|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
"…but rather the philosophic principle of adequate community support, so that every citizen has the opportunity to make the best of his or her life."
I think we both agree with this principle, but what you call community support becomes community interference and because it is bureaucratic, it becomes ineffective, morale sapping and destroys initiative. The family must be promoted and educated to give that support.
"There are those who claim that taxation inhibits entrepreneurial initiative. That's a meaningless mantra, which conceals the real fear that the rich may have to subsidise those less fortunate than themselves, using money they could otherwise apply to private education or private medical care which the less fortunate cannot afford. Certainly, tax increases would hit the majority of the population, but those in the middle ground would immediately benefit from improved local services and facilities."
Taxation does not inhibit entrepreneurial initiative. It redirects it into the black economy. The problem with the tax increases that we have had to suffer is that the poor don't pay them and the rich can afford them. It is the people like me caught inbetween who are neither rich nor poor that bear the brunt of these taxes.
Simply pouring tax money into something does not improve it. We have learnt this with the NHS - a lot of the money is wasted in bureaucracy. Why are so many wards and hospitals being closed.
Maintained education has not improved. University education used to be free. Now potential students are being priced out in England.
Transport has marginally improved, but we have the most expensve railways in Europe, which probably means the world. We have a very restricted road building programme.
People probably wouldn't mind paying taxes if they got value for money. This has patently not happened and will never happen until the present mindset of the faceless men in charge radically changes.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whooo, Nigel, lots of ground covered in that one!
But I'm gonna pick up on just a couple of things.
Firstly, "The family must be promoted and educated to give that support." No way. Never in a million years. Some families are great ... and I'm lucky that part of my birth family is one of them (my brother is my closest friend). But my father was deeply abusive (just how abusive, and how it afffected me, I am only just realising), and families - both nuclear and extended - frequently operate on an unspoken web of pressure and moral blackmail (think of the pressure on many Asian girls to take husbands chosen for them). I suspect that most people *love* some or all members of their family. But I also suspect that many people don't actually *like* a lot of family members.
The the nuclear family is a pressure-cooker of emotions, and too many people don't realise that it can only work if all concerned have lots of outside interests so everyone in the family can grow. Which is why an increasing number of people are looking to alternative support groups - circles of friends, many of whom may explicitly use the language of fictive kinship (my brother, my water-brother, my sister-in-soul). Which this may have started in the gay community during the period that marriage / civil partnership was illegal, it's something I'm seeing increasingly among urban couples of all orientations. And the growth of the internet offers some interesting possibilites in this area - communities based on interest and affinity rather than geographical proximity are becoming easier.
Secondly - I share your frustration with "the faceless men in charge " - even though some people might think that as a local government officer I used to be one of them! But I don't see this as a left versus right issue - I see it as a problem that all UK governments for the last thirty years have had strong centralising tendencies. Local authorities - and the unpopular large UK "unitary Authorities" are too big, too remote from the populace, and are totally constrained by Whitehall directives.
To all of which, my answer is to devolve decision making to the lowest possible community level (subsidiarity, as the current jargon has it). This is likely - IMO - to be for many decisions down to the level of the historic London Boroughs, and pre-Unitary authorities.
( looks round guiltily, gets off hobby-horse, strolls off whistling nonchalantly ....)
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW, we are probably broadly in agreement. You have painted the bad side of families which is why I think they need to be educated.
Asian families which you cite are a question of culture and lack of integration. At least they stick together better than other families. There are still families which love and care and we must be careful that they don't become the exception.
I agree on local government being local. I remember a town 20 miles away where the close community was up in arms about one policy and made it clear that the councillors would not be re-elected if they didn't reverse their decision. The decision was reversed.
More worrying is the remote way we are governed by Whitehall, especially with the idea that all parts of the country are the same as London.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
But seriously, Nigel, I fully understand where you're coming from, though I think you're guilty of negative thinking!
You say:
"I think we both agree with this principle, but what you call community support becomes community interference and because it is bureaucratic, it becomes ineffective, morale sapping and destroys initiative. The family must be promoted and educated to give that support."
I think there are two points here. First of all, by 'community support' I wasn't thinking of intrusive bureaucracy, but of basic facility provision on the Broadwater Farm model. Broadwater Farm and other similar initiatives (alas, usually as post-crisis reactions!) have shown very clearly that if you remove the major sources of discontent, crime will fall sharply. So what I had in mind was upgrading of local-authority or housing association properties, improved regular maintenance of the environment and - especially - vastly improved response-maintenance to such things as graffiti disfiguration, lift breakdowns and all the other little things that make daily life unpleasant. I was thinking of the provision and proper financing of schools, nurseries, play spaces and basic facilities such as medical centres. I was thinking of the provision of decent, frequent and regular public transport to places to which the population need to travel - workplaces, shopping centres, secondary schools, hospitals. And I was thinking of improved 'up front' policing so that running neighbourhood shops once again became an attractive and profitable proposition. In short, I was thinking of providing rental housing in areas which were pleasant and which inspired a sense of community.
I agree wholeheartedly with NW when he says that it isn't really possible to educate families. It never was. Coming as I do from a very old-fashioned extended rural family, I realise that very well. But in the days when the extended family was the norm, there was almost always an aunt or uncle willing to take on a child in conflict with its natural parents. Nowadays, we are much too insular - but if a sense of community can be created, most families will rise to the occasion. Some will not. I'm no bleeding heart on this score - the minority who - consciously or unconsciously - seek to destroy the community should be removed from it. As I have so often said, the ultimate morality is to seek the greatest good of the greatest number, and if butt must be kicked to achieve this, then so be it.
You went on to say:
"Taxation does not inhibit entrepreneurial initiative. It redirects it into the black economy. The problem with the tax increases that we have had to suffer is that the poor don't pay them and the rich can afford them. It is the people like me caught in between who are neither rich nor poor that bear the brunt of these taxes.
Simply pouring tax money into something does not improve it. We have learnt this with the NHS - a lot of the money is wasted in bureaucracy. Why are so many wards and hospitals being closed.
Maintained education has not improved. University education used to be free. Now potential students are being priced out in England.
Transport has marginally improved, but we have the most expensive railways in Europe, which probably means the world. We have a very restricted road building programme.
People probably wouldn't mind paying taxes if they got value for money. This has patently not happened and will never happen until the present mindset of the faceless men in charge radically changes."
Well, I don't agree with most of what you say, but I do agree about bureaucracy - but it all comes back to what I've already said about political practicality. Let's look at the National Health Service. Forty or fifty years ago, the archetypal matron (as so often portrayed on film by the late and much-lamented Hattie Jacques) reigned supreme. The doctors doctored, but the matron ruled. But the matron had almost certainly risen through the nursing ranks; she had no grounding in management or economics. And money haemorrhaged faster than blood in the operation theatre. Clearly, change was essential, but - as so often happens - it was imposed by government, inadequately monitored, then modified, inadequately monitored, changed again, inadequately monitored - and so on, ad nauseam.
Thus we find ourselves entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare, in which the culture of talking for talking's sake flourishes unrestrained. It should not - and need not - be so, but the only solution I can see is better-quality pyramid-style management. The trouble is, once the talkers have control, they promote others in their own image. There are more committees unknowingly designing camels than at any time in our history.
I (unwisely!) chose a career in government service. When I began, those at the level I eventually reached spent less than 10% of their time on management; that was largely delegated to lower grades. Now, most at my level spend 100% of their time on 'management', but it's talk-shop management, and at the sharp end the Department is less well-managed than it was when I arrived as a raw recruit. I was lucky - I managed to become a technical advisor rather than a manager!
The answer is surely to pare the expanding management layers to the bone, and to employ capable senior management at rates comparable with the private sector - and to recruit future managers at all levels through a selection system involving experienced private-sector managers as well as civil servants bent upon image-replication. In short, bureaucracy is a problem, but it is ultimately a creation of government and, with the requisite will, that problem can be addressed.
Moving on to taxation, I'm afraid I find you guilty of mantra-worship! The evidence is that the broad majority of the self-employed are reasonably honest - and in any event the vast majority of the direct-tax yield comes from those who are employees. There are, of course, problems. The Inland Revenue seems bent upon chasing easy pickings - small businesses with predictable gross profit rates - rather than undertaking labour-intensive investigations into the real tax evaders. I do take your point about the rich, but it's more a question of affording advice about avoiding tax than about affording to pay tax. Government is singularly failing to attach any importance to the concept of fairness, so that - for example - multi-millionaire retailer Sir Philip Green pays virtually no tax because the shares in his empire are technically held by his wife, who is a citizen of Monaco. But if the law were changed to make the accountancy firms providing anti-avoidance advice responsible for any tax lost by schemes found ineffective by the courts, the avoidance industry would pretty well disappear overnight.
I agree wholeheartedly with your views on the cost of university education; I think that present government policy is entirely wrong and damaging to our economic future. I don't know about transport costs among you 'Ampshire 'Ogs, but I have to acknowledge that although prices have risen sharply over the years, rail communication between Newcastle and London has improved tremendously - not simply in terms of journey times but also in terms of service frequency. We now have, as near as dammit, a half-hourly frequency for a 270-mile journey, completed, on average, in well under three hours. Neither I nor most locals mind paying more for such a superb improvement - in British Rail days we had half the frequency and the journey time (despite electrification) was 25% slower!
Finally, I am not, and never was, defending the faceless men. I am simply taking the view that wrongs can be righted, and if that means I pay a few quid extra on my monthly tax bill, so be it. It's no different from paying subscriptions to The National Trust, or English Heritage, or any of the similar charities to which I contribute - I'd simply be contributing to a cause which I believe to be right!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not guilty of mantra-worship. I have employed the electrician who gave me two quotes - cash in the back pocket and invoiced with VAT. Sir Philip Green's tax avoidance is evidently legal, the black economy isn't.
Cossie, you may be able to afford to lose the 'few pounds' a month for extra tax while you're earning. Wait until you are on a fixed pension.
You are lucky to have an improved train service and that you can afford it. We haven't even got electrification and we're on a main route. It still doesn't justify the most expensive fares in Europe and it still cheaper for one person to use a car; with two you're quids in. If you want to go cross-country by rail, then you are in difficulties.
I'm not sure what you mean by negative thinking. I report the observations I have made. They are not an opinion.
Your comments on the NHS are based on 'what if…', mine on what is happening.
If I'd known how easily you were pleased, I'd have started a thread with your name much sooner, and lastly how about an extra £5 excise duty on a bottle of malt, which with double taxation would attract an extra 87.5p in VAT?
I shall now spend the small hours of the night ducking tossed cabers. My mother always told me to beware of men in skirts!
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie said,
>Forty or fifty years ago, the archetypal matron (as so often portrayed on film by the late and much-lamented Hattie Jacques) reigned supreme. The doctors doctored, but the matron ruled. But the matron had almost certainly risen through the nursing ranks; she had no grounding in management or economics. And money haemorrhaged faster than blood in the operation theatre. Clearly, change was essential[.]
It is interesting that private hospitals more often than not continue to have a matron, and since they are run as profitable businesses economics is perhaps even more important there. The answer is that day-to-day practicalities are managed by the matron; and the money is left to the managers and the accountants. This does not seem to cause problems.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but there is a semantic difficulty! 'Matron' is a sex-determinant word, but we can't use 'patron', as that has acquired an altogether different meaning. These days, there are lots of male nurses, so I guess we're stuck with a compromise. Personally, I prefer 'Senior Nursing Officer' to the politically-correct sounding 'Director of Nursing'. But it's entirely right that medical support services should be headed by someone with full nursing qualifications. Obviously, economic considerations would influence decision-making, but at least it would be transparently clear that nurses were ultimately responsible to a senior nurse rather than to a faceless bureaucrat - and that could only be good for morale.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... devolution of authority does throw up a number of problems. They aren't insoluble, but the do demand a degree of compromise.
For example, I'm entirely in favour of devolution of local highway planning, but local priorities can conflict with national interests when considering improvements to national trunk routes and motorways.
Another example is the National Health Service, where there is much opposition to the 'postcode lottery' determining whether an expensive new drug is, or is not, available to patients in a given locality.
The trouble is, this government (and previous governments - this isn't a party political point) seems to be hell-bent on an 'all or nothing' approach. Put another way, one can't help but feel that some aspects of devolution are cosmetic rather than logically justified.
I'm reminded of the biblical quote about 'rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's' - we need to determine those things which local government does best, and those things which national government does best.
Again, I'm not being party-political - but at one time we seemed to have achieved a reasonable balance, until national government attempted - successfully - seize effective power by centralising control.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I hope you know me well enough to know that it isn't in any way personal!
First of all, there is almost no difference between 'tax avoidance' and 'the black economy'. Both thrive on lies and deceit. Do you really believe that Sir Philip Green is not in de facto control of his empire? The difference - to the extent that there is a difference - is that the rich have the wealth to employ agents to create smokescreens around their financial machinations. Fifty years ago, the accountancy profession maintained an essentially ethical stance. Not any more - witness the collapse of international accountants Arthur Andersen in the wake of Enron and other scandals. (Personally, I thought Arthur Anderson was one of the least corrupt firms!) But don't for a moment imagine that the accountants from Arthur Andersen are out of work - the profession has accommodated the required partnership adjustments, and they are out there again among others of their ilk, peddling lies, deceit and confusion. Just as we hear much more about benefit cheats than about Inland Revenue prosecutions, so the latter are likely to involve minor players on the evasion stage. Why? because chasing the naive and ignorant produces easy results. It doesn't recover much money, but - what the hell - it looks good in the statistics.
Moving on, I think that the essential problem is that as a result of Thatcherite policies (yes, that IS party-political) the spectrum of wealth was stretched considerably. Not only did the rich get richer and the poor, poorer - the gaps between the middle-class and, on the one hand, the rich and on the other, the poor - widened significantly. That was not socially justifiable, but as a result middle-class social expectations have risen too far. So I therefore consider that it is morally right that I and the rest of the middle-class should surrender the gains to which we were never morally entitled.
To deal with Nigel's other comments, I merely commented on the improved rail service; I didn't say I could afford it. Travelling on business, my ticket (inclusive of a meal) costs around £250 for the 270-mile first-class return journey. Travelling privately, with judicious use of the internet, I can travel second-class for around £60 - sometimes less - and that is what I do. No meal included, but I'm first at the buffet for a bacon buttie! I can't afford to make the trip more than a couple of times a year, though I'd like to do it more often, as I'm involved in several London-based organisations. But the real point is that GNER, the Newcastle-London service provider, has applied sound business economics to achieve success; there are twice as many trains, but three times as many passengers, as there were twenty years ago.
I accept that you are reporting your observations, but perhaps only from a rather narrow perspective. As regards the NHS, I'm not defending the present situation - that must be pretty obvious from what I said! - but I am suggesting that the problems can be addressed and overcome. I suppose that's what I mean by negative - the concept of criticism without proffering solutions.
Don't worry about cabers - I wouldn't dream of using anything so crude! An explosive haggis is in the mail, and several of my Hampshire associates are watching you, armed to the teeth with skean dhus and claymores!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Cossie
I don't object to your arguments about Sir Philip Green et al. It is just that from my reading you are dismissive of the size and importance of the black economy.
The divide between rich and poor you attribute to the Thatcher years. It is reported, not infrequently, that the divide has widened during the Blair years.
Personal view, but I feel that one reason train fares are so expensive is that the railway companies can fill their trains with people on expenses. We ordinary people suffer for that.
I hope your friends in Hampshire are using binoculars. I only said I was born in Hampshire.
Don't worry - I have a green zone to protect me from exploding haggises - anyway the weather is far too warm for them to survive in the nancy South.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I'm slightly in favour of some kind of problems!
In the early 1990's I worked for town-level authorities (such as Kirkcaldy District Council), who had control of local issues, while regional-level stuff was covered by the Fife Regional Council. The fact that both tiers of local government had to agree meant that in general progrees was slower than it could have been ... but it was steady: things were worked through til a proper consensus / compromise was reached.
With the abolition (forced, at least in Scotland) of "two=tier" arrangements, I was transferred to the all-new do-everything Fife Council. A lot of the problems this Council has had seem to me to be a result not only of being too big and therefore too remote for small-scale local decisions, but also because there has been a lack of balancing mechanisms, and the Council has in many areas rushed ahead with good intentions without any proper consideration or consultation. The same applies - even more strongly - to the London Borough that I subsequently worked for.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
In principle, I agree with everything you say, but how many tiers do we need?
Clearly some issues require significant national input - national transport infrastructure, for example. And, as I suggested in my previous post, I think that health issues such as availability of approved drugs ought to be resolved at a national level.
At the other end of the scale, relatively small local government units create problems where issues are not confined to a single unit. For example, waste disposal is always problematic. It's clear that every authority cannot provide its own facilities; landfill is obviously impossible in urban areas, controlled incineration requires expensive technology and in economic terms lends itself to facility sharing, and in either case the prevalent attitude to disposal facilities is 'not in my backyard!'.
The obvious conclusion is to add a third tier, to deal with issues which are not of national significance but are of wider than purely local significance.
Now I seem to remember from the mists of antiquity that we used to have a mixture of (in the main) Urban District Councils and Rural District Councils, covering relatively small, coherent geographic areas, with County Councils taking responsibility for the broader issues. If the locals so desired, they could even have a parish council, often at village level, to oversee such matters as footpaths and street-lighting. Then it was all swept away in a politically-inspired strategy based on the presumption that bigger is better. Since then, there has been continuous tinkering to try to make the top-heavy system work.
I'm not suggesting that the earlier system was ideal. It clearly needed to be revised to take account of economic factors (for example, unnecessary duplication of expensive capital investment) and demographic factors (such as changing population densities), but it was a flexible system readily adaptable to local needs. City Councils even lost their aldermen; I won't elaborate on the system, but when local government became political it prevented control from shifting between parties on an annual basis. Aldermen provided a degree of stability, and had been a part of English local government for over a thousand years.
So I guess that my conclusion is that the blueprint for the future can be found in the past.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... first of all, the black economy is a portmanteau concept (smiles, smugly!). It does include the small tax avoiders such as the plumber who ignores VAT when paid in cash, but it also includes much larger-scale operations which are wholly criminal - marketing of stolen cars, for example. The size of the black economy can only be estimated, and the estimates vary considerably according to the political agenda of those making the estimates. Many estimates include profits from the supply of drugs. Inclusion of the profits of such wholly criminal activities hardly seems valid, insofar as elimination of those activities would eliminate those profits; they would not transfer to the legitimate economy. At the level of the small trader, tax evasion is a problem, but it represents a very small proportion of the overall problem.
I don't want to amble off into the labyrinth of political economics, but 'legal' avoidance by the very rich is a much greater problem. 'Legal' is a misleading term; it concedes a victory of form over substance.
The widening gap between the rich and the poor dates from the earliest years of Thatcher's government. Under the preceding Callaghan administration, the maximum tax rate for the ultra-rich was 83%. In addition, there was a surcharge of 15% on investment income, so ultra-rich estate owners or investors could be liable at a maximum of 98%. Only a fool could justify rates at that level, and (in my view) the Callaghan government contained a surfeit of fools. But under Thatcher the surcharge was abolished and the maximum rate fell from 83% to 40%. Most of us rejoiced at tax cuts which increased our disposable incomes by less than 5%, but consider the ultra-rich. After their first million had been taxed (in values of the time, read £100,000 rather than £1,000,000) they got to keep 60% of the next million pounds of investment income, rather than 2% - THIRTY TIMES as much. And so the rich grew richer - fast! But even with a top rate of 40%, the avoidance industry booms. The curious thing is that even in the high-rate tax days, the so-called 'brain drain' never rose beyond a trickle, and many of those were scientists 'defecting' for vastly superior research facilities rather than for higher wages. But, because direct tax increases are tantamount to political suicide, we still have a top rate of 40%; until that rate rises, the rich will inevitably continue to get richer. The gap between rich and poor IS widening, but it's due to the failure of the Blair government to tackle direct taxation (a failure which is inevitable in our present political climate) rather than a result of other economic policies. Inflation has been under firm control, which benefits most of us, and especially those on a pension with some investments - but anything can look different from a different viewpoint; a young couple buying their first house can benefit from rising inflation because their mortgage debt does not inflate. Interest rates may rise, but the interest is chargeable on a debt which, in real terms, is reducing fast! I just chucked that in to show that there are always different points of view, according to where you stand in the economic labyrinth!
You are undoubtedly right about the economic factors driving up rail fares - but, hey, that's what happens in a free market!
And finally - I'm using my Hampshire associates because they can smell out an 'Og at twenty thousand paces. And don't get complacent - since the arrival of microwave ovens, we've perfected an explosive strain of haggis well able to survive your softie southern temperatures. So be VERY frightened when the postman calls .......
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, cossie, I'm beginning to wonder what we're arguing about and even a perfidious porage-pusher wouldn't explode a haggis in the close season.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... for exploding haggises among the perfidious English!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch out for sugar on your porage!
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but up here, where we know about such things, we spell the word as 'porridge' (despite Scott's Porage Oats!) Milk and sugar ... orgasmically wonderful!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
>Milk and sugar ... orgasmically wonderful!<
You shouldn't hijack the thread, but start a new one.
Btw could you let the ingenus like me and Deeej into your secret of a milk and sugar orgasm?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... by revealing the orgasmic potential of porridge, milk (well, it has to be the cream from the top of the milk) and sugar. It's a peculiarly Scottish thing, you understand, like bagpipes and claymores!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
