On Aug 5, 7:23�am, MIG wrote:
On 4 Aug, 23:03, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:51:56 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Admittedly, I am often the first to point out the grammatical mistakes
of others, but this should not be allowed to obscure the valid point
being made by Boltar about �L.U.L. and its staff. Any organisation
that has room in its ranks for the likes of Bob Crowe is fatally
flawed.

You think Bob Crow is a LUL employee? �I think you'll find he's a full
time union employee and LUL has little choice put to deal with his union
in collective bargaining. The other point here is that he is simply the
figurehead - it is the union exec who take the decisions re settlements
etc.

There's been a bit of a shortage of gratuitous abuse of Bob Crow
lately, so this was probably just redressing the balance. �Have you
noticed what he's done to the weather lately?

I dont't need to invent nonsense regarding Bob Crowe - his own idiocy
is more than enough for me. Obviously, the late Peter Sellers had
imagined him, several decades in advance, when he played the union
leader in "I'm Alright Jack". But there is a difference - that
character had at least an appearance of learning and intelligence,
characteristics so patently lacking in Crowe.

"Gratuitous" suggests "uncalled for". I beg to differ. Indeed, Crowe
is a rare example of someone being a parody of himself.


Marc.