Bill Hook
October 3, 2003, 01:29 PM
http://www.chris-longhurst.com/cometobritain.html
Wow! I wouldn't want to live in the UK.
If you enjoyed reading about "Wow! I wouldn't want to live in the UK." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
agricola
October 3, 2003, 01:37 PM
some good points, mixed in with an altogether larger amount of nonsense.
Bill Hook
October 3, 2003, 01:40 PM
Which are the nonsense and which the good points?
Keith
October 3, 2003, 02:00 PM
What a hoot! I actually laughed out loud at some of that stuff. If this guy and my Scottish buddy ever got together, they'd probably work themselves into a frenzy, board a plane to London and just beat hell out of everyone they met!
Keith
Keith
KC
October 3, 2003, 02:29 PM
Wow, and I thought *I* was bitter about my government....d@mm....
MagKnightX
October 3, 2003, 02:40 PM
The Scorched Earth Party suggests beating 90% of the people in America to death with lead pipes. I think in Britain it's got to be more like 99%.
TarpleyG
October 3, 2003, 02:53 PM
join the other 1400 or so new illegal immigrants a day that flood into our country
They got nuthin on us.... Hell we get 1400 an hour...
GT
They got nuthin on us.... Hell we get 1400 an hour...
GT
sherm77
October 3, 2003, 03:02 PM
I'm not sure what the American stats are, but this seems awful high for a country of only 65 million people. I'm totally pro-gun-rights & Constitution, but would we really want these people to be able to carry guns? Sounds like they're using whatever they have available to hurt their fellow travelers.
excerpt:
A survey published by the RAC Foundation earlier this year discovered that more than 600,000 British drivers had been physically attacked during a road-rage incident and more than a million drivers had been deliberately rammed by another car.:what:
excerpt:
A survey published by the RAC Foundation earlier this year discovered that more than 600,000 British drivers had been physically attacked during a road-rage incident and more than a million drivers had been deliberately rammed by another car.:what:
Mr. Bombastic
October 3, 2003, 03:13 PM
sherm77, the bad guys who are willing to break the law to hurt people, are willing to break the law to use a weapon.
The question is, 'Should the good guys be allowed to defend themselves with weapons of their own'? Our government and other assorted tyrants think not.
The question is, 'Should the good guys be allowed to defend themselves with weapons of their own'? Our government and other assorted tyrants think not.
Keith
October 3, 2003, 03:25 PM
It's like those experiments they've done on rats. Enclose a bunch of them in a crowded cage and then start introducing various stresses and soon they begin killing each other.
And this is what you see in Great Britain. You no longer have control over your own life. You are under observation at all times on the streets. Your salary is sucked away by direct taxes or taxes on all the goods you need to survive. Everywhere you turn there's a new rule, regulation, tax, license or general prohibition.
And while all this is going on, those who refuse to follow any of the rules are given free rein - illegal immigrants, criminals, "yobs" do as they please - and if you object or defend yourself, you become the suspect, or a "criminal" yourself.
It's no wonder the British are becoming surly!
Keith
And this is what you see in Great Britain. You no longer have control over your own life. You are under observation at all times on the streets. Your salary is sucked away by direct taxes or taxes on all the goods you need to survive. Everywhere you turn there's a new rule, regulation, tax, license or general prohibition.
And while all this is going on, those who refuse to follow any of the rules are given free rein - illegal immigrants, criminals, "yobs" do as they please - and if you object or defend yourself, you become the suspect, or a "criminal" yourself.
It's no wonder the British are becoming surly!
Keith
dustind
October 3, 2003, 04:17 PM
I think the problem is people are not free and so they are acting out like children throwing a tantrum. Road rage is pretty much people acting out because the road is the only safe place for them to do it. It is a lot like the internet, you are safe and not as accountable for your actions, except on the net you can not harm someone.
Zedicus
October 3, 2003, 08:01 PM
The vast majority of this is true, some minor descrepencys as the guy is obviously annoyed.
Overall, it's the kind of article that the british gooberment dosn't want the rest of the world to see.
one point I rarely see mentioned is the mass closing of many police stations.
I live in a town with a population of around 190,000, they closed all of the police stations in the town then reopened the main station with a skeleten crew of usualy only 3-4 officers.
if you ever do need the police, they now have to come all the way from a city that is 30 miles from just the edge of town...
Personaly I feel very sorry for the police officers that were drop kicked with the massive downsizing of the police force, before that had happened, jobs were allready a rare thing.
Now Jobs are on the Endangred Spices list....
about the only jobs I see advertised anymore are either Overseas, In Holland, or are the Army/Navy...
The Other day I sat down and did some figures on income and the costs of living for both the UK & the US..
what I found was even worse than what I had expected, from my own figures I concentrated on what it would take in Income in the UK to meet the US Minimum Wage Income.
Once you account for all taxes and basic living expenses, It would take a Income of aproxamatly £27,000.00 a year to have the same level of Income as a Minimum wage "Burger Flipper" would in the US...:scrutiny:
Mind you, despite being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, Britain is proud to have a system of water, gas and electricity delivery systems that are so modern that they will stop working at the merest sign of cold weather. Pipes will burst, gas mains rupture and electricity cables come tumbling down. Apparently it's your fault for using the damned things. If they didn't need to deliver this pesky service to your house, there wouldn't be anything to break.
much of this I can personaly relate to, as an example, all of the water pipes in the town I live in are "lead" and probably 60-100+ years old (& the bottled water is only tap water in a bottle, so they can charge you £2-£4 for it), the phone lines are all atleast 50 years old, and many buildings still use the wireing that was installed when electric power was a new thing...:uhoh:
Overall, it's the kind of article that the british gooberment dosn't want the rest of the world to see.
one point I rarely see mentioned is the mass closing of many police stations.
I live in a town with a population of around 190,000, they closed all of the police stations in the town then reopened the main station with a skeleten crew of usualy only 3-4 officers.
if you ever do need the police, they now have to come all the way from a city that is 30 miles from just the edge of town...
Personaly I feel very sorry for the police officers that were drop kicked with the massive downsizing of the police force, before that had happened, jobs were allready a rare thing.
Now Jobs are on the Endangred Spices list....
about the only jobs I see advertised anymore are either Overseas, In Holland, or are the Army/Navy...
The Other day I sat down and did some figures on income and the costs of living for both the UK & the US..
what I found was even worse than what I had expected, from my own figures I concentrated on what it would take in Income in the UK to meet the US Minimum Wage Income.
Once you account for all taxes and basic living expenses, It would take a Income of aproxamatly £27,000.00 a year to have the same level of Income as a Minimum wage "Burger Flipper" would in the US...:scrutiny:
Mind you, despite being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, Britain is proud to have a system of water, gas and electricity delivery systems that are so modern that they will stop working at the merest sign of cold weather. Pipes will burst, gas mains rupture and electricity cables come tumbling down. Apparently it's your fault for using the damned things. If they didn't need to deliver this pesky service to your house, there wouldn't be anything to break.
much of this I can personaly relate to, as an example, all of the water pipes in the town I live in are "lead" and probably 60-100+ years old (& the bottled water is only tap water in a bottle, so they can charge you £2-£4 for it), the phone lines are all atleast 50 years old, and many buildings still use the wireing that was installed when electric power was a new thing...:uhoh:
Standing Wolf
October 3, 2003, 10:17 PM
# One in three British adults has been hit by crime in the past 12 months.
# Half of victims did not bother telling police because they knew it would be a waste of time.
# Of those who did report crimes, a 20% claimed the police failed even to respond.
# The number of criminals who were caught and punished was a paltry 13 per cent.
Sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union.
# Half of victims did not bother telling police because they knew it would be a waste of time.
# Of those who did report crimes, a 20% claimed the police failed even to respond.
# The number of criminals who were caught and punished was a paltry 13 per cent.
Sounds a lot like the old Soviet Union.
Bill Hook
October 4, 2003, 12:20 AM
At least the USSR gave some criminals a bullet to the back of the head and put a few more in gulags (along with political prisoners and innocent persons).
Orthonym
October 4, 2003, 03:27 AM
But let's have some sympathy for the poor Brits. Don't forget that they saved Western Civilization (and, arguably, the whole world) from horrible, despotic tyranny not just once, but THREE TIMES! First, the Frog-revolution Buonaparte lunacy: Second, the Willy Hohenzollern-#2 lunacy: Third, the Gefreiter-und-Fuehrer lunacy.
There are some UK Govt. bonds still being slowly paid off at this day, I believe, to retire debts incurred to defeat the Corsican bandit.
The Land of UK borrowed huge amounts of money from cold-blooded New York financiers to prosecute the Kaiser War, but was so exhausted by the struggle that she had to beg for relief. (Granted, ~1/2 graciously and ~1/2
grudgingly; after all, our commercial capitalist hearts aren't made ENTIRELY of stone!)
Then there was the war against the man with the ugly moustache and bad taste in uniforms. (Not to mention his eugenic ideas which, had they been applied to HIM, would have had him saying "How do you do?" to other naked people on the edge of the ditch, just before receiving the proverbial 9mm bullet in the back of the neck.)
Britain stood all alone from the Summer of 1940 until the Germans invaded the Red Rooskis in 1941. (Adolf and Uncle Joe were good buddies then). She held the bad folks off just BARELY long enough.
So. It's no wonder they're a little tired. Saving the world several times for ungrateful people might be just a bit wearisome, dontcha think?
There are some UK Govt. bonds still being slowly paid off at this day, I believe, to retire debts incurred to defeat the Corsican bandit.
The Land of UK borrowed huge amounts of money from cold-blooded New York financiers to prosecute the Kaiser War, but was so exhausted by the struggle that she had to beg for relief. (Granted, ~1/2 graciously and ~1/2
grudgingly; after all, our commercial capitalist hearts aren't made ENTIRELY of stone!)
Then there was the war against the man with the ugly moustache and bad taste in uniforms. (Not to mention his eugenic ideas which, had they been applied to HIM, would have had him saying "How do you do?" to other naked people on the edge of the ditch, just before receiving the proverbial 9mm bullet in the back of the neck.)
Britain stood all alone from the Summer of 1940 until the Germans invaded the Red Rooskis in 1941. (Adolf and Uncle Joe were good buddies then). She held the bad folks off just BARELY long enough.
So. It's no wonder they're a little tired. Saving the world several times for ungrateful people might be just a bit wearisome, dontcha think?
fallingblock
October 4, 2003, 03:50 AM
that the British expats here in Oz describe:eek:
No wonder they left!:D
No wonder they left!:D
Orthonym
October 4, 2003, 04:01 AM
I suspect that's why my ancestors came here. Were they prescient, do you think, or were they shipped out for being troublemakers?;)
Byron Quick
October 4, 2003, 06:55 AM
Man, if I was that guy...and I felt as he does...I think I'd find a job that didn't require travel to the UK.
fallingblock
October 4, 2003, 07:47 AM
"I suspect that's why my ancestors came here. Were they prescient, do you think, or were they shipped out for being troublemakers?"
************************************************************
Well, my own Scots ancestors cleared out of Britain shortly after the English 'pacified' the highlands, so in their case at least, they had some idea of life being better elsewhere :D .
The Indian raids on the frontier were probably tolerable after what they'd been through in the old country. :)
************************************************************
Well, my own Scots ancestors cleared out of Britain shortly after the English 'pacified' the highlands, so in their case at least, they had some idea of life being better elsewhere :D .
The Indian raids on the frontier were probably tolerable after what they'd been through in the old country. :)
agricola
October 4, 2003, 10:08 AM
points:
i) the Rail comments are mostly correct, aside from the fact that most strike action has been taken due to management cutting safety staff (like train guards). In the days of BR, they used to have gangs of men whose sole job it was to ensure that the trackway was clear and the signals were operating; problems were identified and dealt with way before they became problems. Privatization has brought a huge cutback in these staff, so that now they are contract workers only - with results shown at Hatfield and the recent derailment at Kings Cross.
ii) the Congestion Charge only applies in a small area of Central London, not London as a whole. Also £212,050,000 is NOT 2.12 billion pounds.
iii) speed cameras have had a massive reducing effect on deaths and injuries on the roads - largely because more than a few people still think that they are all Nelson Piquet and that they know what speed is safe, and dont slow down until they see a camera. The rest of the article is just a collection of Sun articles.
iv) the issue of Air Traffic Control is on the mark
v) with regards to illegal immigration, it should be pointed out that HMG actually stopped many immigrants from working legally, forcing them to either claim benefits or work illegally. Unfortunately, the likes of the tabloids seem determined to highlight benefit cheats as being typical, which is certainly not the case.
vi)
a)the James Bulger case was horrific, but its paralleled in many countries the world over and, more importantly, was a one-off. Ironically the reason why those boys were tracked down, arrested and convicted, was the presence of CCTV within the shopping centre from which the boy was abducted - systems which he opposes later on.
b) the caption "murdered for his cellphone..." is an outright lie of near Zedicus proportions. In the bottom left corner of both images is the word "Orpington", which is the name of the station at which the incident occured. Below is the story of what actually happened:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/5340361?source=Evening%20Standard
c) Martin was found, twice, not to have acted in self defence.
d) Police in cars are much better at responding quickly to calls than "bobbies on the beat". Foot patrol is much better at some things, but if you are getting your front door kicked in do you really want the Pc to walk half an hour to get to you?
vii) the privatization graph is bang on.
I will comment on the Gallup poll when I can find it. Much of the rest is just atypical Sun comment - over the top and incorrect.
i) the Rail comments are mostly correct, aside from the fact that most strike action has been taken due to management cutting safety staff (like train guards). In the days of BR, they used to have gangs of men whose sole job it was to ensure that the trackway was clear and the signals were operating; problems were identified and dealt with way before they became problems. Privatization has brought a huge cutback in these staff, so that now they are contract workers only - with results shown at Hatfield and the recent derailment at Kings Cross.
ii) the Congestion Charge only applies in a small area of Central London, not London as a whole. Also £212,050,000 is NOT 2.12 billion pounds.
iii) speed cameras have had a massive reducing effect on deaths and injuries on the roads - largely because more than a few people still think that they are all Nelson Piquet and that they know what speed is safe, and dont slow down until they see a camera. The rest of the article is just a collection of Sun articles.
iv) the issue of Air Traffic Control is on the mark
v) with regards to illegal immigration, it should be pointed out that HMG actually stopped many immigrants from working legally, forcing them to either claim benefits or work illegally. Unfortunately, the likes of the tabloids seem determined to highlight benefit cheats as being typical, which is certainly not the case.
vi)
a)the James Bulger case was horrific, but its paralleled in many countries the world over and, more importantly, was a one-off. Ironically the reason why those boys were tracked down, arrested and convicted, was the presence of CCTV within the shopping centre from which the boy was abducted - systems which he opposes later on.
b) the caption "murdered for his cellphone..." is an outright lie of near Zedicus proportions. In the bottom left corner of both images is the word "Orpington", which is the name of the station at which the incident occured. Below is the story of what actually happened:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/5340361?source=Evening%20Standard
c) Martin was found, twice, not to have acted in self defence.
d) Police in cars are much better at responding quickly to calls than "bobbies on the beat". Foot patrol is much better at some things, but if you are getting your front door kicked in do you really want the Pc to walk half an hour to get to you?
vii) the privatization graph is bang on.
I will comment on the Gallup poll when I can find it. Much of the rest is just atypical Sun comment - over the top and incorrect.
Byron Quick
October 4, 2003, 10:36 AM
Letting someone of that nature walk free is a travesty. I know such has happened here also. It's a travesty of justice here also.
agricola,
Are you familiar with that judge? What exactly does one have to do to reach his "custody level"?
agricola,
Are you familiar with that judge? What exactly does one have to do to reach his "custody level"?
agricola
October 4, 2003, 10:43 AM
byron,
i agree with you, i dont know the judge and i dont think anyone, including God, knows what goes on in their heads.
i agree with you, i dont know the judge and i dont think anyone, including God, knows what goes on in their heads.
Mk VII
October 4, 2003, 10:46 AM
privatisation - yeah, things were much better in the good old days of Post Office Telephones - NOT! "Not another one who wants a phone - tell him to wait six weeks."
Bill Hook
October 4, 2003, 01:48 PM
Agricola,
What about:
1) The high tax burden/low service ratio issue.
2) High incidences of vehicle theft (despite all those cameras invading your privacy), as well as growing numbers of carjackings.
3) Artificially inflated costs of goods (like cars that cost 35% more than on the continent), and high sales taxes on those.
4) The education system (including too few teachers and asinine grading systems).
5) A 20% increase in urban crime, including all those muggings (and a few murders) for cell phones, despite all the surveillance. [I suppose you'll answer this in conjunction w/ the gallup poll.]
6) The London issue, in comparison to NYC, regarding more crimes and fewer police.
7) Litter in cities.
8) The high rate of weather related deaths due to high energy costs and inferior utilities infrastructure.
9) Broadcast taxes???????? (Ugh!)
What about:
1) The high tax burden/low service ratio issue.
2) High incidences of vehicle theft (despite all those cameras invading your privacy), as well as growing numbers of carjackings.
3) Artificially inflated costs of goods (like cars that cost 35% more than on the continent), and high sales taxes on those.
4) The education system (including too few teachers and asinine grading systems).
5) A 20% increase in urban crime, including all those muggings (and a few murders) for cell phones, despite all the surveillance. [I suppose you'll answer this in conjunction w/ the gallup poll.]
6) The London issue, in comparison to NYC, regarding more crimes and fewer police.
7) Litter in cities.
8) The high rate of weather related deaths due to high energy costs and inferior utilities infrastructure.
9) Broadcast taxes???????? (Ugh!)
fallingblock
October 4, 2003, 10:30 PM
I sometimes disregard my own rule and read these ridiculous "Sun" composite pieces.:o
chrisell
October 6, 2003, 12:43 PM
Hi guys
One of the readers of this thread emailed me to let me know there was a heated debate going on about my website so I thought I'd join in.
A lot of you accuse this of being a typical "Sun" rant. Could be, but look closely at the page. Not one of those items there is a work of fiction.
I corrected the Orpington cellphone mugging (thanks agricola) - being outside the UK now it's bloody hard to keep up on these things, so it now reflects that he was mugged and the guy was caught and fined 400 quid.
It's a harsh look at the country, but if you think any of it's wrong, you could be in denial.
Just so you know, my perspective on the UK is based on the fact that I grew up in the Netherlands, and now live in America. I'm devoid of the fondness for ole blighty that so many people seem to have which blinkers them to the true problems.
Although I do miss wit and sarcasm here in America - everyone has become so convinced that their neighbour is a terrorist that stuff which used to be laugh-out-loud funny is now regarded as anti-American.
And I think it's pretty funny how the David Blaine stunt is being viewed by Londoners :D
One of the readers of this thread emailed me to let me know there was a heated debate going on about my website so I thought I'd join in.
A lot of you accuse this of being a typical "Sun" rant. Could be, but look closely at the page. Not one of those items there is a work of fiction.
I corrected the Orpington cellphone mugging (thanks agricola) - being outside the UK now it's bloody hard to keep up on these things, so it now reflects that he was mugged and the guy was caught and fined 400 quid.
It's a harsh look at the country, but if you think any of it's wrong, you could be in denial.
Just so you know, my perspective on the UK is based on the fact that I grew up in the Netherlands, and now live in America. I'm devoid of the fondness for ole blighty that so many people seem to have which blinkers them to the true problems.
Although I do miss wit and sarcasm here in America - everyone has become so convinced that their neighbour is a terrorist that stuff which used to be laugh-out-loud funny is now regarded as anti-American.
And I think it's pretty funny how the David Blaine stunt is being viewed by Londoners :D
feedthehogs
October 6, 2003, 02:13 PM
As long as the Queen has her castle to kick back in and her private guards, it will be alright.
For the Queen that is..........................
For the Queen that is..........................
Bill Hook
October 6, 2003, 03:43 PM
Hi chrisell. Glad you showed up. I got this merely by coincidence while looking at automotive stuff, but it was quite amusing to me, as an American, and we have a few apologists for the UK who post here regularly, so it makes for some interesting discussion.
TheEgg
October 7, 2003, 11:40 AM
Maybe I am reading too much into your article, but it seems to me that you have a disconnect here:
You make strong arguments that a lot of what is wrong in the UK is the result of privatisation. At the same time, you seem to hold only contempt for how the government runs things it still controls.
Either the government has to own and run rail, utilities, health care, etc. or private industry does. What is your solution?
You make strong arguments that a lot of what is wrong in the UK is the result of privatisation. At the same time, you seem to hold only contempt for how the government runs things it still controls.
Either the government has to own and run rail, utilities, health care, etc. or private industry does. What is your solution?
Bill Hook
October 7, 2003, 11:49 AM
Perhaps he feels the regulations are too weak, such that he'd like to have something like our airline industry was 25 years ago or our private passenger rail service was when it still existed, more than 30 years ago, with strict govt. regulation.
Also, some of these privitization deals are merely ways for the govt. to give their friends sweetheart deals and provide them with cheap/free infrastructure to run formerly nationalized services for profit.
However, Egg, you seem to have got a discrepency in the man's arguments.
Also, some of these privitization deals are merely ways for the govt. to give their friends sweetheart deals and provide them with cheap/free infrastructure to run formerly nationalized services for profit.
However, Egg, you seem to have got a discrepency in the man's arguments.
Mk VII
October 7, 2003, 01:11 PM
I wonder what the response would be around this board if an American (say, Michael Moore) made a series of aggressively rude statements disparaging his country. Probably something on the lines of "America,love it or leave it", "Why doesn't he go to Cuba?", etc. etc."
Bill Hook
October 7, 2003, 01:34 PM
Well, he has left the UK, so his money is where his mouth is.
Tell us, MK VII, do you disagree with everything he has said, and more importantly, do you see the situation getting better?
Perhaps you should do a reality check if you answer "NO" to both questions.
If MM went to Cuba, France, UK, etc. and stayed, he could badmouth the USA all he wanted, since he would be out of my hair.
Tell us, MK VII, do you disagree with everything he has said, and more importantly, do you see the situation getting better?
Perhaps you should do a reality check if you answer "NO" to both questions.
If MM went to Cuba, France, UK, etc. and stayed, he could badmouth the USA all he wanted, since he would be out of my hair.
agricola
October 7, 2003, 04:21 PM
bill hook,
Well, he has left the UK, so his money is where his mouth is.
Tell us, MK VII, do you disagree with everything he has said, and more importantly, do you see the situation getting better?
Perhaps you should do a reality check if you answer "NO" to both questions.
Which is a nice way of saying "youre a fool if you disagree with him". Personally, I have tried to show that much of what you read about the UK here is a mix of mis-informed nonsense and outright lies. Once again, given the nitpicking on any article that goes against the 2A one must understand that simply because an article agrees with your views on the UK doesnt make it correct.
However, to put that to one side for a moment, one must consider that almost everyone from one part of the UK is going to have opinions as to the nice and not-so-nice places, and if the author has wound up in some god-forsaken place like Manchester then he is probably going to have a negative opinion of the UK (like me - I've only ever been there twice and unless I was paid an awful lot of money I'd never go there again).
thegg, speaking personally there is a lot wrong with the way privatization occured over here and, yes, I would rather see some things - especially the railways and prisons together with the Post Office- taken back into public hands because they have been an absolute failure, just as the privatization of the London Underground will be a disaster.
That said, organizations that were privatized as one organization - BT and British Gas - have done well and probably improved services.
Well, he has left the UK, so his money is where his mouth is.
Tell us, MK VII, do you disagree with everything he has said, and more importantly, do you see the situation getting better?
Perhaps you should do a reality check if you answer "NO" to both questions.
Which is a nice way of saying "youre a fool if you disagree with him". Personally, I have tried to show that much of what you read about the UK here is a mix of mis-informed nonsense and outright lies. Once again, given the nitpicking on any article that goes against the 2A one must understand that simply because an article agrees with your views on the UK doesnt make it correct.
However, to put that to one side for a moment, one must consider that almost everyone from one part of the UK is going to have opinions as to the nice and not-so-nice places, and if the author has wound up in some god-forsaken place like Manchester then he is probably going to have a negative opinion of the UK (like me - I've only ever been there twice and unless I was paid an awful lot of money I'd never go there again).
thegg, speaking personally there is a lot wrong with the way privatization occured over here and, yes, I would rather see some things - especially the railways and prisons together with the Post Office- taken back into public hands because they have been an absolute failure, just as the privatization of the London Underground will be a disaster.
That said, organizations that were privatized as one organization - BT and British Gas - have done well and probably improved services.
Bill Hook
October 7, 2003, 04:37 PM
agricola,
I'm still waiting to be disabused on the 9 points I found that I didn't see you respond to in your prior rebuttal/repudiation of this guy's diatribe. I'm also waiting for the rebuttal/explication of the Gallup polls, which you even made note of with promises of further comment.
I've read some of your commentary from past threads on the "right" to self-defense in the UK (especially for the handicapped) and the surveillance cameras and would say that, to the extent of those issues, and the high taxes and artificially high cost of goods and services, that one really would have to be a fool to disagree with him, though I'd prefer that you not put words in my mouth. Oh, and I should say that these are points that apply nationwide, rather than to Liverpool, or Manchester, or another Industrial Midlands crapville.
I'm still waiting to be disabused on the 9 points I found that I didn't see you respond to in your prior rebuttal/repudiation of this guy's diatribe. I'm also waiting for the rebuttal/explication of the Gallup polls, which you even made note of with promises of further comment.
I've read some of your commentary from past threads on the "right" to self-defense in the UK (especially for the handicapped) and the surveillance cameras and would say that, to the extent of those issues, and the high taxes and artificially high cost of goods and services, that one really would have to be a fool to disagree with him, though I'd prefer that you not put words in my mouth. Oh, and I should say that these are points that apply nationwide, rather than to Liverpool, or Manchester, or another Industrial Midlands crapville.
agricola
October 8, 2003, 05:07 AM
Bill:
1) The high tax burden/low service ratio issue.
In terms of tax, personally I feel that the burden is set about correct here, aside from that once you get into earning a lot of money the accountant manages to make sure that you pay less tax than someone paying say 40%. As it is, one must remember that we dont pay for a lot of things that you do pay for - no bills to pay for healthcare etc.
2) High incidences of vehicle theft (despite all those cameras invading your privacy), as well as growing numbers of carjackings.
carjackings were a spate of offences that peaked about two years ago, and the rise and fall has not been satisfactorily explained, aside from that they were the medias crime-of-choice at the time and thus recieved an undue prominence. With regards to vehicle theft, when you have a country as urbanized as the UK is (no more than an hour's drive in most cases from a large city) and comparatively few secure parking spaces (anyone who lives in the suburbs of London knows this), cars are an easy target for theives, especially those who have to steal-to-buy-drugs, of which heroin is our biggest problem. Most cars are approaching their maximum anti-theft design capacity anyway, unless you remove the windows and replace them with steel.
3) Artificially inflated costs of goods (like cars that cost 35% more than on the continent), and high sales taxes on those.
the "high sales tax on cars" does not explain the cost - if it did, noone would go to Europe and buy and import a car. The problem is with the dealers and manufacturers, and not HMG's. Accordingly the EU will overrule this once someone goes the whole hog and arent bought off by the motor companies.
4) The education system (including too few teachers and asinine grading systems).
the education system is fine, and develops many people into the highly educated adults that the UK has. an anecdote to illustrate this is that when, many moons ago, i passed my A-levels (the entry point to most universities) i was delighted to hear that my maximum grades were greeted with cries of "A levels getting easier" from the gutter press. The same thing happened next year, and the year after that, and every year to this.
That said, this governments plans for education - University fees (and allowing them to set their own) which are too right wing even for the Tory Party and the final death of the Grant system (by which children from poor families could attend university, and by which I did) will partially collapse the system as working-class young adults find it easier to work from 16/18 in some callcentre than to get a debt of between £10-20,000 around their necks. There is also a shortage of teachers in some subjects, however the rise of the substitute teacher companies has probably affected this more - if those teachers were actually in schools permanently one would imagine the shortage would not be anything like it is now (the same goes for nurses)
5) A 20% increase in urban crime, including all those muggings (and a few murders) for cell phones, despite all the surveillance. [I suppose you'll answer this in conjunction w/ the gallup poll.]
the sole Gallup poll I can find on this is here:
http://www.gallup-international.com/ ("Gallup Millenium Survey", then "crime"), and I came to this conclusion from this website:
http://www.tns-global.com/corporate/Doc/0/JN80TDPQ2K541E2U7LNJ3JA733/343.htm
Initially, there is a danger in using poll results as opposed to the standard data, for which both the official crime figures (which sample all victims of crime) and the British Crime Survey (which samples much more than the Gallup poll) are going to be more reliable - the official figures obviously so. Hence they are the ones that should be used. Besides, the same poll found that 78% of North Americans felt the level of gun control was either "Too Little" or "About Right".
I have oft stated that the "crimewave" of which we speak stems in the greater part from mobile phone theft - when they first became everywhere around 98-99 the phones had shockingly bad security and could easily be reactivated (by just replacing the SIM card). Some companies were obstructive in even simple measures:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1808795.stm
In addition new evidence is emerging that many of these claims - as much as 100,000 and 40% of one forces thefts- are bogus insurance claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3020108.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3024200.stm
6) The London issue, in comparison to NYC, regarding more crimes and fewer police.
that much is obvious.
7) Litter in cities.
there isnt that much, at least in London.
8) The high rate of weather related deaths due to high energy costs and inferior utilities infrastructure.
there isnt a high rate of weather deaths - but the VAT on fuel has meant that the elderly have more trouble paying, which is a scandal, and was at the time. There is a "cold weather payment", but this relies on the weather being below a certain point for so many days (I think).
Our utilities infrastructure is better than yours (based on recent events), so I dont see who it is inferior to - that said, it was better pre-privatization (when the London power cut wouldnt have affected the Underground).
9) Broadcast taxes???????? (Ugh!)
the way I see it is the BBC is the best television service in the world (and definately in the UK), and everyone watches it.
Bill from my point of view he seems to be making a case for the UK to return to its pre-privatization days, which I would partially agree with. Also those points do not apply nationwide - from the part of the country that I come from originally (North Wales), very few of those points apply. Crime is rare (especially violent crime which invariably makes the news), the streets clean and people friendly - like most rural places worldwide.
Even where I am now - I work in (if you read the papers) one of the countries two worst boroughs for poverty and crime, and I live in the other one - the problem is nowhere near as bad as he or the press make out.
You seem not to grasp the point that people from the UK are telling you that life here is nowhere near as bad as it is made out. We live here, and personally I would not like to live anywhere else.
1) The high tax burden/low service ratio issue.
In terms of tax, personally I feel that the burden is set about correct here, aside from that once you get into earning a lot of money the accountant manages to make sure that you pay less tax than someone paying say 40%. As it is, one must remember that we dont pay for a lot of things that you do pay for - no bills to pay for healthcare etc.
2) High incidences of vehicle theft (despite all those cameras invading your privacy), as well as growing numbers of carjackings.
carjackings were a spate of offences that peaked about two years ago, and the rise and fall has not been satisfactorily explained, aside from that they were the medias crime-of-choice at the time and thus recieved an undue prominence. With regards to vehicle theft, when you have a country as urbanized as the UK is (no more than an hour's drive in most cases from a large city) and comparatively few secure parking spaces (anyone who lives in the suburbs of London knows this), cars are an easy target for theives, especially those who have to steal-to-buy-drugs, of which heroin is our biggest problem. Most cars are approaching their maximum anti-theft design capacity anyway, unless you remove the windows and replace them with steel.
3) Artificially inflated costs of goods (like cars that cost 35% more than on the continent), and high sales taxes on those.
the "high sales tax on cars" does not explain the cost - if it did, noone would go to Europe and buy and import a car. The problem is with the dealers and manufacturers, and not HMG's. Accordingly the EU will overrule this once someone goes the whole hog and arent bought off by the motor companies.
4) The education system (including too few teachers and asinine grading systems).
the education system is fine, and develops many people into the highly educated adults that the UK has. an anecdote to illustrate this is that when, many moons ago, i passed my A-levels (the entry point to most universities) i was delighted to hear that my maximum grades were greeted with cries of "A levels getting easier" from the gutter press. The same thing happened next year, and the year after that, and every year to this.
That said, this governments plans for education - University fees (and allowing them to set their own) which are too right wing even for the Tory Party and the final death of the Grant system (by which children from poor families could attend university, and by which I did) will partially collapse the system as working-class young adults find it easier to work from 16/18 in some callcentre than to get a debt of between £10-20,000 around their necks. There is also a shortage of teachers in some subjects, however the rise of the substitute teacher companies has probably affected this more - if those teachers were actually in schools permanently one would imagine the shortage would not be anything like it is now (the same goes for nurses)
5) A 20% increase in urban crime, including all those muggings (and a few murders) for cell phones, despite all the surveillance. [I suppose you'll answer this in conjunction w/ the gallup poll.]
the sole Gallup poll I can find on this is here:
http://www.gallup-international.com/ ("Gallup Millenium Survey", then "crime"), and I came to this conclusion from this website:
http://www.tns-global.com/corporate/Doc/0/JN80TDPQ2K541E2U7LNJ3JA733/343.htm
Initially, there is a danger in using poll results as opposed to the standard data, for which both the official crime figures (which sample all victims of crime) and the British Crime Survey (which samples much more than the Gallup poll) are going to be more reliable - the official figures obviously so. Hence they are the ones that should be used. Besides, the same poll found that 78% of North Americans felt the level of gun control was either "Too Little" or "About Right".
I have oft stated that the "crimewave" of which we speak stems in the greater part from mobile phone theft - when they first became everywhere around 98-99 the phones had shockingly bad security and could easily be reactivated (by just replacing the SIM card). Some companies were obstructive in even simple measures:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1808795.stm
In addition new evidence is emerging that many of these claims - as much as 100,000 and 40% of one forces thefts- are bogus insurance claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3020108.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3024200.stm
6) The London issue, in comparison to NYC, regarding more crimes and fewer police.
that much is obvious.
7) Litter in cities.
there isnt that much, at least in London.
8) The high rate of weather related deaths due to high energy costs and inferior utilities infrastructure.
there isnt a high rate of weather deaths - but the VAT on fuel has meant that the elderly have more trouble paying, which is a scandal, and was at the time. There is a "cold weather payment", but this relies on the weather being below a certain point for so many days (I think).
Our utilities infrastructure is better than yours (based on recent events), so I dont see who it is inferior to - that said, it was better pre-privatization (when the London power cut wouldnt have affected the Underground).
9) Broadcast taxes???????? (Ugh!)
the way I see it is the BBC is the best television service in the world (and definately in the UK), and everyone watches it.
Bill from my point of view he seems to be making a case for the UK to return to its pre-privatization days, which I would partially agree with. Also those points do not apply nationwide - from the part of the country that I come from originally (North Wales), very few of those points apply. Crime is rare (especially violent crime which invariably makes the news), the streets clean and people friendly - like most rural places worldwide.
Even where I am now - I work in (if you read the papers) one of the countries two worst boroughs for poverty and crime, and I live in the other one - the problem is nowhere near as bad as he or the press make out.
You seem not to grasp the point that people from the UK are telling you that life here is nowhere near as bad as it is made out. We live here, and personally I would not like to live anywhere else.
chrisell
October 9, 2003, 11:02 AM
Me again.
In response to Egg's question about rail services, for example. At least with British rail we had a rail service. It wasn't particularly good, but it was broad and covered the whole country. And it was cheap, so you could excuse it being shoddy. Since privatisation, you pretty much need to remortgage a house to use the rail system. They've closed down most of the outlying smaller stations and tracks and transporting goods by rail accounts for such a small part of their business that it's negligable now.
Compare that to Holland, where the government runs the railways, and they're cheap, clean, efficient, on-time, and effective. Why can the Dutch government manage this, when the British one can't? That's what I'm trying to get at.
As to the question of where I lived : variously in Reading, Horsham, Manchester, Nottingham and Salisbury (in no particular order) so I have a broad spread of the country to speak of. :D
In response to Egg's question about rail services, for example. At least with British rail we had a rail service. It wasn't particularly good, but it was broad and covered the whole country. And it was cheap, so you could excuse it being shoddy. Since privatisation, you pretty much need to remortgage a house to use the rail system. They've closed down most of the outlying smaller stations and tracks and transporting goods by rail accounts for such a small part of their business that it's negligable now.
Compare that to Holland, where the government runs the railways, and they're cheap, clean, efficient, on-time, and effective. Why can the Dutch government manage this, when the British one can't? That's what I'm trying to get at.
As to the question of where I lived : variously in Reading, Horsham, Manchester, Nottingham and Salisbury (in no particular order) so I have a broad spread of the country to speak of. :D
chrisell
October 9, 2003, 11:09 AM
One more thing I ought to point out that might have been lost in the debate :
I grew up in Holland, visited England and now live in America. I've travelled to Singapore, Malaysia, France, Germany, Spain, Mauritius, South Africa, Switzerland, Belgium and a couple of other places.
Apart from South Africa, England was by far the worst of those places that I've encountered so far, hence the website. I'm not saying America is the shining example of how to run a country - it isn't. But like Holland, it's an order of magnitude better than living in England.
If I wanted to, I could easily write the same page about America, or Holland. The difference is that I haven't been treated anywhere near as badly by those countries. I don't see the arrogant rudeness, the high prices, the could-care-less police, the shoddy medical systems etc. Basically, my quality of life in the UK was ????e, and I believe in speaking what I think :D
I grew up in Holland, visited England and now live in America. I've travelled to Singapore, Malaysia, France, Germany, Spain, Mauritius, South Africa, Switzerland, Belgium and a couple of other places.
Apart from South Africa, England was by far the worst of those places that I've encountered so far, hence the website. I'm not saying America is the shining example of how to run a country - it isn't. But like Holland, it's an order of magnitude better than living in England.
If I wanted to, I could easily write the same page about America, or Holland. The difference is that I haven't been treated anywhere near as badly by those countries. I don't see the arrogant rudeness, the high prices, the could-care-less police, the shoddy medical systems etc. Basically, my quality of life in the UK was ????e, and I believe in speaking what I think :D
Wakal
October 9, 2003, 01:47 PM
I lived in Newbury for only a couple of years, so I'm hardly an expert. However, after spending years in Germany, Danmark, Italy, Turkey, Kuwait, and Japan...I'll throw my few worthless cents in the mix.
The UK is a cesspool. Vile. From Portsmouth to Edinbourgh, the only country as covered in trash...or even close to being as covered in rubbish...was Turkey.
BBC makes NBC and CBS look like Rush Limbough. All the slanted news the government sees fit to tell you, anarchy on the airwaves as to scheduling, and a lack of anything close to entertainment. SKYNews anyone? When British warships voluntarily turn off BBC due to the biased "news"...life on board ship is pretty boring, but the sailors said they would rather stare at the walls than watch BBC.
Worthless service infrastructure...the power and water was more reliable in the Middle East, and that is saying something.
Slipping on the rose-coloured glasses and singing "...its all right" doesn't make it so. The UK is living (for now) proof that the socialist nanny-state doesn't work. It is too bad that all the folks with any sort of intestinal fortitude left, and the rest have had all the independence bred right out of them.
Alex
The UK is a cesspool. Vile. From Portsmouth to Edinbourgh, the only country as covered in trash...or even close to being as covered in rubbish...was Turkey.
BBC makes NBC and CBS look like Rush Limbough. All the slanted news the government sees fit to tell you, anarchy on the airwaves as to scheduling, and a lack of anything close to entertainment. SKYNews anyone? When British warships voluntarily turn off BBC due to the biased "news"...life on board ship is pretty boring, but the sailors said they would rather stare at the walls than watch BBC.
Worthless service infrastructure...the power and water was more reliable in the Middle East, and that is saying something.
Slipping on the rose-coloured glasses and singing "...its all right" doesn't make it so. The UK is living (for now) proof that the socialist nanny-state doesn't work. It is too bad that all the folks with any sort of intestinal fortitude left, and the rest have had all the independence bred right out of them.
Alex
Bill Hook
October 9, 2003, 01:52 PM
Aw, you're just exaggerating.
The guy on the BBC said everything is great. Read it in the Guardian too. ;)
The guy on the BBC said everything is great. Read it in the Guardian too. ;)
agricola
October 9, 2003, 06:49 PM
wakal,
so what youre saying is the BBC is a mouthpiece for the state, that produces propaganda against the states actions? :confused:
oh, and given Sky News' actual fabrication of news lately, it would come under the heading "entertainment".
oh, and wakal most of chris's points can be ascribed to private enterprise and its interest in government contracts, and not "the socialist nanny state".
chris,
the way privatized rail companies work is the problem - if they were renationalized, or conglomerated into one company (both the trackway and rolling stock), the service would improve markedly. As it is, the trains themselves are much better now, but Railtrack and its various contractors run the trackway on a last-minute cheap fix basis, which led to Hatfield and the recent Kings Cross derailment, and which costs (the taxpayer) more in the long run.
so what youre saying is the BBC is a mouthpiece for the state, that produces propaganda against the states actions? :confused:
oh, and given Sky News' actual fabrication of news lately, it would come under the heading "entertainment".
oh, and wakal most of chris's points can be ascribed to private enterprise and its interest in government contracts, and not "the socialist nanny state".
chris,
the way privatized rail companies work is the problem - if they were renationalized, or conglomerated into one company (both the trackway and rolling stock), the service would improve markedly. As it is, the trains themselves are much better now, but Railtrack and its various contractors run the trackway on a last-minute cheap fix basis, which led to Hatfield and the recent Kings Cross derailment, and which costs (the taxpayer) more in the long run.
Wakal
October 10, 2003, 08:35 AM
I'll clarify, since I was a tad glib...as I am oft want to do do.
BBC, exactly like ABC/NBC/CBS/et al in the US, is a front for the nanny-state "for-the-children" "guv'm't iz gud fur ya, an' more gov'm't iz better" types. The UK's nanny state, as insane leftist (American leftist, of course) as it is...STILL isn't leftist enough to please them.
Socialist nanny state. I call 'em like I see 'em. Insane taxes, no personal freedom, and rediculous "entitlements" for the dole-mongers at the expense of anyone with a real job. "From each according to his means, to each according to their need. And they don't have to WANT to do it, we will just tax the living hell out of them and price-fix the rest."
Socialist nanny state.
Alex
BBC, exactly like ABC/NBC/CBS/et al in the US, is a front for the nanny-state "for-the-children" "guv'm't iz gud fur ya, an' more gov'm't iz better" types. The UK's nanny state, as insane leftist (American leftist, of course) as it is...STILL isn't leftist enough to please them.
Socialist nanny state. I call 'em like I see 'em. Insane taxes, no personal freedom, and rediculous "entitlements" for the dole-mongers at the expense of anyone with a real job. "From each according to his means, to each according to their need. And they don't have to WANT to do it, we will just tax the living hell out of them and price-fix the rest."
Socialist nanny state.
Alex
agricola
October 10, 2003, 12:24 PM
wakal,
that makes no sense at all - in fact the BBC is one of the few balanced media outlets around. the fact that it didnt trumpet the war as the greatest military victory since Issus along with the rest of what passes for the worlds media doesnt make it biased (it just makes it unbiased)
besides, they were closer to the truth than the rest of the British media, as the Hutton Inquiry has shown.
that makes no sense at all - in fact the BBC is one of the few balanced media outlets around. the fact that it didnt trumpet the war as the greatest military victory since Issus along with the rest of what passes for the worlds media doesnt make it biased (it just makes it unbiased)
besides, they were closer to the truth than the rest of the British media, as the Hutton Inquiry has shown.
Keith
October 10, 2003, 01:25 PM
besides, they were closer to the truth than the rest of the British media, as the Hutton Inquiry has shown.
But the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that the BBC reporter lied about several of the most important facets of the case! what kind of Kool-Aid are you people drinking overthere?
Keith
But the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that the BBC reporter lied about several of the most important facets of the case! what kind of Kool-Aid are you people drinking overthere?
Keith
Zedicus
October 10, 2003, 01:31 PM
The UK is a cesspool.
Yep, that about sums up the majority of the place...
Very few places have managed to escape the Anarchy, but they are being drug down with the rest of the place.
Socialist nanny state. I call 'em like I see 'em. Insane taxes, no personal freedom, and rediculous "entitlements" for the dole-mongers at the expense of anyone with a real job. "From each according to his means, to each according to their need. And they don't have to WANT to do it, we will just tax the living hell out of them and price-fix the rest."
Hit the Nail on the head!
Very good Analasys....
But by saying that many may think me a "Hater of the UK".
That is not so!, I would like nothing better than to see them get out of the degraded state they are in, the country has much to fight for, good sceenery, and a lengthy history are only two of them.
but unfortunitly, to many are quite content to sit back and play the 3 monky part of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil!".
Here is an example;
Being from California and having grown up in the SanAndreas fault I have one rather unusual intrest in Sisemology, after studying the fault system and past activity in the area I talked to some friends from the area about it and told them about the fault lines that they never knew were there, Then I mentioned the Earthquake Activity and was cutt off with "Earthquakes Don't happen here!" with a sort of finality and a subject change that I found odd.
I recived the same responce from 8 diffrent people, and even when I provided data from the UK version of the USGS they still Insisted that "Earthquakes don't happen here".
even after a 3.2 hit a fiew weeks later...."Earthquakes Don't Happen Here!!!"
As for why they are like that, I will let you draw your own conclusions....
Yep, that about sums up the majority of the place...
Very few places have managed to escape the Anarchy, but they are being drug down with the rest of the place.
Socialist nanny state. I call 'em like I see 'em. Insane taxes, no personal freedom, and rediculous "entitlements" for the dole-mongers at the expense of anyone with a real job. "From each according to his means, to each according to their need. And they don't have to WANT to do it, we will just tax the living hell out of them and price-fix the rest."
Hit the Nail on the head!
Very good Analasys....
But by saying that many may think me a "Hater of the UK".
That is not so!, I would like nothing better than to see them get out of the degraded state they are in, the country has much to fight for, good sceenery, and a lengthy history are only two of them.
but unfortunitly, to many are quite content to sit back and play the 3 monky part of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil!".
Here is an example;
Being from California and having grown up in the SanAndreas fault I have one rather unusual intrest in Sisemology, after studying the fault system and past activity in the area I talked to some friends from the area about it and told them about the fault lines that they never knew were there, Then I mentioned the Earthquake Activity and was cutt off with "Earthquakes Don't happen here!" with a sort of finality and a subject change that I found odd.
I recived the same responce from 8 diffrent people, and even when I provided data from the UK version of the USGS they still Insisted that "Earthquakes don't happen here".
even after a 3.2 hit a fiew weeks later...."Earthquakes Don't Happen Here!!!"
As for why they are like that, I will let you draw your own conclusions....
Bill Hook
October 10, 2003, 01:46 PM
Call it "Airstrip One" and be done with it.
Wakal
October 10, 2003, 01:52 PM
Thanks, Zedicus!
Using very short words this time: BBC is more leftist nanny-state than the UK leftist nanny-state (so far).
"Accurate" BBC reporting? Yep, the parable of the faults was right on the money...
Alex
Using very short words this time: BBC is more leftist nanny-state than the UK leftist nanny-state (so far).
"Accurate" BBC reporting? Yep, the parable of the faults was right on the money...
Alex
MaterDei
October 10, 2003, 02:09 PM
Think for a moment how our wise government banned all licensed firearms to prevent another school shooting, and then seemed to miss the irony of gun crime rising twofold year-on-year after the ban came into effect. Surely that couldn't mean that it's black-market guns and criminals that are causing these problems?
Is there any movement to reverse the ban based on the post ban crime statistics?
Is there any movement to reverse the ban based on the post ban crime statistics?
agricola
October 10, 2003, 02:52 PM
keith,
The errors Gilligan made did not detract from the overall story, which was that a) the Government (ie: number 10 and/or Alistair Campbell) gave at least undue prominence, and probably elevated beyond all reason, the "45 minute claim"; b) that the Intelligence Services were aghast at this and c) that David Kelly was the one making these allegations.
This was evidenced by three separate reporters, one of whom recorded the relevant conversation, and has been strengthened by the way in which various spin-doctors and ministers have presented themselves in the witness stand. If Gilligan lied it would have been easy to prove, and there would have been no need to conduct a witch-hunt for the source (as happened), publicly name him (as happened) and blacken the mans memory after death (as happened).
You seem to forget that this is a Government whose media team has blackened Kelly's name, used 9/11 to bury bad news, released a plagarized student's essay as evidence and today allowed the PM to attend the Thanksgiving service of men killed in Iraq against the wishes of several families who had asked him to stay away (and their views should be paramount).
here is the text of the Today report again. That report is, aside from one or two inaccuracies, fundamentally correct. As for the "sexing-up" claim, well the Guardian have come up with some evidence for that:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/radio/story/0,12636,994893,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1050931,00.html
original documents:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
wakal,
you should'nt rate Zedicus' opinion too highly, he has been shown to post lies and fabrications on this issue; fibs which have no doubt just been increased by one following his last post.
edited to remove "alleged to have" from the first line.
The errors Gilligan made did not detract from the overall story, which was that a) the Government (ie: number 10 and/or Alistair Campbell) gave at least undue prominence, and probably elevated beyond all reason, the "45 minute claim"; b) that the Intelligence Services were aghast at this and c) that David Kelly was the one making these allegations.
This was evidenced by three separate reporters, one of whom recorded the relevant conversation, and has been strengthened by the way in which various spin-doctors and ministers have presented themselves in the witness stand. If Gilligan lied it would have been easy to prove, and there would have been no need to conduct a witch-hunt for the source (as happened), publicly name him (as happened) and blacken the mans memory after death (as happened).
You seem to forget that this is a Government whose media team has blackened Kelly's name, used 9/11 to bury bad news, released a plagarized student's essay as evidence and today allowed the PM to attend the Thanksgiving service of men killed in Iraq against the wishes of several families who had asked him to stay away (and their views should be paramount).
here is the text of the Today report again. That report is, aside from one or two inaccuracies, fundamentally correct. As for the "sexing-up" claim, well the Guardian have come up with some evidence for that:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/radio/story/0,12636,994893,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1050931,00.html
original documents:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
wakal,
you should'nt rate Zedicus' opinion too highly, he has been shown to post lies and fabrications on this issue; fibs which have no doubt just been increased by one following his last post.
edited to remove "alleged to have" from the first line.
agricola
October 10, 2003, 02:59 PM
Bill,
or you could just come out and say "see! my preconcieved ideas, based on few facts and less logic, were right!"
or you could just come out and say "see! my preconcieved ideas, based on few facts and less logic, were right!"
Keith
October 10, 2003, 03:03 PM
The errors Gilligan made did not detract from the overall story,
They were not errors. They were lies and fabrications. And the BBC knew it!
If you think a media outlet that prints outright lies to forward a political agenda is one the "few balanced media outlets around", then... resume drinking your Kool-Aid...
Keith
They were not errors. They were lies and fabrications. And the BBC knew it!
If you think a media outlet that prints outright lies to forward a political agenda is one the "few balanced media outlets around", then... resume drinking your Kool-Aid...
Keith
agricola
October 10, 2003, 03:06 PM
keith,
go on then, prove that he lied when he filed that report.
ps: on a related note, do you rate Fox News or Sky News?
go on then, prove that he lied when he filed that report.
ps: on a related note, do you rate Fox News or Sky News?
Keith
October 10, 2003, 03:10 PM
on a related note, do you rate Fox News or Sky News?
I am not forced to pay for Fox or Sky news.
go on then, prove that he lied when he filed that report.
I don't have to. The Hutton Inquiry has already revealed that. And Gilligan admitted to it.
Keith
I am not forced to pay for Fox or Sky news.
go on then, prove that he lied when he filed that report.
I don't have to. The Hutton Inquiry has already revealed that. And Gilligan admitted to it.
Keith
agricola
October 10, 2003, 03:15 PM
where did he admit that he lied then?
Keith
October 10, 2003, 03:26 PM
where did he admit that he lied then?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F09%2F21%2Fdo2103.xml
"The BBC had originally added credibility to those allegations by insisting that their source was himself a "senior official within the intelligence services". Under cross-examination from lawyers in the course of Lord Hutton's inquiry, Mr Gilligan admitted that his source was not an official in the intelligence services. He also admitted that Dr David Kelly did not tell him that the Government knew that the 45-minute claim was false."
For several weeks, no one asked to see his notes of his meeting with Dr Kelly. Had they done so, they would have realised that it was, at the very least, questionable whether Gilligan's source had actually made the claims attributed to him, still less that they had grounds for accusing the Government of lying in the dossier.
The admissions of error have had to be wrenched from the BBC by the inquiry's lawyers. Richard Sambrook, for instance, repeatedly insisted that the BBC had never described Dr Kelly as an "intelligence official" - until he was provided with a transcript of a radio interview in which he himself did precisely that.
Again, when Mr Sambrook finally discovered that Gilligan's source was not an intelligence official, he did not tell the governors when he briefed them: so they duly issued a press release falsely insisting the source was in the intelligence services.
Mr Sambrook even tried to insist that the BBC had "never intended to accuse the Government of dishonesty". Transcripts of the BBC's reports were read to him - and he was forced to admit that that was indeed the natural and normal interpretation of the words broadcast.
The inquiry has shown that the BBC was guilty of precisely what it accused the Government of doing: it was the BBC that "sexed up" its dossier, and it was the BBC which, when the truth became obvious, tried to conceal it.
It is an appalling indictment against an organisation to whom we all look to be the guardian of the basic journalistic virtue of accuracy. Worse, it seems likely to give the Government the excuse to start dismantling the finest news-gathering organisation in the world. And it has all happened simply because the BBC was more determined to protect its pride than the truth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F09%2F21%2Fdo2103.xml
"The BBC had originally added credibility to those allegations by insisting that their source was himself a "senior official within the intelligence services". Under cross-examination from lawyers in the course of Lord Hutton's inquiry, Mr Gilligan admitted that his source was not an official in the intelligence services. He also admitted that Dr David Kelly did not tell him that the Government knew that the 45-minute claim was false."
For several weeks, no one asked to see his notes of his meeting with Dr Kelly. Had they done so, they would have realised that it was, at the very least, questionable whether Gilligan's source had actually made the claims attributed to him, still less that they had grounds for accusing the Government of lying in the dossier.
The admissions of error have had to be wrenched from the BBC by the inquiry's lawyers. Richard Sambrook, for instance, repeatedly insisted that the BBC had never described Dr Kelly as an "intelligence official" - until he was provided with a transcript of a radio interview in which he himself did precisely that.
Again, when Mr Sambrook finally discovered that Gilligan's source was not an intelligence official, he did not tell the governors when he briefed them: so they duly issued a press release falsely insisting the source was in the intelligence services.
Mr Sambrook even tried to insist that the BBC had "never intended to accuse the Government of dishonesty". Transcripts of the BBC's reports were read to him - and he was forced to admit that that was indeed the natural and normal interpretation of the words broadcast.
The inquiry has shown that the BBC was guilty of precisely what it accused the Government of doing: it was the BBC that "sexed up" its dossier, and it was the BBC which, when the truth became obvious, tried to conceal it.
It is an appalling indictment against an organisation to whom we all look to be the guardian of the basic journalistic virtue of accuracy. Worse, it seems likely to give the Government the excuse to start dismantling the finest news-gathering organisation in the world. And it has all happened simply because the BBC was more determined to protect its pride than the truth.
agricola
October 10, 2003, 03:27 PM
keith,
oh, and by the way its nice to see that your belief that one or two lies / mistruths can damn the whole article has extended to your criticism of the article that started this thread, and indeed the whole Zedicus business.
still, as they arent "blissninnies", I guess they can lie all they want :rolleyes:
oh, and by the way its nice to see that your belief that one or two lies / mistruths can damn the whole article has extended to your criticism of the article that started this thread, and indeed the whole Zedicus business.
still, as they arent "blissninnies", I guess they can lie all they want :rolleyes:
agricola
October 10, 2003, 03:37 PM
ah....
so the Telegraph, and not the Inquiry, has shown that Gilligan lied....
Those statements made by Gilligan were the result of a live broadcast at 0607 in the morning, to which his reply to counsel (which, notably, is nowhere in that article, nor are any of Sambrook's replies) was that they were slips of the tongue. Kelly was not an "intelligence official" per se - but he did draft part of the dossier. Kelly did not have said that the 45 minutes was false but neither did Gilligan - he said:
The information which I'm told was dubious did come from the information agencies, but they were unhappy about it because they didn't think it should have been in there. They thought it was not corroborated sufficiently and they actually thought it was wrong. They thought the informant concerned had got it wrong.
so the Telegraph, and not the Inquiry, has shown that Gilligan lied....
Those statements made by Gilligan were the result of a live broadcast at 0607 in the morning, to which his reply to counsel (which, notably, is nowhere in that article, nor are any of Sambrook's replies) was that they were slips of the tongue. Kelly was not an "intelligence official" per se - but he did draft part of the dossier. Kelly did not have said that the 45 minutes was false but neither did Gilligan - he said:
The information which I'm told was dubious did come from the information agencies, but they were unhappy about it because they didn't think it should have been in there. They thought it was not corroborated sufficiently and they actually thought it was wrong. They thought the informant concerned had got it wrong.
Bill Hook
October 10, 2003, 03:39 PM
or you could just come out and say "see! my preconcieved ideas, based on few facts and less logic, were right!"
Is this the same logic you employ when you claim to have "free" healthcare, in spite of high taxes?
What about the broadcast taxes? Don't you destroy your claims of the impartiality of the BBC when it is funded through taxation.
The leap of logic would appear to be yours.
Is this the same logic you employ when you claim to have "free" healthcare, in spite of high taxes?
What about the broadcast taxes? Don't you destroy your claims of the impartiality of the BBC when it is funded through taxation.
The leap of logic would appear to be yours.
Keith
October 10, 2003, 03:42 PM
oh, and by the way its nice to see that your belief that one or two lies / mistruths can damn the whole article ...
Dude! Those "one or two" little lies that Gilligan admitted to are the heart of his story! I suppose the rest of the article was truthful; they did talk over tea and the weather was nice for the time of year...
....extended to your criticism of the article that started this thread, and indeed the whole Zedicus business.
Are you saying that Britain is not dirty, the people not increasingly rude and apathetic, and that services are not spiraling downward while prices spiraling upwards?
Truth is just truth - it's not "relative"...
Keith
Dude! Those "one or two" little lies that Gilligan admitted to are the heart of his story! I suppose the rest of the article was truthful; they did talk over tea and the weather was nice for the time of year...
....extended to your criticism of the article that started this thread, and indeed the whole Zedicus business.
Are you saying that Britain is not dirty, the people not increasingly rude and apathetic, and that services are not spiraling downward while prices spiraling upwards?
Truth is just truth - it's not "relative"...
Keith
Wakal
October 10, 2003, 03:42 PM
Slurp that Kool-Aid, friend.
You can only drag a horse (or part thereof) to the truth, you can't make him understand it. Or something like that ;)
My point was backed up quite nicely with facts which you continue to ignore while making personal attacks. Last refuge of the socialist sheeple backed into the corner, how typical. Next I expect you to ram your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la" while continuing to deny the truth. Again, typical of the socialist sheeple.
Alex
You can only drag a horse (or part thereof) to the truth, you can't make him understand it. Or something like that ;)
My point was backed up quite nicely with facts which you continue to ignore while making personal attacks. Last refuge of the socialist sheeple backed into the corner, how typical. Next I expect you to ram your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la" while continuing to deny the truth. Again, typical of the socialist sheeple.
Alex
agricola
October 10, 2003, 04:34 PM
keith,
yes Britain isnt dirty, the people arent rude and arent apathetic, and prices are going up for some things, and down for others.
wakal,
what points? what facts? the usual mantra (i would have thought you would use sheeple sooner or later) has been spouted by you as well as at least twenty others both here and THR; and my attacks were at Zedicus, who has been proven to make up news stories to illustrate his point, and so deserves it.
still, since our political commentators dont seem to be living in a drug-induced fantasy world, i guess i know nothing.
yes Britain isnt dirty, the people arent rude and arent apathetic, and prices are going up for some things, and down for others.
wakal,
what points? what facts? the usual mantra (i would have thought you would use sheeple sooner or later) has been spouted by you as well as at least twenty others both here and THR; and my attacks were at Zedicus, who has been proven to make up news stories to illustrate his point, and so deserves it.
still, since our political commentators dont seem to be living in a drug-induced fantasy world, i guess i know nothing.
Wakal
October 10, 2003, 11:14 PM
You said it, not me...but yes, I agree with you...you know nothing :)
Alex
Alex
agricola
October 11, 2003, 03:58 AM
yep, after all I only live here.
Oakleaf
October 11, 2003, 06:10 AM
Hello
Been off line for a while so just picked up on this.
You guys must be talking about England.... luckily I live in Scotland :D
Be assured - that was humour!
Beauty of this forum and indeed the Country being 'maligned' is that all parties are free to a. express their opinion and b. leave the place virtually whenever they choose.
ChrisR's comments perhaps just illustrate that does not freedom make.
Chris wisely points out that similiar comments could be made about many countries - whilst acknowledging his view that, for him, the UK is the worst. I can read that without taking personal insult; whilst not wholly agreeing with his edit on things.
Most places are like the proverbial Parsons Egg - good in parts. Utopia would be very boring!:)
I admire Chris - he didn't like the place so at least took one of the two honourable options - get out or get involved in change.
I am no fan of the current Government - we have lost more of the mechanisms of freedom under 'the party of the people' than in the previous 40 years. At the same time a generic air of politics by marketing has crept in - repeat message until they give in! But is it all Blair's fault?
A nation is the sum of it's people. In the UK we have been assiduously treated as incapable of self respect. That policy is self fulfilling. The less people are charged with personal responsibility, the less they display. I would argue that analysis between your US Constitution and the current state of your Statute book will illustrate the founding fathers knew this lesson well; those since have not stopped chipping away at denying that respect.
The issues Chris describes are symptoms of a lack of self respect - and the consequent respect for others. I have read Chris's original webpage and despite his globe trotting, recognise some very British humour in the slant taken! That is not to say he isn't serious.
Where I have the difficulty is in the various responses that take what, to me, appears to be a quite shallow and blanket view. A number of you imply we 'must' all be crazy to live in the UK, how can we bear it etc etc That is a very simplistic outlook and from the standard of debate on this forum, it would never strike me that any of you are 'simple'.
Some of you will have seen my TFL posts, so hopefully I come with some credibility - as not merely knocking others out of revenge or spite for a supposed slur on my country. But reading through this and similiar posts I sense a shift from our communications say 18 months back. There is almost a feeling of self-righteous indignation in some of the responses. Forgive me - it is not an insult, I'm trying to speak my mind freely and as a friend ( or at least aquaintance ).
In earlier discussions, there was a quiet but resolved belief in your views. This shift worries me guys. I accept that maybe it's my perception. But otherwise I am concerned as to what brings about this change.
I tend to hold a pessimistic belief that society swings to extremes, breaks down and reforms - or vanishes. I fear that the pathway ChrisR illustrates does reflect an elementary truth - but that the pedulum is around mid swing toward the 'apathetic' end of things. I doubt the UK is alone on that ride.
Without detracting from the gravity of the debate here, I have to confess an apparent major failing in the UK :) I am hoping you US people maybe able to help?
I have a friend who has had a rough year. I have done what I can - but that is only so much. The only thing I can now do is just provide small delights and surprises ( mind out of the gutter guys! ). She has spent some time in the US where she got hooked on ( forgive the spelling ) - Resus Pieces ( that right? ). Close friends in New Jersey used to send packs over to her - but that's dried up.
In conversation, she let slip how'd she'd love to get hold of Resus Pieces again.
I've tried candy wholesalers here and the internet - no luck.
Can someone either give me the manufacturers web site or point me at a supplier in the US with whom I can get in touch.
Sounds daft I know - but of all the gifts I could get her, this is the one she won't expect and can't get othewise.
Apologies for drifting from topic Mr Moderator and roping you in on my goofy nature - to do things hard way!
Any help appreciated greatly.
Been off line for a while so just picked up on this.
You guys must be talking about England.... luckily I live in Scotland :D
Be assured - that was humour!
Beauty of this forum and indeed the Country being 'maligned' is that all parties are free to a. express their opinion and b. leave the place virtually whenever they choose.
ChrisR's comments perhaps just illustrate that does not freedom make.
Chris wisely points out that similiar comments could be made about many countries - whilst acknowledging his view that, for him, the UK is the worst. I can read that without taking personal insult; whilst not wholly agreeing with his edit on things.
Most places are like the proverbial Parsons Egg - good in parts. Utopia would be very boring!:)
I admire Chris - he didn't like the place so at least took one of the two honourable options - get out or get involved in change.
I am no fan of the current Government - we have lost more of the mechanisms of freedom under 'the party of the people' than in the previous 40 years. At the same time a generic air of politics by marketing has crept in - repeat message until they give in! But is it all Blair's fault?
A nation is the sum of it's people. In the UK we have been assiduously treated as incapable of self respect. That policy is self fulfilling. The less people are charged with personal responsibility, the less they display. I would argue that analysis between your US Constitution and the current state of your Statute book will illustrate the founding fathers knew this lesson well; those since have not stopped chipping away at denying that respect.
The issues Chris describes are symptoms of a lack of self respect - and the consequent respect for others. I have read Chris's original webpage and despite his globe trotting, recognise some very British humour in the slant taken! That is not to say he isn't serious.
Where I have the difficulty is in the various responses that take what, to me, appears to be a quite shallow and blanket view. A number of you imply we 'must' all be crazy to live in the UK, how can we bear it etc etc That is a very simplistic outlook and from the standard of debate on this forum, it would never strike me that any of you are 'simple'.
Some of you will have seen my TFL posts, so hopefully I come with some credibility - as not merely knocking others out of revenge or spite for a supposed slur on my country. But reading through this and similiar posts I sense a shift from our communications say 18 months back. There is almost a feeling of self-righteous indignation in some of the responses. Forgive me - it is not an insult, I'm trying to speak my mind freely and as a friend ( or at least aquaintance ).
In earlier discussions, there was a quiet but resolved belief in your views. This shift worries me guys. I accept that maybe it's my perception. But otherwise I am concerned as to what brings about this change.
I tend to hold a pessimistic belief that society swings to extremes, breaks down and reforms - or vanishes. I fear that the pathway ChrisR illustrates does reflect an elementary truth - but that the pedulum is around mid swing toward the 'apathetic' end of things. I doubt the UK is alone on that ride.
Without detracting from the gravity of the debate here, I have to confess an apparent major failing in the UK :) I am hoping you US people maybe able to help?
I have a friend who has had a rough year. I have done what I can - but that is only so much. The only thing I can now do is just provide small delights and surprises ( mind out of the gutter guys! ). She has spent some time in the US where she got hooked on ( forgive the spelling ) - Resus Pieces ( that right? ). Close friends in New Jersey used to send packs over to her - but that's dried up.
In conversation, she let slip how'd she'd love to get hold of Resus Pieces again.
I've tried candy wholesalers here and the internet - no luck.
Can someone either give me the manufacturers web site or point me at a supplier in the US with whom I can get in touch.
Sounds daft I know - but of all the gifts I could get her, this is the one she won't expect and can't get othewise.
Apologies for drifting from topic Mr Moderator and roping you in on my goofy nature - to do things hard way!
Any help appreciated greatly.
Bill Hook
October 11, 2003, 12:42 PM
Resus Pieces
Add an "H" and you'd have monkey parts.
Seriously, to find an item, you need to know its correct spelling - Reeses Pieces.
Made by Hersheys, IIRC.
Our view may be simplistic, but a country that has surveillance everywhere, taxes you to the extent that you must "declare the pennies on your eye" (hyperbole, with apologies to George Harrison), has a hollow and tenuous "right" to self-defense that seems more like a philosphical exercise than a practical response, and has jailed some individuals for "racist" speech on shaky grounds, and is working to limit the use of juries, hardly seems like the place a sane man would want to live. IOW, a "no-brainer."
I suppose there is much to say for becoming inured to a place and not knowing anything else. The Nanny State completes the circle by undermining a person's faith in their abilities (sometimes rightfully so, since persons w/ ability constitute a danger when allowed to achieve to their fullest extent - think Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron."), such that they are afraid to leave the security of mediocrity and strike out on their own in a competetive market.
http://www.candywarehouse.com/candywarehouse/reespiec25ca.html
Nearly 2 stone of them enough? The UK is known for having folks with bad teeth (somehow, there must be a correlation with the highest candy consumption in the world. ;) ), so that might not be such a good idea.
http://www.expatstarsandstripes.com/usareesespieces.html
Add an "H" and you'd have monkey parts.
Seriously, to find an item, you need to know its correct spelling - Reeses Pieces.
Made by Hersheys, IIRC.
Our view may be simplistic, but a country that has surveillance everywhere, taxes you to the extent that you must "declare the pennies on your eye" (hyperbole, with apologies to George Harrison), has a hollow and tenuous "right" to self-defense that seems more like a philosphical exercise than a practical response, and has jailed some individuals for "racist" speech on shaky grounds, and is working to limit the use of juries, hardly seems like the place a sane man would want to live. IOW, a "no-brainer."
I suppose there is much to say for becoming inured to a place and not knowing anything else. The Nanny State completes the circle by undermining a person's faith in their abilities (sometimes rightfully so, since persons w/ ability constitute a danger when allowed to achieve to their fullest extent - think Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron."), such that they are afraid to leave the security of mediocrity and strike out on their own in a competetive market.
http://www.candywarehouse.com/candywarehouse/reespiec25ca.html
Nearly 2 stone of them enough? The UK is known for having folks with bad teeth (somehow, there must be a correlation with the highest candy consumption in the world. ;) ), so that might not be such a good idea.
http://www.expatstarsandstripes.com/usareesespieces.html
Keith
October 11, 2003, 12:42 PM
It's Reeses pieces.
The thing with the US and Britain (and Canada, Australia, etc), is that we feel a real kinship with you. We have a shared langauge and history - our grandfathers and fathers, and now sons... have fought alongside your grandfathers, fathers and sons.
You guys have now taken a different path, socially, politically and culturally. And that bothers us, just as seeing a friend take up recreational heroin would bother us. And it bothers us more when we point out the folly of our frined and he defends his bad choices.
And it frightens us, because our leftist politicians look to YOU when they want to make a point! When they want to build some monolithic health care system (and further drain our wallets), they point to Great Britain and paint a rosy picture. And we respond by pointing out the bad side of socialized medicine.
When they want to enact further gun control legislation, they again look to Britain - and we respond by pointing out the obvious.
And so it goes - every time your country tightens the noose, our leftists shake with envy and make a plea to do the same here.
And there is something else you must understand about the American psyche. An American conservative or libertarian is a pretty smug individual - we love our freedoms and we think the US is the best place on earth.
Our leftists feel just the opposite - they feel inferior to Europeans! They think we should ape every European political or cultural pattern that comes along...
I'm a libertarian. I don't want to live like a European. I fail to understand why anyone would want to live under such a system.
Keith
The thing with the US and Britain (and Canada, Australia, etc), is that we feel a real kinship with you. We have a shared langauge and history - our grandfathers and fathers, and now sons... have fought alongside your grandfathers, fathers and sons.
You guys have now taken a different path, socially, politically and culturally. And that bothers us, just as seeing a friend take up recreational heroin would bother us. And it bothers us more when we point out the folly of our frined and he defends his bad choices.
And it frightens us, because our leftist politicians look to YOU when they want to make a point! When they want to build some monolithic health care system (and further drain our wallets), they point to Great Britain and paint a rosy picture. And we respond by pointing out the bad side of socialized medicine.
When they want to enact further gun control legislation, they again look to Britain - and we respond by pointing out the obvious.
And so it goes - every time your country tightens the noose, our leftists shake with envy and make a plea to do the same here.
And there is something else you must understand about the American psyche. An American conservative or libertarian is a pretty smug individual - we love our freedoms and we think the US is the best place on earth.
Our leftists feel just the opposite - they feel inferior to Europeans! They think we should ape every European political or cultural pattern that comes along...
I'm a libertarian. I don't want to live like a European. I fail to understand why anyone would want to live under such a system.
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 01:40 PM
keith,
buts that is the exact same way in which I see the world - I'm proud of my country (Wales), consider it the best on Earth and cant understand how anyone would want to live anywhere else.
you must also see that whatever lies your "leftists" have said, that doesnt give you the right to misstate what the UK is like. Reading some of the posts here, one could take the viewpoint that up to 1920-odd the US and the UK were identical and that we have sunk from that.
This view is nowhere near the truth - even during the Revolution the common man in the soon-to-be-US was far freer than his English counterpart (to say nothing of his Welsh equivalent). Because of that, our people had to slowly, over the course of 200 years, free themselves from the bottom up, which has given our system a more socialist aspect than yours.
buts that is the exact same way in which I see the world - I'm proud of my country (Wales), consider it the best on Earth and cant understand how anyone would want to live anywhere else.
you must also see that whatever lies your "leftists" have said, that doesnt give you the right to misstate what the UK is like. Reading some of the posts here, one could take the viewpoint that up to 1920-odd the US and the UK were identical and that we have sunk from that.
This view is nowhere near the truth - even during the Revolution the common man in the soon-to-be-US was far freer than his English counterpart (to say nothing of his Welsh equivalent). Because of that, our people had to slowly, over the course of 200 years, free themselves from the bottom up, which has given our system a more socialist aspect than yours.
Keith
October 11, 2003, 01:55 PM
even during the Revolution the common man in the soon-to-be-US was far freer than his English counterpart (to say nothing of his Welsh equivalent). Because of that, our people had to slowly, over the course of 200 years, free themselves from the bottom up, which has given our system a more socialist aspect than yours.
And this is what I mean when I say Britons are like a friend on heroin, who can not see or understand what is happening to him. You are not freeing yourself from the bottom up - you are enslaving yourself from the bottom up!
A Briton in 1776 had far greater rights than a Briton today. And he had greater rights in 1920, 1940, 1960 or even 1990!
You pass new laws and restrictions every year. When I read the Telegraph or Guardian I get the same uneasy feeling as when I read Poe. An insidious and never-ending parade of laws, restrictions, licenses and limitations on every human activity.
That isn't freedom!
Keith
And this is what I mean when I say Britons are like a friend on heroin, who can not see or understand what is happening to him. You are not freeing yourself from the bottom up - you are enslaving yourself from the bottom up!
A Briton in 1776 had far greater rights than a Briton today. And he had greater rights in 1920, 1940, 1960 or even 1990!
You pass new laws and restrictions every year. When I read the Telegraph or Guardian I get the same uneasy feeling as when I read Poe. An insidious and never-ending parade of laws, restrictions, licenses and limitations on every human activity.
That isn't freedom!
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 02:13 PM
keith,
That is palpable nonsense.
The majority of subjects in England in 1776 had no representation at all, no right to legal redress (especially against his betters who invariably dominated the Courts), no protection from oppression (either in terms of his employer, or being beaten, exiled or killed at the whim of the Courts) and was virtually compelled to attend what would now be termed fundamentalist religious services. Sure, he could own arms, but he would have had more important things to spend his money on - like food. In any case, especially in towns, he was liable to become a "pressed man" and be deprived of his liberty in order to fight.
If he had money, he was free, but then the freedom of a society is defined by the status of its lowest citizens, not its highest.
That is palpable nonsense.
The majority of subjects in England in 1776 had no representation at all, no right to legal redress (especially against his betters who invariably dominated the Courts), no protection from oppression (either in terms of his employer, or being beaten, exiled or killed at the whim of the Courts) and was virtually compelled to attend what would now be termed fundamentalist religious services. Sure, he could own arms, but he would have had more important things to spend his money on - like food. In any case, especially in towns, he was liable to become a "pressed man" and be deprived of his liberty in order to fight.
If he had money, he was free, but then the freedom of a society is defined by the status of its lowest citizens, not its highest.
Oakleaf
October 11, 2003, 02:34 PM
Bill & Keith - thank you for the info on Reeses Pieces. I was getting some VERY strange search results - strangely enough many involving intimate parts of primate anatomy :)
I am very grateful to you both for the info - Bill in particular - placed an order with the Expat supply place in York.
Trying to keep discussion as friends - but have to say, it's hard to take it well to be compared to a Heroin Addict! I do understand the illustration was used to try to convey a point of view.
It's not so much the view that gives issue - it's that most of the points raised - regards 'draconian laws' etc - apply equally to the US - as we look across at you. I can quite readily obtain, fit and use a moderator on my rifle. I can choose to hunt a deer virtually every day of the year here. There are actually more firearms laws on US statutue books than in the UK.
This goes on through most levels of daily life - from building codes to Product Liability. If the volume of statute is a measure, what freedom do you have in the US?
I am not criticising you guys, just trying to illustrate the apparent 'incomprehension' on our part when you observe the levels of our Freedom.
I am not for one second defending UK politics or saying we are a free or fair society. But there are similarities on that front in the US and the way your comments come over seems - and I am ready to admit maybe I misunderstand the wordings - to imply you do not have these issues in the US.
You know us by what we write - let us put aside stereotypes on both sides - from that we must agree this is a forum of relatively intelligent people. Agricola, myself MK iv etc are all perfectly at liberty to leave this Country. We are either extremely blinkered - viz a viz a Matrix style controlled world/ THX1138 or there is something, that between us we are not communicating very well. Not sure I have the answer as to the communication - because I look nothing like Keanu Reeves! :D
Thanks again to Bill and Keith for the candy info - impolite for a gentleman to elaborate, but the lady in question is a very remarkable woman.
I am very grateful to you both for the info - Bill in particular - placed an order with the Expat supply place in York.
Trying to keep discussion as friends - but have to say, it's hard to take it well to be compared to a Heroin Addict! I do understand the illustration was used to try to convey a point of view.
It's not so much the view that gives issue - it's that most of the points raised - regards 'draconian laws' etc - apply equally to the US - as we look across at you. I can quite readily obtain, fit and use a moderator on my rifle. I can choose to hunt a deer virtually every day of the year here. There are actually more firearms laws on US statutue books than in the UK.
This goes on through most levels of daily life - from building codes to Product Liability. If the volume of statute is a measure, what freedom do you have in the US?
I am not criticising you guys, just trying to illustrate the apparent 'incomprehension' on our part when you observe the levels of our Freedom.
I am not for one second defending UK politics or saying we are a free or fair society. But there are similarities on that front in the US and the way your comments come over seems - and I am ready to admit maybe I misunderstand the wordings - to imply you do not have these issues in the US.
You know us by what we write - let us put aside stereotypes on both sides - from that we must agree this is a forum of relatively intelligent people. Agricola, myself MK iv etc are all perfectly at liberty to leave this Country. We are either extremely blinkered - viz a viz a Matrix style controlled world/ THX1138 or there is something, that between us we are not communicating very well. Not sure I have the answer as to the communication - because I look nothing like Keanu Reeves! :D
Thanks again to Bill and Keith for the candy info - impolite for a gentleman to elaborate, but the lady in question is a very remarkable woman.
Keith
October 11, 2003, 02:34 PM
You're confusing economics and civil liberties - two very different things!
British subjects still support the church through tax subsidies. And the poor still have lousy legal representation compared to the rich. And if Europe ever erupts in another war, they will still be "pressed" to man the navy and army.
And now the poor must pay those draconian taxes imposed on goods and services they need to survive, and they must do so after the various income taxes take a big bite of their earnings. Things that didn't exist in the past.
And if he wants to watch TV, he must pay for the license or risk the wrath of the local bureaucratenfuerher who will have him arrested and fined if he steps out of line. And if the local junkie kicks down his door to take that TV, he has a "duty to retreat". If he defends his televison he'll be arrested again - on gun charges for the old pistol or shotgun he isn't allowed to own.
That isn't freedom.
Keith
British subjects still support the church through tax subsidies. And the poor still have lousy legal representation compared to the rich. And if Europe ever erupts in another war, they will still be "pressed" to man the navy and army.
And now the poor must pay those draconian taxes imposed on goods and services they need to survive, and they must do so after the various income taxes take a big bite of their earnings. Things that didn't exist in the past.
And if he wants to watch TV, he must pay for the license or risk the wrath of the local bureaucratenfuerher who will have him arrested and fined if he steps out of line. And if the local junkie kicks down his door to take that TV, he has a "duty to retreat". If he defends his televison he'll be arrested again - on gun charges for the old pistol or shotgun he isn't allowed to own.
That isn't freedom.
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 02:42 PM
keith,
now whos confusing economics and civil liberties?
now whos confusing economics and civil liberties?
Keith
October 11, 2003, 02:49 PM
It's not so much the view that gives issue - it's that most of the points raised - regards 'draconian laws' etc - apply equally to the US - as we look across at you. I can quite readily obtain, fit and use a moderator on my rifle. I can choose to hunt a deer virtually every day of the year here. There are actually more firearms laws on US statutue books than in the UK.
Oak,
I suspect by "moderator", you mean what we call a "suppressor"? Those are legal here as well, in most states, though you must apply for a special license. You can hunt deer (and many "exotic" game) on private land here as well, for a fee. It is only public land that is heavily regulated by season - but that hunting is free, or nearly so.
And the reason we have more firearms laws is because we are a de-centralized system. Most of those laws only apply within individual cities or states. Very few are national in scope.
For example, here in Alaska we have almost no regulations on firearms, beyond those few that are federal in scope. You want to carry a pistol on your belt - fine. You want to carry it concealed - fine. You want to give your five year old a rifle and take him hunting - fine. You want a suppressor, machine gun, artillery piece - fine (after you pay $200 for the damned federal permit...)
Most Europeans get confused by this diversity. They don't understand that the individual US states are in fact, semi-autonomous "states". And most of the anger you see from gun owners is about attempts to federalize gun laws. From our point of view - if you don't like guns, move to New Jersey - or England...
Keith
Oak,
I suspect by "moderator", you mean what we call a "suppressor"? Those are legal here as well, in most states, though you must apply for a special license. You can hunt deer (and many "exotic" game) on private land here as well, for a fee. It is only public land that is heavily regulated by season - but that hunting is free, or nearly so.
And the reason we have more firearms laws is because we are a de-centralized system. Most of those laws only apply within individual cities or states. Very few are national in scope.
For example, here in Alaska we have almost no regulations on firearms, beyond those few that are federal in scope. You want to carry a pistol on your belt - fine. You want to carry it concealed - fine. You want to give your five year old a rifle and take him hunting - fine. You want a suppressor, machine gun, artillery piece - fine (after you pay $200 for the damned federal permit...)
Most Europeans get confused by this diversity. They don't understand that the individual US states are in fact, semi-autonomous "states". And most of the anger you see from gun owners is about attempts to federalize gun laws. From our point of view - if you don't like guns, move to New Jersey - or England...
Keith
Keith
October 11, 2003, 02:51 PM
now whos confusing economics and civil liberties?
Not me. Government imposed taxes are not a consequence of free market economics. They are political tools - sometimes simply for the money, sometimes to regulate behavior (as in "sin taxes", etc).
Keith
Not me. Government imposed taxes are not a consequence of free market economics. They are political tools - sometimes simply for the money, sometimes to regulate behavior (as in "sin taxes", etc).
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 02:57 PM
keith,
so you consider having no vote, and no access to Law, to be better than being taxed?
so you consider having no vote, and no access to Law, to be better than being taxed?
Keith
October 11, 2003, 03:11 PM
so you consider having no vote, and no access to Law, to be better than being taxed?
The reason we threw the British out was for a combination of those - taxation without representation.
It's not a matter of whether economic or political slavery is worse - slavery is slavery, no matter whether a landowner or a politician holds the whip.
Keith
The reason we threw the British out was for a combination of those - taxation without representation.
It's not a matter of whether economic or political slavery is worse - slavery is slavery, no matter whether a landowner or a politician holds the whip.
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 03:15 PM
and yet you just said that life in the UK was better in 1776!!
Oakleaf
October 11, 2003, 03:21 PM
Keith
You sure you weren't a New Labour Spin Doctor? :D
Suppose it's hard to claim a 'win' if specific examples are knocked back, but your slant on this simply does not reflect the actual circumstance.
We could sit down and list a whole traunch of things - from deer seasons to supressors etc - seems likely each could be rebutted in turn. Will that validate your view - or for that matter mine?
What I can't grasp is what appears to be reluctance to see beyond your point of view. Again, difficult to convey in typed words - without tone and body language these things can be misinterpreted. At risk of sounding like a stuck record, not picking a fight here or out to offend.
I like to think I am erudite, it saddens me to see increasingly harsh exchanges across the forum. However, I do not seem able to convey my views very well on this - to glibly say you are wrong in many ways is not constructive. But that is the base line of my view. I cannot expect to convince you by that poor offerring and inadequate execution of persuasive English. However, your assertions, whilst more detailed do not win the day in terms of illuminating the truth of the matter.
If we were downtrodden to the extent portayed, why do Agricola et al keep on posting? I cannot speak for them - but suspect an equal loss to fully grasp the mechanism at work and the basis for the depth of feeling in your and other US responders.
It may not be intended on your part - maybe it's misunderstanding on mine, but there seems to be this triumphalism in these assertions on the dire state of other countries in comparison to the USA. Within that are shades of isolationism and the roots of some of our ( note word our ) current problems with misguided elements standing behind the banner Islam and others.
There are things I would change about the UK - and I lobby my politicians and use my vote to effect changes. Some I win, some I lose. Are you so content with the lot of the US ( assume $200 supressor licencing is a given bug bear)
:)
Going to log off soon - so will pick up in morning
You sure you weren't a New Labour Spin Doctor? :D
Suppose it's hard to claim a 'win' if specific examples are knocked back, but your slant on this simply does not reflect the actual circumstance.
We could sit down and list a whole traunch of things - from deer seasons to supressors etc - seems likely each could be rebutted in turn. Will that validate your view - or for that matter mine?
What I can't grasp is what appears to be reluctance to see beyond your point of view. Again, difficult to convey in typed words - without tone and body language these things can be misinterpreted. At risk of sounding like a stuck record, not picking a fight here or out to offend.
I like to think I am erudite, it saddens me to see increasingly harsh exchanges across the forum. However, I do not seem able to convey my views very well on this - to glibly say you are wrong in many ways is not constructive. But that is the base line of my view. I cannot expect to convince you by that poor offerring and inadequate execution of persuasive English. However, your assertions, whilst more detailed do not win the day in terms of illuminating the truth of the matter.
If we were downtrodden to the extent portayed, why do Agricola et al keep on posting? I cannot speak for them - but suspect an equal loss to fully grasp the mechanism at work and the basis for the depth of feeling in your and other US responders.
It may not be intended on your part - maybe it's misunderstanding on mine, but there seems to be this triumphalism in these assertions on the dire state of other countries in comparison to the USA. Within that are shades of isolationism and the roots of some of our ( note word our ) current problems with misguided elements standing behind the banner Islam and others.
There are things I would change about the UK - and I lobby my politicians and use my vote to effect changes. Some I win, some I lose. Are you so content with the lot of the US ( assume $200 supressor licencing is a given bug bear)
:)
Going to log off soon - so will pick up in morning
Keith
October 11, 2003, 03:30 PM
and yet you just said that life in the UK was better in 1776!!
I didn't say "life was better", that would be nonsense given the many advances in medicine, technology and global economics. But the British people certainly had more freedoms in 1776.
A man could pretty much do as he pleased. If he was clever and made some money, he could keep it all, instead of just a "share" as is the case today. He could own and carry a gun. He could defend his life against a road agent or burglar without having his lfe destroyed by the government. He could buy and sell land or property without being told who he could sell it to, how it could be used, or how much of the profits he would be allowed to keep. If he wanted hire or fire an individual, he didn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops or worry about an inquiry into the racial/religious/ethnic background of the employee. He could chase a fox across his field without having it discussed in Parliament.
Of course, life was "fairer" for the rich and the middle class than the poor, but that has not changed has it?
Keith
I didn't say "life was better", that would be nonsense given the many advances in medicine, technology and global economics. But the British people certainly had more freedoms in 1776.
A man could pretty much do as he pleased. If he was clever and made some money, he could keep it all, instead of just a "share" as is the case today. He could own and carry a gun. He could defend his life against a road agent or burglar without having his lfe destroyed by the government. He could buy and sell land or property without being told who he could sell it to, how it could be used, or how much of the profits he would be allowed to keep. If he wanted hire or fire an individual, he didn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops or worry about an inquiry into the racial/religious/ethnic background of the employee. He could chase a fox across his field without having it discussed in Parliament.
Of course, life was "fairer" for the rich and the middle class than the poor, but that has not changed has it?
Keith
Keith
October 11, 2003, 03:58 PM
We could sit down and list a whole traunch of things - from deer seasons to supressors etc - seems likely each could be rebutted in turn. Will that validate your view - or for that matter mine?
Well, yes. It would validate my view! I own a number of guns that you can't own. In fact, my twelve year old owns guns that you can't own!
I can go out today, a mile from my house and shoot a deer, or several deer. I will not have to pay a fee for a tag. I will not have to hire a guide, or get permission from any bureaucrats or landowners. I can shoot the deer with a FAL (L1A1), a bolt action, a shotgun, a handgun, an antique musket, a bow and arrow - anything I want.
It may not be intended on your part - maybe it's misunderstanding on mine, but there seems to be this triumphalism in these assertions on the dire state of other countries in comparison to the USA. Within that are shades of isolationism and the roots of some of our ( note word our ) current problems with misguided elements standing behind the banner Islam and others.
Well... it's difficult not to get a bit strident when discussing this subject with some of your countrymen. In many ways it's like talking to someone who doesn't speak English (if "Americanese" is indeed English...). Some of your countrymen see economic, political and social CONTROL as a form of "freedom". And that is maddening to many of us on this side of the pond. It defies logic!
And it isn't the political atmosphere we get angry with! We have states that are every bit as oppressive, so we understand that. But when you read posts from Californians or New Yorkers, they are ANGRY about the controls! They don't defend such controls; they discuss ways to overturn such laws or beat the system.
At one time the English (to include the Scots, and Welsh, and even... the Irish) were viewed as among the most calm and principled of all the naked apes inhabiting the planet. Now we see you wrapping yourselves in a sort of social and political hysteria. Ban handguns! Ban all guns! Ban knives! Ban toy guns! Ban... what is next? And how do you defend such silliness?
Keith
Well, yes. It would validate my view! I own a number of guns that you can't own. In fact, my twelve year old owns guns that you can't own!
I can go out today, a mile from my house and shoot a deer, or several deer. I will not have to pay a fee for a tag. I will not have to hire a guide, or get permission from any bureaucrats or landowners. I can shoot the deer with a FAL (L1A1), a bolt action, a shotgun, a handgun, an antique musket, a bow and arrow - anything I want.
It may not be intended on your part - maybe it's misunderstanding on mine, but there seems to be this triumphalism in these assertions on the dire state of other countries in comparison to the USA. Within that are shades of isolationism and the roots of some of our ( note word our ) current problems with misguided elements standing behind the banner Islam and others.
Well... it's difficult not to get a bit strident when discussing this subject with some of your countrymen. In many ways it's like talking to someone who doesn't speak English (if "Americanese" is indeed English...). Some of your countrymen see economic, political and social CONTROL as a form of "freedom". And that is maddening to many of us on this side of the pond. It defies logic!
And it isn't the political atmosphere we get angry with! We have states that are every bit as oppressive, so we understand that. But when you read posts from Californians or New Yorkers, they are ANGRY about the controls! They don't defend such controls; they discuss ways to overturn such laws or beat the system.
At one time the English (to include the Scots, and Welsh, and even... the Irish) were viewed as among the most calm and principled of all the naked apes inhabiting the planet. Now we see you wrapping yourselves in a sort of social and political hysteria. Ban handguns! Ban all guns! Ban knives! Ban toy guns! Ban... what is next? And how do you defend such silliness?
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 04:09 PM
keith,
I will keep it simple. a poor man in England in 1776 had few rights, fewer that he would ever get the chance to exercise and even less chance at improving his lot; a poor man in England in 2003 has many rights, any and all of which he can choose to exercise and a real oppurtunity to rise as far as his talents will allow.
With regard to those rights, please please try to understand that we are not Americans, we dont want to be and we dont share some of your beliefs. Our ideas of what we want to be important in our society may not sit well with you - but it is our society after all. I here repeatedly that the UK is degenerating - but from what? An Empire that oppressed hundreds of millions of people? A society where people were imprisoned because they had no money?
To add to what Oakleaf says, when I post endlessly about how wretched and pathetic a people the Americans are, maybe then we should have this debate, but I cannot recall many (if any at all) occasions in which I have done that - yet one faces daily tirades from people who clearly have either little or no understanding of the UK; or axes to grind and stereotypes to reinforce (see Bill's teeth remark for an example).
I have said it before, but if the content of these rants, posts and articles was instead somehow "anti-gun", you'd have the world and his wife commenting on the idiocy of the poster / author concerned, and yet because it panders to some of your (ie some in this community and not specifically you) prejudices the community lets this slide (a case in point being the Zedicus business).
In a question:
what have the British people done to deserve this treatment from the likes of you?
I will keep it simple. a poor man in England in 1776 had few rights, fewer that he would ever get the chance to exercise and even less chance at improving his lot; a poor man in England in 2003 has many rights, any and all of which he can choose to exercise and a real oppurtunity to rise as far as his talents will allow.
With regard to those rights, please please try to understand that we are not Americans, we dont want to be and we dont share some of your beliefs. Our ideas of what we want to be important in our society may not sit well with you - but it is our society after all. I here repeatedly that the UK is degenerating - but from what? An Empire that oppressed hundreds of millions of people? A society where people were imprisoned because they had no money?
To add to what Oakleaf says, when I post endlessly about how wretched and pathetic a people the Americans are, maybe then we should have this debate, but I cannot recall many (if any at all) occasions in which I have done that - yet one faces daily tirades from people who clearly have either little or no understanding of the UK; or axes to grind and stereotypes to reinforce (see Bill's teeth remark for an example).
I have said it before, but if the content of these rants, posts and articles was instead somehow "anti-gun", you'd have the world and his wife commenting on the idiocy of the poster / author concerned, and yet because it panders to some of your (ie some in this community and not specifically you) prejudices the community lets this slide (a case in point being the Zedicus business).
In a question:
what have the British people done to deserve this treatment from the likes of you?
Bill Hook
October 11, 2003, 04:22 PM
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3876&catcode=10
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22429,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/441754.stm
British keeping their teeth
Many more people are keeping their teeth
A massive improvement in dental health has been revealed by a government survey released on Wednesday.
Half as many people are losing all their teeth as 20 years ago, and people are not only hanging on to their natural teeth, but also keeping them in better shape.
The Adult Dental Health Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, found that 13% of adults were without a single natural tooth in 1998.
This compares to 21% in 1988, and 30% in 1978.
Last year, 83% of adults had 21 or more teeth left, compared to 73% two decades ago.
A full adult set of teeth should number 32.
Call for strategy
But John Hunt, chief executive of the British Dental Association, was not entirely upbeat, saying that much more needed to be done.
He said: "The Government must make dentistry a higher priority if it is to reduce inequalities in oral health and improve quality.
"We welcome the announcement from the Minister of Health that the Government will publish its strategy for dentistry at the end of the year - but we have been waiting for that strategy since it was announced in April last year."
Scottish people had the worst dental health in the UK , according to the survey, with, on average, 8.2 missing teeth.
They also had the lowest number of sound and untreated teeth, with Northern Ireland close behind.
England came out best, with 15.5 untreated and sound teeth on average, just ahead of Wales.
Those in the south of England fared better than the north and midlands, with 10% of adults proving toothless, compared to 15% in the midlands and 13% in the North.
Health Minister John Denham said: "People in every part of the UK have seen improvements but we recognise that there are still marked regional variations.
"We are determined to improve oral health and tackle problems of access to dentists."
Surveys have shown that the number of people registered with a dentist is dropping, and there have been complaints that it is difficult to get registered with an NHS dentist in some areas of the country.
The BBC said it, not me, so it HAS to be true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22429,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/441754.stm
British keeping their teeth
Many more people are keeping their teeth
A massive improvement in dental health has been revealed by a government survey released on Wednesday.
Half as many people are losing all their teeth as 20 years ago, and people are not only hanging on to their natural teeth, but also keeping them in better shape.
The Adult Dental Health Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, found that 13% of adults were without a single natural tooth in 1998.
This compares to 21% in 1988, and 30% in 1978.
Last year, 83% of adults had 21 or more teeth left, compared to 73% two decades ago.
A full adult set of teeth should number 32.
Call for strategy
But John Hunt, chief executive of the British Dental Association, was not entirely upbeat, saying that much more needed to be done.
He said: "The Government must make dentistry a higher priority if it is to reduce inequalities in oral health and improve quality.
"We welcome the announcement from the Minister of Health that the Government will publish its strategy for dentistry at the end of the year - but we have been waiting for that strategy since it was announced in April last year."
Scottish people had the worst dental health in the UK , according to the survey, with, on average, 8.2 missing teeth.
They also had the lowest number of sound and untreated teeth, with Northern Ireland close behind.
England came out best, with 15.5 untreated and sound teeth on average, just ahead of Wales.
Those in the south of England fared better than the north and midlands, with 10% of adults proving toothless, compared to 15% in the midlands and 13% in the North.
Health Minister John Denham said: "People in every part of the UK have seen improvements but we recognise that there are still marked regional variations.
"We are determined to improve oral health and tackle problems of access to dentists."
Surveys have shown that the number of people registered with a dentist is dropping, and there have been complaints that it is difficult to get registered with an NHS dentist in some areas of the country.
The BBC said it, not me, so it HAS to be true.
Keith
October 11, 2003, 04:39 PM
I will keep it simple. a poor man in England in 1776 had few rights,
And even fewer now...
With regard to those rights, please please try to understand that we are not Americans, we dont want to be and we dont share some of your beliefs.
What do you mean "we"? I'm sure many Britons would like to keep more of their earnings, own a handgun, choose their own medical plan (without paying for one they don't want), etc. They don't have any choices in these matters, and they have less choices every year.
Keith
And even fewer now...
With regard to those rights, please please try to understand that we are not Americans, we dont want to be and we dont share some of your beliefs.
What do you mean "we"? I'm sure many Britons would like to keep more of their earnings, own a handgun, choose their own medical plan (without paying for one they don't want), etc. They don't have any choices in these matters, and they have less choices every year.
Keith
agricola
October 11, 2003, 05:04 PM
keith,
keep more of their earnings = vast majority of people
want a handgun = very few people
dont want the NHS = unknown, probably miniscule amount
we are not you keith
can you not understand? a poor man in 1776 had NO rights, he cant have less now. Maybe if you wanted to actually understand, youd learn that.
bill,
if you want to play stereotypes:
http://www.foryoumagazine.com/pastarticles/obesity.html
http://rwjf.org/news/special/shape/shape.jhtml
keep more of their earnings = vast majority of people
want a handgun = very few people
dont want the NHS = unknown, probably miniscule amount
we are not you keith
can you not understand? a poor man in 1776 had NO rights, he cant have less now. Maybe if you wanted to actually understand, youd learn that.
bill,
if you want to play stereotypes:
http://www.foryoumagazine.com/pastarticles/obesity.html
http://rwjf.org/news/special/shape/shape.jhtml
Bill Hook
October 12, 2003, 03:17 AM
Agricola,
Too bad it's not much of a stereotype, but rather the truth. Guess that's what happens when you don't boil everything. Boiled food is easier to chew (or gum, as the case may be), too. :neener:
I think I'll have another fried twinkie. ;)
can you not understand? a poor man in 1776 had NO rights, he cant have less now. Maybe if you wanted to actually understand, youd learn that.
What I think it is worth understanding is why Britons lack parity with Americans with regard to their rights. I'll concede that today's average brit is better off than in 1776, but I'd also like to say that I believe his rights are on a downswing that started in the 1920s and that he has fewer than an American contemporary.
Too bad it's not much of a stereotype, but rather the truth. Guess that's what happens when you don't boil everything. Boiled food is easier to chew (or gum, as the case may be), too. :neener:
I think I'll have another fried twinkie. ;)
can you not understand? a poor man in 1776 had NO rights, he cant have less now. Maybe if you wanted to actually understand, youd learn that.
What I think it is worth understanding is why Britons lack parity with Americans with regard to their rights. I'll concede that today's average brit is better off than in 1776, but I'd also like to say that I believe his rights are on a downswing that started in the 1920s and that he has fewer than an American contemporary.
agricola
October 12, 2003, 06:21 AM
bill,
What I think it is worth understanding is why Britons lack parity with Americans with regard to their rights. I'll concede that today's average brit is better off than in 1776, but I'd also like to say that I believe his rights are on a downswing that started in the 1920s and that he has fewer than an American contemporary.
To debate that rather requires that one accepts that the US somehow represents the high end of the "rights scale", which accepts the US argument.
As I mentioned before, historically the colonists were always "freer" (in an eighteenth century sense) than those who remained in the UK and the Revolution not only cemented this fact but enshrined within American society an idea that the main route to major political change is through immediate action - in a similar way to the French. There is a danger of idealizing the pre-revolutionary British, but dont forget that the majority of colonists left the UK for a better quality of life or to escape persecution (usually on religious grounds), or to escape the military (especially the Scots). In that respect Blackstone is the exception, and not the rule.
The UK however has developed differently. Following on from the Revolution, it took up until the late 1960's for it to become really (ie: not so remarkable as to cause comment) possible for someone of working class to approach the upper strata of society; and one could point out today that there remains a gulf of oppurtunity between those born working class, and those born with money - they take different jobs, go to different schools and universities and have different outlooks on life (though of course this is a huge generalization).
However, this progress took place over those two hundred years in small increments, starting with the vote, moving through workplace representation and protection, then improving the lot of the working man in society generally - improving housing, healthcare and standard of life, then gaining political representation through the Labour Party (RIP); culminating in the 1945 General Election which saw the advent of possibly the most radical Government in British history since the Civil Wars (and the only one to actually deliver on its promises). All of this took (in the main) non-violence, compromise and patience, but most importantly it worked, and so it remains identified as a successful model today.
All of this took place in an environment that would be considered "socialist" (as indeed it was) by an American audience; but it was effective in that it has allowed working-class people nowadays to have access (even if it, in some areas, remains limited) to all levels of society depending on their merits. The Britain of 1776, and to a lesser extent 1920, belonged to the rich and their conception of "rights" reflected that - but now the country is coming closer to belonging to the people and the conception of "rights" has and is changing to reflect that. One right that remains shared between our two societies is the right to achieve anything that you are capable of, to better yourself based on your hard work - this right was much harder to achieve in the UK for the majority of those 200 years and only now are we even approaching you in that respect.
The net result has been that, in the 200-odd years since the Revolution, our societies have markedly changed; I wouldnt call either better or worse than each other, all I can state is that I would rather live here.
What I think it is worth understanding is why Britons lack parity with Americans with regard to their rights. I'll concede that today's average brit is better off than in 1776, but I'd also like to say that I believe his rights are on a downswing that started in the 1920s and that he has fewer than an American contemporary.
To debate that rather requires that one accepts that the US somehow represents the high end of the "rights scale", which accepts the US argument.
As I mentioned before, historically the colonists were always "freer" (in an eighteenth century sense) than those who remained in the UK and the Revolution not only cemented this fact but enshrined within American society an idea that the main route to major political change is through immediate action - in a similar way to the French. There is a danger of idealizing the pre-revolutionary British, but dont forget that the majority of colonists left the UK for a better quality of life or to escape persecution (usually on religious grounds), or to escape the military (especially the Scots). In that respect Blackstone is the exception, and not the rule.
The UK however has developed differently. Following on from the Revolution, it took up until the late 1960's for it to become really (ie: not so remarkable as to cause comment) possible for someone of working class to approach the upper strata of society; and one could point out today that there remains a gulf of oppurtunity between those born working class, and those born with money - they take different jobs, go to different schools and universities and have different outlooks on life (though of course this is a huge generalization).
However, this progress took place over those two hundred years in small increments, starting with the vote, moving through workplace representation and protection, then improving the lot of the working man in society generally - improving housing, healthcare and standard of life, then gaining political representation through the Labour Party (RIP); culminating in the 1945 General Election which saw the advent of possibly the most radical Government in British history since the Civil Wars (and the only one to actually deliver on its promises). All of this took (in the main) non-violence, compromise and patience, but most importantly it worked, and so it remains identified as a successful model today.
All of this took place in an environment that would be considered "socialist" (as indeed it was) by an American audience; but it was effective in that it has allowed working-class people nowadays to have access (even if it, in some areas, remains limited) to all levels of society depending on their merits. The Britain of 1776, and to a lesser extent 1920, belonged to the rich and their conception of "rights" reflected that - but now the country is coming closer to belonging to the people and the conception of "rights" has and is changing to reflect that. One right that remains shared between our two societies is the right to achieve anything that you are capable of, to better yourself based on your hard work - this right was much harder to achieve in the UK for the majority of those 200 years and only now are we even approaching you in that respect.
The net result has been that, in the 200-odd years since the Revolution, our societies have markedly changed; I wouldnt call either better or worse than each other, all I can state is that I would rather live here.
fallingblock
October 12, 2003, 08:11 AM
" all I can state is that I would rather live here."
************************************************************
I spoke with quite a few young British backpackers at Ayer's Rock earlier this week, and most of them desperately want to relocate to Australia (horrible gun laws and all:confused: ) as soon as possible.
Annual immigration numbers from the U.K. to Australia are usually in the top five spots, with 1,235,000 + now residing in this nation of 20,000,000. :eek:
The numbers of British G.P.'s practising here has doubled in the past ten years...why? because many detest National Health and others want a warmer climate...and to keep more of the money they earn.:rolleyes:
No one can legitimately argue with your choice to live in Britain, but it is rather obvious that significant numbers of educated and professional people are choosing to leave the U.K. for the U.S. and Commonwealth nations. This flow is quite one-sided to these nations. Immigrants from third world countries are moving to Britain for the enhanced opportunities in comparison to their nations.
I appreciate your position. Australia is going down a similar path to the U.K.'s, which I do not desire....but the climate and wide-open spaces here are not available in many 'first world' nations. I prefer the freedoms that yet exist in the U.S. to the ever-increasing nanny state here.:(
Ah, for the perfect nation for every taste:)
************************************************************
I spoke with quite a few young British backpackers at Ayer's Rock earlier this week, and most of them desperately want to relocate to Australia (horrible gun laws and all:confused: ) as soon as possible.
Annual immigration numbers from the U.K. to Australia are usually in the top five spots, with 1,235,000 + now residing in this nation of 20,000,000. :eek:
The numbers of British G.P.'s practising here has doubled in the past ten years...why? because many detest National Health and others want a warmer climate...and to keep more of the money they earn.:rolleyes:
No one can legitimately argue with your choice to live in Britain, but it is rather obvious that significant numbers of educated and professional people are choosing to leave the U.K. for the U.S. and Commonwealth nations. This flow is quite one-sided to these nations. Immigrants from third world countries are moving to Britain for the enhanced opportunities in comparison to their nations.
I appreciate your position. Australia is going down a similar path to the U.K.'s, which I do not desire....but the climate and wide-open spaces here are not available in many 'first world' nations. I prefer the freedoms that yet exist in the U.S. to the ever-increasing nanny state here.:(
Ah, for the perfect nation for every taste:)
agricola
October 12, 2003, 09:37 AM
fallingblock,
The numbers of British G.P.'s practising here has doubled in the past ten years...why? because many detest National Health and others want a warmer climate...and to keep more of the money they earn
but thats the thing - we have had the NHS for the past fifty years, and so that cannot be the reason for GP's leaving. What has happened is that the creeping privatization of the NHS under first the Major, and now the Blair governments have seriously weakened the system, almost (and indeed in some places to) the point of collapse, probably intentionally. Nurses and Doctors of all kinds find themselves as a result under more pressure - but this pressure is not the fault of the NHS.
Besides, your point about immigration being one-way rings hollow to me, given that I walked past upwards of ten thousand Australians who nearly packed out the Oval yesterday for some Aussie Rules Football; in addition to the unwritten rule that every other London pub must have at least one Aussie barman / barmaid on the staff.
The numbers of British G.P.'s practising here has doubled in the past ten years...why? because many detest National Health and others want a warmer climate...and to keep more of the money they earn
but thats the thing - we have had the NHS for the past fifty years, and so that cannot be the reason for GP's leaving. What has happened is that the creeping privatization of the NHS under first the Major, and now the Blair governments have seriously weakened the system, almost (and indeed in some places to) the point of collapse, probably intentionally. Nurses and Doctors of all kinds find themselves as a result under more pressure - but this pressure is not the fault of the NHS.
Besides, your point about immigration being one-way rings hollow to me, given that I walked past upwards of ten thousand Australians who nearly packed out the Oval yesterday for some Aussie Rules Football; in addition to the unwritten rule that every other London pub must have at least one Aussie barman / barmaid on the staff.
Byron Quick
October 12, 2003, 10:04 AM
I admire the British in many areas. Most I've met personally have been good people. Some folks here back during the Falklands tiff wondered what would happen...I remarked that people trying to take things from the British didn't have a very good track record. People have a much better track record who talk the British into giving things away.
I've stated on many occasions that with their current laws and social climate that I'll never visit. There's a number of US states I'll never set foot in for the same reason.
I have a way of life that I'm loath to relinquish. That way of life would make me a felon in Britain and several US states. I prefer not to be a felon.
Therefore it seems logical to me to stay away.
They've a perfect right to arrange things to suit them in their country.
I've stated on many occasions that with their current laws and social climate that I'll never visit. There's a number of US states I'll never set foot in for the same reason.
I have a way of life that I'm loath to relinquish. That way of life would make me a felon in Britain and several US states. I prefer not to be a felon.
Therefore it seems logical to me to stay away.
They've a perfect right to arrange things to suit them in their country.
Bill Hook
October 12, 2003, 03:23 PM
and the only one to actually deliver on its promises
Well, I don't know about what promises they did or din't keep to Britons, but they sure didn't keep many to indigenous allied peoples after the war, the Karen being the main example.
I respect that you're sincere in your beliefs, but I can only believe that your system, while it allows hard work and achievement, also penalizes the same to an extent that a similarly motivated individual in the US would/could achieve more than in the UK. A socialist oriented system can do no other, as it hangs the albatross of others burdens around the necks of the most successful, even if these others haven't lifted a finger to better themselves. I'm only afraid that the US WILL achieve parity with the UK, but through a decline in our freedoms through implementation of similar policies. However, if it works for you....
Well, I don't know about what promises they did or din't keep to Britons, but they sure didn't keep many to indigenous allied peoples after the war, the Karen being the main example.
I respect that you're sincere in your beliefs, but I can only believe that your system, while it allows hard work and achievement, also penalizes the same to an extent that a similarly motivated individual in the US would/could achieve more than in the UK. A socialist oriented system can do no other, as it hangs the albatross of others burdens around the necks of the most successful, even if these others haven't lifted a finger to better themselves. I'm only afraid that the US WILL achieve parity with the UK, but through a decline in our freedoms through implementation of similar policies. However, if it works for you....
agricola
October 12, 2003, 04:30 PM
Bill,
Then you must see that the system you hark back to denied those chances to better oneself to a much greater extent than now.
Then you must see that the system you hark back to denied those chances to better oneself to a much greater extent than now.
fallingblock
October 13, 2003, 02:50 AM
"...we have had the NHS for the past fifty years, and so that cannot be the reason for GP's leaving."
************************************************************
Well, the Brit. G.P.'s I have queried regarding their shift to Australia have each mentioned National Health as being too demanding for not enough reward...but perhaps this is merely due to its deconstruction, as you claim.
************************************************************
"given that I walked past upwards of ten thousand Australians who nearly packed out the Oval yesterday for some Aussie Rules Football; in addition to the unwritten rule that every other London pub must have at least one Aussie barman / barmaid on the staff.
************************************************************
Well, Agricola, the principal difference would be that the Aussies you see in the football mob and working in the pubs are "doing their O.E." (overseas experience), a grand tradition of young Aussies since the mid-20th century.
They are most certainly not immigrating permanently into Britain, although they seem quite happy to soak up as many pounds as possible before pushing on through Europe and Asia to home again.:D
The 1,235,000+ British-born I referred to earlier is the number who have actually taken out Australian citizenship, and there are hundreds of thousands of British-born from pre-1980 who are permanent residents but not Australian citizens. I strongly suspect these folks won't be returning to the U.K. for much more than a family visit, and often when they invite family out, the U.K. family add to the immigration queue.:what:
Certainly there is a 'filter effect' operating with the young Brit. backpackers I speak with here in Alice and out at the Rock. They have taken the effort to come out to Australia and many of them seek the lifestyle which is available here but not in Britain. And again, the sheer volume of open space provides a sense of freedom that isn't possible in the U.K..
At the surgery I attended in Townsville, the entire staff was from the U.K..
The docs seemed to turn over frequently, so I asked during one visit about the phenomenon. The bright young female G.P. said that they had to serve six months minimum as a G.P. in a designated provincial zone to qualify for their Australian permanent residence. They were recruited for the Castle Hill Clinic directly from England:). Australian doctors seem for the most part to loathe the bush, so I suspect the scheme had at least tacit support from the Federal Government in order to ease the rural G.P. shortage.
Even though we have the same ridiculously pampered and wealthy old woman on our coins as you do, the population of Australia (particularly the young) seems to have some resistance to the level of socialism and governmental control evident in the U.K.. Perhaps this resistance is a relict of the initial British settlement of the continent?
I for one, certainly appreciate your long-suffering efforts to clarify and refine the often rather distorted reporting of U.K. events we suffer at the hands of the miserable media here.
************************************************************
Well, the Brit. G.P.'s I have queried regarding their shift to Australia have each mentioned National Health as being too demanding for not enough reward...but perhaps this is merely due to its deconstruction, as you claim.
************************************************************
"given that I walked past upwards of ten thousand Australians who nearly packed out the Oval yesterday for some Aussie Rules Football; in addition to the unwritten rule that every other London pub must have at least one Aussie barman / barmaid on the staff.
************************************************************
Well, Agricola, the principal difference would be that the Aussies you see in the football mob and working in the pubs are "doing their O.E." (overseas experience), a grand tradition of young Aussies since the mid-20th century.
They are most certainly not immigrating permanently into Britain, although they seem quite happy to soak up as many pounds as possible before pushing on through Europe and Asia to home again.:D
The 1,235,000+ British-born I referred to earlier is the number who have actually taken out Australian citizenship, and there are hundreds of thousands of British-born from pre-1980 who are permanent residents but not Australian citizens. I strongly suspect these folks won't be returning to the U.K. for much more than a family visit, and often when they invite family out, the U.K. family add to the immigration queue.:what:
Certainly there is a 'filter effect' operating with the young Brit. backpackers I speak with here in Alice and out at the Rock. They have taken the effort to come out to Australia and many of them seek the lifestyle which is available here but not in Britain. And again, the sheer volume of open space provides a sense of freedom that isn't possible in the U.K..
At the surgery I attended in Townsville, the entire staff was from the U.K..
The docs seemed to turn over frequently, so I asked during one visit about the phenomenon. The bright young female G.P. said that they had to serve six months minimum as a G.P. in a designated provincial zone to qualify for their Australian permanent residence. They were recruited for the Castle Hill Clinic directly from England:). Australian doctors seem for the most part to loathe the bush, so I suspect the scheme had at least tacit support from the Federal Government in order to ease the rural G.P. shortage.
Even though we have the same ridiculously pampered and wealthy old woman on our coins as you do, the population of Australia (particularly the young) seems to have some resistance to the level of socialism and governmental control evident in the U.K.. Perhaps this resistance is a relict of the initial British settlement of the continent?
I for one, certainly appreciate your long-suffering efforts to clarify and refine the often rather distorted reporting of U.K. events we suffer at the hands of the miserable media here.
chrisell
October 13, 2003, 03:49 PM
Oakleaf : you say I did one of the two options available to me.
Actually, I did both. For those who live in England, you might remember Dump The Pumps back in the summer of 2000. That was started by me and a friend of mine (Neil Woodier). We initiated the website boycott-the-pumps.co.uk and the papers took up the story and ran with it. Neil and I were pissed off at the cost of petrol so we decided to do something about it. We won in the end - for the first time in 15-odd years, the government took 1p off fuel tax. Ok, 1p isn't much, but after 15 or so years of putting it up, to bring it down by even 1p signalled a victory and a point made. It also got Blair to admit that he was raping the motorist for taxes to pay for everything else, and that less than 5% of what he was taking was actually being spent on transport.
There's plenty of archived stuff on the newsgroups about it - http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=chris+longhurst+boycott&sa=N&tab=ng
I sold the website and the "protest" to Gary Russell because in the end, all the other problems got too much and when I was offered the chance to leave the UK, I did.
Nobody can accuse me of being apathetic and sitting back and doing nothing :-)
Apologies for the gigantic image, but otherwise you'd stand no chance of reading the text.
Actually, I did both. For those who live in England, you might remember Dump The Pumps back in the summer of 2000. That was started by me and a friend of mine (Neil Woodier). We initiated the website boycott-the-pumps.co.uk and the papers took up the story and ran with it. Neil and I were pissed off at the cost of petrol so we decided to do something about it. We won in the end - for the first time in 15-odd years, the government took 1p off fuel tax. Ok, 1p isn't much, but after 15 or so years of putting it up, to bring it down by even 1p signalled a victory and a point made. It also got Blair to admit that he was raping the motorist for taxes to pay for everything else, and that less than 5% of what he was taking was actually being spent on transport.
There's plenty of archived stuff on the newsgroups about it - http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=chris+longhurst+boycott&sa=N&tab=ng
I sold the website and the "protest" to Gary Russell because in the end, all the other problems got too much and when I was offered the chance to leave the UK, I did.
Nobody can accuse me of being apathetic and sitting back and doing nothing :-)
Apologies for the gigantic image, but otherwise you'd stand no chance of reading the text.
Dashunde
October 13, 2003, 06:21 PM
Their mess actually makes our Government look, er.. well... "smart"
I'd be hell-bent to get out of that country.
I'd be hell-bent to get out of that country.
benewton
October 13, 2003, 07:01 PM
Agricola:
You'll answer chrisell, of course....
You'll answer chrisell, of course....
Futo Inu
October 13, 2003, 08:46 PM
Economic woes there seem to be related to the socialist (less-capitalist) government/economy, and its attendant corruption and inefficiency. Other social woes like crime have to do with a failure to detect and punish the criminals. In any event, the fault of all of this lies with the citizens in any country where the citizens vote for their leaders, right? To a great extent, anyway.
agricola
October 14, 2003, 10:17 AM
personally, i have nothing good to say about the fuel protest - but my understanding and experience of it was watching the farming community complain about it endlessly (as well as the roads getting blocked), and i have little patience for them so my views may be coloured by that.
in any case, me mum always says "if you cant say anything good about anyone, its best not to say anything at all", so i will remain quiet.
in any case, me mum always says "if you cant say anything good about anyone, its best not to say anything at all", so i will remain quiet.
Sean Smith
October 14, 2003, 10:35 AM
Read the web page in question.
I'm sure he raises real problems. Articles by such non-fruitcake Brit sources as The Economist have published the results of studies that show that the UK has a real problem with growing crime, including violent crime. At least one study a while back showed that it easily eclipsed the U.S. in most crime rates, again including violent crimes. Not to say that the finding of one study is or isn't literally true, but the fact that UK crime has gotten nastier is pretty well accepted "conventional wisdom" over there.
On the other hand, the writer is also a raving anti-capitalist.
I'm sure he raises real problems. Articles by such non-fruitcake Brit sources as The Economist have published the results of studies that show that the UK has a real problem with growing crime, including violent crime. At least one study a while back showed that it easily eclipsed the U.S. in most crime rates, again including violent crimes. Not to say that the finding of one study is or isn't literally true, but the fact that UK crime has gotten nastier is pretty well accepted "conventional wisdom" over there.
On the other hand, the writer is also a raving anti-capitalist.
chrisell
October 14, 2003, 06:02 PM
Sean
Raving anti-capitalist? :p
Because of the discussions on this forum, I went back to the site and made sure there were links to example stories to back up every single one of the items I write about. If you go and look, you'll find superscript numbers with references at the bottom of the page.
I'm as capitalist as they come - I'm an advertisers wet dream. If I see something shiny and techy, I'll likely buy it. I have my money in banks, I spend it on goods and services. If I was anti-capitalist, I'd be hoarding it all and living in a cardboard box.
My point with this whole page is that I see whenever a choice of paths for any given function is presented in the UK, we invariably choose the wrong one.
Call it a rant and rave, left wing, right wing, anti-capitalist - whatever you want. The sad fact is that everything there on that page is true.:(
Raving anti-capitalist? :p
Because of the discussions on this forum, I went back to the site and made sure there were links to example stories to back up every single one of the items I write about. If you go and look, you'll find superscript numbers with references at the bottom of the page.
I'm as capitalist as they come - I'm an advertisers wet dream. If I see something shiny and techy, I'll likely buy it. I have my money in banks, I spend it on goods and services. If I was anti-capitalist, I'd be hoarding it all and living in a cardboard box.
My point with this whole page is that I see whenever a choice of paths for any given function is presented in the UK, we invariably choose the wrong one.
Call it a rant and rave, left wing, right wing, anti-capitalist - whatever you want. The sad fact is that everything there on that page is true.:(
Sean Smith
October 15, 2003, 01:45 PM
Well, every other line seems to be something complaining about privatization. Support for government ownership of industries is a very Socialistic (if not Communistic) idea, last I checked.
And just because you have a footnote doesn't make a statement truthful. :rolleyes:
And just because you have a footnote doesn't make a statement truthful. :rolleyes:
agricola
October 15, 2003, 02:52 PM
chris,
your views, though they may be conservative here, make you a raving Commie in the eyes of the US Right.
I also wouldnt be concerned with the views of some on this board with regards to the truth - after all, you at least had the decency to evidence your arguments and correct your mistakes (though I still disagree with much of that article), wheras for a small number here that is behaviour some way above them (as well as an altogether larger number who stand by and let them).
your views, though they may be conservative here, make you a raving Commie in the eyes of the US Right.
I also wouldnt be concerned with the views of some on this board with regards to the truth - after all, you at least had the decency to evidence your arguments and correct your mistakes (though I still disagree with much of that article), wheras for a small number here that is behaviour some way above them (as well as an altogether larger number who stand by and let them).
KC
October 15, 2003, 03:09 PM
Simply because the privatization effort was not handeled well in England does not mean that it wasn't a good idea. Here in California, the electorate approved a law that reduced the state governments influence over power generation. If the power companies had in fact behaved in something other than the robber-baron fashion that they did, those same companies would be significantly better off now, and not be facing numerous state and federal probes on possible racketeering charges.
State control of an industry will produce some quantity of a good. It may not be of a desireable quantity, or quality, but it will likely be there. Private control of an industry, where there are significant legal and financial barriers to new entrants, produces a monopoly; generally a bad thing for the end consumer and potentially wose than state control. This is what happened in California with the power generator companies, and it seems likely that something similiar happened in England to the rail systems (among other utilites.) What happened, as I understand the situation in both places, is that the privatization process was initiated, but severe protections for the formerly state-owned companies from privatly-sponsored competition destroyed the expected benefit.
Two basic components of capitalism are free enterprise, and free competition; only half of the equation will not function independant of the other and still be capitalism.
State control of an industry will produce some quantity of a good. It may not be of a desireable quantity, or quality, but it will likely be there. Private control of an industry, where there are significant legal and financial barriers to new entrants, produces a monopoly; generally a bad thing for the end consumer and potentially wose than state control. This is what happened in California with the power generator companies, and it seems likely that something similiar happened in England to the rail systems (among other utilites.) What happened, as I understand the situation in both places, is that the privatization process was initiated, but severe protections for the formerly state-owned companies from privatly-sponsored competition destroyed the expected benefit.
Two basic components of capitalism are free enterprise, and free competition; only half of the equation will not function independant of the other and still be capitalism.
If you enjoyed reading about "Wow! I wouldn't want to live in the UK." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.