Leadsom will keep her word. It's a stupid argument you put forth.
I'd say the fact that she went on record saying she will not treat UK based EU migrants in this way at least puts her in a position to be held to account if she goes back on this promise at some point.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Denoli

I get your anger, I really do.
Just think on this, EU rules forced the privatisation of Royal mail, forbade the renationalisation of steel and railways.
When we are free, we can elect people who might go down that route if we want.

Get your facts right please. The Royal Mail was almost at the point of financial collapse, trust me I'm in a much, much better position to know that than you would think. EU rules opened up the right of other mail carriers to use part of their infrastructure for a cost, that didn't force its nationalisation, it had been on the cards for successive governments for more than 20 years. If it wasn't for the explosion of online shopping I can guarantee you right now the Royal Mail as we know it wouldn't exist now. Cast your mind back not too long and it was a bloated union heavy monster stuck in the '70's.

Stop talking bollox, there's no point now in trying to use nonsense to justify your reasoning.

Well mr know it all, you obviously haven't the slightest clue about The EU Postal Service directive 1997 (97/67/EC), and a second one, adopted in 2002 (2002/39/EC) which meant that Royal Mail had to open up the most profitable sectors of its business to private competition while keeping the loss making stuff to itself.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

I do get what you are saying, but here is the thing.

Most of those who voted to leave did so to stem the tide of people coming here.

That's weird, grainofsand suggests how horribly bigoted that makes them. So, are you saying most who voted to leave are horribly bigoted?

Look, the decision has been made, whether you or others like it or not discussions will at some point need to take place. Seeing as I'm more Irish and Polish by descent than English (born here, one parent half Polish, the other fully Irish) I think I've as much right as anyone to an opinion on how we as a country should ensure those that came to live here have as much right as those who left here to live/work elsewhere - it's not all in our court.

Maybe a poor bit of phrasing on my part since I was trying to answer the bit about your bnp loving neighbours.

I must say though, the rest of your post baffles me. You want to use these people as bargaining chips?

They are human beings. No way.
Not in my country.
I'm not the most progressive of blokes, I admit, that though is beyond the pale.

I don't want to use anyone as bargaining chips, but whether you like it or not, people in the EU working in the UK and people from the UK working in the EU will be part of the discussion - you don't like that? Neither do I, suggesting I do is silly, I'm talking facts.

As you said, the majority voted to cut down immigration, not just my neighbours, the people in your street, or the next street - don't please try and tarnish me by stating a fact.

Did you not read my earlier post where I repeated what Leadsom said? She point blank refused to consider the status of EU nationals living here as up for discussion. She effectively guaranteed their right to remain, which is the right thing to do.
Never mind what the EU might threaten to do with expat Brits, we shouldn't be drawn into this particular tit for tat thing on this issue.

Sure, we can have no guarantees off the EU yet, but we can guarantee how we will treat people can't we?

Leadsom is a candidate for the Prime Minister role. Leadsom, the former banker and hedge fund manager is also the person who promised £350 million a week to the NHS, while at the same time committing money to other areas which today receive EU funding. Since when did you start believing what Tory ministers tell you?

Well, you vote for May, who refused to give such a commitment then, if you want to.

Without a time machine and a crystal ball, we can't know whether Leadsom will keep her word. It's a stupid argument you put forth.
I'd say the fact that she went on record saying she will not treat UK based EU migrants in this way at least puts her in a position to be held to account if she goes back on this promise at some point.

I'm not sure where you are going, I'm not a member of the Conservative party so I won't be voting for anyone. Considering the head honcho's for vote leave have already backtracked on most of their 'promises', I'm not sure why you are so sure she would be in any position to keep this one.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Denoli

I get your anger, I really do.
Just think on this, EU rules forced the privatisation of Royal mail, forbade the renationalisation of steel and railways.
When we are free, we can elect people who might go down that route if we want.

Get your facts right please. The Royal Mail was almost at the point of financial collapse, trust me I'm in a much, much better position to know that than you would think. EU rules opened up the right of other mail carriers to use part of their infrastructure for a cost, that didn't force its nationalisation, it had been on the cards for successive governments for more than 20 years. If it wasn't for the explosion of online shopping I can guarantee you right now the Royal Mail as we know it wouldn't exist now. Cast your mind back not too long and it was a bloated union heavy monster stuck in the '70's.

Stop talking bollox, there's no point now in trying to use nonsense to justify your reasoning.

Well mr know it all, you obviously haven't the slightest clue about The EU Postal Service directive 1997 (97/67/EC), and a second one, adopted in 2002 (2002/39/EC) which meant that Royal Mail had to open up the most profitable sectors of its business to private competition while keeping the loss making stuff to itself.

Actually, I know because I had some involvement in looking at financial projections for the Royal Mail (or Consignia as it was branded at the time) around its viability without being at least partially privately owned and frankly it was a very sick puppy. What I said quite clearly is that opening up part of its network - and it is partial - was on the whole a financial decision,.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: uncommitted

I do get what you are saying, but here is the thing.

Most of those who voted to leave did so to stem the tide of people coming here.

That's weird, grainofsand suggests how horribly bigoted that makes them. So, are you saying most who voted to leave are horribly bigoted?

Look, the decision has been made, whether you or others like it or not discussions will at some point need to take place. Seeing as I'm more Irish and Polish by descent than English (born here, one parent half Polish, the other fully Irish) I think I've as much right as anyone to an opinion on how we as a country should ensure those that came to live here have as much right as those who left here to live/work elsewhere - it's not all in our court.

Maybe a poor bit of phrasing on my part since I was trying to answer the bit about your bnp loving neighbours.

I must say though, the rest of your post baffles me. You want to use these people as bargaining chips?

They are human beings. No way.
Not in my country.
I'm not the most progressive of blokes, I admit, that though is beyond the pale.

I don't want to use anyone as bargaining chips, but whether you like it or not, people in the EU working in the UK and people from the UK working in the EU will be part of the discussion - you don't like that? Neither do I, suggesting I do is silly, I'm talking facts.

As you said, the majority voted to cut down immigration, not just my neighbours, the people in your street, or the next street - don't please try and tarnish me by stating a fact.

Did you not read my earlier post where I repeated what Leadsom said? She point blank refused to consider the status of EU nationals living here as up for discussion. She effectively guaranteed their right to remain, which is the right thing to do.
Never mind what the EU might threaten to do with expat Brits, we shouldn't be drawn into this particular tit for tat thing on this issue.

Sure, we can have no guarantees off the EU yet, but we can guarantee how we will treat people can't we?

Leadsom is a candidate for the Prime Minister role. Leadsom, the former banker and hedge fund manager is also the person who promised £350 million a week to the NHS, while at the same time committing money to other areas which today receive EU funding. Since when did you start believing what Tory ministers tell you?

Well, you vote for May, who refused to give such a commitment then, if you want to.

Without a time machine and a crystal ball, we can't know whether Leadsom will keep her word. It's a stupid argument you put forth.
I'd say the fact that she went on record saying she will not treat UK based EU migrants in this way at least puts her in a position to be held to account if she goes back on this promise at some point.

I'm not sure where you are going, I'm not a member of the Conservative party so I won't be voting for anyone. Considering the head honcho's for vote leave have already backtracked on most of their 'promises', I'm not sure why you are so sure she would be in any position to keep this one.

Seriously, was there any point at all writing that? You may as well tell us your favourite ice cream flavour. It has the same relevance.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Denoli

I get your anger, I really do.
Just think on this, EU rules forced the privatisation of Royal mail, forbade the renationalisation of steel and railways.
When we are free, we can elect people who might go down that route if we want.

Get your facts right please. The Royal Mail was almost at the point of financial collapse, trust me I'm in a much, much better position to know that than you would think. EU rules opened up the right of other mail carriers to use part of their infrastructure for a cost, that didn't force its nationalisation, it had been on the cards for successive governments for more than 20 years. If it wasn't for the explosion of online shopping I can guarantee you right now the Royal Mail as we know it wouldn't exist now. Cast your mind back not too long and it was a bloated union heavy monster stuck in the '70's.

Stop talking bollox, there's no point now in trying to use nonsense to justify your reasoning.

Well mr know it all, you obviously haven't the slightest clue about The EU Postal Service directive 1997 (97/67/EC), and a second one, adopted in 2002 (2002/39/EC) which meant that Royal Mail had to open up the most profitable sectors of its business to private competition while keeping the loss making stuff to itself.

Actually, I know because I had some involvement in looking at financial projections for the Royal Mail (or Consignia as it was branded at the time) around its viability without being at least partially privately owned and frankly it was a very sick puppy. What I said quite clearly is that opening up part of its network - and it is partial - was on the whole a financial decision,.

So at some point between January 2001 and June 2002 you looked at the financial state of the post office and decided it had always been non viable? Perhaps without the deregulation forced by EU directive 97/67/EC it wouldn't have lost money due to all the profit making services being given up....

a reply to: alldaylong

Does he really think that a country that faced up to Nazi Germany in 1939 is in a worse crisis now because we have decided to leave The E.U

probably not - but you didn't face Hitler alone remember - we were called Allies, sort of, then again CHurchill refused to allow the Aussies to go back and defend themselves against the Japanese

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL BETRAYS AUSTRALIA AT THE ARCADIA CONFERENCE
www.pacificwar.org.au...

a reply to: uncommitted

Depends who you mean by we.

I'm out.

a reply to: pikestaff

Most of those jobs disappeared as a result of bosses looking for cheaper manufacturing costs offshore.

and even non eu countries

Did Britain stop trading with Australia or the USA whilst she was in the EU? i think not.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Denoli

I get your anger, I really do.
Just think on this, EU rules forced the privatisation of Royal mail, forbade the renationalisation of steel and railways.
When we are free, we can elect people who might go down that route if we want.

Get your facts right please. The Royal Mail was almost at the point of financial collapse, trust me I'm in a much, much better position to know that than you would think. EU rules opened up the right of other mail carriers to use part of their infrastructure for a cost, that didn't force its nationalisation, it had been on the cards for successive governments for more than 20 years. If it wasn't for the explosion of online shopping I can guarantee you right now the Royal Mail as we know it wouldn't exist now. Cast your mind back not too long and it was a bloated union heavy monster stuck in the '70's.

Stop talking bollox, there's no point now in trying to use nonsense to justify your reasoning.

Well mr know it all, you obviously haven't the slightest clue about The EU Postal Service directive 1997 (97/67/EC), and a second one, adopted in 2002 (2002/39/EC) which meant that Royal Mail had to open up the most profitable sectors of its business to private competition while keeping the loss making stuff to itself.

Actually, I know because I had some involvement in looking at financial projections for the Royal Mail (or Consignia as it was branded at the time) around its viability without being at least partially privately owned and frankly it was a very sick puppy. What I said quite clearly is that opening up part of its network - and it is partial - was on the whole a financial decision,.

So at some point between January 2001 and June 2002 you looked at the financial state of the post office and decided it had always been non viable? Perhaps without the deregulation forced by EU directive 97/67/EC it wouldn't have lost money due to all the profit making services being given up....

No, I worked to the finance director in one of the businesses collectively now known as the Royal Mail for several years in the '90's. This is an area I have direct first hand experience in.

Its financial viability has long been a question over whether it existed to make money, break even or lose lots of money while providing a public service. The answer isn't the latter, I was at the time engaged in a series of cost/loss reduction exercises. The business was massively bloated followed in many cases archaic practices dating back decades that no longer matched the technology used, and millions were lost every year - literally never claimed for service - due to poor processes, training and in a fair few cases the quality of the people employed. If it was held accountable to real shareholders it would have gone under a long time ago. Governments of both persuasions have considered at least partial privatisation since the mid '70's if not before, only worried that it is thought of as a sacred cow due to the universal postage cost within the UK - even though that in itself is and always has been massively subsidised.

Since to my personal knowledge the '90's, The company was divesting itself of non core elements, be they catering, maintenance (to an extent) transportation of cash plus of course its internal IT support which was outsourced in 2003. None of that was related in any way to any EU directive, they were done to reduce cost and loss in areas which were not its core focus. I would say that if it wasn't for the likes of ebay and other online retailers, the Royal Mail would be in a lot worse shape today than it is.

As to EU directive 97/67/EC. Parts of at least the Parcel sector of Royal Mail (Parcelforce) was doing this informally for years. In a slightly later role (still in the mid to late '90's) I had some involvement in its European hub in Coventry where inward items from other carriers would be offloaded to be delivered to its ultimate destination by Parcelforce, and likewise, items collected by them would be flown to their destination country to be delivered by their equivalent. I don't know if it's still the case or not, but if you ever see a Parcelforce van you may notice a logo somewhere (I think it used to be on one of the back doors) stating it's a member of a European distribution network.

This is becoming seriously long winded, so to your key point which was "Perhaps without the deregulation forced by EU directive 97/67/EC it wouldn't have lost money due to all the profit making services being given up"............ no, mainly because that's rhetoric from people against such deregulation. Carriers using the Royal Mail network for part of the lifecycle in the journey of a letter or parcel also have to pay for the privilege - it's not a free service. It's a subject I'm more than happy to talk about at length, but I'll only talk facts, not Daily Mail headline type comments.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: uncommitted

Depends who you mean by we.

I'm out.

You've left the EU? Well done. I'm sure they wrangled for literally nano seconds over getting the best deal.

a reply to: uncommitted

So you didn't see that the Internet and home shopping wasn't going to be a booming industry ?

Nothing like selling at the worst possible time.

Great business sense , no wonder it was sucked of all its blood .