Unions stage 'Stand Up OnThe South Coast' protest in Southampton

Protestors march through Southampton today.

Protestors march through Southampton today.

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

Scores of demonstrators marched through Southampton city centre this afternoon to protest against cuts being made by the government.

Shoppers looked on as representatives of trades unions paraded peacefully along Above Bar waving placards and banners.

They marched from the Guildhall towards the Bargate and then back towards West Quay Shopping Centre calling for an end to austerity measures in the first of a series of protests that are being held along the south coast.

Organsier Darren Proctor said: "Today is about the unions coming together and making the public aware of the policies that are going through.

 

"We will be here to engage with shoppers and talk to them about the reforms that are taking place. Why should the working man or woman have to pay while rich businesses and corporations get away without paying their taxes?"

The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:28pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Big Mac says...

Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks
Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks Big Mac
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Sat 26 Jan 13

southy says...

Big Mac wrote:
Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks
Theres only one way to know the numbers and that is to count them all one-by-one, after that the next best way is to count up all those that said they went, which is the way I do it because I am not going to stand there counting each and every one, plus do it the way I do it brings you very close to the real figure that did go, monday morning will be the earlest to get those figures, when the union office will have those figures.
Going on the number that said they will be going in the last few weeks on the web sites puts it around the 170. mark
[quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks[/p][/quote]Theres only one way to know the numbers and that is to count them all one-by-one, after that the next best way is to count up all those that said they went, which is the way I do it because I am not going to stand there counting each and every one, plus do it the way I do it brings you very close to the real figure that did go, monday morning will be the earlest to get those figures, when the union office will have those figures. Going on the number that said they will be going in the last few weeks on the web sites puts it around the 170. mark southy
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Sat 26 Jan 13

southy says...

This is one of a number of rally marches happening today, Portsmouth have all ready had theres.

Good to see that the SWP could be having a change of heart locally, maybe they might be joining the rest of the SWP nationally and with drawing there support to the Labour Party.
This is one of a number of rally marches happening today, Portsmouth have all ready had theres. Good to see that the SWP could be having a change of heart locally, maybe they might be joining the rest of the SWP nationally and with drawing there support to the Labour Party. southy
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Sat 26 Jan 13

stay local says...

southy wrote:
Big Mac wrote:
Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks
Theres only one way to know the numbers and that is to count them all one-by-one, after that the next best way is to count up all those that said they went, which is the way I do it because I am not going to stand there counting each and every one, plus do it the way I do it brings you very close to the real figure that did go, monday morning will be the earlest to get those figures, when the union office will have those figures.
Going on the number that said they will be going in the last few weeks on the web sites puts it around the 170. mark
Fantastic you should be a returning officer at the next election, no one can fault the accuracy of your information.

What you mean is you have no idea what so ever how many people there were. Is this another example of you inability to tell the truth.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks[/p][/quote]Theres only one way to know the numbers and that is to count them all one-by-one, after that the next best way is to count up all those that said they went, which is the way I do it because I am not going to stand there counting each and every one, plus do it the way I do it brings you very close to the real figure that did go, monday morning will be the earlest to get those figures, when the union office will have those figures. Going on the number that said they will be going in the last few weeks on the web sites puts it around the 170. mark[/p][/quote]Fantastic you should be a returning officer at the next election, no one can fault the accuracy of your information. What you mean is you have no idea what so ever how many people there were. Is this another example of you inability to tell the truth. stay local
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Sat 26 Jan 13

southy says...

stay local wrote:
southy wrote:
Big Mac wrote:
Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks
Theres only one way to know the numbers and that is to count them all one-by-one, after that the next best way is to count up all those that said they went, which is the way I do it because I am not going to stand there counting each and every one, plus do it the way I do it brings you very close to the real figure that did go, monday morning will be the earlest to get those figures, when the union office will have those figures.
Going on the number that said they will be going in the last few weeks on the web sites puts it around the 170. mark
Fantastic you should be a returning officer at the next election, no one can fault the accuracy of your information.

What you mean is you have no idea what so ever how many people there were. Is this another example of you inability to tell the truth.
No it means I am able to find out easy enough, its called having the right connections in the know to be able to find out.
As for today I was going to go my self but was unable to, if I had gone then I would off all ready seen the numbers and had a chance to ask each group that turned up how many of there members was there.
And if you notice I have not put a number on todays rally, apart from a figure that people who said they would be going in the last few weeks.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: Could you confirm in numbers please Daily Echo. Southy doesn't know how to exaggerate 'scores' and we wouldn't want him getting his facts wrong on such an important issue. Anything ending in a nought will help him as a starting point. Thanks[/p][/quote]Theres only one way to know the numbers and that is to count them all one-by-one, after that the next best way is to count up all those that said they went, which is the way I do it because I am not going to stand there counting each and every one, plus do it the way I do it brings you very close to the real figure that did go, monday morning will be the earlest to get those figures, when the union office will have those figures. Going on the number that said they will be going in the last few weeks on the web sites puts it around the 170. mark[/p][/quote]Fantastic you should be a returning officer at the next election, no one can fault the accuracy of your information. What you mean is you have no idea what so ever how many people there were. Is this another example of you inability to tell the truth.[/p][/quote]No it means I am able to find out easy enough, its called having the right connections in the know to be able to find out. As for today I was going to go my self but was unable to, if I had gone then I would off all ready seen the numbers and had a chance to ask each group that turned up how many of there members was there. And if you notice I have not put a number on todays rally, apart from a figure that people who said they would be going in the last few weeks. southy
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Sat 26 Jan 13

southy says...

Clue there was at lest 60 people in the march filmed in the video clip, which did not show the start nor the end of the march.
Clue there was at lest 60 people in the march filmed in the video clip, which did not show the start nor the end of the march. southy
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Sat 26 Jan 13

southy says...

If your that interested then there is a meeting taking place at the Juniper Berry function room starting soon
If your that interested then there is a meeting taking place at the Juniper Berry function room starting soon southy
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
If your that interested then there is a meeting taking place at the Juniper Berry function room starting soon
Wow, you have a lot off free time on your hands, what with playing in the snow with children, being a babbling brook of BS on here and counting people at rallies, how do you find the time for work?

Oh yes, you don't work.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If your that interested then there is a meeting taking place at the Juniper Berry function room starting soon[/p][/quote]Wow, you have a lot off free time on your hands, what with playing in the snow with children, being a babbling brook of BS on here and counting people at rallies, how do you find the time for work? Oh yes, you don't work. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Sat 26 Jan 13

stay local says...

So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?
So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable? stay local
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Sat 26 Jan 13

MisterGrimsdale says...

Well anyway......by my reckoning that means there are over 150,000 adults in the area who didn;t go. They must all be evil horseriding tory toffs who willl be shot come the revolution.
(TUSC hashtag weknowwhoyouare)
Well anyway......by my reckoning that means there are over 150,000 adults in the area who didn;t go. They must all be evil horseriding tory toffs who willl be shot come the revolution. (TUSC hashtag weknowwhoyouare) MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Big Mac says...

All the scores are confirmed on the football, why not the 'march'?
All the scores are confirmed on the football, why not the 'march'? Big Mac
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Sat 26 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

How irresponsible these Unions are. At a time when the High Street is already struggling, they choose the busiest day of the week to disrupt the shopping areas and inconvenience shoppers, just so they can blow their whistles and wave their flags.

Why couldn't they have done this in a field somewhere in the middle of no-where so they can have their fun without inconveniencing everyone else. Selfish people!
How irresponsible these Unions are. At a time when the High Street is already struggling, they choose the busiest day of the week to disrupt the shopping areas and inconvenience shoppers, just so they can blow their whistles and wave their flags. Why couldn't they have done this in a field somewhere in the middle of no-where so they can have their fun without inconveniencing everyone else. Selfish people! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Sat 26 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Clue there was at lest 60 people in the march filmed in the video clip, which did not show the start nor the end of the march.
.. my guess, once southy has crunched some numbers, then doubled it at least, added in some factors only relevant to Trotskyists, and rounded it up; there were over 500 demonstrating.

Any advance?

Shame we have to wait until at least Monday to find his ‘official’ turnout.

It really is like the old Soviet 5 year plans – ‘official’ figures prove all targets exceeded by 200% in only 4 years.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Clue there was at lest 60 people in the march filmed in the video clip, which did not show the start nor the end of the march.[/p][/quote].. my guess, once southy has crunched some numbers, then doubled it at least, added in some factors only relevant to Trotskyists, and rounded it up; there were over 500 demonstrating. Any advance? Shame we have to wait until at least Monday to find his ‘official’ turnout. It really is like the old Soviet 5 year plans – ‘official’ figures prove all targets exceeded by 200% in only 4 years. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Sat 26 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

"The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon."

They must have got bored early, as at 2pm I was in WH Smith and there wasn't anyone to be seen waving flags and blowing whistles.
"The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon." They must have got bored early, as at 2pm I was in WH Smith and there wasn't anyone to be seen waving flags and blowing whistles. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Big Mac says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
"The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon."

They must have got bored early, as at 2pm I was in WH Smith and there wasn't anyone to be seen waving flags and blowing whistles.
What?! Not even Southy there blowing his own trumpet!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: "The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon." They must have got bored early, as at 2pm I was in WH Smith and there wasn't anyone to be seen waving flags and blowing whistles.[/p][/quote]What?! Not even Southy there blowing his own trumpet! Big Mac
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Sat 26 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

Big Mac wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
"The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon."

They must have got bored early, as at 2pm I was in WH Smith and there wasn't anyone to be seen waving flags and blowing whistles.
What?! Not even Southy there blowing his own trumpet!
Southy was busy at home blowing his trumpet.
[quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: "The protest is expected to remain outside West Quay for most of the afternoon." They must have got bored early, as at 2pm I was in WH Smith and there wasn't anyone to be seen waving flags and blowing whistles.[/p][/quote]What?! Not even Southy there blowing his own trumpet![/p][/quote]Southy was busy at home blowing his trumpet. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

1:40am Sun 27 Jan 13

southy says...

stay local wrote:
So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?
Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand.
On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up.
The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march.
and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?[/p][/quote]Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand. On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up. The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march. and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up. southy
  • Score: 0

8:59am Sun 27 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
stay local wrote:
So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?
Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand.
On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up.
The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march.
and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.
.. but you can't trust those websites, can you?

Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?[/p][/quote]Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand. On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up. The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march. and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.[/p][/quote].. but you can't trust those websites, can you? Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Sun 27 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
stay local wrote:
So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?
Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand.
On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up.
The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march.
and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.
.. but you can't trust those websites, can you?

Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.
Look at what I said Free and stop trying to twistt words it don't work.
I all ready said the artical is a word for word copy of what was said in the Staff local news paper.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?[/p][/quote]Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand. On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up. The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march. and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.[/p][/quote].. but you can't trust those websites, can you? Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.[/p][/quote]Look at what I said Free and stop trying to twistt words it don't work. I all ready said the artical is a word for word copy of what was said in the Staff local news paper. southy
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Sun 27 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
stay local wrote:
So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?
Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand.
On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up.
The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march.
and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.
.. but you can't trust those websites, can you?

Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.
Look at what I said Free and stop trying to twistt words it don't work.
I all ready said the artical is a word for word copy of what was said in the Staff local news paper.
.. I've already dealt with the Staffordshire local rag right near the beginning - no response from you.

This latest comment of mine is aimed at you insisting you can place trust in websites about the number of people who indicated they would be attending.

Again, as 90% of all websites are wrong (according to you) how do you know you are relying on the 10% that are right? The odds are very much against, aren’t they?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?[/p][/quote]Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand. On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up. The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march. and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.[/p][/quote].. but you can't trust those websites, can you? Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.[/p][/quote]Look at what I said Free and stop trying to twistt words it don't work. I all ready said the artical is a word for word copy of what was said in the Staff local news paper.[/p][/quote].. I've already dealt with the Staffordshire local rag right near the beginning - no response from you. This latest comment of mine is aimed at you insisting you can place trust in websites about the number of people who indicated they would be attending. Again, as 90% of all websites are wrong (according to you) how do you know you are relying on the 10% that are right? The odds are very much against, aren’t they? freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Sun 27 Jan 13

cantthinkofone says...

Swappies out in force by the looks of the picture. I wonder how many newspapers were sold lol?

More seriously, I wish I'd have known about this as I would have added to the numbers.
Swappies out in force by the looks of the picture. I wonder how many newspapers were sold lol? More seriously, I wish I'd have known about this as I would have added to the numbers. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

11:57am Mon 28 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
stay local wrote:
So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?
Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand.
On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up.
The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march.
and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.
.. but you can't trust those websites, can you?

Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.
Look at what I said Free and stop trying to twistt words it don't work.
I all ready said the artical is a word for word copy of what was said in the Staff local news paper.
.. I've already dealt with the Staffordshire local rag right near the beginning - no response from you.

This latest comment of mine is aimed at you insisting you can place trust in websites about the number of people who indicated they would be attending.

Again, as 90% of all websites are wrong (according to you) how do you know you are relying on the 10% that are right? The odds are very much against, aren’t they?
What bit did you not under stand free. I said how many that said they would be going (this as been posted on more than one page on FB for a few weeks that this demo was going to be taking place), weather if they all turned up is another matter.
In the video film clip I counted 60 people, but the video did not show the front or the rear of the march (so those in the from and rear would also need to be added on).
And I replied to you about the Staff newspaper, you did get a response but like normal for you chose to ignore it, I will repeat my response to you, I said
Its a word for word copy what was said in the Stafford newspaper, so the info is reliable. Plus this morning I had it confirmed from Unison area Exc.
Here is the difference between you, many others on here and that is you do not have the back up off loads of people in the areas where it is concerned to find out what is true and what is not.

Mind you you can not be trusted in what you say any way, you do not even know what a Trotsky is, but try very weakly to pass it off to all those on the real left as propaganda.
Heres a clue for you what to look for in a trotsky person, He will believe in a Stateless society, and believe there should be NO workers Unions which is a small part of Trotsky policy.
Now don't you feel foolish As I believe there should all ways be workers unions present.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: So Southy you said about 170 and I said you had no idea now you say at least 60 so only an error of 283% sounds like you really had no idea and are still now better off, as your latest number by your own admission is another guess. Is it policy of the TUSC to be completely unreliable?[/p][/quote]Stop twisting words Stay I will repeat just for you seeing it to hard for you to under stand. On the web sites about 170 people said they would be going, it don't mean that the whole 170 people would turn up. The video clip did not show the people at the front on the march nore did it show any one at the back of the march, all it showed was about 60 people in the middle of the march, on top of that 60 add on those in the front and those on the back of the march. and if you want a very close figure then monday would be the day when that can be check on, will be able to find out who did not turn up.[/p][/quote].. but you can't trust those websites, can you? Remember, you have already told us 90% of them are false.[/p][/quote]Look at what I said Free and stop trying to twistt words it don't work. I all ready said the artical is a word for word copy of what was said in the Staff local news paper.[/p][/quote].. I've already dealt with the Staffordshire local rag right near the beginning - no response from you. This latest comment of mine is aimed at you insisting you can place trust in websites about the number of people who indicated they would be attending. Again, as 90% of all websites are wrong (according to you) how do you know you are relying on the 10% that are right? The odds are very much against, aren’t they?[/p][/quote]What bit did you not under stand free. I said how many that said they would be going (this as been posted on more than one page on FB for a few weeks that this demo was going to be taking place), weather if they all turned up is another matter. In the video film clip I counted 60 people, but the video did not show the front or the rear of the march (so those in the from and rear would also need to be added on). And I replied to you about the Staff newspaper, you did get a response but like normal for you chose to ignore it, I will repeat my response to you, I said Its a word for word copy what was said in the Stafford newspaper, so the info is reliable. Plus this morning I had it confirmed from Unison area Exc. Here is the difference between you, many others on here and that is you do not have the back up off loads of people in the areas where it is concerned to find out what is true and what is not. Mind you you can not be trusted in what you say any way, you do not even know what a Trotsky is, but try very weakly to pass it off to all those on the real left as propaganda. Heres a clue for you what to look for in a trotsky person, He will believe in a Stateless society, and believe there should be NO workers Unions which is a small part of Trotsky policy. Now don't you feel foolish As I believe there should all ways be workers unions present. southy
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 28 Jan 13

cantthinkofone says...

A Trotsky person is very easy to recognise southy. The icepick sticking out of their head is a dead giveaway.
A Trotsky person is very easy to recognise southy. The icepick sticking out of their head is a dead giveaway. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree