Barry, Martin, your thoughts please on the above?:)
Marco.
Printable View
Barry, Martin, your thoughts please on the above?:)
Marco.
I'll replay later - I'm having trouble posting lengthy posts on the laptop at the moment: I get 'Securi Firewall' failure to post warnings. :(
house of lords is often a stablising force although, yes its a trough like all politics is. i am not sure the govt should pick any more than the opposition, and maybe a picked crew from the commoners
Yes, I know, but does it have to be a stabilising force, full of stuck up, chinless wonders?
Marco.
Okay then first off they are not all 'upper-class 'hoity-toities', people from any background can be ennobled and there is a maximum of 92 hereditary (aka 'hoity-toity') peers allowed to be in the HoL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I've met a couple of Lords who were Labour life peers. They weren't from the gutter but they certainly weren't upper class.
Plus there's nothing necessarily wrong with the hereditary peers, you have the concept of noblesse oblige to take into account.
I wouldn't class Boris Johnson as an 'authoritarian' politician - quite the opposite in fact, but I suppose he could still surprise me. I also doubt that he has many pals in the HoL which is possibly why he's just put a couple in there...
you will never get rid of the old boys club, the old school tie and all that so I wouldn't bother. Everyone, everywhere, at any level, does favours for their mates. It's an intrinsic part of life. Obviously misuse of public funds when doing so is wrong, but that is already illegal. You might argue there is not enough scrutiny of that though, and I'd agree.
I think that compared to the vast majority of countries in the world we do have a fair and just society. It's all relative I suppose and there's always room for improvement. But in comparison our system works, Royal Family and all, and if it's not broke then don't fix it; you could create all sorts of unwanted outcomes.
Personally I've no interest in becoming a social justice warrior. In the first place there's already far too many of them, and in the second place they are often total dicks.
As for fixed terms, it's not a good idea in general.. The great thing re lords is once ur on your in.
You can promise the govt etc that you'll vote for their policies but once there you can just do what u want. They can't deselect you.. Afaik
So to prevent the membership ever increasing, you have to have a 'one dead, one new member' policy?
I think a fixed duration of tenure of say 15 to 25 years is ample, for members to do their job.
Regarding the concept of noblesse oblige, I doubt if applies to some of the current hereditary peers. Why should anyone who is conceived in the 'right bed' inherit unearned privilege and status?
Exactly... Excusez-moi, pour mon français, but FUCK THAT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
I'll reply properly later to Martin, but one of the things I *deeply abhor*, and that irks me beyond belief, is the elitism [born from a financial status-orientated, unjust class system] that's rife in British politics, and UK society as a whole.
You should be 'entitled' to FUCK ALL, in terms of privileges or special treatment, in any walk of life, unless you've earned it, fairly and squarely. Social status/background or class simply shouldn't come into it, only hard work and natural ability.
In that respect, there are WAY too many in-bred, brainless hooray-henries/do-next-to-fuck all [but earn plenty] chinless-wonder hanger-on-ers, occupying top positions in business and politics today, who've got there solely through WHO they know/are, not WHAT they know, and that unfortunate situation needs immediately and grossly redressed!
Marco.
Well, that's 92 too many, IMO, unless they've EARNED the right to be there, not simply inherited it through status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Good stuff. Well then, we need more like them in the HoL, and less snooty, out of touch, hoity-toity fucks.Quote:
I've met a couple of Lords who were Labour life peers. They weren't from the gutter but they certainly weren't upper class.
Fair enough, and I agree about BJ.Quote:
I wouldn't class Boris Johnson as an 'authoritarian' politician - quite the opposite in fact, but I suppose he could still surprise me. I also doubt that he has many pals in the HoL which is possibly why he's just put a couple in there...
I wasn't saying, per se, that HE was authoritarian, but rather that many government policies are, instigated by both the Tories and Labour, but particularly the Tories - as indeed we've seen, in terms of how the current pandemic has been used by the government as a convenient excuse to surveil and impose more control upon the population, and IMO, in some circumstances, unjustifiably remove people's civil liberties.
You can't get much more 'authoritarian' than that!
WHY...?? Is there some 'unwritten rule' I'm unaware of, which prevents that and makes them untouchable?:hmm:Quote:
you will never get rid of the old boys club, the old school tie and all that so I wouldn't bother.
Fuck that, if it were up to me, I'd all send them all tumbling down to where they belong!:trust:
Indeed, but THAT doesn't make it right, nor preclude one from having a desire to fix it.Quote:
Everyone, everywhere, at any level, does favours for their mates. It's an intrinsic part of life.
Indeed... And so why do you think that is, I wonder...? Could it be 'conveniently' covered up, simply to protect the best interests of those misusing them?? If so, that DEFINITELY needs scrutinising!Quote:
Obviously misuse of public funds when doing so is wrong, but that is already illegal. You might argue there is not enough scrutiny of that though, and I'd agree.
Well, I consider that it's fundamentally broken in MANY different ways, and that situation will remain, as long as there exists such an immoral and obscenely unequal division of wealth in our country - and THAT sad state of affairs shouldn't simply be shrugged off and accepted as 'the norm', but tackled HEAD ON and something done about it!!Quote:
I think that compared to the vast majority of countries in the world we do have a fair and just society. It's all relative I suppose and there's always room for improvement. But in comparison our system works, Royal Family and all, and if it's not broke then don't fix it; you could create all sorts of unwanted outcomes.
And just because we're doing ok in the UK, in terms of having a fair and just society, compared with other countries, doesn't mean that we should just sit back and not try and make things better.
Me neither, but it won't stop me pointing out what's wrong, or expressing a desire to do something about it - and trust me - if I had the necessary power, it'd do it in the blink of an eye!!;)Quote:
Personally I've no interest in becoming a social justice warrior. In the first place there's already far too many of them, and in the second place they are often total dicks.
Marco.
Say you did have the power, specifically how would you go about sorting the alleged 'obscene and immoral, unequal division of wealth in our country' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
The wealthiest 1% in UK are reckoned to be worth about 90 billion, which sounds a lot, but it isn't that much once you confiscate it and whack it out amongst the rest of us. It's about £1300 each.
You could spend it on infrastructure but it isn't even enough to pay for HS2.
So you might need to do some more 'levelling out' and go for the next tier of wealthy. How long before it gets to you and me? And pretty soon you effectively have communism and you're having to mine the beaches to stop us from trying to escape the nightmare.
Before I answer that, could you please answer this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Ta... I'd like to know EXACTLY what makes that/them so 'special'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Marco.
Plus, you haven't answered Barry's very good question from earlier either:
So if you could answer that one too, I'd be most obliged:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
Marco.
If Steve Smith gets his mate a job on the factory that's no different from Giles Caruthers-Stalin getting his pal a seat on the board. That's gone on since the dawn of time. The only difference is that Giles gets a load of SJW flack for it. Which he ignores of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
And Steve gets no flak because the average SJW has never been near a factory in their life and has no idea what goes on in them. And it's not going to be reported in the Guardian.
Who you know has always mattered in life, doesn't matter what social class you belong to. You can never change that. The optimal strategy is to accept it and do a lot of networking from an early age, stay in touch with people, be likeable and do favours whenever you can.
Being an angry loner I never did that of course but that's the advice I give my nephews.
Sure, BUT it doesn't mean that something couldn't still be done to address the situation, *if* the will and wherewithal were there. I'm afraid that I've never been one to shrug my shoulders and simply sit back and accept injustice, inequality or corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Even in the small ways it's affected me in my life, I've always stood up to it and fought it, and often as a result prevented it from happening again [plus punished those responsible] - and the same principle could be applied on a much bigger scale, if the person who wanted it had power to achieve it.
Principles matter greatly to me, and I've always been someone who's defended his to the hilt!
Yes you can, as I've said, WHEN there exists both a will and a way. You can change most things in life, *if* you're truly determined enough and able!Quote:
Who you know has always mattered in life, doesn't matter what social class you belong to. You can never change that.
Well, aside from not simply accepting it, apathetically [anything for a 'quiet life', etc], as you appear to be suggesting as the correct response, that's good advice. The highlighted bit could be viewed as a fortunate typo, however, if you're a closet loan shark... In that game, it's better being angry than placid!:D;)Quote:
The optimal strategy is to accept it and do a lot of networking from an early age, stay in touch with people, be likeable and do favours whenever you can.
Being an angry loaner I never did that of course but that's the advice I give my nephews.
Marco.
So could you answer Barry's earlier question now please?:)
Marco.
Why should anyone who is conceived in the 'right bed' inherit unearned privilege and status?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Not really specific enough to answer is it? Who are we talking about and what's the definition of privilege and status?
If it means nobility/royalty we have a Royal Family and hereditary peers because they are an inherent part of the nation's culture and identity. It's an intangible but often it's the intangible things that are most important. It's part of social cohesion. Humanity is tribal in nature, that operated on many levels but the nation is a 'super-tribe' as Desmond Morris put it. Makes sense if you view it at that level, at least to me anyway.
You have to have stability first, before you can start achieving anything, and that's what tradition and heritage contribute. You're not against tradition and heritage surely?
If we are just talking generally then it's just down to money and contacts. Money and contacts will buy or get you all sorts of privilege and prestige. So we stop all inheritances, no leaving money or property to your children, it all goes to the state and they have to start again from scratch?
And all children are taken away from their parents age 3 and sent to live in identical barracks, have exactly the same education and so on, just to make sure we have absolute equality of opportunity.
Even then you've still got the handicapped. All children would have to be physically handicapped in some way, lop of an arm or something. You couldn't have the same one for everyone, everyone couldn't be blind for example as society wouldn't be able to function. So it would still just be pot luck who gets what.
Then the blind kid is going to complain that he's less equal than the kid who just lost an arm and so on. You'd have to make the good looking ones ugly, and the tall ones shorter too. Hard work this making everyone equal lark.
Sorry but I don't think 99% of the population would give a flying frig if the house of lords were abolished, the royal family - well that would upset a few oldies, personally I wish the lot of them and their live reality show would just go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
House of Lords you probably right but the Royal family, especially The Queen, is still highly popular across all age groups and social classes. Anti-royalists are very much a vocal minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Ha - not in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland, especially if you're Catholic!:eyebrows:;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
And especially not if you knew what some of them get up to in the dark corridors of Fuckingham [the younger and more vulnerable the better] Peado-Palace....
Marco [a staunchly proud and passionate anti-royalist, for very good reason].
Indeed, but rather 'be put away' for the heinous crimes they and their ancestors have historically committed against humanity, throughout the centuries. Don't get me started on that one, though!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Marco.
True, people really are a bit dim aren't they? I mean all this talk about privilege, royalty is the ultimate privilege, and bang out of date. About time they were shown the exit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
:clapclapclap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Too bloody right, and also quite a few of the c*nts jailed!
Marco.
That's a reductio ad absurdum argument Martin. No-one is suggesting the able-bodied should be hamstrung to allow the disabled to have equal opportunity. Life is not fair - it's a lottery, we have to make the best of what we are dealt with. But there is something wrong when a candidate for employment is overlooked for another having poorer qualifications, simply because of the 'old boy network'.
Are the only stable countries in Europe those that have a constitutional monarchy? In what way are they part of social cohesion, apart from being an un-elected head of state, any more than an elected president?
It isn't meritocratic, often the gifted or qualified are hated by the hierarchy, and "Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability."
I think it's time Andrew signed on.
Still plenty though to eradicate homelessness, which in the 21st century is an obscene affront and embarrassment to a supposedly civilised society, in one of the richest countries in the world, and also put a decent dent into dealing with the terrible poverty situation that exists overall, here in the UK, and the vulgar unjustness of the huge divide existing between the 'have' and 'have nots'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Quite simply, *no* decent, law-abiding, working UK citizen should be forced to survive on food banks! And *no* UK citizen, of any description, should be forced to sleep on the streets.
And what London has been allowed to become [now a financial entity completely divorced from the rest of the UK] has played a big part in that! Therefore with some proper thought, the playing field, in that respect, could almost certainly be brought more level.
Especially (as I would do) couple it with taxing, far more heavily than currently, all the multi-millionaires and billionaires, here in the UK, along with removing their rather convenient tax perks (especially offshore), together with forcing them to donate a significant percentage of their annual disposable income to various selected charities.
Plus many other measures I'd take to ensure that the extremely wealthy were made to properly pay their dues (rather than most doing everything that they can to avoid it), and help the less fortunate.
That would have nothing to do with creating a form of communism, but rather it would be socialism correctly applied for the greater good of the majority of the population - exactly what a fairer and more equal society would be all about!:cool:
Marco.
It is reductio ad absurdum but that is a good logical exercise if you want to see whether a particular principle or course of action actually makes any sense. In this case it doesn't. You can't make the world fair and level for everyone, it simply isn't possible. Better to accept that life is a lottery, that some people get dealt better hands than others and that it's always going to be that way. Otherwise where does it end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
There's nothing in this post that I agree with and it also contains some assumptions that are not backed up with any facts but get trotted out all the time in any case:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
1) the idea that there is a serious 'poverty' problem in this country
2) The idea that super rich people don't pay tax
3) The idea that if they did pay more tax it would generate enough money to do anything worthwhile (income tax is only 25% of all tax revenue and there are not that many super rich) - and super rich people can always go and live somewhere else and pay us no tax, like they did in the 1970s
4) The idea that super rich people don't already make huge contributions to charity.
5) That London is a financial entity divorced from the rest of the UK
6) That Socialism doesn't create far more problems than it solves
That's not to say that things couldn't be done differently and I'd agree with your basic thrust on that one. But it requires a far more considered and complex approach as opposed to a simplistic, knee-jerk, 'tax the rich' reaction.
Fundamentally it isn't about dividing the existing cake differently but about having a larger cake to divide. And that happens with economic growth - a rising tide lifts all boats. Wealth inequality is not a problem in itself provided those on the bottom of the pile have sufficient. Since the effect of Socialism is to lower all boats no-one benefits and those on the bottom get the worst of it.
I was anti-monarchy when I was younger but I'm not now. You dismantle tradition and heritage and you dismantle society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeandvan
Would you want to be a Royal? So you have wealth and privilege, but you also have the relentless scrutiny and accountability. You can't live a normal life. I wouldn't swap with them for all the tea in China.
Scenario: Marco takes on a young girl to run his newly-opened sex boutique in Wrexham, and first thing she does is set up an elaborate window display using thousands of lights. Marco is not impressed by the increased electricity bills, but can't deny that the display attracts and brings in more customers than a simple "We have dildos" sign. The Royal Family is a bit like that.
Also it is true that people are dim. If the wealth redistribution did indeed provide everyone with about £1300, for a lot of our population this would mean a couple of ounces of weed and a new flat screen telly.
:scratch: What's the problem with that then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pigmy Pony
'Society' has never really been assembled and is busy dismantling itself further already. These days, it's an irregular rabble of factions that hate each other and would willingly resort to bloodshed at the slightest excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
There is nothing in that post which I agree with:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Macca
I didn't say that the hugely wealthy don't pay ANY tax; I said that many of them don't pay ENOUGH tax [given their obscene levels of income], and indeed practice tax AVOIDANCE, at every available opportunity, by taking advantage of 'perks' deliberately given to them by the Tories!
Therefore, I'd eliminate, or grossly reduce, their ability to avoid paying tax, by removing the perks that allow it. They should be forced to declare every penny that they make [instead of being given an opportunity to hide it] and taxed on it accordingly - and at a much higher rate than they are currently! So by the time I was finished, they'd be able to 'avoid' fuck all...
And if you can't see that there is REAL poverty in this country, then perhaps that's because you're too much of a fan of your own four walls and don't get out enough!:ner:;)
I can assure you, there's PLENTY of real poverty around, some of which I've seen first hand with my own eyes, whilst doing work for the church and helping the poor in deprived areas, especially whilst living in Glasgow, and also when Del has helped with charitable work carried out by Catholic nuns.
And of course, there's no greater form of poverty than not having a roof over your head and being forced to sleep on the streets - but of course you're 'conveniently blind' to that, too!:ner:
Just walk around any large town or big city late at night, and you'll see it for yourself - and that it's allowed to exist in this RICH and supposedly great country of ours, whilst others are wrapped up warm in their mansions, is a national disgrace.
Anyway it's probably best that, as usual on these subjects, we just agree to disagree:)
Marco.
Ha - very good... Except though that with that subhuman shower, the sign would read: "Jimmy Saville got his fix here - come in and check out our price list"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pigmy Pony
:trust:
Marco.
Hundreds of migrants still crossing The Channel by the boatloads, one lot today being Iraqis. Why is this being tolerated? They are not refugees, they are picky economic migrants looking for 'a soft touch'. Refugees seek a safe haven and the first border crossing into a strife free region offers that. So what was wrong with the dozen or so stable countries this lot passed on their way here? The military need to be dealing with this and using deterrent measures.
I wonder how they'd be treated if they arrived on Russian or Chinese or even Indian shores?
kinda difficult to stop bar blowing them up...the french obviously are turning a blind eye
Ex Home Secretary Alan Johnson was brought up in the Nottinghill Hill slums with somedays just bovril and dried bread to live on, thats REAL poverty Marco;
Too many people these days get addicted to alcohol, drugs etc then expect the state ( tax payers ) to bail em out when they fall into deprivation. A classic case being
my brother in law who after inheriting a flat in Hampstead worth 500,000 10 years ago is now a broken man with nothing, all through drugs abuse.
Getting people off the streets is not so simple either, Camden tried that the other xmas and around 75 % chose to stay where they were.
And I do feel desperately sorry for those of drug addicted parents for example who know little else but that lifestyle and end up going down the same route, it
must be incredibly tough. However it seems to me because of p/c ism were not allowed to make a judgement on people anymore for making crap decisions.:)
bovril.. lucky beggar
Famous football half - timer of course. Never tried it... or marmite !Quote:
Originally Posted by struth
Even luckier if you got a crust with dripping on to go with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by struth
(I ought to revive the 'Are You Knocking On a Bit' thread, but perhaps some of the contributors are no longer with us :))
Millionaire food eh[emoji23].Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
Marmite and dried bread was par for course in forces during war. Not to be sniffed at.. Filled and warmed. Better than some of the shit around
It's all relative, of course, and so depends on the individual, but with proper rehabilitation first (and that would be an essential part of the programme I'd introduce), and then if that was successful, the homeless individual in question would be provided with a residence of his or her own, together with food and provisions to survive, until such times as they were able to look after themselves, gain employment, etc, then I couldn't see many saying 'Nah, you're all right mate, I'll stick with my damp, piss-stained sleeping bag outside of McDonalds!';)
You need to try and give these people [those who *want* to be helped, and yes I accept that some won't] a PURPOSE in life, and the feeling that they're part of society, rather than alienated from it, largely as a result of having been shat upon from a great height by 'the system' - and if you can achieve that, coupled with better education for the poorest families, on all levels from the ground up, then you can properly make inroads into tackling the homeless situation, and poverty as a whole.
It's a very complex matter, of course, with no guarantees, but I reckon I could have a decent stab at it, if I had the power.
The problem is, no government so far has rolled up their sleeves and *properly tackled* the issue, as they don't give a flying fuck about society's 'down and outs' - they've all always been too focused on making money for the rich or looking after their own selfish best interests, rather than genuinely and fundamentally addressing poverty, and helping the underprivileged and downtrodden in our country enjoy a better life.
And one BIG thing that would help, in that respect (as I've said), is to better educate the poor and create a much fairer and more equal division of wealth, by imposing much higher taxes on the super-rich, plus removing current loopholes, facilitating their tax avoidance, together with making it mandatory that, collectively, they forfeited a substantial percentage of their annual disposable income, which along with the above and coupled also with some proper help from the government, would fund the measures I've outlined.
Oh, and also stop spending utterly OBSCENE amounts of money on all aspects of nuclear armament!:doh:
Marco.
I managed out with use of a visor yesterday, without much issue... So the govt have now said, your now not allowed to do that now either.. as I cant wear a mask im back stuck again.. I know ive an exemption but no one really knows that or cares and just abuse you.
Sick to death of all this chopping and changing rules.. if they had been sensible in the bloody beginning most of this would probably been behind us, plus all the young folk totally ignoring any distancing etc...
fcuk it.. fcuk it all.. rant over
Fuck what the government say mate, and just do what's best for you (within reason), as they've ZERO hope of enforcing any of that pish, especially on someone like you who clearly has health issues!:rolleyes:
Here in Wales, we're pretty much living life now as normal (no mandatory mask shite in shops, for starters), and everything relevant to us is open again.
Just back from the butchers, which was the usual, pleasant and friendly experience we're used to, as we know all the staff there well, and a shopping trip to Tesco, where the interior was beautifully cool and air-conditioned, and there was hardly any bugger there - bliss!:cool:
Marco.
As of midnight tonight, Preston is having some restrictions imposed, where you cannot visit family in their homes, although you can still meet them in the pub :scratch: I could see this coming when last week similar restrictions were imposed in Blackburn, Burnley etc the day before Eid. That didn't go down well. But the M65 between East Lancs and Preston I've renamed the Covid Corridor, and the result was inevitable.
It's been nearly five months since I've been round to my mates of a Saturday night, and tomorrow was to be the first time :( Bollocks to it all, I'm going anyway.
Above all mate, stay safe and take all sensible and *reasonable* precautions, as I'm sure you will, but it's not necessary to blindly 'dance to their tune', especially when as you've pointed out, some of their rules are contradictory and don't make much sense.
So do as you've always done, which is what your GUT says is right. Above all else in this situation, we MUST remain as free-thinkers, not robots, and retain our own powers of judgement accordingly... Oh and have fun:)
Marco.
Well I know he wants me to bring my cordless tools (circle saw, multi tool), so we can make an access hole on his kitchen floor. Also he'll appreciate having an audience to laugh at his piss-taking when his wife bangs on about car boots and antique/craft fairs :) Might even get a bit wasted, so you'll get no sense from me come Sunday.
Following the Beirut disaster, it's strange that nobody has mentioned the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, which sank in the late nineteen forties containing 1,400 tonnes of explosives, just off Sheerness in the Thames estuary.
The wreck holds about 2/3 in weight of explosive compared to the Beirut warehouse, but much of it is 'high explosive', as opposed to the simple ammonium nitrate at Beirut. It is unstable and unsafe and if it 'goes bang', which is perfectly possible, it will cause mayhem!
As with Beirut, officials and others say something about it occasionally, then it all goes quiet and everybody pretends it has gone away. It won't!
I'd never heard of it. Looks like they do monitor it pretty regularly though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery
According to a BBC news report in 1970,[15] it was determined that if the wreck of Richard Montgomery exploded, it would throw a 1,000-foot-wide (300 m) column of water and debris nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 m) into the air and generate a wave 16 feet (5 m) high. Almost every window in Sheerness (pop. circa 20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast. However, news reports in May 2012 (including one by BBC Kent) stated that the wave could be about 4 feet (1 m) high, which although lower than previous estimates would be enough to cause flooding in some coastal settlements
Looks like official 'Doctor Who' type slime.
I'd check there's not Sea Devils living in the pond if I were you.
Back when Dr Who was hide behind the sofa brilliant and not the woke PC utter bollocks is it today.