It was a very difficult task she took on. Dozens of politicians who want to remain because they have their dirty little pockets to line. Regardless of who ever takes over next, I am not sure what they are going to do. Even though the British public voted out, and the EU polls are just about to prove that we are more Brexit than ever, the Lib Dems are still fighting to stay in. Perhaps, just perhaps, if politicians had any interest in democracy, we would have already left. I want Gove, but I think it may well be Boris next.
Posts by Bibbles
-
-
Well, we all know she will be leaving by the end of the year, and whilst I didn't actually want her as PM, I don't really understand what she has done wrong. Unlike so many other MP's she tried to deliver Brexit albeit she was a remainer. It sickens me to the core that there are MP's who have no respect for democracy, and this includes the entire Lib Dem party. OK, she hasn't managed to get it through, but when you have so many different opinions on what is right for the party, and so few politicians being prepared to give a little, I'm not sure if anyone could have done better. Perhaps we need a political system that is a little more autocratic ?
The real fact is that none will ever actually know if she has or hasn't been a good PM, because she hasn't really been given the opportunity. If the woman has any sense she will take some of her enormous wealth, travel the world and find herself a toy boy.
-
Display MoreI think the intention to create new rules on Muslim Hate or Islamphobia deserves more depth of consideration than Dribbles choosing to educate us on the meaning of phobia. Besides which, her definition of racism (“someone who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit”) is in itself pretty superficial, blindingly obvious, if not plain dumb. I say that because one of the consequences of stereotyping is that it can lead to an irrational fear that a specific individual black guy (not a segment) is going to knife you and this somewhat conflicts with or erodes one’s perception of that person’s individual merit. Does Dribbles even understand the meaning of The exception proves the rule”?
Dribbles says it is possible to be a racist without having a fear or dislike of Islam. I would say it’s more than possible. Or as Bill Bill Broonzy once sang (when queuing up for a daily employment in the Depression – and long after): if you’re white, it’s alright, if you’re brown stick aroun’ but if you’re black get back get back get back. It’s also possible, perhaps entirely rational, to have an exaggerated fear of Islam (for Dribbles when does exaggerated and irrational part company in describing a phobia?). Personal estimated probabilities (the basis for stereotyping) are, almost by definition, intuitive and loaded with attitudes, fears, assumptions, prejudices). So I need Dribble’s definition of phobia like an “oh” in the head.
I suppose I should thank Dribbles for a world tour of perceived National stereotypes that lead to unfair accusations of racism. It plagiarises my explanation (no harm in that, there are worse traits) but it’s a shame Dribble’s version is more about examples than about explanation. Dribbles misses the point when saying the cited examples of racist generalisations are statistically true and therefore contradict those who insist that one nation or race is not better than another. Both beliefs are incorrect. Hasn’t Dribbles heard of “probability”? For example, I could find that Dribbles has a personal set of demographic, ethnic and psychographic characteristics that represent a 3 times higher chance (9%) than the population as a whole (3%) of being a child molester or arsonist or socially unhinged to a sectionable degree. Should I steer a wide berth around Dribbles or just take this still small probability “under advisement”, study Dribbles’ demeanour more carefully, ignore Dribble’s threat “don’t make me angry” as just childish rather than psychotic, and rely on my own judgement or intuition. Risk taking is part of living.
As for Dribbles introducing such an interesting subject as racism and then arriving at a self- assessment that is as profound as Popeye’s “I am what I am” I can sum up my feeling in one character fewer that that used by Dribble …….
O
Thank you for your post "casaplonker"
-
Display More
Terror police warn against new rules on Muslim hate May 15 2019 The Times
Could make it illegal to criticise Muslim traditions, leader of Britain’s police chiefs has warned.
Anti-terrorist operations hampered if May bows to pressure for an official definition of Islamophobia
Sadiq Khan is in favour of the new rules to redefine Islamophobia and make it illegal.I'm sure this will happen. It could be Theresa May’s finishing touches to her legacy, the great practical joke that the Tory party gifted to the nation when choosing this excuse for a human being as “a safe pair of hands”
Needless to say, it has the full support of Sadiq Khan
This is ratcheting up the definition of racism. The only way for white British citizens to be cured of racism will be a lobotomy, voluntary or otherwise.
I think if Parliament moves swiftly the new rules could be enshrined into law with great speed, possibly as soon as say 10 years from now.
In the interim period there can be provisional laws so that Great Britain can put into practice this New Anti-Islamophobia Enlightenment. I would predict the following new no-no’s / forbidden utterances / possible insinuations / implied notions – and remember here that it isn’t what you mean by what you say, it is what other people might think you mean, and it isn’t necessarily what they think you mean, it is what the Sadiq Khans of this world decree some people might think that’s what you mean.
So the following utterances or insinuations or implied or misunderstood notions will become verboten:
- I’m not sure Britain is quite ready for Sharia Law
- Why does she walk behind her husband?
- It must be terribly hot wearing that Burka
- I gather the police have evidence that 75% of all acts of Terrorism in Britain are Muslim-related
(you can have this charge against you reduced if you add “…I’m sure that can’t be true”- I don’t mind a few minutes of church bell ringing but having to hear just down the road from me a call to prayer 5 times a day is a bit much
- Enquiry to butcher: do you have any meat that isn’t Halal?
- If they are going to stone their wives, I wish they’d do it indoors
- Has your son returned from his Isis gap year?
- Oh, really? (in response to “some of my best friends are Muslim”
Conclusion? Saudi 1, Britain 0, Mission Accomplished, EU to follow
Firstly, in answer to casablanca's post, "oh"
Firstly, Islamophobia is an oxymoron. A phobia is an irrational fear, and having a fear of people who inherently enjoy running innocent pedestrians over in vans, and blowing up kids at a pop concert, can hardly be described as "irrational". Of course, not all Muslims take part in these atrocities, but it's also fair to say not every crocodile has bitten off a humans leg. Having a fear of a UK indigenous spider, the colour red, or a banana is an irrational fear, not Islam.
When ever the word racist is mentioned it's rarely very long before we start talking about Islam and all the positivity it offers our society. I quite often wonder how we managed to survive before it hit our shores. The liberals who defend Islam, probably would have attempted to stop us bombing Berlin in the second world war, because most Germans were nice people. Anyway, moving on. Needless to say it is possible to be a racist without having a fear or dislike of Islam, although unlikely. Let's not forget, there are reasons to dislike other races. Afro Caribbean males are far more likely to commit crime than indigenous white males, and the vast amount of knife crime is black on black. East Europeans have held our wages back, and Romanians eat our swans. Nigerians specialise in fraud, and Somalians will slit your throat of a loaf of bread. Apparently to believe this is to be racist, although there is statistical fact that these generalisations are true. We are constantly told that one nation or race is not better than another, but we know this complete bo110cks.
Now, despite everything I have said, I will happily befriend a person from the Eastern block, Somalia, Nigeria, and I would even have a beer with a Muslim (that was a joke). IN SHORT, I REFUSE TO BE TOLD BY ANYWAY, WHO I HAVE TO LIKE, AND WHAT I HAVE TO THINK. If this makes me a racist, so be it !!
-
I was trying to define racism. Your single-sentence definition is great as a general principle but only if you can define merit and I would contend you cannot. Irrespective of whether the relationship under consideration is social or commercial you cannot define merit in a way that is entirely free of subjectivity, measurability and estimated probability. It's the reasons and emotions that lie below such simple statetements that reveal the degree of racism,if any.
It's a profoundly interesting and important subject and if, after my 600+ words trying to think it through and be as honest as possible with the subject and with myself, all I end up with is a 1-line wisecrack about being given the benefit of the doubt, I've wasted my time
Oh
-
Display More
I gave my answer below yesterday evening but I noticed it didn't have a time against it, eg "20 hours ago". So I wondered if this was a FB program glitch or whether moderating was underway (in the great Times tradition!) and designed to give me the illusion that my posting was visible to all rather than just to myself.
So here it is again, unchanged. And it now says "a few moments ago", so maybe my paranoia is unwarranted!
***
I'll go along with Bibble's definition of racism: A person who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit.
Long ago I saw a sketch in London’s only satirical club The Establishment, owned by Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Jonathan Miller and Richard Ingram (of Private Eye). It showed a panel of 6 erudite men of influence being asked to spot the odd-man-out of three men. We, the audience, couldn’t see the 3 male subjects. We could only see and hear the odd-man-out criteria that were reeled off, eg “he’s wearing a double breasted suit, the other two are single breasted, no, it’s that he has a handkerchief sticking out of his breast pocket, the other two don’t, no, it’s that he has a plain shirt, the other two have striped shirts”. The list went on and on. After 20 points of distinction, the curtain was raised. The missing distinction was that one of the three male subjects was black, the other two were white. Nothing has changed!
That’s the problem, we have with racism. We can’t be honest.
My position is this. Until that individual’s merit becomes apparent, I cannot help –indeed, reserve the right, to have faint suspicions or expectations of that individual based on what I see and hear, whether it be their clothes, speech, table manners or a host of other observable factors, which will include their skin colour. Another more perjorative word for "expectation" is stereotyping. Equally bad if you’re black and walking down a street near bars and clubs is “profiling”, the modus operandi of the police in tackling crime committed disproportionately by black people, eg knife attacks.
But don't get over-excited. Stereotyping or profiling is still just a probability exercise, a working or provisional hypothesis based on evidence or experience. To avoid the unfairness, indignity and oppression, this stereotyping needs to be reconciled with Bibble's definition of racism, which is an insistence on giving that victim of stereotyping the benefit of the doubt. So we must keep that hypothesis to ourselves and suspend judgement until that hypothesis is confirmed. Even then, we should refrain from turning that hypothesis into an extremely high probability predictor until having built up enough examples. There will never be enough examples to make it a 100% predictor - the exception will always prove the rule …..since, after all, the rule is that there are always exceptions.
But whether it’s selling cars or political parties or holiday destinations, target segmentation has been in operation since market research at the beginning of the 20th century. Long ago, the success of Harvey’s Bristol Cream in Britain was based on the unspoken strategy of Spanish Sherry Without The Flies. That’s how Spain was perceived all those years ago.
We go through life making decisions based on probability, whether it’s choosing shares or a partner for life. Experience, whether biased, impressionistic or strictly evidential, leads us to expect Italian men to be excitable, sensitive, narcissistic and smartly well dressed. Jews to be shrewd about money and somewhat flashily dressed. Arabs to want bribes and overcharge and expect us to bargain for a better deal. Young blacks from Jamaica or St Vincent to have an above average tendency to rob and/or knife me (but have a great sense of rhythm which makes for good jazz but lousy driving (Hamilton being that glorious exception to the rule). Rednecks from Mississippi are more likely to be sympathetic with the Ku Klux Klan. And so on and so forth. Anyone who insists that these tendencies are entirely without foundation and without evidence is in denial. All we can do is give the benefit of the doubt and accept that the exception is the rule.
So you tell me Bibbles: am I racist?
I think you kind of said the same thing as me. I would say no, but of course, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt
-
Just to say how proud we should all be that two English sides have reached the Champions League final, and how wonderful it will be if Spurs win it. Oh, my flights and accommodation are booked, and Thursday my ticket will be ordered. In actual fact, although retired, I am attempting to find part time work to pay for the trip.
-
To answer the question in the title, no I am not racist.
Lucky you don't see life in black and white, isn't it ?
-
Because a government only lasts 4/5 years.
Again, this is not eugenics, but a completely different subject. You start off talking about the underclass producing loads of children and have now jumped to bumping off the elderly.
Technically speaking, any attempt to change the natural course of nature is eugenics. Of course, that's not how most people view it though. Going back to my suggestion though. A certain criteria should be met prior to obtaining a license to breed. This, accompanied by various other factors will eventually improve the quality of human being. This may sound shocking, but we are happy improve the standard of dog, cat, and farm animal, but for some strange reason society is prepared to let the quality of our own breed go down the pan.
-
Firstly, I be believe this to be a different thread to "The great debate on immigration, race and religion in the UK". This isn't about what is best for the UK and society, it's about YOU.
I would kindly ask that nobody copies and pastes the dictionary definition, because I think we all know what it is. If we used the actual definition, I think it's fair to say that 99% of the population are indeed racist. I will therefore give you my definition of a racist, and allow you to expand otherwise
My Definition - A person who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit.
Well, that's it really. I don't see any problem with anyone who has formed an opinion on any race through their own experiences. To generalise is to be human. You see, in the snowflake world you can not say you dislike any particular race, because it will take them seconds to say "they can't all be bad people", which to be fair is true. That said, that's a bit like saying crocodiles aren't dangerous because there is one in London zoo that is a bit of a softy. You see, I am prepared to give any individual a chance, and I will befriend almost anyone if I like them. I don't care about their colour or their nationality, and I don't care about their religion, but that doesn't mean I have to like their race in general. I believe as individuals we should always attempt to get on, but am sensible enough, and long enough in the tooth to know it isn't easy.
Now, put this thread on a left wing site and I will have ANTIFA knocking down my door, put it on an extreme right wing site, and they will accuse me of being an enemy to the state. You see, I don't consider myself a racist, but am not offended if others do.
So what do you think?
-
The crazy thing is that nine out of ten people (at least) believe political correctness is a daft concept and has gone much to far. However, as the UK's snowflakes, and the BBC think otherwise, we continue to get more and more PC by the day. It's fashionable for a certain generation to become offended on another persons behalf, but when asked they try and convince you they are offended themselves. Sorry, but they are lying bastards. I tried to bring my son up as a right wing bigot, very much like myself, but failed badly. In fact, I was doing quite well until he went to university. As well as being brainwashed by the uni establishment, he met a rather plain looking girl who was obviously brought up in a Guardian reading household. Twelve years down the line he still lives with her, and still thinks multiculturalism is a great idea, and uses the word "diversity" on a regular basis. Whilst I love him, any more than a few hours of his company and I want lock him in his room. For anyone who actually thinks PC is a good thing, please let me say this. I do not condone bad behaviour, and I do not condone being rude or impolite to anyone unless they deserve it. In short, not being PC does not mean you are either uncourteous or open minded.
-
I don't know how you judge let alone justify whether an animal has as much right to live on this planet as humans. Rights have to be earned. I don't agree that a pigeon that frequently shits on my car or a mouse that eats internal electricity cables that cost hundreds of pounds to rewire or a mosquito that causes malaria or worse or a munkjak that eats the bark of a small tree and kills it when it cost me £200 to buy and £100 to plant, or a seagull that swoops down and grabs a sandwich I'm eating, .... or .... or .... - I'm not sure their rights exceed mine and when those clash in the way I've described, I think it's time to be a bit nuanced about how we define rights.
As for my psychotic hatred of pigeons, it's an exception to the rule underpinned with a good reason, but you'll just have to live with my revelation without explanation. But hey, thanks for your suggestion that I may require help. Are you offering your services? As one psychotic to another, I'd probably think twice before enlisting the help of a psychiatrist whose slogan is "don't make me angry" - I mean, gosh, it took all my courage to even reply!
I think in real life, we would have a scream
-
The latest scientific concept is to regard dying of old age as an illness and therefore treatable. The implication sounds a bit contradictory; but there is no suggestion of looking for a treatment or elixir for immortality. I think the true implication, the medical science aim, is that we keel over suddenly, like Duracell bunnies rather than Tesco own label batteries. I vaguely recall George Bush died at a ripe old age but did parachuting up until a year or two before he conked out.
If science can achieve that we'll have to think even more seriously and ruthlessly about eugenics. We can start by culling MP's, estate agents, NHS administrators, social workers, receptionists, people who feed pigeons, those who want to attend the call for prayer 5 times a day, anyone in politics who says "let me be perfectly clear" or "there are lessons to be learnt", customer service managers, kids in university who feel oppressed, boatloads of immigrants coming our way ..... add a few more categories and we will have solved or arrested for the time being population overcrowding and climate change.
may I add to your list
People who use the word "overly", and those who say "can I get" instead of "may I have". People who genuinely believe multiculturalism is a workable concept, and frequently use the word "diversity". Members of CAMERA who pop into pubs, order a half of bitter, and then complain it is to cold. Parents who have no control over their children, and then say "they are just being kids". Dog owners who don't pick up the mess.
Back to the subject in hand though. Every government I can remember only has a short term plan. They want us all to live healthy lives, because if we don't there is a good chance we will cost the NHS money in the next twenty years. Logically, it is better we all have a poor diet, drink and smoke loads. The longer we live, the more it will cost the government in eventual NHS costs, care home fees, and pensions. This isn't to mention the additional taxes they will raise. My plan to euthanize people at a given age is virtually faultless, because as well as giving people the opportunity to plan their finances, retire early, and live out some of their bucket list, they have the opportunity to live a poor life style without it killing them. For the individual and society, euthanasia has to be the way forward. Of course, it won't happen because society has to be seen as being emotive, rather than logical. We always have to put the individual first, and society second. Madness in my mind, but true non the less
-
Although this was recorded a few years ago, here is the proof of their aims:
Islam Labour MP wants a Muslim Prime Minister and Parliament in Westminster
Snowflakes and lefty liberals believe it is a badge of honour having a Muslim in a senior position. Ironically enough the same people hate everything they stand for.
-
Display More
I always assumed you were female but, I hasten to add, this was not a prejudicial stereotype. if anything quite the contrary (you sure don't take prisoners!) So I was stunned when Nerd referred to you as male - I wondered what he knew that I didn't.
I think you summed up your position a year ago when you said "it is the demanded methods of slaughter that I object to. I would say the same about any religion that put ideology before animal welfare". I assume you are defining an ideology as a thought or concept that has no morally justifiable significant worth or measure of safety to the human human race.
It offends me to see unnecessary cruelty to animals that are unharmful. Not simply because I'm grieving over what the animal has suffered but because of what it says about the sensitivity of human beings. Those who appreciate the pageantry or aesthetics or excitement or tradition of fox hunting or bullfighting are not the kind of people I want to know, let alone socialise with. I also feel uneasy about safaris where the customers are thrilled to see a lion or cheetah attacking and killing another animal. I know all about nature, red in tooth and claw, but why the excitement and fascination by human observers? In contradiction, I also admit to being irrationally brutally insensitive if not downright evil towards animals that I personally find revolting and/or a threat to my contented or civilised living. In the case of pigeons, who are in effect flying rats , one is too many and their appearance en-masse, makes me want to throw up. I plan to buy an air rifle not merely kill them but to do so inefficiently so that they die slowly and agonisingly. In the case of munkjak (or whatever they're called ..... miniature deer .... if I can't repel them I'd sadly shoot them because they chew the bark of newly planted threes or shrubs and how else do I develop my newly re-landscaped garden without going financially bust?
Kosher meat entails the same gruesome slaughter as that insisted upon by orthodox Muslims. There is no rational answer given by observant Jews and Muslims as to why they insist meat be slaughtered that way. They will give bogus rational excuses which make no sense and, in the end, they will admit it's a religious fundamental rule. I could just about tolerate the barbarism if the meat tasted better. The reality is that if you want a delicious medium rare sirloin, forget it, kosher meat is tasteless because it is near bloodless. Actually most savoury kosher food is dull tasting if not downright monotonous - glorious exceptions being salt beef, chopped liver, gefilte fish, chicken soup .....must go, I'm salivating!
It disappoints you can justify an animal's suffering because you don't like it. I am no fan of human beings, especially children, but to wish pain or suffering on them is just wrong. The animals you refer to have as much right to live on the planet as you or I. Yes, it is survival of the fittest, and if you have a rat infestation it's no good asking them to go away, because they won't. I have always believed that anyone who enjoys killing any creature or enjoys their suffering has something fundamentally wrong with them. Perhaps you may require some help.
What always makes me laugh is our concern there are too many of any particular specie. Too many badgers, dear, foxes, etc, when there are over 67000000 humans living in a small country . I think we should get our priorities right !
-
It's Islam now, but Christians were killing each other and others over many hundreds of years, so they're all as bad as each other, it just happens to be the spotlight is on Islam now thanks to 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, supposedly carried out in the name of that religion.
You said it yourself, "it's Islam now" and NOW is when we are living. The Roman's were pretty brutal, Napoleon was a bit of a Sod, and Hitler had his bad side as well. The point is none of those are alive now, but Islam is !
The world can no longer be conquered by force. Muslims are moving into every civilised country, and in many cases building and creating ghettos. They already have people in powerful positions, and I believe there will be a Muslim Prime Minister in my life time. After all, even London has a Muslim Lord Mayor, and what's he like
-
If people are healthy and happy in their mid 70s, I see zero chance that they would want to be bumped off, especially if they have kids/grandkids to look out for.
Interesting that you talk about trimming the tree from both ends, especially after I just mentioned the royal family. Scum comes in all demographics, what about the rich?
Does eugenics only apply to those on benefits?
I believe those who can give to society should give to society, and that includes many people who have disabilities. The vast majority of people with money pay taxes, with exceptions to criminals, who we have discussed already. The problem is Horizon you see death as a negative thing, I don't. Having lived 70/75 years and had a good retirement is a good innings. It's only in relatively recent years we see such people as being younger than they really are. It's crazy that we allow people to get less and less mobile, and then suffer all sorts of horrible diseases, only to die in misery. Great for the care home business, terrible for the NHS
-
Murdering people just because they reach a certain age is not the way to go and would never become an acceptable option. Better to prevent certain births to begin with.
but then we are encouraging an older population. My thread is all about stopping the underclass from producing, but surely the tree needs trimming from both ends. If it were made voluntary, I am sure many people would choose to retire at 55 on a good pension in the understanding they were euthanized at 70/75. I am 61, and would take that option now
-
What a lovely dog. I'm sorry about her cerebral palsy.
By the way, if you fancy it, you can post the youtube link and that will them embed the vid directly into here.
here it is
-
I think all religion is intolerant, personally, and I would love to see the end to it all and then there would be no reason for the current PC laws we have to abide by and which are getting worse as each day passes...
Religions vary greatly. Islam is by far the most unforgiving and intolerant. Some snowflakes make reference to the old testament, but how many Christians live their lives around it ?
-
Is that supposed to be humorous 'banter' (that's the usual excuse for implying women are only good for menial jobs!). If not, when did you realise you were a chauvinist?
If I were a chauvinist I wouldn't own my own wife
-
The buzz concept these days is climate change and the urgency of doing something now before it's too late. It's all about us humans having a smaller footprint on this delicately balanced planet. Yet no one is willing to propose the more obvious solution, of fewer footprints rather than just smaller ones. Sterilisation, birth control, vasectomies, upper limit on child allowances and state subsidised accommodation ....... all of which is rational and necessary, which means that a sooner or later the debate has to progress to which segments of the population should have a fewer number of footprints. Societal merit - actual or potential - is bound to figure in the debate and that will be the point where the knee jerk reaction will be to scream "eugenics!". So we could start with them!
If there is a God up there I'm sure he is thinking "I never thought it would take so long for these earthlings to realise that is the only long-term solution, unless they want to head slowly to oblivion with a Soylent Green lifestyle".
Occasionally God helps us along with eugenics of his own, for example, in ensuring that Theresa May can't have children. I wished He had done that with her mother!
A well worded post. It all appears so obvious to me, but society seems to be hell bent on doing exactly the opposite. The government want us to stop eating anything we like, smoking, and drinking alcohol, in order we can all live to 110. The government still pays out child allowance, and parents are giving little Suzie a pat on the back for producing her third child at the age of 15. The problem is that our ageing population is forcing us to produce more human beings in order we can support the old ones.
I am a firm believer that everyone should be given a good pension at the age of 55, and euthanized around 70/75. Just think about it, less chance of dying from a painful illness, the opportunity to say good bye to everyone and plan your money. The state would save an absolute fortune, and although peoples lives may be a little shorter, they could have a nice retirement at an age they could enjoy it. Will it ever happen, will it heck !!
-
There are lots of reasons for banning the word, not least search engines define this word as pejorative against Muslims and this site can lose rankings as a result.
The matter is closed and I will not discuss it again.
Here is strange word for you all. "Islamophobic". I believe this word is an oxymoron, and this is why. "Phobia" means an irrational fear, does it not? Islam is a religion that preaches intolerance, violence and fear, so can having a fear of it be a phobia ? Oh, I have managed to read the first 50% of the Koran, so feel qualified to make such a statement !
-
Just to correct the statement above.
Please read the posts instead of just accepting the Nerds outright lies about me, and my comments! He is so lacking in observation that he didn't even notice that I am female, so not much chance of him getting much else right either!
To be fair, females rarely post on political forums. I am an open minded chap and welcome people from all three sexes on this forum. That said, can you make sure the housework is done before you make a post, thanks
-
Hence my suggestion about sterilisation? How else would you do it? But olduknerd's suggestion is the most rational one to go down, but if that fails, then what?
I suppose Napalm would be considered a tad harsh ?
-
Nationalising it in 1946 was a good idea, it created a nationwide standardised system and centralised control of safety. The UK railways became the safest in the world when they were state owned, and enabled all sorts of social mobility. The problem was coal became expensive, and the entire network needed shifting to electric.
Also, its clear that you cannot run any rail at a profit. Even now they are privatised, we still subsidise the tracks. So whats the poitn of that. We pay to maintain the tacks, so the private trains make a prifit for the sharholders? Thats fucked up. We want to recoup the cost of paying for the tracks, therfore we need that profit the tran compoanies are making. That or the tran companie sneed to start apying a massive levey each year to maintian the tracks. They current setup means the taxpayer is simply lining the pockets of private shareholders, which is not acceptable.
I agree with what you say, but I am going to be devil's advocate. We could buy back all the train companies at a cost of billions and billions of pounds. We could then invest the money necessary to make the railways efficient, but again at the cost of billions and billions of pounds. I accept the fact we don't just have a crap train service at a high price, we also pay tax for it, but on the other hand, the cost of nationalising them again is out of reach.
-
well not just hounds and bulldogs, all sorts of specialisations took place, creating a basic of 'breeds' by naturalk selection. The dogs now bred as Terriers, small compact muscular dogs, evolved to hunt underground mammaals liek rabbits and ferrets. Then we came along and messed them up.
Still nice to give a dog a cuddle though, isn't it ?
-
See the thread entitled 'horses'.
Dogs diversified from wolves, about 140,000 years ago, but also then slowly diversified into natural 'breeds' - you can find paintings of what are hounds and bulldogs made in the 17th century, long before breeding took place, they look a lot different to todays hounds and bulldogs. It was human intervention that caused chaos and damage.
Not sure why hounds and bulldogs decided not to breed with other dogs without human intervention. I would also suggest we had something to do with the diversification from wolves to dogs. Anyway, I love dogs, and haven't been without one for many many years. That said, we have done some pretty awful things, albeit with good intention
-
Oh it wasnt short sighted. Wilson knew Beeching was a road builder. Its was a deliberate act of sabotage. Beeching was specifically picked because it was known he would do a hatchet job on the railways. He wanted to eliminate the competition so he got a slice of the contracts to build more roads.And Wilson wanted an excuse to get rid of as much of the financial burden the railways represented to the government as possible
I agree with what you have said, but am with Horizon on this. Bad decisions were made, and as a result our transport infrastructure has suffered. Nationalising the railways was a good short term move, but long term madness. Regrettably the government can not afford to get the railways back, and they certainly can't afford to invest the money necessary in order it becomes the system we need
-
Display More
The simplest solution for those peopel you describe - and you see them on every council estate - is withdrawal of support.
After say 5 years on the dole, your do0le money stops for 10 years, and you are given a job in a government run place of work. Not private run, government run. We've see the corrupt way the private run providers operate - companies like A4E ( i worked for them for 3 months as a 'tutor', i left when i saw what a dishonest sham it was). if you dont turn up for work, you dont get paid. Simples. After two years, if you have a good work record, you get a bonus and a good reference.
The trickier one is people who cant work cos they really are ill. Weve gone from paying anyone who turns up with a splint in thier finger to cutting off people who genuinely used to be able to work but now cant. There has to be a middle ground between those who really want to go back to work but cant atm due to illness, and those idle good for nothings out to milk or defraud the system.
Then you get the Tenants from Hell (and I include private tenants). Anyone that has to be evicted out of a rented house (private or council) because of antisocial behaviour, is automatically disqualified from council assistance. If they have kids and they are thus homeless, then the kids need taking off them to protect them.
Far too many 'rights' have been given to scum, like Travellars, who can flout the law and be a nightmare to decent people - like pitching up on a village green or sports ground and leaving thousands of pounds worth of damage. People need the right to have them thrown off the land in hours, and then have assetts siezed from them (such as vehicles and caravans) to recoup costs.
And while we are on the subject, you should have, as in the USA, the absolute right to take whatever measures you deem necessary to deal with an unlawful intruder in your house, including lethal force. Take the case of Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for killing a travellar burglar. His first mistake was to not chase the other burglar and kill hi m as well, which is what I woudl have done. Then next morning ,dig a big hole with the JCB (remember thius was a farm) in the bottom field, chuck the bodies in, cover them up and forget about it. Its not like you are going to get some Traveller woman knocking on yoiur door 6 weeks later saying "Excuse me, have you seen my Brendon, have you? He came to burgle you 6 weeks ago and we havent seen him since"........and then his seconf mistake was to phone the police and admit what really happened, thinking the police were going to be sympathetic. OFC they wernt, all they are intersted in is convictions, they turn up at a scene and the first thing they think is "Right who can we nick and for what crimes", and right or justice doesnt enter into it.
I agree with all of that, but way would eliminate the initial problem, so your measures wouldn't have to be put into place. That said, your measures would make a great short term plan.
Regrettably, our countries politics do not, and has never represented the will of the people, and that's why I respect Trump. Example, the majority of the people would re-introduce capital punishment, execute Travellers, and think gay marriage is bonkers, but what have we got instead ?