Members of the weight-loss club were lining up to compare readings on the scales when they heard a bang as the floor came away from the walls of their meeting room in Växjö in southern Sweden. “We suddenly heard a huge thud – we almost thought it was an earthquake and everything flew up in the air. The floor collapsed in one corner of the room and along the walls,” one of the those present told the Smålandsposten newspaper. They abandoned the room as the floor started to give way in other areas.
That's the difference between living in a developed country and the third world. In Sweden some fat bastards thought it was an earthquake after they caused the floor to collapse while trying not to eat food while in Haiti, it was an earthquake and they don't have ANY FOOD to eat.
When they say it's an ill divided world, I SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN!
9 comments:
I wonder what happened to the blonde babe from Abba. Probably a big fat swede now I suppose. Or is that a big fat neep in scotchland ?
Haiti doesn't seem to have much luck. Riots, military invasions and coups, cyclones, earthquakes, voodoo ritual killings, murders and corruption. How can one country be so unlucky ?
I doubt if they're worried about global warming or the credit crunch. Or Tango man taking over at Killie.
Voodoo, She could have done with a few pounds of fat that bird, she was far too skinny. BTW Turnip will do, neeps are only when we're eating Haggis, Fair fa your onest sonsie face, great chieftain o the puddin race, abin them aw.....etc, etc.
Aye Haiti's no too lucky. I honestly believe countries should be ruled by their own people, but I bet you couldn't name five black ruled countries that are better now than when the white man occupied them. I'm not being racist, just realist.
Old bawsy taking over at the shitebags won't make any differnce. They're going down. I just hope Ayr can stay up so we can gub the bastards four times a year!
I don’t want to be controversial but I think you mean the English when you talk about “white man”.
If you think the Germans in Tanganyika, the Belgians in the Congo, the Dutch in the East Indies, the Spanish in Mexico and S America or the Portugese in Africa and S America did a good job then you have a warped sense of judgement.
Starting with Scotland in 1701 the English went on to fairly administer 25% of the world. Granted, like the Romans, we chose the best of the subject races and made them into administrators; we even selected the best and made them into Englishmen.
Scotland was in a terrible state when it entered the Union – people were starving, had no clothes and lived in hovels; that continued into the 1930s when at last English taxpayers money reached beyond the Saxons in Edinburgh and got where it was most needed.
Unfortunately things are slipping back under the present regime and the Trotskiest local authorities which is why the poorest post codes in Europe are in Glasgow.
Haiti is in it’s present state because the people are a lazy disorganised rabble – the non-Saxon areas of Scotland are pretty similar and will continue to be so until the people pull out their fingers and start creating economic wealth rather than sitting around whingeing about “lack of investment and the terrible deal the English give them”.
The way out of poverty is through self help and not handouts from the national handbag in Westminster.
I just thought you Scots would like to know all that so you can improve your efforts in the future.
Stouters, I am trying not to give you the satisfaction of me rising to the bait but with the exception probably of the Spanish which had petered out of occupation in S America some time ago, are you seriously telling me theat the countries you mentioned are better now? Sure, they deserve to be run by the native people but they don't seem to be making a great job of it. I mean could you envisage the Aboriginies running Australia? I think you'll find that the Scots were propotionately the ones who went and conquered and governed the British Empire whilst the English stayed in England and worked in the factories to process the 'New World's' exports like cotton. We have poverty in Scotland because we ahve been ruled by London who don't want to see a viable Scotland or for that matter a viable North of England. We only want to control our own resources because we know better how to put them to work to reinvigorate the Country. I notice that all you English Nationalists/Unionist/Queen and Country types don't want Scotland to become independent. Funny that. I would have thought that if we were such a drain on England you would be happy to see us go.
Spot on Nagars, in fine style you have gone straight to the point and bounced off.
The point is that although the British Empire was not perfect it was the best there was; natives were educated, Ghandi was a member of the Middle Temple, Nehru went to both Harrow and Cambridge, Mugabe was educated at the exclusive Kutama College, Seretse Khama went to Cambridge and was a barrister in the Inner Temple and so on and so on; the Brits invested in the local economies and created economic prosperity; a legacy of democracy and law was left in many countries. The list is endless.
If you really think that it was Scottish democracy and capital that created and ran the Empire then you must have been reading different books to me; I recommend a trip to Dehli, which is the capital city of the world’s largest democracy and see what they have to say about the British legacy.
Sure we were guilty of paternalism and there were incidences of exploitation but on the whole they were frowned on by the authorities; Clive was impeached for taking bribes and the Empires Civil Servants were pretty straight, certainly relative to our fellow Colonisers.
The Scots mainly went out to fulfil minor functions under the control of officials based in London.
When I think of it, and if you exclude soldiers I can’t think of many Scots administrators and even the ones I can think of were Saxons from the East and Lowlands.
Most of the famous Scots like the Flemings, Jardines, Cattos Hendersons, etc were both exploiters and Saxons (or Protestant immigrants) so I’m not sure who your Empire builders were.
Who were the famous soldiers? With the exception of “Fighting Mac MacDonald” who was a kiddy fiddler, most of the Generals were English or Irish.
What you have to get to grips with is that you can have a separate character and identity without severing the ties of Union, without English vitality, creativity and capital Scotland will be left with a declining population and a bleak economic future.
Haiti is a crap hole, slightly more now than it was last week but nonetheless, a crap hole.
I wonder how many we will take "as our numanitarian duty" on these shores...
Stouters, you are proving the question I asked at the beginning of this post i.e. can you name 5 black countries that are better now than when the white man and I was thinking particularly of the Brits, were in charge. You make the point for me. The Brits creted Economic Prosperity, well where is it now?
Ofvf you go on a tangent once more about Scots. I think like penis envy you have Scots envy. Come up here if you want, you'll be welcome as long as you have something to contribute and you don't wear a Burka. Mind you, you may be a Scot of the Orange Lodge/Rangers supporting variety. And please don't accuse one of my possible ancestors of being a 'kiddy fiddler'. it was not frowned apon in those days and in fact was actively encouraged in Victorian times. As I said if were such arseholes we'll go, but of course we will require an 8-10% share of everything built or owned by Britain since 1707.
Headson, it is a crap hole, but I don't think we'll have to take any or many because it was a former french colony and they still speak a form of French along with local languages, so I would imagine most will go to France or Canada.
True DL but as soon as they get to France they'll be issued an EU passport...
Post a Comment