British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy

Socialism managed to retake the reigns of power in Britian and proceeded to wreck her auto industry from within.

The lacklusture performance of fat music-loving possibly homosexual Nuremburg rally attending Bilderberg group member and yachtsman Edward Heath allowed Harold Wilson a second chance at the job he so clearly botched in the '60s. Shadowy influences at home and from behind the Iron Curtain and currency devaluation notwithstanding, Wilson and his Communist buddies were now in charge, and in typical Communist fashion they wasted no time and immediately set about attempting to destroy Capitalism, and along with it freedom, dignity, respect, family values and religion.

The British Automobile industry was a prime target for their hate.

Wilson decided to steal the British Auto industry from its owners. He didn't use that word, preferring to use the Communist word for theft: Nationalization. That's right, In 1975 Wilson simply issued a diktat saying that the Government owned all the British Auto manufacturers. He lumped them all together in a giant inefficient state-run behemoth known as 'British Leyland'.

The stockholders were given no compensation. It was quite literally highway robbery. Wilson then ensured that Communist doctrine would hold sway throughout the industry by installing his puppet Derek 'Red Robbo' Robinson as the managing director of the stolen corporation.

Wilson's trusted aide Robbo was then tasked with ensuring that the industry was run in a Communist way. Strict demarcation of job tasks was the order of the day. For example, at BL's enormous Longbridge plant Robbo's Communist working practices ensured that fifteen people were required for the simple task of fitting a wheel onto the newly designed Austin Maxi. Three 'Wheel Carriers', two 'Pressure checkers', a 'Torque checker' a 'Bolt setter', four 'Saftey Observers', two 'Bolt turners', one 'Working Practices Compliance officer' and a 'Beverage technician' (whose job was to ensure that there was always a hot cup of tea or 'cuppa' ready for the workers at all times).

But this pathological inefficiency was not enough for the meglomaniac Wilson. He was worried about getting re-elected for another term of office, he was behind in the opinion polls, news of his shady business connections was beginning to surface. He needed a way to unite public opinion behind his insane Communistic ideology and hence behind the Wilson election campaign. It was then that he had his greatest brainwave.

The Reliant Bond Bug.

The crazy 70's design of the Bond Bug seems like a fun car, in the spirit of the decade. However, a closer look reveals that this car was designed in order to promote homosexuality, and thus more inclined to believe in Socialist ideas. Notice the two seater configuration of the vehicle. Where do the children sit ? You guessed it, there are no rear seats, meaning that the car cannot carry children. A clear indicator that the driver and passenger of the car may well be a homosexual couple. Take another look. The car is ORANGE! Clearly no red-blooded heterosexual male would choose this color, but there was no choice. In true Socialist style, the choice of color was not left to the consumer. No, that was left to the apparachtiks at British Leyland, hence orange was the color, take it or leave it, like it or lump it.

Take yet another look. This car only has three wheels. Again we can see the homosexual agenda of the Communist-run car industry at work. Clearly the whole concept of a three wheeled vehicle is perverse. By making the pervese seem acceptable, Leylands automobile designers set the agenda for their homosexualist and Communist brainwashing of the British public.

But it didn't stop there! The Communist car designers in power at British Leyland could not bear for the success of an individual to be reflected in his exquisite taste in vehicular transportation, so they made it impossible for the consumer to do so. By the simple technique of designing terrible ugly cars that nobody (not even a Communist) could love.

Cast your eyes over these motorised mingers:

The Austin Princess/Ambassador

The Austin Maxi

The Morris Marina

The Triumph TR7

The Jensen Interceptor

The Austin Allegro - this one had a 'square' steering wheel believe it or not!

The Scimitar GTE

The Rover SD1

The Lotus Elite

The Lotus Europa

Faced with driving these ugly lumps of metal, suddenly homosexuality seemed somehow more 'normal' to the people of the UK. Wilson's heinous plan appeared to be working.

The homosexualist movement gathered more and more powers. The people became more and more Communisticly inclined, forming 'Trade Unions' and going on strike almost every day of the year, until a fateful day in 1979 when a certain Mrs Thatcher stepped in and stopped the rot.

She had her work cut out for her, but she took to the task with brutal efficiency. She turned back the tide of Socialism, but to this very day, the homosexual impulses awakened by the lurid orange three-wheeler still persist. Perhaps British men will always be just that little bit gay thanks to this cheeky fibreglass 70's icon. Who knows ?

One thing is for certain - the British car industry never managed to recover from Harold Wilson's meddling.

	The part I find most distressing... (none / 0) (#7)
	by because it isnt on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 09:55:50 AM PST

	is that good old British Leyland is now owned by the Germans. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	splitted not german (2.00 / 1) (#66)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 06:26:26 AM PST

	the website http://www.british-leyland.de was made by german enthusiasts of the "mini-metro-ig remscheid", and is a tribute to a decade of independent, british engineering. (ok, some cars had realy bad quality but they looked nice) the brands triumph, riley, austin healey, and so on now belong to BMW like the MINI. MG-Rover is a independent company. the leyland-name is still used by leyland-daf (trucks).

	Did you know... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by JoePain on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 11:09:07 AM PST

	That Europe has a standard 30 HOUR work week. They get paid the same ammount we (I don't consider non-Americans 'we') do and work 3/4's as hard. WTF. This sends up a red flag in my opinion (nice pun eh?) I predict the hammer and sickle will be flying in a its happy new home within 10 years. Hopefully Canadia will not follow suit.

	Hammer & sickle (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 12:56:51 PM PST

	The hammer and the sickle already are flying in a happy new home: your mind. You have hallucinations. I'd like very much to know where do we have that standard 30 hours week, when France is struggling without success to go from a 39 hours week to a 35 hours week, and the other countries in Europe not even trying (they have 39 to 45).

	Another fine article from dmg (none / 0) (#9)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 11:10:41 AM PST

	Strict demarcation of job tasks was the order of the day. For example, at BL's enormous Longbridge plant Robbo's Communist working practices ensured that fifteen people were required for the simple task of fitting a wheel onto the newly designed Austin Maxi. Three 'Wheel Carriers', two 'Pressure checkers', a 'Torque checker' a 'Bolt setter', four 'Saftey Observers', two 'Bolt turners', one 'Working Practices Compliance officer' and a 'Beverage technician' I knew Robbo's controller. The person that knew what backroom deals were made, when and by whom. A major player in the unionisation of British industry from the 1950's to 1990's. Strict demarkation was brought in by management in the 1950's. If a person was injured at work doing something that was not strictly part of their job, then they refused any compensation. Lets say you were employed as a 'Beverage technician' and helped out the 'Wheel Carriers', and whilst carrying wheels you dropped one and crushed your foot , then no compensation for you my boy 'cos you shouldn't have been doing it. Management brought in the rules and the grades for their own short-sighted ends.

	I Object (none / 0) (#10)
	by doofus on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 11:27:40 AM PST

	The Jensen Interceptor is a gorgeous piece of automotive engineering and design. As is anything with the name "Lotus" on it.

	It's got to be (none / 0) (#15)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:07:46 PM PST

	One of these. Long delivery time though used to be two years sigh. Hitched a nice ride up the A423 from Oxford one night in an Interceptor. The new one looks nice.

	Lotus Esprit (none / 0) (#69)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 10th, 2002 at 11:11:26 AM PST

	What is wrong with 0-60 in < 4.5 secs and 165mph (4.3 & 175 with V8 version) of the beautiful Lotus Esprit ? Apart from the fact you can't see police cars out the back window, as I found out when caught at 121.9 mph!

	Mingers? Not all (none / 0) (#11)
	by piloti on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 11:35:22 AM PST

	Jensen Interceptor is a cool motor. I was thinking of getting one myself but the thought of 8 mpg sort of put me off. Rover SD1 is a nice looking motor (rip off of the Daytona), fairly badly built but has a great V8 engine.

	It's embarrassing... (none / 0) (#12)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 12:19:08 PM PST

	...living in Leyland, having read that story...

	Living in Leyland (none / 0) (#21)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:57:43 PM PST

	It is pretty embarassing living in Leyland full stop.

	Well fancy that (none / 0) (#22)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 02:11:09 PM PST

	I never knew Leyland had an Accordian club. On the plus side though, it's fairly quiet where I am (apart from the motorway and railway), so I don't usually have to put up with crowds of drunken idiots vomiting all over the front garden on a Friday night.

	Look closer... (none / 0) (#24)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 02:29:31 PM PST

	...at the page linked to. I have nothing against the accordian. An old drinking mate plays one.

	Homophobe = closet homosexual? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by akepa on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 12:38:54 PM PST

	Yes, socialism sucks and perhaps did play some part in the deterioration of the British auto industry. But what does this have to do with homosexuality? Are there gay socialists? Undoubtedly. There are also straight socialists and gay capitalists. As a straight married man confident in my own sexual identity, I have always been mystified by the vehemence some people have for gays. Why do such people care about others' sex lives? If you think homosexuality is a sin "because the Bible says so", then it's the gays who are going to hell and not you, so again why should you care? My suspicion is that homophobes are closet homosexuals or bisexuals who are too ashamed and/or embarrassed to admit their propensity towards the same sex. Consequently they try to "prove" that they're straight by verbally and/or physically attacking gays at every opportunity, and ranting about all kinds of ridiculous paranoid conspiracies involving homosexuals trying to destroy civilization as we know it. I find the thought of making love to a man to be repugnant. I also find the thought of eating beets repugnant. Yet I do not discriminate against beet eaters, beet farmers or the stores that sell beets, and I do not come up with paranoid conspiracies involving beets and world domination. If some people like to eat beets, then let them do so, it's a free country.

	although... (none / 0) (#13)
	by budlite on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 12:25:34 PM PST

	...having actually looked at some of the pictures, I'm a little less embarrassed. At least the Lotus Europa looked fairly nice.

	What if beets were bad for you, but tasted good? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:32:09 PM PST

	And so, against your better judgement, you tried a small amount of beet, and decided you liked it? And then tried more and more, despite feeling guilty about all the known problems with beets, and still liked it. And then, because your beet farmer can't give you enough beets, you try to convince young men to grow beets. Before you know it, many of the young men in your town are growing beets, giving beets to teenage boys, until the whole town drops dead from beet-inducing diseases. Really, it's that simple. A. Rightmann

	Unhealthy food that tastes good include (5.00 / 2) (#25)
	by akepa on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 03:36:44 PM PST

	Cheeseburgers Doughnuts Ice cream Fried anything Just to name a few. Are you suggesting we treat all eaters of the above items the same way you would like to treat homosexuals? Should McDonalds and Krispy Kreme Donuts be shut down? Your argument could just as well be applied to heterosexuals: some guy has sex with a woman, likes it, wants more and more, he just can't get enough, so he convinces more and more girls to have sex with him, even underage girls, and he raves about it so much that all the other males want to get into the action too, and before you know it everyone in the whole town is infected with herpes, AIDS, crabs, and syphilis. I guess by your logic we should just ban all sex, hetero and homo. Perhaps castrate everyone at birth and use cloning to reproduce? What you seem to be suggesting is that many people would like homosexuality if they tried it. Frankly, I doubt it - but I think that virulent homophobes would like it if they tried it, which is what they're afraid of.

	heh (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 03:52:16 PM PST

	I think that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Even including on Slashdot.

	Behold the Power of Beets (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 07:31:04 PM PST

	Sadly, the communist homosexuals who object to this article will no doubt miss that brilliant allegory go winging right over their heads.

	Paranoia? (none / 0) (#17)
	by DG on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:33:36 PM PST

	seems to me that you dig too deeply into the meaning of a two seat car, parhaps they have other reasons becides homosexuality maybe for instance a married couple? lots of married couples drive small cars till they have children,then get a minivan or something like that. so please stop jumping to conclusions based on a rather off-kilter view of the world. the color? well not like they have very good colors for american cars,maybe they just couldn't come up with a good color © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Colour (5.00 / 1) (#20)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:47:49 PM PST

	well not like they have very good colors for american cars

	Mismanagement (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by walwyn on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:37:01 PM PST

	Wilson decided to steal the British Auto industry from its owners. The British car industry, like most British industry, always suffered for lack of investment. The Standard Motor Company, for example, went bankrupt many times during its history. Leyland was a disaster due to the inter-company bickering that went on at board level. Each faction spent more time in-fighting than running the business and developing new models.

	It doesn't justify stealing. (none / 0) (#28)
	by dmg on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 09:47:49 AM PST

	The British car industry, like most British industry, always suffered for lack of investment. The Standard Motor Company, for example, went bankrupt many times during its history. And how exactly does this justify theft ? Please explain. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	1,500 million. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
	by walwyn on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 10:37:47 AM PST

	Leyland went bust again in 1975 with losses of 123 million and went running to the government for a 1.5 billion reinvestment handout. As a result their creditors got paid, the shareholders got 60% over the market value of their shares, and the manufacturing sector in the West Midlands survived. Now who was robbed? Come on dmg you can do better than this.

	Who was robbed ? (none / 0) (#36)
	by dmg on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 06:49:57 AM PST

	The long suffering British taxpayer of course. And why should shareholders be bailed out by the taxpayer ? The whole point of stock ownership is that it is a means of transferring risk. Why should an inefficient industry be propped up by the taxpayer ? It should be put out of its misery quickly, so that something else can take its place. If the money wasted on Leyland had been spent on (for example) developing Britains microelectronics and software industries, Britain would be a global player in these areas instead of an also-ran. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	There you go. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by walwyn on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 07:56:37 AM PST

	The long suffering British taxpayer of course. I knew you would get there eventually despite the earlier: Wilson decided to steal the British Auto industry from its owners. And why should shareholders be bailed out by the taxpayer ? The whole point of stock ownership is that it is a means of transferring risk. They shouldn't have been. Especially as they had already extracted 95% of the companies net profits from 1968-1975 failing to reinvest in the company. You would have thought that we had learnt the lesson, but unfortunately the cringing creep has weasled away. Why should an inefficient industry be propped up by the taxpayer ? It should be put out of its misery quickly, so that something else can take its place. The motor industry was the main player in the countries manufacturing base. Shutting down the West Midland manufacturing base over night would have been a political disaster. The delay allowed manufacturing to become less dependent on the motor industry as new industries developed. developing Britains microelectronics and software industries, Britain would be a global player in these areas instead of an also-ran. Oh we do very well thank you. The US car industry runs on our software. It wouldn't surprise me to find that other US industries follow suite in the coming years.

	Typical of the working classes (none / 0) (#19)
	by ICS Dempsey KBE on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:44:22 PM PST

	This is exactly the sort of thing one should expect from allowing the bourgeoisie a place in government. Working people have no special training in statecraft and continually favor their own economic interests above the nation as a whole. This is the root of the entire struggle between the two classes of commoners. As I have stated on this site before, the only solution is to leave the policy-making to those with the genetic heritage and lifetime training adequate for the task: the nobility.

	The Problem with that is.. (none / 0) (#23)
	by DG on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 02:16:28 PM PST

	"The Nobility" for the most part don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.. we have much proof of that, i could give you many examples of that, plus many people couldn't go back to that, it would be a step back rather than a step forward © 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	does money make you noble? (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 06:44:18 PM PST

	Why would any one person need more than $1 million dollars?

	For... (none / 0) (#32)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 07:00:01 PM PST

	...funding projects? Running a nonprofit organization (oh how unamerican!) in some cases costs a lot.

	funny thing (none / 0) (#34)
	by nathan on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 07:53:30 PM PST

	George Soros lives in America, and (according to my Hungarian friends) faces racist treatment in elements of the Hungarian press due to being a Jew. But, somehow, despite the wretchedness of America, he manages to organize the giving of about half a billion USD per year. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Giving? (none / 0) (#38)
	by tkatchev on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 10:08:05 AM PST

	GIVING? Lord God, do not make me laugh. I wish I could live as miserably as that, as the Jewish proveb goes. I respect Soros for his business skills, even though he is an amoral monster and a misanthrope; trying to whitewash him into some sort of "master of good deeds" betrays your massive ignorance in this matter. -- Peace and much love...

	ok, so educate me. n/t (none / 0) (#39)
	by nathan on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 11:51:06 AM PST

	-- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Soros... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
	by tkatchev on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 12:50:16 PM PST

	...is a cunning businessman who uses manipulation of national governments to destabilize stock markets and make big, big bucks. He's the type of person who can single-handedly crash the Mexican economy just to turn a profit on stock speculation. (Example, another one.) The numerous "Soros Funds" all over the world are not exactly philanthropic -- Soros uses them as an independent political force to hedge his dangerous stock speculations. If you're playing against, for example, the Mongolian market, an independent political force you wholly control comes in very handy. Basically, Soros is the embodiment of the evil globalist conspiracy in the flesh, if you believe in that sort of thing. -- Peace and much love...