Seeing as this place is full of political masters

And i obviously know nothing about Politics, I thought people might want to plan next weeks A-Level lessons for me.

The topic for the Year 12's is: The Office of the Prime Minister. Has it become more Presidential?

The topic for the year 13's is: Taxation in the EU. What are the advantages and disadvantages of greater harmonisation?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: is the answer: Ravi Kumar?

Ooooooh Jeopardy!!!

Let's see......

Is the question..... "who is an obnoxious little facist who deserves to be publicly flogged?"?

For Liam.

1. Yes.

2. Fuck anything on the multinational ecconomic front, harmonisation of tax means either.....A. The UK citizen will be slightly to moderately less arsefucked in many types of transaction, or B. Mass riots on the continent (I mean can you IMAGINE the frogs paying UK level duty on wine????)

Can I have my A+ now please Mr Liam sir? If not....no apple on your desk tomorrow you cunt.

where do you teach?

Steve: No Jack: Isle of Man.

I see this thread has not yet recieved much response. Presumably everyone is saving their responses for the weekend.

The Teacher wrote:

I see this thread has not yet recieved much response. Presumably everyone is saving their responses for the weekend.

haha you're right. weekend means to drink; to be drunk means to be political master definitely .

The Teacher wrote: Steve: No Jack: Isle of Man.

I see this thread has not yet recieved much response. Presumably everyone is saving their responses for the weekend.

I think people couldn't actually give a flying fuck about this thread to be honest with you.

On a side note, with this wonderful economy we can all grow close together.

as another aside,

Donald Dewar (late,great Scots politician) once talked me to sleep,he gave a talk at our school,i was sitting front row,about 3 feet away directly in front of him,and i crashed out

ohohohoh.... I know the answer!

4

Thats blessed democracy.

Tomorrow I teach Terrorism to my Year 11's. I obviously know nothing about this particular area, so anyone got anything they want to contribute?

The Teacher wrote: Tomorrow I teach Terrorism to my Year 11's. I obviously know nothing about this particular area, so anyone got anything they want to contribute?

They all have tiny genitals.

Also, worth pointing out that terrorists are by definition, non-representative of their people. If the whole nation/subgroup were right behind their ideas, they would be an army not a terrorist organisation.

You may also wish to mention Stella Rimmington's opinions on the subject today. And maybe the fact that they started at the top story on the BBC website, and can now barely be found a few hours later. Home office interference? NEVER this is a free country.

When you were at QUB, you MUST have come accross terrorist apologists by the bucket (mainly republican ones.....loyalists are too thick to get into a university), tell the kids about how nausiating and downright repulsive such cunts are.

Not really.

I came across a LOT of Palestinian Terrorist apologists at Queens and Manchester.

Funny thing was, they all thought the PKK were in the wrong...

I am a Liam apologist.

I would like to apologise for Liam's Reign of Terror across this board.

Since he has begun training as a teacher, his ego has apparently expanded to an even greater size than his waistline.

I initially thought that this was faux-egocentric behaviour. I was wrong. This is probably because I am not a secondary school teacher who takes delight in making 13-year-old children cry. As such, like many others lacking in teacher status, I know nothing.

He's a nice guy really. But I wouldn't let him teach my kids. If had any, like.

He does have an MA in politics, which means he knows all there is to know. And now he's a teacher, he knows even more than all there is to know.

And a bit more besides.

Doctor? wrote:

Also, worth pointing out that terrorists are by definition, non-representative of their people. If the whole nation/subgroup were right behind their ideas, they would be an army not a terrorist organisation.

Not entirely true Cambo. They could represent a good portion of the people, but the country needs UN aide... having an army takes away that aide, wheras a terrorist group can do what they like, funded by the governements, but yet no damage done to the country in UN aide (see Syria, Eygpt, etc.)

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Also, worth pointing out that terrorists are by definition, non-representative of their people. If the whole nation/subgroup were right behind their ideas, they would be an army not a terrorist organisation.

Not entirely true Cambo. They could represent a good portion of the people, but the country needs UN aide... having an army takes away that aide, wheras a terrorist group can do what they like, funded by the governements, but yet no damage done to the country in UN aide (see Syria, Eygpt, etc.)

Agreed, for a change. A good current example being the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, currently being wiped out by the Government, and rumoured to be on their last legs. They represented a large proportion of the Sri Lankan population, and have been forced to flee to other countries. The UK currently houses 1,100,000 Tamils, many of them running shops, and sending money back to Sri Lanka to aid the cause. In this case they are regarded in their own country and others adjoining as terrorists, but by others as freedom fighters. Liam might do well to focus on not only the definition of a terrorist, but also who is defining them as one, and why. Mr Bush would crop up in that one a lot, I'm sure.

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: I am a Liam apologist.

I would like to apologise for Liam's Reign of Terror across this board.

Since he has begin training as a teacher, his ego has apparently expanded to an even greater size than his waistline.

I initially thought that this was faux-egocentric behaviour. I was wrong. This is probably because I am not a secondary school teacher who takes delight in making 13-year-old children cry. As such, like many others lacking in teacher status, I know nothing.

He's a nice guy really. But I wouldn't let him teach my kids. If had any, like.

He does have an MA in politics, which means he knows all there is to know. And now he's a teacher, he knows even more than all there is to know.

And a bit more besides.

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious,Martin.

The only inconsistency I have with any of that,is my 13 year old girl would'nt take any of Liam's nonsense.. and certainly suss him with a cursory glance long before.. making HIM cry,and run to the headmaster,if necessary and,or,if provoked... For shore.

Le-ham already sounds like a completely shit teacher,in these early days. Is it bravado,tongue-in-cheek gobshite,to disguise his lack of sex appeal to his colleagues,and the wider Ofstead in general? I'm fucked if I know.

You must have career experience in similar characters Fradders?? Go on,pray tell...

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Also, worth pointing out that terrorists are by definition, non-representative of their people. If the whole nation/subgroup were right behind their ideas, they would be an army not a terrorist organisation.

Not entirely true Cambo. They could represent a good portion of the people, but the country needs UN aide... having an army takes away that aide, wheras a terrorist group can do what they like, funded by the governements, but yet no damage done to the country in UN aide (see Syria, Eygpt, etc.)

Or they could be funded from overseas by an organisation allowed to operate as a charity in that country while raising gun money, the same country could also refuse to extradite known terrorists. Bush swore to bomb such countries, he has not lived up to that promise.

BTW...>Egypt and Syria both have armies.

Boatraceface wrote:

PETER COATES'S BELATED REDEMPTION wrote: I am a Liam apologist.

I would like to apologise for Liam's Reign of Terror across this board.

Since he has begin training as a teacher, his ego has apparently expanded to an even greater size than his waistline.

I initially thought that this was faux-egocentric behaviour. I was wrong. This is probably because I am not a secondary school teacher who takes delight in making 13-year-old children cry. As such, like many others lacking in teacher status, I know nothing.

He's a nice guy really. But I wouldn't let him teach my kids. If had any, like.

He does have an MA in politics, which means he knows all there is to know. And now he's a teacher, he knows even more than all there is to know.

And a bit more besides.

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious,Martin.

The only inconsistency I have with any of that,is my 13 year old girl would'nt take any of Liam's nonsense.. and certainly suss him with a cursory glance long before.. making HIM cry,and run to the headmaster,if necessary and,or,if provoked... For shore.

Le-ham already sounds like a completely shit teacher,in these early days. Is it bravado,tongue-in-cheek gobshite,to disguise his lack of sex appeal to his colleagues,and the wider ofstead in general? I'm fucked if I know.

You must have career experience in similar characters Fradders?? Go on,pray tell...

I can honestly say I have never met anyone quite like Liam. Though I agree that if he'd been a teacher when I was a kid he would've got so much fucking shit that he'd have had a nervous breakdown by half term and he'd have left with his Politics MA shoved half way up his colon.

Unfortunately, I am not really supposed to talk about my so-called "career" on here due to the high proportion of prize cunts that populate these here parts. The question of "sex appeal" in my place of work is a complex one, natch.

Let's leave it at that then.

Loose lips,sink ships....

Clearly,some things are best left with a certain air of 'Je ne sais pas'

Doctor? wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Also, worth pointing out that terrorists are by definition, non-representative of their people. If the whole nation/subgroup were right behind their ideas, they would be an army not a terrorist organisation.

Not entirely true Cambo. They could represent a good portion of the people, but the country needs UN aide... having an army takes away that aide, wheras a terrorist group can do what they like, funded by the governements, but yet no damage done to the country in UN aide (see Syria, Eygpt, etc.)

BTW...>Egypt and Syria both have armies.

There is the legitmate army that jumps through hoops for the UN, to make them look good... and then they have the underground terrorists to do the biding that they really wish to do, but don't have the balls to do for fear of loosing UN sponsorship...

I think it is getting political Ravi started this first and from there everyone is going at it Miss hooky's angel

ShugZV wrote:

The Teacher wrote: And i obviously know nothing about Politics, I thought people might want to plan next weeks A-Level lessons for me.

Not bad for you.

Should the sentence not start "As" though

good arrow fella

ShugZV wrote: Cheers matey, ya see I do like ma politics, not a week goes by when I don't sit in front of Question Time and This Week. But Politics as a vocation, that's just gay, in fact some might say it's for people with big mouths who can't pull the birds.

Harsh you may say my right honorable friend. But never the less, there may just be something in that

well don't put me down as a naysayer just yet, you may have a point.

but I do think politics should be a vocation, if the fookers had to do it for a McWage even Festa would be getting offers of a re-start interview

as for having to educate the educaters, you're doing a fine job. I'd just throw the cunts in an inner city school or Harrop Fold 'round r way.

they'd fookin sort his lesson plans out.

he'd be twitching like a 'Nam vet afore Micklemas

ShugZV wrote: Piers Morgan is on the show tonight. He has a name made for politics and he's a cunt.

Can you see where I'm going here?

oh yes my friend, oh yes