remember when gordon brown sold the gold(future`s)

Gold Price Plunges Amid Asia Markets Sell-Off

After reaching a peak in the summer of 2011, gold falls to a five-year low as investors in Asia and the US face uncertain times.

A combination of rate hike fears in the US together with selling activity in China has caused the price of gold to fall to its lowest level in nearly six years.

Spot gold fell to as low as $1,083.74 (£695) in Asian trade - marking its lowest price since November 2009.

There was a significant move lower in Asian trading at about 2.25am BST - with gold losing over 4% of its value in just a few minutes as five tonnes of gold were sold through the Shanghai gold exchange in the opening half hour.

Gold, which is as seen as a safe haven in times of uncertainty, trades in the opposite direction to that of the US dollar. So when the dollar is rising in value the price of gold falls.

The main reason for the trend is that gold, like most other commodities, is priced in US dollars. When the US dollar strengthens, it will take fewer dollars to buy the same amount of gold.

As the threat of a rate hike in the US increases so does the value of the US dollar. Since the beginning of May the US dollar is 1.6% stronger against the pound and this is widely cited as the reason behind the recent trend we have seen in the falling price of gold.

Another reason behind the fall could be the near term resolution of the Greek crisis. Banks are set to reopen today after a third €86bn bailout package was agreed.

The fact that Greece will be able to repay its debts, at least in the short term, means that the risk premium attached to gold, as a safe haven, is diluted.

Another potential reason behind the sell-off could have been Friday's news from the People's Bank of China that it owns around 1,658 tonnes of gold bullion - far less than the circa 3,500 tonnes analysts had expected.

This was the first time China had revealed its gold holdings since 2009, and although it now owns 60% more gold than it did in 2009, the revelation that the country owns less than expected prompted a $10 per ounce price drop on Friday.

Sydney-listed gold miner Evolution mining saw its shares fall over 14% on the back of the drop in the price of gold this morning.

Since its peak in August 2011 gold has lost nearly 40% of its value. It is currently trading at around $1,109 per ounce.

Brown still sold when the value was low however, and it was still short term gain without considering the long term.

Eilzel wrote:Brown still sold when the value was low however, and it was still short term gain without considering the long term.

but it had been low for a long time Eilzel but this might help show that in retrospect it was the right thing


And now that the gold prices are collapsing as many of us predicted it would at the time seems he may have been cleverer than people give him credit for because all that gold he sold and is now on its way down
i could just site bits of this but i think a read of it will give some context of the situation at the time


thats not to say it was perfect but things are rarely perfect
-----------------------------------------


A great deal of Gordon Brown’s economic strategy would strike a sane man as troubling. Not a great deal was mysterious. The orgy of consumption spending, frequent extensions of the cycle over which he would “borrow to invest”, proclamations of the “end of boom and bust”: these are part of the armoury of modern politicians, of all political hues.

One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain’s gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce, only to watch it soar so far as $1,615 per ounce today.

When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.

First, he broke with convention and announced the sale well in advance, giving the market notice that it was shortly to be flooded and forcing down the spot price. This was apparently done in the interests of “open government”, but had the effect of sending the spot price of gold to a 20-year low, as implied by basic supply and demand theory.

Second, the Treasury elected to sell its gold via auction. Again, this broke with the standard model. The price of gold was usually determined at a morning and afternoon "fix" between representatives of big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply.

The auction system again frequently achieved a lower price than the equivalent fix price. The first auction saw an auction price of $10c less per ounce than was achieved at the morning fix. It also acted to depress the price of the afternoon fix which fell by nearly $4.

It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.

One of the most popular trading plays of the late 1990s was the carry trade, particularly the gold carry trade.

In this a bank would borrow gold from another financial institution for a set period, and pay a token sum relative to the overall value of that gold for the privilege.

Once control of the gold had been passed over, the bank would then immediately sell it for its full market value. The proceeds would be invested in an alternative product which was predicted to generate a better return over the period than gold which was enduring a spell of relative price stability, even decline.

At the end of the allotted period, the bank would sell its investment and use the proceeds to buy back the amount of gold it had originally borrowed. This gold would be returned to the lender. The borrowing bank would trouser the difference between the two prices.

This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.

This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.

Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.
Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.

I spoke with Peter Hambro, chairman of Petroplavosk and a leading figure in the London gold market, late last year and asked him about the rumours above.

“I think that Mr Brown found himself in a terrible position,” he said.

“He was facing a problem that was a world scale problem where a number of financial institutions had become voluntarily short of gold to the extent that it was threatening the stability of the financial system and it was obvious that something had to be done.”

While the market manipulation which occurred when the gold reserves were sold was not illegal as the abuse at Barclays may have been, the moral atmosphere in which it took place was identical.

The crash which began in 2007 and endures still was the result of an abdication of responsibility across the financial sector. This abdication ranged from the consumer whose thirst for goods pushed him beyond into grave debt to a government whose lust for popularity encouraged it to do the same.

Responsibility is evaded by all bar those on whose shoulders it ought to rest. The gold panic of 1999 was expensively paid for by the British public. The one thing politicians ought to have bought with that money was a lesson in the structural restraints which needed to be placed on banks now that the principle that they were ultimately public liabilities had been established.

It was a lesson which could have acted to restrain all players in the credit market boom of the 2000s. It was a lesson which nobody learnt.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

This is from the FT
By Alan Beattie

However the link only seems to work if you pay for it or do a search on "Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold"





The continued run of the gold price is a global investment sensation. Recently it broke the $1,500 an ounce barrier for the first time, 30 per cent higher than a year ago. Surely this lays bare the extraordinary foolishness of Gordon Brown’s announcement, 12 years ago this week, that the UK Treasury would sell off some of Britain’s gold holdings?

Actually, no. On this one occasion, Mr Brown’s decision was the right one. Let speculators go gambling on a shiny metal, if they want to. For most governments in rich countries, holding gold remains a largely pointless activity.


With hindsight, of course, Mr Brown could have gained a better price by waiting. At current rates, the $3.5bn the UK received selling bullion between 1999 and 2002 would have been closer to $19bn. The difference at current exchange rates, by the way, would be enough to cover a little over three weeks of the UK’s expected public deficit for the fiscal year 2010-2011 – not negligible, but hardly pivotal.

Mr Brown, his critics say, must be kicking himself. Similarly, the French no doubt still suffer sleepless nights for prematurely taking profit on their Louisiana claim by offloading it to Thomas Jefferson in 1803. And had I put my life savings on Ballabriggs at 20-1 before last month’s Grand National, I’d be writing this on a solid platinum laptop while being sprayed with pink champagne in my new beachfront villa in Barbados.

That is the way of things with speculative assets. The truth is that no one has a good explanation why the gold price is currently where it is. The familiar story – a hedge against inflation or government insolvency – is flatly contradicted by the low yields and inflation expectations in US Treasury bonds. The volatility of gold (and other precious metals – witness the huge drop in silver prices this week) merely underlines the risk of holding it. The $1,500 landmark is a nominal price: had governments listened to the bullion fanatics and loaded up on gold in the last big bull market in the early 1980s, they would still be waiting to earn their money back in real terms.

More substantively, Criticism of Mr Brown’s sale also betrays a misunderstanding of why a country such as the UK has gold at all.

In common with most rich nations, the function of British foreign exchange reserves is not for the government to manage wealth on behalf of the country. British citizens do that themselves. The UK does not have a sovereign wealth fund that aims to maximise returns, and nor should it. It is not a big net oil and gas exporter such as Norway – UK net foreign exchange reserves are about $40bn, equivalent to 2 per cent of nominal gross domestic product, while Norway’s sovereign fund has $525bn, equivalent to almost 140 per cent of its GDP.

Nor does the UK pile up foreign assets by persistently selling its own currency to manipulate the exchange rate, as does China. It is notable that the much-vaunted official purchases of gold over the past year are mainly by countries such as China and Russia – and, to a lesser extent, Mexico – with big excess reserves.

UK reserves are there mainly for precautionary reasons – to intervene in currency markets to stop a run on sterling or to pursue monetary policy objectives. Yet gold is badly suited for this task because, despite recent interest from private investors, a large proportion of global above-ground stocks – 18 per cent in 2010 – is still held by governments.

Any attempt to sell off large amounts quickly risks driving down the world price, which is what happened after Mr Brown’s announcement in 1999, leading to an international agreement between central banks to restrict further sales.

A precautionary reserve asset held for intervention purposes whose price is likely to fall the instant it is used to intervene is singularly pointless. Of course, central banks selling into a rising market like today’s may not have the same impact as in 1999, but who knows what demand for gold will be like if and when the intervention is needed?

There remains only one other main reason for governments to hold gold – to set monetary policy by linking the national currency to the gold price. This remains as bad an idea as ever. It would have meant sharply tightening monetary policy since the fall of 2008. This would have been madness.

Private investors, and sovereign wealth funds out to make returns, can punt their money on what they like. If they choose to plonk it down on the blackjack table of the commodity markets, that is their decision. But there is no good reason that governments that hold reserves for purely precautionary purposes should feel the need to follow them.

Don't make excuses for BROWN, he was the one of the worst PMs we ever had!

nicko wrote:Don't make excuses for BROWN, he was the one of the worst PMs     we ever had!    

well i think your entitled to hold that opinion nicko

personally i think thatcher was the worst PM  we ever had. each to there own i guess

but as i have said

brown sold  $3.5bn (thats dollars) speculative assets to help refinance the banks

Osborn`s selling £23 billion of actual assets .

not sure what the exchange rates is/was

ps
that was gold was costing
one million, eight hundred and seventy-two thousand per annum to store if i have my sums correct

https://www.bullionvault.com/guide/gold/Allocated-gold

Yes, well said nicko!


Don't know why KD thought I'd be interested in this waffle and speculation...?


Or even why he thought I was avoiding it...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes, well said nicko!


Don't know why KD thought I'd be interested in this waffle and speculation...?


Or even why he thought I was avoiding it...!?

waffle and speculation its hardly that
but don`t worry tommy i know you have a problem with complex issues

Well I scored 140 on an IQ test with no practicing before hand, and that was even after taking a ten minute break during it to make a cup of tea, have a piss And make a couple of phone calls!!!


I'm a fucking genius!!!


And I'm not even joking!!!

yeah right and I got 167 and the pshycological type of "insightful linguist"

so what...all that proves is that I can do IQ tests, am good with language and can judge things correctly

oh and at 140 you are not genius material only "near genius"

Tommy Monk wrote:Well I scored 140 on an IQ test with no practicing before hand, and that was even after taking a ten minute break during it to make a cup of tea, have a piss And make a couple of phone calls!!! google the answers
I'm a fucking genius!!!


And I'm not even joking!!!

I presume Tommy had a special test that involved saying 'it's the immigrants', 'the Muslims done it' 'lefties' etc etc, because he couldn't have managed anything else.

Tommy Monk wrote:Well I scored 140 on an IQ test with no practicing before hand, and that was even after taking a ten minute break during it to make a cup of tea, have a piss And make a couple of phone calls!!!


I'm a fucking genius!!!


And I'm not even joking!!!

So what are you saying ....your a idiot savant ?

korban dallas wrote:
Since its peak in August 2011 gold has lost nearly 40% of its value. It is currently trading at around $1,109 per ounce.

or over 4 times the price brown sold it for.

but I guess he had to bail out his banker mates

korban dallas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Brown still sold when the value was low however, and it was still short term gain without considering the long term.

but it had been low for a long time Eilzel but this might help show that in retrospect it was the right thing


And now that the gold prices are collapsing as many of us predicted it would at the time seems he may have been cleverer than people give him credit for because all that gold he sold and is now on its way down

gold prices always go up and down. However announcing you are going to sell 400 tons in advance is sure to drive prices down and it did.
it was a backdoor way for him to bail out his banker friends.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Since its peak in August 2011 gold has lost nearly 40% of its value. It is currently trading at around $1,109 per ounce.

or over 4 times the price brown sold it for.

but I guess he had to bail out his banker mates

well he had to try and stop a potential financial meltdown that started in the states
blaming brown its like blaming a passenger for grabbing the steering wheel when the driver collapse`s
and as the piece says nobody can explain why gold went the way it did as the price had been steadily dropping for over 20 years

also the gold sell of pales in comparison to assets osbourn is selling

gold is speculative the assets Osborn is selling are not

what your view on that sell of ?to his private sector mates ??

victorismyhero wrote:yeah right and I got 167 and the pshycological type of "insightful linguist"

so what...all that proves is that I can do IQ tests, am good with language and can judge things correctly

oh and at 140 you are not genius material only "near genius"

I'm just saying, not bragging, and it is in response to accusations thrown at me of being stupid and unable to understand anything complex etc, all thrown at me in a derogatory way, which is really just showing how some here think they are superior and how they really look down on people of lower intellect with a sort of disgust... while also pretending to be the caring types, and who constantly bleat on about everyone being equal etc... it's not the hypocrisy from you people that surprises me any more, but how you all seem to remain oblivious to it... especially as I have pointed it out to you all so often!!!


Anyway, as for the IQ test, I only started doing it because I was stuck at my pc trying to finish my online tax return, and to do so I needed two more bits of information from 3rd party companies I had done work for... I had phoned both to request this info and both said I should call back in about half hour to give them chance to look it up etc... so I had half hour to waste but wanted to stay active on pc and on tax return site so as not to get timed out, because I had been having trouble getting logged in to the govt tax site earlier and also didn't want to risk losing any of The work I had already put in...


Had the idea to do a quick IQ test as a bit of fun to waste some time... found a free online one that looked ok and started... at the beginning it said it would be firing questions at me for a set time, testing a range of ways of thinking, logic, reasoning etc, and the quicker You answered would mean you got more questions and that number of questions answered, right/wrong answers and time taken to answer each question would be factored in to final score.


I thought it would only take 10-20 minutes or so... but it just kept going on and on and on... after about half hour I was conscious of The phone calls I had to make but also didn't want to quit out of The test after I had put So much time into it...

So I kept going, thinking every new page of questions would be the last... but it still kept going... another 15 minutes went by and at that point I had to stop and make the calls because it was getting near to 5-00pm and people would start going home from the companies... so I decided to leave the IQ test, I had a piss, put the kettle on, made the phone calls and got the info, grabbed the tea and then carried on with the test...


Knowing that with the break, whatever score I ended up with would then be lower than what I would have got if I had not had the break... but by that time I had spent so long on it that I really wanted to see what I got anyway...


The test went on for about another 10-15 minutes... was maybe an hour in total time from start to end and I was very surprised that the final result was 140.


If I hadn't had the break I'm sure it would have been much higher!

sassy wrote:I presume Tommy had a special test that involved saying 'it's the immigrants', 'the Muslims done it' 'lefties' etc etc, because he couldn't have managed anything else.

No, you just have a special way of hearing that no matter what points I say and no matter what evidence I produce to back up my arguments...

Tommy Monk wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:yeah right and I got 167 and the pshycological type of "insightful linguist"

so what...all that proves is that I can do IQ tests, am good with language and can judge things correctly

oh and at 140 you are not genius material only "near genius"

I'm just saying, not bragging, and it is in response to accusations thrown at me of being stupid and unable to understand anything complex etc, all thrown at me in a derogatory way, which is really just showing how some here think they are superior and how they really look down on people of lower intellect with a sort of disgust... while also pretending to be the caring types, and who constantly bleat on about everyone being equal etc... it's not the hypocrisy from you people that surprises me any more, but how you all seem to remain oblivious to it... especially as I have pointed it out to you all so often!!!


Anyway, as for the IQ test, I only started doing it because I was stuck at my pc trying to finish my online tax return, and to do so I needed two more bits of information from 3rd party companies I had done work for... I had phoned both to request this info and both said I should call back in about half hour to give them chance to look it up etc... so I had half hour to waste but wanted to stay active on pc and on tax return site so as not to get timed out, because I had been having trouble getting logged in to the govt tax site earlier and also didn't want to risk losing any of The work I had already put in...


Had the idea to do a quick IQ test as a bit of fun to waste some time... found a free online one that looked ok and started... at the beginning it said it would be firing questions at me for a set time, testing a range of ways of thinking, logic, reasoning etc, and the quicker You answered would mean you got more questions and that number of questions answered, right/wrong answers and time taken to answer each question would be factored in to final score.


I thought it would only take 10-20 minutes or so... but it just kept going on and on and on... after about half hour I was conscious of The phone calls I had to make but also didn't want to quit out of The test after I had put So much time into it...

So I kept going, thinking every new page of questions would be the last... but it still kept going... another 15 minutes went by and at that point I had to stop and make the calls because it was getting near to 5-00pm and people would start going home from the companies... so I decided to leave the IQ test, I had a piss, put the kettle on, made the phone calls and got the info, grabbed the tea and then carried on with the test...


Knowing that with the break, whatever score I ended up with would then be lower than what I would have got if I had not had the break... but by that time I had spent so long on it that I really wanted to see what I got anyway...


The test went on for about another 10-15 minutes... was maybe an hour in total time from start to end and I was very surprised that the final result was 140.


If I hadn't had the break I'm sure it would have been much higher!

Hold on you did this at home on your PC ? you know they are not a real assessment Tommy and only prove to serve how gullible some people are

IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence, according to a study which found that a minimum of three different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.

IQ is a massive oversimplification of the spectrum of human cognitive ability.”

oversimplification says a lot about you that does

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

sassy wrote:Does dopey dean think that people do anything but laugh at him.  His favourite phrase is 'useful idiots', he seems to think it actually means anything.  The only thing it means is that he is a most unuseful idiot, if fact, I can't think of a use for him at all.

if he had done the numerous IQ tests used by psychologists, such as the Stanford-Binet test, the Weschler Adult intelligence scale and so on.
i would have maybe taken his bragging more seriously

korban dallas wrote:

sassy wrote:Does dopey dean think that people do anything but laugh at him.  His favourite phrase is 'useful idiots', he seems to think it actually means anything.  The only thing it means is that he is a most unuseful idiot, if fact, I can't think of a use for him at all.

if he had done the  numerous IQ tests used by psychologists, such as the Stanford-Binet test, the Weschler Adult intelligence scale and so on.
i would have maybe taken his bragging more seriously

I'd put that on the wrong thread, was referring to Dean lol.  

Did the Morrisby Profile, takes 3 hours and every section is timed to the second.  Came in the top 0.01% of the population of UK.  Was a while ago lol

Tommy claiming his intelligence is proved by an online IQ test, priceless lol

Eilzel wrote:Tommy claiming his intelligence is proved by an online IQ test, priceless lol

i know

And once again the lefties throw derogatory insults... again showing how they think they are superior because of intellect... and being of lesser intelligence is treated with disgust...


While claiming that we are all The same etc... all in the name of equality of course...


More hypocrisy anyone...!?






You lot just can't help yourselves can you...!?



You clearly think that those of lower intelligence are unworthy, lower status, to be treated with contempt, looked down upon, mocked and even ridiculed etc...



And you all totally missed this part of my earlier post...


"...

I'm just saying, not bragging, and it is in response to accusations thrown at me of being stupid and unable to understand anything complex etc, all thrown at me in a derogatory way, which is really just showing how some here think they are superior and how they really look down on people of lower intellect with a sort of disgust... while also pretending to be the caring types, and who constantly bleat on about everyone being equal etc... it's not the hypocrisy from you people that surprises me any more, but how you all seem to remain oblivious to it... especially as I have pointed it out to you all so often!!!..."

No Tommy, we know we are superior, and it has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with the inane replies you make and the bigotry you espouse every day.

Tommy Monk wrote:And once again the lefties throw derogatory insults... again showing how they think they are superior because of intellect... and being of lesser intelligence is treated with disgust...


While claiming that we are all The same etc... all in the name of equality of course...


More hypocrisy anyone...!?






You lot just can't help yourselves can you...!?



You clearly think that those of lower intelligence are unworthy, lower status, to be treated with contempt, looked down upon, mocked and even ridiculed etc...



And you all totally missed this part of my earlier post...


"...

I'm just saying, not bragging, and it is in response to accusations thrown at me of being stupid and unable to understand anything complex etc, all thrown at me in a derogatory way, which is really just showing how some here think they are superior and how they really look down on people of lower intellect with a sort of disgust... while also pretending to be the caring types, and who constantly bleat on about everyone being equal etc... it's not the hypocrisy from you people that surprises me any more, but how you all seem to remain oblivious to it... especially as I have pointed it out to you all so often!!!..."

[/quote]

BTW Tommy, all people being equal refers to status, not intellectual capabilities, but you need intellectual capability to realise that

sassy wrote:No Tommy, we know we are superior, and it has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with the inane replies you make and the bigotry you espouse every day.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f18/17/38/50/92/ckt-uu10.jpg

Thanks KD x

The bigotry is all yours... your entrenched views and inability to consider anything else is the definition of bigotry!!!


I say immigration is too high and causing problems... you hear "racism" etc... although your own leading labour cretins have been openly admitting that mass immigration was a mistake and causing problems.


Sir Paul condon told the truth about crime... and was then hounded out of his job for it... to You people, the truth is wrong!!!


And if to You, the truth is wrong, then logic dictates that you must therefore support lies!!!


How twisted is that!?


And you claim to be 'superior'...!!!???


While also claiming everyone is the same... all in the name of equality...!!!???


You idiots are so riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy that your opinions are not only laughable but comedy gold, and your attempts at claiming moral high ground are treated with derision and contempt!!!

Tell you what Tommy, you are great as the night time comedian, only you normally laugh with a comedian, not at him.

Tommy Monk wrote:The bigotry is all yours... your entrenched views and inability to consider anything else is the definition of bigotry!!!


I say immigration is too high and causing problems... you hear "racism" etc... although your own leading labour cretins have been openly admitting that mass immigration was a mistake and causing problems.


Sir Paul condon told the truth about crime... and was then hounded out of his job for it... to You people, the truth is wrong!!!


And if to You, the truth is wrong, then logic dictates that you must therefore support lies!!!


How twisted is that!?


And you claim to be 'superior'...!!!???


While also claiming everyone is the same... all in the name of equality...!!!???


You idiots are so riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy that your opinions are not only laughable but comedy gold, and your attempts at claiming moral high ground are treated with derision and contempt!!!

i think you will find most are laughing at YOU Tommy and not WITH you

A subtle distinction but a distinction never the less

sassy wrote:Tell you what Tommy, you are great as the night time comedian, only you normally laugh with a comedian, not at him.

i disagree its more a feeble verbal  slapstick ...i could be wrong he does have an IQ of 140 after all

edit
i actually think he missed the decimal point out 1.40 seems more accurate

korban dallas wrote:

sassy wrote:Tell you what Tommy, you are great as the night time comedian, only you normally laugh with a comedian, not at him.

i disagree its more a feeble verbal  slapstick ...i could be wrong he does have an IQ of 140 after all

And there was me trying to be nice!

Tommy start doing the site quiz that would be interesting

So an hour long and very intensive IQ test is bollocks but the bollocks site "pub quiz" that is easily cheated is somehow a recognition of intelligence...!!!???






You really are a joker!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:So an hour long and very intensive IQ test is bollocks but the bollocks site "pub quiz" that is easily cheated is somehow a recognition of intelligence...!!!???






You really are a joker!!!

don`t be silly of course it dosn`t i said it would be interesting not definitive

and easily cheated ? how so, did you cheat on the web test that proves nothing ?

oh and a hour long ?

quote
"15 minutes went by and at that point I had to stop and make the calls because it was getting near to 5-00pm"


Tommy Monk wrote:
Well I scored 140 on an IQ test with no practicing before hand, and that was even after taking a ten minute break during it to make a cup of tea, have a piss And make a couple of phone calls!!! google the answers
......................................................................


hahaha google the answers thats cheating ....what a plonker you are

edit so you did cheat

have one of these fitted to your head tommy



who knows could make a difference

I don't insult you because you're stupid tommy, I do so because you want to suppress my rights as a gay man, and because you persistently claim that I am abnormal and unnatural as your justification for suppressing my rights. You blatantly look down on me with those views, and I do indeed look down on you for holding them. You share those views in fact with many an Islamic fundamentalist, who presumably we both look down on.

As for intelligence. Some people have it in abundance and others not so much. A good IQ is nothing without a good education. I am sure there is plenty you are well up and me not so much and vice versa. But you claiming intelligence based on an internet test is pointless.

Do I look down on those who I deem less intelligent than me? Sometimes, it depends on what they say or do tbh (since as earlier mentioned they will know things I don't). If they claim I have made a choice about my sexuality or imply bad intentions from gay people adopting however, then yes, I look down on them.

Eilzel wrote:I don't insult you because you're stupid tommy, I do so because you want to suppress my rights as a gay man, and because you persistently claim that I am abnormal and unnatural as your justification for suppressing my rights. You blatantly look down on me with those views, and I do indeed look down on you for holding them. You share those views in fact with many an Islamic fundamentalist, who presumably we both look down on.

As for intelligence. Some people have it in abundance and others not so much. A good IQ is nothing without a good education. I am sure there is plenty you are well up and me not so much and vice versa. But you claiming intelligence based on an internet test is pointless.

Do I look down on those who I deem less intelligent than me? Sometimes, it depends on what they say or do tbh (since as earlier mentioned they will know things I don't). If they claim I have made a choice about my sexuality or imply bad intentions from gay people adopting however, then yes, I look down on them.

well said

and he cites a "test" and in the same posts admits he cheated by looking up the answers on google ? not the most intelligent thing to admit is it    

korban dallas wrote:oh and a hour long ?

quote
"15 minutes went by and at that point I had to stop and make the calls because it was getting near to 5-00pm"


Tommy Monk wrote:
Well I scored 140 on an IQ test with no practicing before hand, and that was even after taking a ten minute break during it to make a cup of tea, have a piss And make a couple of phone calls!!! google the answers
......................................................................


hahaha google the answers thats cheating ....what a plonker you are

edit so you did cheat

KD... are you drunk, stoned or just stupid!!!???


Or maybe all three!!!





Seriously... what is wrong with you lefties!!!???



The truth is clearly written in my posts... but you still manage to cherry pick small parts of this truth, and then twist it into lies!!!


Is this a deliberate misrepresentation of what I actually said for a joke..?


Or do you really have some sort of mental illness...!!!???

deliberate misrepresentation ?
not my words but yours  i even included the whole sentence for context " cherry pick small parts of this truth ? hardly

ps i dont drink haven`t smoked for 7 months
but i will google the last one  

but i am guessing a dictionary will say it will say "stupid"
1.lacking intelligence or common sense.....see Tommy

Les, I am not for suppressing 'rights' at all...

I have made this quite clear on many occasions.

It is you who seeks to suppress my rights to freedom of opinion, freedom of thought, and freedom to expression... as it is my right to think and say what I think and want as I believe.


I support your right to practice whatever deviant sexual practices you want behind closed doors with another consenting adult... and for You to be free to do so, free from persecution and free from threat, and free from discrimination in employment , society, goods and services etc...


But you cannot impose on my rights to think, believe and say what I want.


You cannot force me to think something YOU WANT, just because YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT!!!

You can think, believe and say WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT..


And I can think, believe and say WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT!!!


Adopting children is not a 'right'...


Children are not possessions or commodities to be traded in a game of equality top trumps.


I have made my points on this many times.

korban dallas wrote:deliberate misrepresentation ?
not my words but yours  i even included the whole sentence for context " cherry pick small parts of this truth ? hardly  

ps i dont drink haven`t smoked for 7 months
but i will google the last one  

but i am guessing a dictionary will say it will say "stupid"
1.lacking intelligence or common sense.....see Tommy

So not drunk or stoned... that only leaves stupid...


And only a couple of weeks ago you claimed not to have smoked for 3 months... but now you claim 7 months!!!





You make it up as you go along!!!


Just like your selective 'quotes' of my posts... which not only fail to include the whole relevant bits... but also include bits posted by others!!!


I suggest you read EXACTLY WHAT I DID SAY...instead of The mix up bullshit you tried to pass off as my own words!!!





Context KD... context!!!


And that doesn't mean for You to 'con' with the 'text'...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Les, I am not for suppressing 'rights' at all...

I have made this quite clear on many occasions.

It is you who seeks to suppress my rights to freedom of opinion, freedom of thought, and freedom to expression... as it is my right to think and say what I think and want as I believe.


I support your right to practice whatever deviant sexual practices you want behind closed doors with another consenting adult... and for You to be free to do so, free from persecution and free from threat, and free from discrimination in employment , society, goods and services etc...


But you cannot impose on my rights to think, believe and say what I want.


You cannot force me to think something YOU WANT, just because YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT!!!

You can think, believe and say WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT..


And I can think, believe and say WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT!!!


Adopting children is not a 'right'...


Children are not possessions or commodities to be traded in a game of equality top trumps.


I have made my points on this many times.

Quote tommy
your entrenched views and inability to consider anything else is the definition of bigotry!!

Tommy dammed by his own words ....Yet again


i rest my case

140

Tommy Monk wrote:

korban dallas wrote:deliberate misrepresentation ?
not my words but yours  i even included the whole sentence for context " cherry pick small parts of this truth ? hardly  

ps i dont drink haven`t smoked for 7 months
but i will google the last one  

but i am guessing a dictionary will say it will say "stupid"
1.lacking intelligence or common sense.....see Tommy

So not drunk or stoned... that only leaves stupid...


And only a couple of weeks ago you claimed not to have smoked for 3 months... but now you claim 7 months!!!





You make it up as you go along!!!


Just like your selective 'quotes' of my posts... which not only fail to include the whole relevant bits... but also include bits posted by others!!!


I suggest you read EXACTLY WHAT I DID SAY...instead of The mix up bullshit you tried to pass off as my own words!!!





Context KD... context!!!


And that doesn't mean for You to 'con' with the 'text'...!!!

3 -months 7 months well since January anyway
but i do have discalulas as well as dislexia thats quite common by the way
so numbers are sometimes a bit difficult especially time estimates
but i am ok with it that`s why i often say to people check my sums as i actually did in this thread

but since january so i hope that clears up any misunderstanding i may have caused

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Les, I am not for suppressing 'rights' at all...

I have made this quite clear on many occasions.

It is you who seeks to suppress my rights to freedom of opinion, freedom of thought, and freedom to expression... as it is my right to think and say what I think and want as I believe.


I support your right to practice whatever deviant sexual practices you want behind closed doors with another consenting adult... and for You to be free to do so, free from persecution and free from threat, and free from discrimination in employment , society, goods and services etc...


But you cannot impose on my rights to think, believe and say what I want.


You cannot force me to think something YOU WANT, just because YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT!!!

You can think, believe and say WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT..


And I can think, believe and say WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT!!!


Adopting children is not a 'right'...


Children are not possessions or commodities to be traded in a game of equality top trumps.


I have made my points on this many times.

Quote tommy
your entrenched views and inability to consider anything else is the definition of bigotry!!

Tommy dammed by his own words ....Yet again


i rest my case

140

So you Are saying that anyone who holds any fixed belief about anything is a bigot...!?


Or are you saying that people who hold the same fixed views as you Are not bigots but those who hold other fixed views are bigots...!?


What makes your fixed views any less bigotry...!?



Maybe you Just don't understand the meaning of the word...

relevant bits
by all means whats the relevant bit